judge not moving 10 commandments statue from u.s.a. gov. property

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."

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has 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!"
 
Just as well I heard my bodyguard got out of prison and changed his ways. Never forget the night he asked our bible study group to pray that the guy he beat up behind the liquor store wouldn't die. We said "Yah, we can pray for that." By the way he didn't die. The power of prayer.:D :D :D
 
"Scientists are hard to work with on a committee, an academic friend once told me, because they often change their minds when they see new evidence."


Precisely! Because they are rational, and admit they can be wrong!
Unlike religious dogma that does not even allow for the possibility of being wrong.

That is precisely what makes science so great.
It is self-fixing, unlike religion.


"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
This percentage, it turns out, is exactly the same as it was in 1916, when an identical poll was taken. Strikingly, as the nation's intelligentsia has turned toward atheism, many in the scientific community have stuck to theism. They apparently haven't changed their minds about whether God exists."


An absolutely FRAUDULENT claim!
I'm amazed at the length these people will go to spew
fraudulent information to the public in defense of their
personaly mythologies!

Here is the real data:

"The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism.""

Even religious sites know the REAL numbers, sheesh!
Take a look:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp
72.2% atheistic
20.8% agnostic
Only 7% believers.

The guy who wrote that article is a bold faced liar.

Note: Only the nation's most distinguished scientists and engineers belong to the National Academy of Sciences.


"Even as the "soul" has made a comeback, computer science has helped us imagine how it might be an immaterial and, indeed, immortal thing, separable from the body the way software is separable from the hardware that runs it."

A possibility is not a fact.


" And quantum theory, which overthrew Newtonian physics in the first half of this century, has revealed that matter itself has a ghostly, almost magical character. The universe turns out to be more like a thought than like a machine. Which raises a question for atheists: Whose thought? "

LOL.... no one has proved it is like a thought.
This is one persons opinion. Even if it is "like" a thought,
that does not MAKE it a thought which requires a thinker.
Really stretching here.


""The more I study science the more I believe in God," Albert Einstein once remarked. Einstein's Supreme Being, it should be noted, was a remote and disinterested one, more or less identifiable with the final laws of physics--a far cry from the God of Kierkegaard and Mother Teresa, the God incarnated under the reign of Augustus as a Galilean craftsman and crucified during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate in an act of redemption."

It is well known that Albert Einstein was not religious and that
he used the word God metaphorically to describe what
he perceived as order in the universe.

He said in a personal letter:
"I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable. 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."


"Contemporary science, no matter how unsettling it may be to the vulgar atheism of many of today's intellectuals, could never by itself hint at such a deity. Still less could it resolve the perplexity of Evelyn Waugh--who, on his conversion to Catholicism, said, "I believe it all. But what I cannot understand is why God made the world in the first place.""

Vulgar atheism? No, this guy isn't biased :D


"I didn't realize someone else had the same take a I do on computer software.
There is far from a lock on concenus in the scientific community."

It's certainly a possibility. Just not proven, and therefore
merely a hypothesis at this time.


peace

axeman
 
Quote from axeman:

"


An absolutely FRAUDULENT claim!
I'm amazed at the length these people will go to spew
fraudulent information to the public in defense of their
personaly mythologies!

Here is the real data:

"The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism.""

Even religious sites know the REAL numbers, sheesh!
Take a look:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp
72.2% atheistic
20.8% agnostic
Only 7% believers.

The guy who wrote that article is a bold faced liar.

Note: Only the nation's most distinguished scientists and engineers belong to the National Academy of Sciences.


"Even as the "soul" has made a comeback, computer science has helped us imagine how it might be an immaterial and, indeed, immortal thing, separable from the body the way software is separable from the hardware that runs it."

A possibility is not a fact.


" And quantum theory, which overthrew Newtonian physics in the first half of this century, has revealed that matter itself has a ghostly, almost magical character. The universe turns out to be more like a thought than like a machine. Which raises a question for atheists: Whose thought? "

LOL.... no one has proved it is like a thought.
This is one persons opinion. Even if it is "like" a thought,
that does not MAKE it a thought which requires a thinker.
Really stretching here.


""The more I study science the more I believe in God," Albert Einstein once remarked. Einstein's Supreme Being, it should be noted, was a remote and disinterested one, more or less identifiable with the final laws of physics--a far cry from the God of Kierkegaard and Mother Teresa, the God incarnated under the reign of Augustus as a Galilean craftsman and crucified during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate in an act of redemption."

It is well known that Albert Einstein was not religious and that
he used the word God metaphorically to describe what
he perceived as order in the universe.

He said in a personal letter:
"I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable. 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."


"Contemporary science, no matter how unsettling it may be to the vulgar atheism of many of today's intellectuals, could never by itself hint at such a deity. Still less could it resolve the perplexity of Evelyn Waugh--who, on his conversion to Catholicism, said, "I believe it all. But what I cannot understand is why God made the world in the first place.""

Vulgar atheism? No, this guy isn't biased :D


"I didn't realize someone else had the same take a I do on computer software.
There is far from a lock on concenus in the scientific community."

It's certainly a possibility. Just not proven, and therefore
merely a hypothesis at this time.


peace

axeman


Prove any of those numbers are correct.....Prove Einstien said those things....i want to see evidence..:D
 
It's already proven.

Since you won't accept quotes from me, you will have
to look up the refernce in Nature magazine yourself.

As for Einstein, im sure you can find a book of his
personal writings for sale somewhere, and you
can look it up yourself.


peace

axeman



Quote from TM_Direct:




Prove any of those numbers are correct.....Prove Einstien said those things....i want to see evidence..:D
 
I'll assume your just kidding with that smiley there,
and understand the difference between a claim
as grand as god and a personally written letter from a mortal man.

peace

axeman


Quote from Covertibility:

Ya mean Einstein never had his voice recorded?
Geez, its not hard to capture one's voice, even if they are unaware of it.:p
 
Quote from axeman:

It's already proven.

Since you won't accept quotes from me, you will have
to look up the reference in Nature magazine yourself.

As for Einstein, im sure you can find a book of his
personal writings for sale somewhere, and you
can look it up yourself.


peace

axeman

Nature Magazine?????/ LOL....they say something and you believe it , but the new testament says something in writing and you doubt it????
Same with einstein....how do i know he wrote it

:confused: :confused:
 
Are you saying that when Nature polled the National
Academy of Sciences members, and then published
their results, and that the same results can be found
in the National Academy of scientists OWN publications,
that this does NOT qualify as enough evidence in your
view to believe that this polling took place?

Nature magazine is writing about the existence of
a POLL, which is verifiable.
The bible is writing about incredibly
unbelievable super natural beings, which is completely
unverifiable.

You equate these as the same????????

Should I read greek mythology, containing extraordinary
events, and ASSUME they are true simply because they
are written? Don't think so.

As for a letter written by einstein, not much of a grand
claim there, what would you require?
If you really put the time and effort into it, Im willing
to bet you could locate the actual letter, hand written,
and addressed by einstein. Furthermore, you could probably
get hand writing analysis done on it if you really want to
be sure.

Once again, people fail to see the relationship between
the requirements of evidence and the nature/grandness of the claim.

If you told me that you walked your dog yesterday, I would
accept it at face value.

If you told me you had a PHD in biochemistry, I might ask
to see your university certificate.

If you told me you were superman, you better COUNT on me
asking to see you fly around while lifting a tow truck :D

If a reputable magazine publishes a study, i'm apt to believe it.

If an underground magazine published an article about
alien abductions, im not going to believe it.

If you claim that you are god and created the universe,
you better believe I will ask you to give me a tour
or the entire universe and perform some pretty
miraculous shit :D


See a pattern here???

The grander the claim, the greater the evidence required.

This is why god requires so much evidence, and multiple
cross referenced internet sources quoting Einstein letters are enough evidence.


peace

axeman



Quote from TM_Direct:
Nature Magazine?????/ LOL....they say something and you believe it , but the new testament says something in writing and you doubt it????
Same with einstein....how do i know he wrote it
:confused: :confused:
 
Quote from axeman:

Are you saying that when Nature polled the National
Academy of Sciences members, and then published
their results, and that the same results can be found
in the National Academy of scientists OWN publications,
that this does NOT qualify as enough evidence in your
view to believe that this polling took place?

POLLS ARE NEVER WRONG OR SKEWED RIGHT? COULD HAVE SWORN AL GORE WAS DECLARED THE WINNER OF FLORIDA AND THE PRESIDENCY IN 2000.


Nature magazine is writing about the existence of
a POLL, which is verifiable.
The bible is writing about incredibly
unbelievable super natural beings, which is completely
unverifiable.

DOES THE POLL LIST EACH PERSON'S NAME ? EXACT ANSWER?
CONVERSELY THE BIBLE DOES NOT JUST WRITE ABOUT SUPERNATUAL BEINGS...WHAT IS SUPERNATURAL ABOUT THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL?

You equate these as the same????????

Should I read greek mythology, containing extraordinary
events, and ASSUME they are true simply because they
are written? Don't think so.

EXACTLY, BUT YOU READ SCIENCE POLLS THOUGH AND BELEIVE TEM OR WORSE YET, LISTEN TO SCIENTIST TALK ABOUT EVIDENCE THEY DON';T HAVE YET ACCEPT IT...EXAMPLE: HOW OLD IS THE PLANET AND THE DONIOSAURS? THEY HAVE NO CLUE..BLACK HOLES?? THEY ARE GUESSING AND CANNOT PROVE IT YET WE ACCEPT IT

As for a letter written by einstein, not much of a grand
claim there, what would you require?
If you really put the time and effort into it, Im willing
to bet you could locate the actual letter, hand written,
and addressed by einstein. Furthermore, you could probably
get hand writing analysis done on it if you really want to
be sure.

AGAIN. IF YOU WERE PRESENTED WIHT SAY , THE SHROUD OF TOREN OR BETTER YET : THE COVENANT OR TEN COMMANDMENT SLATES THAT MANY HAVE TRIED TO OBTAIN....WOUDL YOU BELEIVE IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF GOD?

Once again, people fail to see the relationship between
the requirements of evidence and the nature/grandness of the claim.

If you told me that you walked your dog yesterday, I would
accept this at face value.

HOW DID YOU KNOW THIS??

If you told me you had a PHD in biochemistry, I might ask
to see your university certificate.

If you told me you were superman, you better COUNT on me
asking to see you fly around while lifting a tow truck :D

If a reputable magazine publishes a study, i'm apt to believe it.

WHAT IS REPUTABLE TO YOU IS NOT TO OTHERS CORRECT?

If a underground magazine published an article about
alien abductions, im not going to believe it.

If you claim that you are god and created the universe,
you better believe I will ask you to give me a tour
or the entire universe and perform some pretty
miraculous shit :D

WHO ARE YOU TO ASK GOD TO PROVE HIMSELF?


See a pattern here???

YES.....YOU ONLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE....EVER SEE A MILLION BUCKS, PERONALLY IN YOUR HAND? DOES THAT MEAN THERE ARE NO MILLIONAIRES?




:D
 
Back
Top