The Illuminati Discussion

Post Reply New Topic

I post in between studying linear programming and Lisp and whatnot, so the entire day doesn't go down the drain.



That's why I envy number theorists.

But I don't suppose you've read a book for fascist sheople like Principia Mathematica, which A.N. Whitehead co-wrote.

There is not supposed to be scientific proof for God.. but it seems odd that some highly respected scientists believe in God if he is so confound to science.. perhaps these respected men for their science should also be given respect for their mind, since that was the tool they used to discover truth and theories that earned them nobel prizes in the first place.. why should that same mind not be tapping into something that the rest of us can't..? it's called imagination..

"Imagination is more important then knowledge" - Albert Einstein, and how TRUE it be..

ITT: fallacious appeal to authority

Why should I believe or not believe in God just because someone else did?



Again you confuse 'critical thinking' with 'lack of imagination'

It's getting pretty irritating now



That guy didn't believe in God

LOL

Wrong again.. ...... :+) ROFL

-----

"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."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Albert Einstein

-

Read, bunghole:

http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

Nothing there to prove differently.. is there.. ?


How do you define the word God.. anyway..?


In discussion.. individual definitions really count.

That's logical isn't it..? ..


"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe , a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. 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. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."

Albert Einstein

-

He didn't say (even, according to your own source), 'I don't believe in God'. He said that by the Jesuit definition he is an atheist. ( By the Jesuit definition I am an atheist.)

He mentioned a religious crisis in the quoted letter with the gospel, and that this particular experience fostered a profound skepticism, and fanaticism for critical thinking, but he didn't specifically say he didn't believe in God there either.

He (Einstein) only said he didn't know if there was one. He certainly didn't believe in a 'personal god' that preoccupied himself with the busy work of human affairs.

This excerpt didn't prove anything except that the 'skeptics' are just as slanted and biased about how they submit their view point as any religious fundamentalist. Know your audience I guess...

According to the going "atheist" definition..

I'm an atheist.. :-0


I'm a.. deeply religious.. atheist.. though..

Meaningless labels.. really.

-

No.

Not at all.

I'm too lazy to insert the neccessary quotes. Instead I'll just post my thoughts on religion and hope it addresses everyone. Expect this in no order whatsoever.

Religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions and not neccessarily the belief/ worship of a deity/deites or the following of tenets transribed in a "holy book". An organised religion is an established fellowship of people who share more or less the same religious beliefs. Atheists have religion. To be un-religious you must either lack a worldview or have one and not let it influence you.

Religion is not evil or dangerous and neither is organised religion but can be twisted and distorted by individuals seeking self-gain and the manipulation of others to serve their own ends just like other fields/areas. Every worldview has some form of terror attributed to it. More people have died at the hands of Stalin, Hitler and Mao then as a result of a "holy war". Most "holy wars" were actually fought on poltical and terrororial grounds and were erroneously labelled as religious conflicts.

Most "holy wars" and 'evil deeds' were carried in direct contradiction of the perpetrators' religion, by people seeking to further their own ends

Religions are similar because of original monotheism. Anthropologic studies have shown that every ancient culture started with monotheism before they forsook this for polytheism and animism and so on. According to the Bible, in the beginning everybody "knew God" but forsook "worship of the creator" for "worship of creation".

Einstein was a pantheist, so I'm guessing he did believe in God. Biased people, like Richard Dawkins, jump the gun and say he didn't.

Atheists who say they are not religious are mistaken. Atheists often do and say things in order to support their views. Sometimes even scientists have allowed their beliefs to influence how they interpret the data of science whilst erroneously believing they are being objective about their conclusions. Atheists also seem to think they are free to do the things they criticise other religions of doing and that their Atheism somehow makes them free from criticism.

To me Atheism is illogical becuase if you are wrong then you are boned but even if you are right you are still boned.

There is evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth actually lived. Some people claim that Jesus was a mythological figure but there is more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar.

That's more or less it. I'm writing my theological and philosophical ramblings down in an MS word document which I may or may not send to a publisher but I may just delete it all in a fit of Nihilism.

Right. I'm off to the kitchen to eat some glass.

Can you back up "no".. with some reasoning.. ?

I'm a good listener..

I ask.. because.. some philosophers might disagree..


Below is something I found on - basic - philosophy courses..

This is a philosophy forum.. after all..

So.. shouldn't we be able to define the words we are using..

when asked.. ?

That's seems quiet logical to me..

------

“A definition is what I must be thinking of in order to tell that something is an example of something else. I can only know that "piety is an example of justice" if I already see in my mind what "justice" is and see that in order for something to be "pious" it has to share the characteristics of "justice." The definitions of things we think about all the time are not often very clear, but it is something very central in philosophy to work toward clarity and precision in reference to the definitions of concepts we use.”

“Most of the time these instruction terms are implied, and in philosophy one is safe to always assume that the instructor expects more than he or she says: if they don't say exactly what they expect, or if you don't ask them, assume philosophy instructors expect definitions, explanations, and analyses unless they say otherwise. So instead of identifying or recounting or describing, they tend to expect you to explain, analyze, and define whatever you are talking about.”


http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pa34/write.htm
-

But what about the other half of brilliant, highly respected scientists that don't believe in God? Your argument applies equally well for atheism, or any personal belief for the matter. Freeman Dyson is a Christian, does his scientific accomplishments somehow further validate Christianity?

As brilliant as these people are, it's still their personal beliefs, and like Chever said, I'm not going to believe someone just because a smart person also does. That's a forfeiture of reason.



But imagining isn't knowing.

but my stance (and so is Albert Einstein's) is that imagination is more important than knowledge.. that was my point. the point is 'knowing' things wont do anything for you unless you have an imagination.. inventing requires a great imagination, that includes inventing theories.. I think imagination is God's language.. if he created us then he must have the elite imagination

Last edited by ShawnWilliam on 13 Sep 2008, 10:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

How much knowledge would really we have.. if we didn't use our imaginations creatively.. and to question things..?

-----

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Albert Einstein

-

Last edited by Accelerator on 13 Sep 2008, 9:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Are you saying Mr Phagocyte and I don't have imaginations?

Well, brah, I'm going into mathematical modeling because it's one of the best ways to use your imagination ... there's a lot of (sometimes very difficult) abstractions you have to perform as well as striking the balance between tractability and completeness. Very interesting.

Now, I suppose it would be imaginative, in some broad sense, to answer a question of efficient production mixture by taking out a fresh piece of paper, dropping my pants, squatting neatly over the table, maybe .... spreading my butt cheeks with my hands a little, and laying out a fat steaming dookie along the paper's length.

...but it wouldn't be right.

(I hope you take my meaning.)

I never assumed that you didn't have an imagination.. but i certainly think it's possible that the obsession with math can get you locked into this world of logic, which is used by the left side of the brain, not the right side of the brain.. the left side is your logical part of the brain, and the right side is your emotional and creative side of the brain, the part of the brain responsible for great things, but not for general knowledge.. It doesn't seem to me like the right side of the brain is something that you use often.. everything has to be 'logical' with you, but scientifically that is incorrect, logic doesn't reign over everything, otherwise it would be more than just the left side.. it is only half of our brain, not the whole thing.