|
Albert Einstein."; on science and relligion
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 17 2014, 12:41 AM (578 Views)
|
|
Berton
|
Mar 19 2014, 12:41 AM
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 55,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #238
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
- Pat
- Mar 18 2014, 11:45 PM
- Berton
- Mar 18 2014, 02:14 AM
- Pat
- Mar 17 2014, 10:46 PM
I guess nobody wants to discuss Einstein or religion, Colo.
I heard a statement made the other day which went something like this: Science changes all the time and science books must be rewritten every 10 years or so. The Bible is constant so can not be a science book. People who try to make it a science book do the Bible a great disservice. I think there is a lot of truth in that.
I don't think science changes all the time, I do think that the deeper science delves into some areas that at times new discoveries are made that make adjusting a previous theory. And you are right, the bible remains error filled and has for centuries. It is a constant source of misinformation, and as I demonstrated in my first post, the bible errors in very basic understanding of time, math, environment, and reason. I think you can be a logical person Berton, so I assume that you don't need more science to believe that it is impossible for a 600 year old man to have existed. Man's genetic makeup and the gene pool in general has never produced a man let alone a species that lives that long. I think you would have to also believe that it was physically impossible for Noah and his two sons to round up and lead millions of creatures onto a boat, a boat that defies all logic in itself, there has never been built a boat capable of carrying such volume and weight. And I think you would agree that all of the creatures on earth were not common to one small geographical vicinity. The conclusion has to be that the Noah biblical accounting is in error. Going on here, religious people believe their particular holy book is the unerring word of a god or gods. And gods are believed to possess all knowledge and powers. Such a perfect god would not write a book through inspired authors that was enshrined with illogical and unreasonable tales. Fairytales would be a better description. Yet believers say the bible is the word of god and that is that. Which brings us logically to the next question, which bible. There are dozens if not hundreds of books claiming to be the bible, all with interpretations by people. It would only be reasonable to accept in theory the original manuscript that was the said inspired words. So nobody today would understand what was being said even if they did find the original manuscripts intact somewhere. I don't want to beat a dead horse nor insult anybody's belief, generally when I begin unraveling my thoughts on this topic of religion the religious people cast me off as being deluded and lacking of faith. That if I would only set aside my logic and reason and believe or pray, then my eyes would be opened. Opened to what? Would the words change in the book? I always come back to being alone with the questions, studying and observing, and thinking. Which brought me to what I now accept as my reality, what I have come to believe. And I feel good about it, it just feels right intuitive and emotionally. I think Einstein probably approached the subject in much the same way, born into a traditional family belief system and then began questioning and thinking.
"People who try to make it a science book do the Bible a great disservice."
Why are you continuing to try to make it a science book?
|
|
|
| |
|
Berton
|
Mar 19 2014, 12:45 AM
Post #32
|
- Posts:
- 55,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #238
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
- Pat
- Mar 19 2014, 12:27 AM
- colo_crawdad
- Mar 19 2014, 12:15 AM
I think that Einstein was saying that science needs the ethical teaching of religions to regulate its use while religion devoid of or rejecting science is just for blind fools.
Yea I think he was saying that to, I was just going a little deeper and trying to put logic as to why he came to the conclusion. I think there is some pure ethics capitulated in the bible, you have to throw out the attempts to force action or brainwash humanity out of a person. But there are some basic truths. I think it was Budda that said there were three practices to embrace. 1. to love entirely, to live with as little impact on others and the environment, and live a simple existence. In other words to deny the individual expression of life and humanity. Control. There is a base animal inside of us that demands expression, even though it acts against idealistic expectations of others.
What part of the New Testament contains verbiage which forces action or brainwash humanity out of a person?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 19 2014, 01:06 AM
Post #33
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- Berton
- Mar 19 2014, 12:41 AM
- Pat
- Mar 18 2014, 11:45 PM
- Berton
- Mar 18 2014, 02:14 AM
- Pat
- Mar 17 2014, 10:46 PM
I guess nobody wants to discuss Einstein or religion, Colo.
I heard a statement made the other day which went something like this: Science changes all the time and science books must be rewritten every 10 years or so. The Bible is constant so can not be a science book. People who try to make it a science book do the Bible a great disservice. I think there is a lot of truth in that.
I don't think science changes all the time, I do think that the deeper science delves into some areas that at times new discoveries are made that make adjusting a previous theory. And you are right, the bible remains error filled and has for centuries. It is a constant source of misinformation, and as I demonstrated in my first post, the bible errors in very basic understanding of time, math, environment, and reason. I think you can be a logical person Berton, so I assume that you don't need more science to believe that it is impossible for a 600 year old man to have existed. Man's genetic makeup and the gene pool in general has never produced a man let alone a species that lives that long. I think you would have to also believe that it was physically impossible for Noah and his two sons to round up and lead millions of creatures onto a boat, a boat that defies all logic in itself, there has never been built a boat capable of carrying such volume and weight. And I think you would agree that all of the creatures on earth were not common to one small geographical vicinity. The conclusion has to be that the Noah biblical accounting is in error. Going on here, religious people believe their particular holy book is the unerring word of a god or gods. And gods are believed to possess all knowledge and powers. Such a perfect god would not write a book through inspired authors that was enshrined with illogical and unreasonable tales. Fairytales would be a better description. Yet believers say the bible is the word of god and that is that. Which brings us logically to the next question, which bible. There are dozens if not hundreds of books claiming to be the bible, all with interpretations by people. It would only be reasonable to accept in theory the original manuscript that was the said inspired words. So nobody today would understand what was being said even if they did find the original manuscripts intact somewhere. I don't want to beat a dead horse nor insult anybody's belief, generally when I begin unraveling my thoughts on this topic of religion the religious people cast me off as being deluded and lacking of faith. That if I would only set aside my logic and reason and believe or pray, then my eyes would be opened. Opened to what? Would the words change in the book? I always come back to being alone with the questions, studying and observing, and thinking. Which brought me to what I now accept as my reality, what I have come to believe. And I feel good about it, it just feels right intuitive and emotionally. I think Einstein probably approached the subject in much the same way, born into a traditional family belief system and then began questioning and thinking.
"People who try to make it a science book do the Bible a great disservice." Why are you continuing to try to make it a science book? I'm not, or at least that is not my intent. I believe I labeled the bible what Christians claim it is, the inspired word of god. The unerring truth. If it is not that, then what what you label it?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 19 2014, 01:18 AM
Post #34
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- Berton
- Mar 19 2014, 12:45 AM
- Pat
- Mar 19 2014, 12:27 AM
- colo_crawdad
- Mar 19 2014, 12:15 AM
I think that Einstein was saying that science needs the ethical teaching of religions to regulate its use while religion devoid of or rejecting science is just for blind fools.
Yea I think he was saying that to, I was just going a little deeper and trying to put logic as to why he came to the conclusion. I think there is some pure ethics capitulated in the bible, you have to throw out the attempts to force action or brainwash humanity out of a person. But there are some basic truths. I think it was Budda that said there were three practices to embrace. 1. to love entirely, to live with as little impact on others and the environment, and live a simple existence. In other words to deny the individual expression of life and humanity. Control. There is a base animal inside of us that demands expression, even though it acts against idealistic expectations of others.
What part of the New Testament contains verbiage which forces action or brainwash humanity out of a person? The entire transcript brainwashes people into behavior patterns that deny personal freedom and extort in exchange for promises..
|
|
|
| |
|
ngc1514
|
Mar 19 2014, 04:31 AM
Post #35
|
- Posts:
- 8,812
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #145
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
|
- Berton
- Mar 19 2014, 12:41 AM
"People who try to make it a science book do the Bible a great disservice."
You might be better served by asking those who try to make it a science book the question of why they do so, Bertie.
Lots of young earther loon forums around and you are a member on at least one of them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Berton
|
Mar 19 2014, 06:44 AM
Post #36
|
- Posts:
- 55,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #238
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
- Pat
- Mar 19 2014, 01:06 AM
- Berton
- Mar 19 2014, 12:41 AM
- Pat
- Mar 18 2014, 11:45 PM
- Berton
- Mar 18 2014, 02:14 AM
- Pat
- Mar 17 2014, 10:46 PM
I guess nobody wants to discuss Einstein or religion, Colo.
I heard a statement made the other day which went something like this: Science changes all the time and science books must be rewritten every 10 years or so. The Bible is constant so can not be a science book. People who try to make it a science book do the Bible a great disservice. I think there is a lot of truth in that.
I don't think science changes all the time, I do think that the deeper science delves into some areas that at times new discoveries are made that make adjusting a previous theory. And you are right, the bible remains error filled and has for centuries. It is a constant source of misinformation, and as I demonstrated in my first post, the bible errors in very basic understanding of time, math, environment, and reason. I think you can be a logical person Berton, so I assume that you don't need more science to believe that it is impossible for a 600 year old man to have existed. Man's genetic makeup and the gene pool in general has never produced a man let alone a species that lives that long. I think you would have to also believe that it was physically impossible for Noah and his two sons to round up and lead millions of creatures onto a boat, a boat that defies all logic in itself, there has never been built a boat capable of carrying such volume and weight. And I think you would agree that all of the creatures on earth were not common to one small geographical vicinity. The conclusion has to be that the Noah biblical accounting is in error. Going on here, religious people believe their particular holy book is the unerring word of a god or gods. And gods are believed to possess all knowledge and powers. Such a perfect god would not write a book through inspired authors that was enshrined with illogical and unreasonable tales. Fairytales would be a better description. Yet believers say the bible is the word of god and that is that. Which brings us logically to the next question, which bible. There are dozens if not hundreds of books claiming to be the bible, all with interpretations by people. It would only be reasonable to accept in theory the original manuscript that was the said inspired words. So nobody today would understand what was being said even if they did find the original manuscripts intact somewhere. I don't want to beat a dead horse nor insult anybody's belief, generally when I begin unraveling my thoughts on this topic of religion the religious people cast me off as being deluded and lacking of faith. That if I would only set aside my logic and reason and believe or pray, then my eyes would be opened. Opened to what? Would the words change in the book? I always come back to being alone with the questions, studying and observing, and thinking. Which brought me to what I now accept as my reality, what I have come to believe. And I feel good about it, it just feels right intuitive and emotionally. I think Einstein probably approached the subject in much the same way, born into a traditional family belief system and then began questioning and thinking.
"People who try to make it a science book do the Bible a great disservice." Why are you continuing to try to make it a science book?
I'm not, or at least that is not my intent. I believe I labeled the bible what Christians claim it is, the inspired word of god. The unerring truth. If it is not that, then what what you label it?
Sure you are. When you expect every word to be the literal truth then you are treating it like a science book.
|
|
|
| |
|
Berton
|
Mar 19 2014, 06:46 AM
Post #37
|
- Posts:
- 55,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #238
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
- Pat
- Mar 19 2014, 01:18 AM
- Berton
- Mar 19 2014, 12:45 AM
- Pat
- Mar 19 2014, 12:27 AM
- colo_crawdad
- Mar 19 2014, 12:15 AM
I think that Einstein was saying that science needs the ethical teaching of religions to regulate its use while religion devoid of or rejecting science is just for blind fools.
Yea I think he was saying that to, I was just going a little deeper and trying to put logic as to why he came to the conclusion. I think there is some pure ethics capitulated in the bible, you have to throw out the attempts to force action or brainwash humanity out of a person. But there are some basic truths. I think it was Budda that said there were three practices to embrace. 1. to love entirely, to live with as little impact on others and the environment, and live a simple existence. In other words to deny the individual expression of life and humanity. Control. There is a base animal inside of us that demands expression, even though it acts against idealistic expectations of others.
What part of the New Testament contains verbiage which forces action or brainwash humanity out of a person?
The entire transcript brainwashes people into behavior patterns that deny personal freedom and extort in exchange for promises..
But what part of the New Testament contains verbiage which FORCES action? How does it brainwash people? What personal freedom are denied? Do you have any examples?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 19 2014, 09:06 AM
Post #38
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
If a person is a believer in Jesus as the son of god and therefore capable of explaining the consequences of action living a certain way with the penalty being eternity in hell, then the dynamics of reading the book is different than one who is not a believer. In either case no one forced to do anything, but I suspect the coercive nature of the message to a believer results in the person losing free will and in some manner changing lifestyle choices. The non bdliever would not be affected in the same manner.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 19 2014, 09:20 AM
Post #39
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
Example. I was once invited to a purum feast and festival at a friends home. We gathered in his living rlom, about eight people if I remember right. He handed out books to each of us and we commence reading the book of Esther. I recall taking my turn and each time some guy in the books name was read, everybody shouted and stomping their feet. The story was about some agent of satan in some manner and this was the guy who was being verbally abused and shouted at. Anyway, those present were quite caught up in it and I was asked what I thought by a few. I thought it was an interesting tale but held my true thoughts as I didn't want to mock anybody. The people there that were believers obviously were quite serious about the feast and celdbration. I more the observer. I didn't believe there was any truth to the tale but others I think thought they needed reminding of it and found some manner of warning and lesson. Different perspective.
|
|
|
| |
|
ngc1514
|
Mar 19 2014, 10:06 AM
Post #40
|
- Posts:
- 8,812
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #145
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
|
- Berton
- Mar 19 2014, 06:44 AM
Sure you are. When you expect every word to be the literal truth then you are treating it like a science book.
Which leads to the problem of HOW do you decide what is literally true in the bible and what isn't? Are the books of Genesis and Exodus literally true? How about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Which words are not literally true in the gospels?
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|