Einstein Says God Is For Pussies

[BEERnBRATWURST]

A letter in which Albert Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish" has sold at auction for more than $400,000.

The letter was written to philosopher Eric Gutkind in January 1954, a year before Einstein's death. In it, Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."


Source (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/einstein-letter-sells-for-404000/20080516165109990001?icid=100214839x1202307046x120 0087537)


Science vs. faith.... one of my favorite arguments. Interesting to hear Einstein's views on religion. They never really touch on that in school.....

[MzKaydee]

this is very interesting..

[jonhomeowner]

Funny thing is... I hear a lot of Christians claiming that Einstein was a Christian and thought atheism was silly.

WHOOPS. LIES.

[thebigother]

A letter in which Albert Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish" has sold at auction for more than $400,000.


One need not be a real Einstein to figure that out. Puns FTW!

[No Cash]

One need not be a real Einstein to figure that out. Puns FTW!
LOL

there is some stupid mother fuckers that say the banana is proof of god existence

i'll find it and post it

[ToxicVomit]

I found this somewhat interesting, yet brief:

Science and religion:
Conflicts & occasional agreements



Quotations:
Statement of The Center for the Study of Science and Religion: "Sciences respond to a felt need to understand the world, and religions respond to a felt need for the world to have meaning. From these different starting points, one issue emerges at the junction of any science and any religion: are these felt needs commensurate? That is, is the universe a moral place, so that the natural order is relevant to human lives and human values; do faith and family, love and charity mirror any larger meaning than the meanings we give to them? Today, to a first approximation, the answer to these questions from any religion is Yes, and the answer from any science is No."
Scientific American book review: "... there are two ways to think about science. You can be a theist, believing that behind the veil of randomness lurks an active, loving, manipulative God, or you can be a materialist, for whom everything is matter and energy interacting within space and time. Whichever metaphysical club you belong to, the science comes out the same." 1
Owen Gingerich: "One can believe that some of the evolutionary pathways are so intricate and so complex as to be hopelessly improbable by the rules of random chance, But if you do not believe in divine action, then you will simply have to say that random chance was extremely lucky, because the outcome is there to see. Either way, the scientist with theistic metaphysics will approach laboratory problems in much the same way as his atheistic colleague across the hall."
Albert Einstein: "After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge."
Anon: "There can never be a conflict between true science and true religion, because they both describe reality." Excerpt from a posting to a religious mailing list.
Peter Atkins: "Science is almost totally incompatible with religion."
Mark Friesel: "The difference between faith and a conditional reliance on observation of the natural world is profound. It is the unresolvable difference between religion and science." 2



Overview:
As we have mentioned so many other places in this web site, it is difficult to view most world religions as single entities. For example, Christianity consists of a range of beliefs. As a minimum, it consists of two solitudes: conservative and liberal wings. Perhaps three if you include mainline denominations. These groups approach the Bible with different presuppositions:

Most conservative Christians tend to believe that the Bible is the word of God. The original autograph copy of the books of the Bible are inerrant -- without error -- because God inspired its authors.
Mainline Protestants tend to believe that the Bible contains the Word of God. But it is not free of errors, particularly when science if involved.
Many liberal Christians believe that the Bible contains much that is spiritually positive. However, since much of it was written by authors from a tribal, pre-scientific culture, it also contains material that does not reflect the will of God: e.g. condoning slavery, accepting the oppression of women, sexual minorities, persons of different religions, etc. Some of its content is mythical in nature and is often borrowed from nearby Pagan cultures. Some biblical content consists of anti-religious propaganda.

When considering science and the Bible, liberal and conservatives groups reach opposite conclusions:

Many conservative Christians believe that the text of the Bible is free of error throughout -- including its spiritual, historical and scientific passages.
Most liberal Christians note that the Bible was written by authors who lived in a pre-scientific age. Thus, Bible passages relating to science reflect the limited knowledge of the authors, and cannot usually be considered reliable.

Essays linked to this menu will discuss what the Bible says on certain topics, and contrast them with the consensus reached by scientists. We will attempt to harmonize the two, where possible.



The relationship between science and religion:
Disagreements are seen in two main areas:

Active conflict between science and religion: There have been hundreds of disputes since the end of the 16th century in which scientists and theologians have taught opposing beliefs. At any given time, in recent centuries, there has been at least one active, major battle. Dozens are active at the present time. Probably the most keenly argued are currently: The nature of homosexual orientation: Is it sinful, chosen, changeable, unnatural and abnormal for everyone?, Or is it morally neutral, not chosen, fixed, natural and normal for a minority of people?
Origins of the species, the earth itself and the rest of the universe. Were they created or did they evolve naturally? A second conflict is over the age of the Earth. Is it less than 10,000 years old, or about 4.5 billion years.
Environmental concerns like atmospheric degradation and global warming.


Science evaluating religion: This involves the use of the scientific method to evaluate the validity of a religious belief. Three examples are: Can one assess the will of God through prayer, or is God not communicating?
Speaking in tongues; is it the language of angels, or meaningless gibberish?
Can prayer cure diseases and disorders, or speed people's recovery?


A great deal of information is available on the first area: the historical and current conflicts between science and religion. Little attention is paid to the other area: the use of scientific techniques to evaluate religious practices and beliefs.



Topics covered in this section:
Active conflicts between religion and science: A very brief overview
A more detailed overview

Current conflicts between conservative Christianity and science

In topics related to the earth and the rest of the universe: Environmental concerns
Evolution and creation science: All sides of the debate
Archaeology and the Bible: Is the Bible historically accurate?
Cosmology: the layout and origin of the universe


In ethics and morality: What is truth?: Does absolute truth exist?


With religious icons/relics/artifacts: The Shroud of Turin: Is it Jesus' burial shroud?


In human sexuality: The nature of homosexuality: Two views -- chosen, abnormal, unnatural, changeable lifestyle or unchosen, normal, natural fixed orientation?


Miracles


Science evaluating religion: Speaking in tongues: what it is; the results of studies.
Can we learn God's will through prayer? The results of a pilot survey.
Holy visions: caused by God or by a brain disorder?
Can prayer cure people's diseases or disorders?
Are there codes hidden in the Bible?


Religion evaluating science: Methods of healing: A battle between faith healing and medical treatment.


Information: Links to websites dealing with science and religion
New scientific findings related to origins of the species, cosmology, etc

[ToxicVomit]

Take a peek at this too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

[Danny Montez]

religion is laughable.

[ChrisJones]

Einstein and Carl Sagan both use the term GOD, like we do on american coins. To denote the existance of everything into one term. NOT A SUPERNATURAL FIGURE.

One must love how Theology is considered a science.(by theologins of course)

It's quite twisted how they use gaps in current scientific knowledge to explain for the existance of god. And when the gaps get filled...I mean, the world wasn't flat after all. Irreducible complexity is a joke.

[Spiralz]

Gotta love Einie.

[No Cash]

Funny thing is... I hear a lot of Christians claiming that Einstein was a Christian and thought atheism was silly.

WHOOPS. LIES.
LOL all the fucking time! i've heard pple irl say that, read it, and seen vidz how he really was a christian

stupid fucking Christians and their bullshit lies

[soup is good food]

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein, 1949 (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm)


"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals."

A bit off topic, but oh well...