"Christian values in America are under attack, these days"??

[tafowler87]

@Trinopus

Well, thank you for witnessing. I don’t agree, and hold that the definition you have put forward is self-contradictory. If God is all-loving, then he is incapable of stopping the harm that comes to people. If God is all-powerful, then his love is not sufficient to cause him to stop the harm that comes to people.

The “problem of pain” demolishes the tri-omni definition of God.

This, too, is a highjack that doesn’t advance this thread, and I apologize for perpetuating it. Let me just append “In My Opinion” to what I’ve written here, and also note that, while I disagree with your faith, I have learned, over the years, to respect it.

i.e., I don’t agree with the articles of your faith, but I don’t have any serious beef with your values. I actually share a great many of your values.

First - I don’t see how you can agree or disagree with my faith seeing as I haven’t really even posted much about it. But again, we are discussing centuries of the misguidance of organized religion; the misunderstanding of scripture; doctrines extracted from the Bible; and the power of life and death. Faith will falter in that we are human and are limited to worldly teachings.

Second - The bible never says that GOD is all-loving. It only tells us to love each other as Jesus loved us. It deducts that GOD is ALMIGHTY (omnipotent), ALL-KNOWING (omniscient), and ALWAYS PRESENT (omnipresent).
Does a mother of father still love their dying son or daughter even though they are about to die (or dying a very painful death) or severely injured or disabled?

Last - My belief is that after death we are brought to life (Ephesians) and that is what most people refer to as heaven. In terms of the Bible God destroyed the world once before and can do it again. It boils down to the fear of death and inevitably we all face it. Being mindful of this might help those who don’t understand why we are brought into a world and then be taken out of it.

[tafowler87]

@razncain

Einstein identified with both agnostic and atheist, mostly the former, some of the letters I presented in the link express that, and he was quite adamant in not believing in any personal God. Since you know that, why was you earlier trying to make him out as a believer? He also didn’t teether between faith and free will, he was a determinist. And what he wasn’t agnostic about was the Jewish or Christian religion, he called it for the superstition it was. Nor did he believe in an afterlife, he thought that was merely man’s ego getting in the way.

So you’ve went from Einstein rebutting his college professor, telling us we should seek out his proof of God more (he does no such thing), to now saying basically, regardless of who have said it, these are indeed facts. Which actually isn’t the case either, there are factual inconsistencies and the arguments are specious throughout, mostly playing on semantics.

But since you’ve seem to come to realize now how this story was made up and was attributed to Einstein, ask yourself as a Christian, couldn’t this very thing and the stories attributed to Jesus have been made up too?

You need to reread those letters and articles more closely because Einstein explains mans ego to be that of having or believing in one personal God. He was only adamant about finding and providing the answers to questions concerning a God proving him to have believed in the possibility of God.
If Einstein claims to have been both atheist and agnostic then that would make him at ONE POINT OR ANOTHER someone who believes.
I never said God’s proof was in Einsteins research. I only emphasized Einstein’s scientific explanations to be great support in the belief of a God.
And indeed I have GREATLY considered the Bible and ALL of its stories to have been “made up”. Still the historical evidence concerning the Bible sustains any argument (past, present or future). SO, now let me ask you a question? If you had not assumed that I (or any Christian for that matter) would never consider alternatives to my beliefs would you still have made your rebuttal so condescending or posted anything at all?

[tafowler87]

@razncain

BTW, the bible says a lot of things. Psalms 145:17 describes God as omnibenevolent here and in other various places with that being one. E.g., the New American Standard Bible, translates it as follows: The LORD is righteous in all His ways And kind in all His deeds.

But he isn’t always good in your eyes? Is he just good some of the time, most of the time? If so, why call him God?

Omnibenevolent is NOT a word (let alone in the Bible). Psalms is proof that God as allowed terrible things to happen. The book is a collection of prayers from the depressed and confused. And anyway re-read your quote of that verse… It says the the LORD is righteous in all his ways (meaning God is perfect). “In deed” we are given life and opportunity (this is most likely what David was referring to as there are many good things in life). People pray to God when the want something wouldn’t you agree? People are generally nicer to someone when they want something so what makes you think that the person singing the hymns was merely referring to the good things God has done or provided rather than praising his “omnibenevolent” nature.
Last, I never said God was good or bad in my eyes, but aware of a perfect existence being that of God (and in being so he would be PURE - Ecclesiastes). I only alluded to the fact that good and evil exist in this world and that changing soon if ever is not likely.
What else would you call God?

[tafowler87]

@razncain

I’m not sure much of that piece is factual, let alone attributing it to Einstein, especially the problem of evil. And maybe you don’t recognize when Einstein was using metaphor which he often did on religious matters, and especially in public, where he often seemed to be a bit ambiguous which I can’t blame him considering the political and religious climate of the day.

In private, he was a bit more explicit. I’ve read his autobiographical notes, personal letters, and various other places on the net. He drops his religious beliefs at the age of 12. He considered the word god nothing more than the product of human weakness, the biblical stories childish, and the Jewish religion one of the most childish of superstitions.

Einstein, like the vast majority of leading scientists of today, don’t have a belief in any personal god.

You have now way of knowing every scientists beliefs in this world?
You have no proof that any of the evidence concerning Einstein is true or false so the fact that your proof contradicts its own purpose you are glorifying wickedness. IN doing this you prove the fact that good exists and regardless of its explanation SOMETHING is responsible for that. Rather to have belief in something unexplainable or unfathomable than to spend my days manipulating my own thoughts or believe any possibility of time travel ever to exists in my lifetime (if anyones) because thats what it would take to prove either one of us right or wrong.
However, even within your own claims (research on and quotes of Einstein) you don’t see that thought Einstein makes claim to being atheists he also refers to himself as a nonreligious believer and an agnostic which would make him a believer at one point or another. These articles also prove that Einstein was miserable (though a genius) and diligently sought answers and provided insight concerning a belief in God which would insinuate his believing God exists. Just because someone questions the existence or will of God doesn’t mean they don’t believe in one. It means they are infatuated enough to devote their life to scientific research so many questions may one day be answered.

[Hiker]

@tafowler87

But again, we are discussing centuries of the misguidance of organized religion; the misunderstanding of scripture; doctrines extracted from the Bible; and the power of life and death. Faith will falter in that we are human and are limited to worldly teachings.

I find that to be an interesting statement. If, as you say, scripture has been misunderstood and organized religion has been misguided for centuries, it begs the question whether you believe that here and now you understand the scripture correctly and whether you believe that the organization of your religion - whatever form it may take - is not misguided.

I do not believe that any of us - religious or not - can claim to hold the “right” set of values. (Not saying that you have made that claim.) A few centuries from now people will probably see a lot of what we hold dear today in a very different light. But as a society we need to establish a common ground and hold everyone to the same standards. It is inevitable that those standards will on occasion be in conflict with an inidividual’s (religous) values. If that equates an “attack” on the values of that person, then such attacks do happen and they need to.

[tafowler87]

@esox lucius

that is so unlike einstein that i have to call b.s. (an einstein scholar who wishes to remain anonymous;)).

Okay, he says it’s another case of lying for jesus. Lying, to be clear, is the exact opposite of telling the truth, not merely an absence of truth. Whoever told you that story, or whatever book you read it in, is deliberately deceiving you.

my title says it all

[tafowler87]

@Trinopus

Evil can also be a noun.

When a rapist assaults a victim, evil has come into existence.

Making the criminal act considerably evil. Does the rapist think what he did was evil?

[tafowler87]

@Czarcasm

When and where did this happen?

Irregardless. The facts embedded in the story are the emphasis in my support. These facts are obvious and regardless the involvement there are more resources finding Einstein to be the origin (and considering his formula of energy - something UNSEEN - I wouldn’t deny him the praise for it.
To answer your question though Germany was likely the place he would have most likely said this and probably so right before abandoning his life there to come to America (with information concerning nuclear war).

[tafowler87]

@razncain

You say no, but then go on and talk about the very story that Snopes uses as an example that discredits the one attributed to Einstein.

Give me a credible link anywhere where Einstein is supposed to be claiming what you stated with the college professor where he is rebutting him, and giving him his proofs of God.

Let me ask you one question?
Is Snopes credible? Show me proof that it is and then I can continue my novella ?:o

[tafowler87]

@samclem

You obviously didn’t bother to read the snopes link. As others have said, it never happened.

The facts are still embedded in this story you claim to be false.
You have no proof that it is false.
I have read Snopes articles long before becoming a member here.
I like to have access to alternate links and books where I can deduct the truth for myself. I do not rely on the internet because hackers with no real life tend to hide and alter factual information.
People could also say you’re not real or that they can fly without any use or aid from anything or that they can turn into a tiger… does that make it true?
Id like to say you’re an idiot? But I don’t know that for sure. Just because you like to support someones claim without researching the topic yourself (in DEPTH) doesn’t mean your stupid or void of intelligence.

[tafowler87]

@Fear_Itself

That account is false. It never happened. It is just a clever story someone made up to justify religious belief.

Its an inspiring story that supports the beliefs of God by using scientific references.
What’ve clever is the people responsible for the sites you guys are citing because they are rebuttals with no clear cause or credible references. False would infer that PROOF is had. Snopes only questions its truth and claims probability of it not being so.
Thank you for your reply.

[Human_Action]

@tafowler87

Its an inspiring story that supports the beliefs of God by using scientific references.
What’ve clever is the people responsible for the sites you guys are citing because they are rebuttals with no clear cause or credible references. False would infer that PROOF is had. Snopes only questions its truth and claims probability of it not being so.
Thank you for your reply.

You’re assuming the story is true, and demanding proof that it isn’t. In other words, demanding that we prove a negative.

Instead, I challenge you to prove your positive assertion that the incident really did occur - have you witnesses, a place, a date, anything?

[Fear_Itself]

@tafowler87

False would infer that PROOF is had.

Wrong. False is the absence of truth, which you have failed to prove. I don’t have to prove anything for your little story to be false. The burden of proof is entirely on you.

[Razncain]

@tafowler87

Let me ask you one question?
Is Snopes credible? Show me proof that it is and then I can continue my novella ?:o

Snopes is quite credible. And you got it backwards, if that piece is wrong, it’s up to you to offer proof that it got it wrong. You can do this by various means, and perhaps starting with primary sources. But you don’t really operate on proof, anyway, it’s more of a faith thing, right? After all, evolution is also just an opinion, not fact, according to the words you put in Einstein’s piece.

@tafowler87

Omnibenevolent is NOT a word (let alone in the Bible).

Get a better dictionary, quite a few have it. It’s also allowed in scrabble in the UK. As far as that specific word not being in bibles, well, the vast majority of bibles don’t use the word omnipotent or omnipresence either. So?

@tafowler87

My belief is that after death we are brought to life (Ephesians) and that is what most people refer to as heaven.

Wishful thinking and having a belief doesn’t make it so.

@tafowler87

In terms of the Bible God destroyed the world once before and can do it again.

Not a scintilla of proof the biblical God destroyed it the first time.

@tafowler87

It boils down to the fear of death and inevitably we all face it.

It’s interesting how many Christians seem to be more afraid of that than atheists are. I’m more afraid of stroking out, being in a nursing home, unable to no longer be of use to myself anymore or anyone else. Eventually, when this mind and body wear out, I will welcome death. Lucian said something about hope and fear being the two big tyrants in the world, and I feel like this is what drives a lot of religious folk.

@tafowler87

You need to reread those letters and articles more closely because Einstein explains mans ego to be that of having or believing in one personal God.

Don’t need to reread it, the question was whether Einstein believed in a personal God, and he didn’t. Man’s ego wants to believe in a lot of things.

@tafowler87

He was only adamant about finding and providing the answers to questions concerning a God proving him to have believed in the possibility of God.

Believing in the possibility of a God is a lot different that believing in a God. Who hasn’t considered the possibility?

@tafowler87

If Einstein claims to have been both atheist and agnostic then that would make him at ONE POINT OR ANOTHER someone who believes.

Before becoming an agnostic or atheist, sure, Einstein didn’t give up his beliefs until 12. In the present, none of the definitions I’m acquainted with both atheist and agnostic makes them a believer of God that I’m aware of.

@tafowler87

I never said God’s proof was in Einsteins research. I only emphasized Einstein’s scientific explanations to be great support in the belief of a God.

Which was wrong too, btw. This is what you said in post #153: Einstein describes God in an awesome manner - try searching Albert Einstein’s proof of God and you should find a generous reconciliation of Einstein’s rebuttal with his college professor.

You seem to have found a lot of stuff about Einstein, that no one else is familiar with.

@tafowler87

And indeed I have GREATLY considered the Bible and ALL of its stories to have been “made up”. Still the historical evidence concerning the Bible sustains any argument (past, present or future).

All the scientific and historic evidence shows the vast majority of it was made up, not the other way around.

@tafowler87

SO, now let me ask you a question? If you had not assumed that I (or any Christian for that matter) would never consider alternatives to my beliefs would you still have made your rebuttal so condescending or posted anything at all?

What part was condescending? That you’re being challenged? That I’ve asked for cites? You a bit more used to being coddled, are ya? If you had actually seriously considered it, you wouldn’t be coming off as naïve in your answers, but you seem to want to only consider the ones that offer wishful thinking and promises you another life if only you believe real hard, it will make it so. Good luck with all of that.

And if asking for cites is condescending, get used to it, because, quite frankly, I do not think you get the gist of Einstein by a long shot, and it’s actually ludicrous for a Christian to witness by using Einstein, when he came from a Jewish background to begin with, but gave up his religion at age 12. Interesting how much you seem to need him to support your belief.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@tafowler87

The facts are still embedded in this story you claim to be false.
You have no proof that it is false.
I have read Snopes articles long before becoming a member here.
I like to have access to alternate links and books where I can deduct the truth for myself. I do not rely on the internet because hackers with no real life tend to hide and alter factual information.
People could also say you’re not real or that they can fly without any use or aid from anything or that they can turn into a tiger… does that make it true?
Id like to say you’re an idiot? But I don’t know that for sure. Just because you like to support someones claim without researching the topic yourself (in DEPTH) doesn’t mean your stupid or void of intelligence.

Insults are not allowed here. I’m giving you a warning for this. Don’t do it again, please.

[Andy_L]

@tafowler87

Its an inspiring story that supports the beliefs of God by using scientific references.
What’ve clever is the people responsible for the sites you guys are citing because they are rebuttals with no clear cause or credible references. False would infer that PROOF is had. Snopes only questions its truth and claims probability of it not being so.
Thank you for your reply.

It’s a story like many others that Einstein exposed as false while he was alive, but this time, the story doesn’t even have the details (like who recorded it - did another student write down the interaction on the off-chance that someone involved would become famous decades later) that might allow it to be verified.

[Hiker]

@Jonathan_Chance

Insults are not allowed here. I’m giving you a warning for this. Don’t do it again, please.

Ah - isn’t that a bit harsh? I mean he just stopped short of calling **samclem **an idiot, but he *did *stop. Generally I really like the fact that the moderators of this board very actively discourage personal insults but I do not see that much of an insult there.

[Esox_Lucius]

@tafowler87

my title says it all

All your title says is that you doubt me because I didn’t know Einstein but you don’t doubt the story even though you didn’t know him either.

My title says it all.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Hiker

Ah - isn’t that a bit harsh? I mean he just stopped short of calling **samclem **an idiot, but he *did *stop. Generally I really like the fact that the moderators of this board very actively discourage personal insults but I do not see that much of an insult there.

Throwing my two cents into the pot, I have to agree with this.

[Trinopus]

@tafowler87

Omnibenevolent is NOT a word (let alone in the Bible). . . .

It’s very obviously a word. You just wrote it yourself.

You may believe it is not one of God’s attributes…but others hold a very different view.