Let's cut through the chase: Darwin didn't exist.

[davewhite04]

...and Newton was deeply into alchemy, which was based on mystical ideas. Think of how much more he could have contributed to physics if he hadn't wasted so much of his time on mystical nonsense!

Maybe he would have achieved nothing without his mystical ideas?

 

[SkinWalker]

Maybe. But there's no evidence to support the notion. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster came to him in the night and whispered to him about calculus, light, and gravity. There's no evidence to support that notion either, but it's just as possible.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

If I see one more idiot on this forum call Einstein a theist, I will surely kill someone.

You'd better get killing KJC. Einstein was a free thinker, who (and I agree with him) detested the dogmatisms of heaven/hell religion and the traditional anthropomorphic God. However he was undoubtedly a theist with strong religious feeling and wrote:

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

and also...

"If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."

This is an article by him from the NY Times Nov 9th 1930:

The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology?
In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

He had a highly developed religious feeling and can by no means be counted an atheist, ignostic or even agnostic.

 

[(Q)]

I see your point, and it is well founded. But when I use quotes it is to backup my position from a biblical stance, hence I use Bible quotes. Plucking quotes from obscure so called intellectuals to make theists look stupid is childish at best.

No, you still miss the point. It does not take an intellectuals quote to make theists look stupid, they do that all on their own when they choose to suscribe to those who lived centuries ago, those that wouldn't know the concept of intellect if it bit them in the ass.

 

[(Q)]

You'd better get killing KJC. Einstein was a free thinker, who (and I agree with him) detested the dogmatisms of heaven/hell religion and the traditional anthropomorphic God. However he was undoubtedly a theist with strong religious feeling and wrote:

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

and also...

"If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."

This is an article by him from the NY Times Nov 9th 1930:



He had a highly developed religious feeling and can by no means be counted an atheist, ignostic or even agnostic.

The theist will use any form of deceit to make their point as can be exemplified with DD's statements.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. ... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." ~ Albert Einstein

"I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in Nature." ~ Albert Einstein

* "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

~ Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930, pp. 1–4. Note well that by "religion", Einstein means faith in the rational.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." ~ Albert Einstein (Calaprice, ibid., 214 / Said to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941. Quoted in his book, Towards the Further Shore, London, 1968, 156)

"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."

~Albert Einstein, in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1981.

 

[KennyJC]

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."

And if you can call a profound admiration for the universe a "highly developed religious feeling", then why don't you call all atheists theists, Diogenes' Dog.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Oh look, we have a few more anomolies, less Socrates, who thought the sun and moon were gods, and Plato, who thought the story of creation was just a tale, and Milton, who wrote about Satan being the real hero, and Shakespeare, who it was found only after his death he had professed Catholisism, but no proof was to be found, and Galileo, who went to trial because he did not follow the church, and Spinoza, who although was being groomed to be a rabbi, was excommunicated, and Kierkegaard, who chastised Christian dogma as offensive to reason, and Darwin, who denounced Christianity and died an agnostic, and Jung, whose psychotherapy undermined Christianity.

So it appears there are far from "many" of the cleverest people down to only a couple, at best. Silly theists.

I think you have it wrong there Q. All the above were theists, and also free thinkers. This often meant they were persecuted for their theistic beliefs.

• Socrates actively sought piety and went willingly to his death because of it...

• Plato invented the whole notion of heaven and platonic (heavenly) forms...

• Milton wrote "Paradise Lost" as believer...

• Shakespeare was a secret Catholic as his father was executed for his faith.

• Gallileo remained a Catholic who did not attempt to run to e.g. Holland despite being persecuted....

• Spinoza invented a systematic philosophy of theism which outraged the jewish and christian churches of his time....

• Kierkegaard was a profound existential theist, who berated christians for their lack of passionate belief...

• Darwin put off publishing the "Origin of Species" because of his religion, and only became agnostic (not atheistic) after the terrible death of his daughter...

• Jung formed a psychology of dreams, visions and religious experiences because Freud's atheistic system of psychoanalysis did not take into account numinous experiences.

The above list is by no means exhaustive. There was Bach and Wordsworth and Blake and Turner and.... etc. The list of smart theists is very long, even if they were usually not conformists to the dogma of the times.

And of course, Einstein was never a religious man, he said so himself. I wish theists would get that through their thick heads.

Errr... I think you have that wrong too Q. He was a very religious man. See the above post on Einstein.

 

[(Q)]

I think you have it wrong there Q. All the above were theists, and also free thinkers. This often meant they were persecuted for their theistic beliefs.

• Socrates actively sought piety and went willingly to his death because of it...

• Plato invented the whole notion of heaven and platonic (heavenly) forms...

• Milton wrote "Paradise Lost" as believer...

• Shakespeare was a secret Catholic as his father was executed for his faith.

• Gallileo remained a Catholic who did not attempt to run to e.g. Holland despite being persecuted....

• Spinoza invented a systematic philosophy of theism which outraged the jewish and christian churches of his time....

• Kierkegaard was a profound existential theist, who berated christians for their lack of passionate belief...

• Darwin put off publishing the "Origin of Species" because of his religion, and only became agnostic (not atheistic) after the terrible death of his daughter...

• Jung formed a psychology of dreams, visions and religious experiences because Freud's atheistic system of psychoanalysis did not take into account numinous experiences.

The above list is by no means exhaustive. There was Bach and Wordsworth and Blake and Turner and.... etc. The list of smart theists is very long, even if they were usually not conformists to the dogma of the times.

It is the dogma of the times to which you must refer, if theism had any meaning to them. And of course, we must take into consideration that to have publically denounced theism in those times would have been the same as cutting ones own throat, so to speak.

Even today, it is not a good idea to publically state one is an atheist amongst a world ruled by theists.

I would like to wager how those you've listed, and many more you haven't, would proclaim they're beliefs if they knew then what we know now.

What would Socrates or Plato think about religion had they understood evolution, biology, chemistry and cosmology in todays contexts?

Errr... I think you have that wrong too Q. He was a very religious man. See the above post on Einstein.

I am not going to continue arguing with you about Einstein as HE himself made it quite clear he was NOT a theist. If you choose to ignore that, then I can no longer consider you ignorant, but must consider you stupid, since you refuse to accept facts.

 

[Godless]

There is no historical evidence that Darwin existed! And all the historical evidence that shows that he existed is wrong! Why because I said so!

Well we feel sorry for people like this, any one with an ounce of brains would know that Darwin was an actual character that existed.

I'ts actually idiots like this that give religious people a bad rap. Mostly I think this thread was started by a "shitforbrains"

Godless

 

[answers]

Wow you people have way to much time to argue.

 

[Provita]

I think Answers was just using sarcasm to show what you athiests said in the whole "Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist" thread on how its opening post said jesus didnt exist but had no argument... just said he didnt exist...

 

[Hapsburg]

There is no historical evidence that Darwin existed! And all the historical evidence that shows that he existed is wrong! Why because I said so!

(see I'm learning from you athiests now )

Ah, but there actually is historical evidence (birth certificates, census records, first-hand observers that have been well-documented) that Charles Darwin has existed.
However, there is nothing of such sort when it comes to Jesus Christ, despite the Roman's thorough census taking, which they are quite famous for. All we have for JC's existence are, at best, second- and third-hand observations, anecdotal evidence, and propaganda.
Hell, half of the first generation of christians though Jesus didn't exist and that he was metaphor for the spark of the divine in all of us. That kinda tells you that he is of highly dubious origin.

So: right back at ya, Theo[logy].

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Ah, but there actually is historical evidence (birth certificates, census records, first-hand observers that have been well-documented) that Charles Darwin has existed.

I think the question as Provita says is slightly tongue in cheek. However, it illustrates a point! Have you seen Darwin's birth certificate, census record etc. Hapsburg or are you taking it on faith? Do you personally know anyone who has seen these records, or who knew someone who knew Darwin? If so, how far do you trust them?

In an age of conspiracy theories, when even the televised moonlandings are open to challenge it's not hard to throw doubt on anything.

However, there is nothing of such sort when it comes to Jesus Christ, despite the Roman's thorough census taking, which they are quite famous for.

We don't have the Roman census records you refer to, and it is an indication of the incompleteness of the historical records that even existence of Pontius Pilate (no less than the Govenor of Judea) was doubted until 1961 when a limestone block was unearthed bearing his name and title! It is not surprising then that an executed religious troublemaker (Jesus) was not given special mention in the patchy Roman & Jewish records of that time.

All we have for JC's existence are, at best, second- and third-hand observations, anecdotal evidence, and propaganda.

We have the Gospels accounts, of which (although like everything it has been challenged) John was an apostle of Jesus and so was a first hand witness. It seems unlikely to me that from nothing, the mythical character of Jesus would be invented and documented as existing within the lifetime of those who would have been alive at the time. As with Darwin there would have been live witnesses who would have known Jesus.

Perhaps like so much, there is no proof. We can only make an informed statement of our belief.

 

[Provita]

What i want to know is where the hell in mythology is there a story of a man(gospels), followed by a story of that man's followers (acts), followed by a collection of letters from those followers to groups of people or people (letters) and then finnaly a prophesy (revelation) ??

Sure, gospels are easy... and so is revelation...

But what about the Acts of the Apostles, and all of the numerous Letters in the New Testament??? If all of this was mythological, why need to make all this extra stuff? Wouldnt the gospels be sufficient? Wuldnt ONE gospel be enough?


As to go with this whole "first generation Christians didnt even think JEsus existed but was isntead a metaphor" ... that is exactly the reason the Gospels were written in the first place... along with other reasons... to straighten everyone up. Eyewitnesses were dying, distortions and heresies were setting in, and remaining original followers or the folowers of those followers wrote down the accounts. There was a group of people that thought Jesus didn't stoop so low as to become human but only appeared to be human... many followed this, and many, like the author of the Gospel of John, rejected this. If Jesus only appeared human, then he only appeared to die, and he didnt save us from our sins... the Gospel of John fires back at that by saying "...and the Word was made flesh."

And for those who are wondering why the Apostles or some disciples wrote the Gospels right away... they believed Jesus would come back in their lifetime... so whats the need to write??

Sure, the gospels could use some mythology, but many parts of the New Testament are very different than most Mythology.......