101 replies to this topic

[ToadBrother]

So you don't trust Asa Gray for some reason that you claim, but that is your own opinion....which is worth nothing on this debate since your claim is based on nothing. Not to mention how you just showed your opinion in this topic is askew. I'm telling you we're not on the same page!
I couldn't care less whether Asa Gray is right or wrong. I'm not debating whether evolution is real or not. I've already done that...in lots of other topics.

Yes, indeed that's what my link is revealing isn't it? The WAVERINGS.....AND FLUCTUATIONS (Darwin's own word!).....which is what I was musing about!

I'm not going to reply anymore unless you've got something worthwhile to say. Bye-bye.

I'd like you to get to the point.

[betsy]

I'd like you to get to the point.

Why, does everything have to have a specific point? One can't muse....or express....or ramble on?
My entry into this topic is just to simply state that Einstein was an agnostic.

And you replied to that with this:

And a very weak one at that. His views shouldn't be much comfort to theists. He certainly rejected all the trappings of organized religion and a personal god.

To which I answered:

I doubt if theists with true faith seek spiritual comfort from scientists.

It is just interesting to note that views of some famous scientists were not conclusive with the findings they hoped and wished to find. The fact that they wavered - like Darwin -, some even to the point of conversion really say a lot.
As I said in the other thread "Rejoice....," if you set out to prove your belief, if you're honest, you must be prepared to disprove it. The honesty is the hard part.

And it's true. A believer with true faith does not need any proof...hence I doubt they seek spiritual comfort from scientists!

I also mentioned another thread titled "Rejoice...." that documented what I was on about....notable people some of whom had set out to do their own investigative research to prove the Christian faith as false, only to find themselves converted.
I explained what fascinated me about the scientists....and even reiterated that I speak as a believer in God. And it just truly fascinates me that these men who eventually converted must have been blown away by what they found----that's why it's not just enough for them to just abandon the experiment and move on. Oh no, they just had to convert! To me, that must have been the closest for anyone to have come face-to-face with God.

Based from TrueMetis' initial crudely contentious reaction to my statement, - and your latest post, what I want to know now is: Why the knee-jerk reaction?

Edited by betsy, 30 August 2010 - 08:01 AM.

[ToadBrother]

Why, does everything have to have a specific point? One can't muse....or express....or ramble on?
My entry into this topic is just to simply state that Einstein was an agnostic.

I don't know why people like you try to treat people like me like morons. Of course there is a point. You're objections to evolution are well known, and like all anti-evolution types, you hope by casting doubt on Darwin that somehow the whole thing topples to the ground.

But Darwin isn't the Jesus of biology. Yes, he's well respected for creating an overarching theory, but evolutionary theory has progressed so far since his time that other than in the large picture, or in the interests of historical analysis, biologists don't really consider much of what Darwin wrote at all. For one thing, his theory entirely lacks a molecular explanation for evolution, which didn't happen until the 1930s through the 1950s with the Modern Synthesis. Of particular interest to someone like you is that one of the major formulators of the Modern Synthesis (or as some call it, Neo-Darwinism) was Theodosius Dobzhansky, who also happened to be a devout Orthodox Christian.

You probably should go out and find some writings by Dobzhansky and Ernst Mayr if you want to impress us all with how evolutionary researchers are, as you seem to want to claim, on the edge of revelations... hallelujah and all that rot. Other than that, your just simply wasting electrons.

Edited by ToadBrother, 30 August 2010 - 11:28 AM.

[betsy]

I don't know why people like you try to treat people like me like morons. Of course there is a point. You're objections to evolution are well known, and like all anti-evolution types, you hope by casting doubt on Darwin that somehow the whole thing topples to the ground.

Quite a revelation you made there about yourself.

Of course my belief is well-known. And so is yours. Someone mentioned that Einstein was an agnostic. I gave a simple reiteration of that fact (Einstein was an agnostic).
You didn't leave it at that. Like a dutiful sentry of the fortress of Atheism, you had to hold me back by saying..."theists shouldn't find comfort to that"....and now I say the same to you that Atheists most definitely shouldn't... and couldn't find comfort in that! How can you?
More so the problem for you than for me, don't you think so? I don't need any proof.

Your concern about the toppling down of evolution theory is just a minor detail.....your whole belief structure falls with it!

If scientists like Einstein....and Darwin...are confrimed AGNOSTICS, for them the possibility of a God is always there. Where does that leave your belief? Especially when Atheists are pinning their hopes on science?
Increasingly, science, your foundation, is turning against you.

Agnostic scientists - especially with the stature of Einstein and Darwin - don't make a foundation for Atheist belief. In fact, it poses a question to atheists.

I highlighted that statement you made above. What you're actually saying is....
My very simple reiteratement of a fact - Einstein was an Agnostic - was so threatening for you and TruMetis. Got you both all armored up for war.

Gee, you make me feel like I'm banging at the fortress gate!

Edited by betsy, 31 August 2010 - 05:16 AM.

[BubberMiley]

Gee, you make me feel like I'm banging at the fortress gate!

Can you tell us how atheists are going to have to explain themselves during the b**bquake?

[ToadBrother]

Quite a revelation you made there about yourself.

Of course my belief is well-known. And so is yours. Someone mentioned that Einstein was an agnostic. I gave a simple reiteration of that fact (Einstein was an agnostic).
You didn't leave it at that. Like a dutiful sentry of the fortress of Atheism, you had to hold me back by saying..."theists shouldn't find comfort to that"....and now I say the same to you that Atheists most definitely shouldn't... and couldn't find comfort in that! How can you?
More so the problem for you than for me, don't you think so? I don't need any proof.

Your concern about the toppling down of evolution theory is just a minor detail.....your whole belief structure falls with it!

If scientists like Einstein....and Darwin...are confrimed AGNOSTICS, for them the possibility of a God is always there. Where does that leave your belief? Especially when Atheists are pinning their hopes on science?
Increasingly, science, your foundation, is turning against you.

Agnostic scientists - especially with the stature of Einstein and Darwin - don't make a foundation for Atheist belief. In fact, it poses a question to atheists.

I highlighted that statement you made above. What you're actually saying is....
My very simple reiteratement of a fact - Einstein was an Agnostic - was so threatening for you and TruMetis. Got you both all armored up for war.

Gee, you make me feel like I'm banging at the fortress gate!

You're going to have to explain to me what evolutionary theory has to do with belief in God, or atheism for that matter.

[betsy]

You're going to have to explain to me what evolutionary theory has to do with belief in God, or atheism for that matter.

It was you and TruMetis who brought up evolution in this topic! Not me.
I guess somehow you connected evolution with Einstein being an Agnostic.
I don't blame you. Atheists got bigger issue to think about...much bigger than just mere evolution theory. The implication of scientists like Darwin and Einstein being confirmed Agnostics. And if I'm not mistaken, they were Agnostics to the end.

Anyway, all I did was state a very simple fact - Einstein was an Agnostic - and bam! It's so amusing really seeing the reaction that simple one-liner got.

Well, you actually twisted my arm to come up with a point when I really had no intention of making a point at all...I didn't feel like getting into the same-old same-old again, at least not for a while. So there you go. You wanted me to get to the point....got to the point I did. Actually pulled that point out from your last reply.

Edited by betsy, 31 August 2010 - 05:54 PM.

[ToadBrother]

It was you and TruMetis who brought up evolution in this topic! Not me.
I guess somehow you connected evolution with Einstein being an Agnostic. Hmmm....

All I did was state a very simple fact - Einstein was an Agnostic - and bam! It's so amusing really seeing the reaction that simple one-liner got.

I'm not sure "agnostic" really applies to Einstein either. There were points when he seemed very clearly to come out on the Deist side. He was a complex man, and perhaps, to some extent, trying to label him is pointless.

Well, you actually twisted my arm to come up with a point when I really had no intention of making a point at all...I didn't feel like getting into the same-old same-old again, at least not for a while. So there you go. You wanted me to get to the point....got to the point I did. Actually pulled that point out from your last reply.

So whether or not Darwin, Einstein or anyone else is agnostic, atheist, theistic or whatever is kind of irrelevant to whether any scientific theory reasonably models reality, right?

[betsy]

So whether or not Darwin, Einstein or anyone else is agnostic, atheist, theistic or whatever is kind of irrelevant to whether any scientific theory reasonably models reality, right?

I don't quite understand the question but what I can say is:


When Agnostic scientists - like Darwin and Einstein - maintained their agnosticism until their dying days....that couldn't be irrelevant for Atheists, for it poses a question as to why.

When an atheist scientist convert to agnosticism......that couldn't be irrelevant for Atheists.
In fact, it's like hearing the alarm bell going.

When an Atheist scientist eventually convert from Atheism to Christianity....that couldn't be irrelevant, especially if he's been working on a theory that could somehow impact the question of God's existence. Something definitely convinced him without question! The closest thing to a miracle. How can that be irrelevant?

Edited by betsy, 01 September 2010 - 03:50 AM.

[BubberMiley]

When an Atheist scientist eventually convert from Atheism to Christianity....that couldn't be irrelevant, especially if he's been working on a theory that could somehow impact the question of God's existence. Something definitely convinced him without question! The closest thing to a miracle. How can that be irrelevant?

Or it could be yet another example of the lengths the human mind can go to delude itself.

[ToadBrother]

I don't quite understand the question but what I can say is:


When Agnostic scientists - like Darwin and Einstein - maintained their agnosticism until their dying days....that couldn't be irrelevant for Atheists, for it poses a question as to why.

When an atheist scientist convert to agnosticism......that couldn't be irrelevant for Atheists.
In fact, it's like hearing the alarm bell going.

When an Atheist scientist eventually convert from Atheism to Christianity....that couldn't be irrelevant, especially if he's been working on a theory that could somehow impact the question of God's existence. Something definitely convinced him without question! The closest thing to a miracle. How can that be irrelevant?

You're obsessed with conversions. I don't give a damn about a scientist's faith or lack of faith. I'm asking you whether you think a scientist's religion (or lack of religion) to the theory they're working on.

To put this in perspective, you won't find any published papers out there that reference God, save perhaps for psychological investigations and the like where religious beliefs are the object of the investigation. Evolution is no different than geology, cosmology, physics, astronomy, etc. in that God is not referenced as a causative and/or explanatory factor.

[betsy]

You're obsessed with conversions.

You practically pressured me to give my point. Now that I gave it, you're mad!
Because you don't agree with my opinion. Period.

Now you want me to leave out the conversion part, perhaps because you find the truth to what I say....the grave implications of these conversions by atheist scientists to Christianity....undeniable.

I don't give a damn about a scientist's faith or lack of faith.

Then why react so strongly to my simple statement: Einstein was a deist.
This topic is about Einstein's Thoughts on Religion. It was TruMetis, followed by you who tried so damn hard to bring in the theory of Evolution to this topic.

You insisted bringing in the theory of evolution to a topic that's about a Deist scientist's thoughts on God.....what do you think will happen? They won't collide?

I'm asking you whether you think a scientist's religion (or lack of religion) to the theory they're working on

I know most scientists (regardless of their belief) don't start out working on a theory to prove their belief. But the sudden conversion from atheism to Christianity by some scientists while working their theories cannot be just set aside as irrelevant especially when they've confirmed that it was in the course of their work that they've discovered the Christian God. So to some of them it's like stumbling on a miracle.

And like the Philosopher Antony Flew who for decades had been on debates fighting for Atheism.....only to find himself in the end convinced instead to Christianity. Logic and reason was used in this instance.

True that there are still scientists who still cling to Atheism.....but the fact that there are also scientists from different fields who not only oppose the views of their atheist counterparts, but oppose them with action (conversion - which also entail humble submission) holds a lot of weight. In my view.

Analysis of behaviours and thoughts by popular scientists is done everyday....tons of books have been written about them. So what is the problem about talking about these Christian converts? Especially when their strong action - from the extreme of believing that there is no God to suddenly changing to the other extreme by outright conversion and saying I believe and worship the Christian God - is quite surprising, to put it mildly.
As I said, why didn't they just embrace Agnosticism, and leave it at that?

To put this in perspective, you won't find any published papers out there that reference God, save perhaps for psychological investigations and the like where religious beliefs are the object of the investigation. Evolution is no different than geology, cosmology, physics, astronomy, etc. in that God is not referenced as a causative and/or explanatory factor.

Let me just correct you there. TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, it was YOU and TruMetis who insisted to connect religion to science in this topic.
Even after the fact that I've said a couple of times that I don't want to embark on any discussion about evolution....which to tell you frankly I now find so dis-interesting.
I don't give a damn about it even if they'll claim to have found the missing link tomorrow.

If there is any show of obsession....it comes from you. You are obsessed with science....most especially with the theory of Evolution. And we both know the real reason for that obsession.

It's noteworthy the aggressive reactions coming from some atheists in this forum - the knee jerk reactions - most of whom hurl insults. That's okay. It's understandable. The opinion expressed must've been viewed as threatening to Atheism. I suggest after some calming down, you guys just sit down and think about the grave implications of Agnostics, Deists and Atheist scientists who converted to Christianity, what these mean to the religion of Atheism. Perhaps Agnosticism is the next step for you guys.

Your reaction only serves to prove my opinion (Darwin thread):

Scientific books/peer-reviewed publication is to you as The Bible is to me.
You rely heavily on science to validate your belief.
You need and ache for validation.

You may argue about this, but action speaks louder than words.

Edited by betsy, 03 September 2010 - 05:34 AM.

[GostHacked]

Does it matter if I chose to follow another religion and that god? What if I do not chose Christianity? What grave implications does this imply for me?

[GostHacked]

I know most scientists (regardless of their belief) don't start out working on a theory to prove their belief.

Actually they do. They believe something so, through science they determine whether it is viable or not. Their beliefs may change when they discover new information, or the new information will be evidence to support the theory that they believe to be true.

But the sudden conversion from atheism to Christianity by some scientists while working their theories cannot be just set aside as irrelevant especially when they've confirmed that it was in the course of their work that they've discovered the Christian God. So to some of them it's like stumbling on a miracle.

To another atheist, it is irrelevant. And why the Christian god?? What about the jewish god, or the catholic god or buddah or allah? Why does it seem you are hung up on the Christian version of a god? I will guess because that is what you were brought up with?

And like the Philosopher Antony Flew who for decades had been on debates fighting for Atheism.....only to find himself in the end convinced instead to Christianity. Logic and reason was used in this instance.

Logic and reason?

As I said, why didn't they just embrace Agnosticism, and leave it at that?

If you are not willing to move to the agnostic camp, then you cannot expect any atheist to move to the agnostic side.

If there is any show of obsession....it comes from you. You are obsessed with science....most especially with the theory of Evolution. And we both know the real reason for that obsession.

If it was not for science, you'd have no Internet to tell people what you think. No TV, no radio, no technology. Healthcare would not be where it is if it was not for science, Science is everywhere, it's as omnipotent and ubiquitous as your god.

It's noteworthy the aggressive reactions coming from some atheists in this forum - the knee jerk reactions - most of whom hurl insults. That's okay. It's understandable. The opinion expressed must've been viewed as threatening to Atheism. I suggest after some calming down, you guys just sit down and think about the grave implications of Agnostics, Deists and Atheist scientists who converted to Christianity, what these mean to the religion of Atheism. Perhaps Agnosticism is the next step for you guys.

Perhaps it's the next step for you as well. But not like you are willing to open your mind to that possibility. But for whatever reason it is the atheist scientists who must be agnostic. You put the onus on the them.

You need and ache for validation.

I'd say this is related more to the human condition in total. Not just atheists or believers.

[betsy]

Does it matter if I chose to follow another religion and that god? What if I do not chose Christianity? What grave implications does this imply for me?

Are you "baiting" me?

What you choose to do is your business. As for grave implications that you wanna know....what do you want me to say?

Of course speaking as a Christian, I pray and hope that you find salvation through Christ. That's all I can do. The choice is yours.