ChatterBank0 min ago
Why Be Interested In Other Religions?
184 Answers
Regardless of where you live, you have no doubt seen for yourself how religion affects the lives of millions of people.
Answers
Hypognosis; To say that someone who believes the sum total of religion is a belief in "sky fairies" is lacking in the IQ department, is not the same as saying that all atheists are stupid. This is something I have never said (and naomi, not even of Dawkins). What I have said in my classifying of various positions, is to distinguish between different types; those...
15:13 Wed 30th Mar 2016
@Khandro
10 points to you. It's a persistent myth.
http://
Scroll down to the reply with the graphic and the stuff about the opposite scoring systems in Austria vs Germany.
GIYF (google is your friend)
10 points to you. It's a persistent myth.
http://
Scroll down to the reply with the graphic and the stuff about the opposite scoring systems in Austria vs Germany.
GIYF (google is your friend)
Maybe the angle I should have tried is that he was, undoubtedly, taught about God long before his first lessons in advanced mathematics - or anything else. One very rarely has to "unlearn" things we've previously been taught. Father Christmas being one example we all experience.
Given my sub-'A'-level maths knowledge, I cannot think of any aspect of it which would directly challenge his views about the existence of god. Indeed, you hear mathematicians on Horizon describe the intrinsic beauty of some of the emergent properties of various equations.
Having died in the mid 1950s, before high speed computers, Einstein probably never set eyes on a drawing of a fractal pattern but, I'd guess that he'd view it as beautiful and yet more evidence of the existence of god.
From my perspective, I see self-similarity/fractals as an explanation of how structures as complex-looking as a feather or a fern leaf can, in fact be achieved with a very small amount of "code". Conjecture but we could have one segment coding for the basic shape that gets repeated, another coding for how much lengthwise growth before branching and beginning the next iteration, a third determining how many repeats before the gross structure reaches its "full grown" state. (See also comparative anatomy, with regard to mammalian bones having a "theme and variations" aspect to them).
Like I said, not an area of any interest to Einstein.
Mendel's discoveries about inheritance of characteristics were not recognised until 1900, according to this:-
http://
I don't often find an excuse to say it but everything Darwin wrote was in complete ignorance of Mendel's findings. Both of them would not have had a clue what DNA was.
In summary: I can't imagine Einstein experienced anything which shook his faith to the core or caused him any doubt or, even if anything did, cultural pressures might have suppressed any desire to express such doubt.
Go on, say that his works were divine inspiration. I dares ya'.
Given my sub-'A'-level maths knowledge, I cannot think of any aspect of it which would directly challenge his views about the existence of god. Indeed, you hear mathematicians on Horizon describe the intrinsic beauty of some of the emergent properties of various equations.
Having died in the mid 1950s, before high speed computers, Einstein probably never set eyes on a drawing of a fractal pattern but, I'd guess that he'd view it as beautiful and yet more evidence of the existence of god.
From my perspective, I see self-similarity/fractals as an explanation of how structures as complex-looking as a feather or a fern leaf can, in fact be achieved with a very small amount of "code". Conjecture but we could have one segment coding for the basic shape that gets repeated, another coding for how much lengthwise growth before branching and beginning the next iteration, a third determining how many repeats before the gross structure reaches its "full grown" state. (See also comparative anatomy, with regard to mammalian bones having a "theme and variations" aspect to them).
Like I said, not an area of any interest to Einstein.
Mendel's discoveries about inheritance of characteristics were not recognised until 1900, according to this:-
http://
I don't often find an excuse to say it but everything Darwin wrote was in complete ignorance of Mendel's findings. Both of them would not have had a clue what DNA was.
In summary: I can't imagine Einstein experienced anything which shook his faith to the core or caused him any doubt or, even if anything did, cultural pressures might have suppressed any desire to express such doubt.
Go on, say that his works were divine inspiration. I dares ya'.
Unlike the animals, we humans have the capacity to worship.
This is part of our makeup from birth. We also have a moral sense, a conscience to guide us as to what is right and what is wrong.
But you poor atheists could not change the way humans are made, no this evidenced in the resurgence of religion, you know one of the failure of atheists is to provide convincing answers to questions about the meaning of disappointment and suffering in life. You may find yourself asking the very same questions—proof that you have a spiritual need.
Also even though many people have more or less assumed that the Bible is unscientific, contradictory, and out-of-date, the facts show otherwise. Its unique authorship, its historical and scientific accuracy, and its unerring prophecies all point to one inevitable conclusion: The Bible is the inspired Word of God. As the apostle Paul put it: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial.”—2 Timothy 3:16
This is part of our makeup from birth. We also have a moral sense, a conscience to guide us as to what is right and what is wrong.
But you poor atheists could not change the way humans are made, no this evidenced in the resurgence of religion, you know one of the failure of atheists is to provide convincing answers to questions about the meaning of disappointment and suffering in life. You may find yourself asking the very same questions—proof that you have a spiritual need.
Also even though many people have more or less assumed that the Bible is unscientific, contradictory, and out-of-date, the facts show otherwise. Its unique authorship, its historical and scientific accuracy, and its unerring prophecies all point to one inevitable conclusion: The Bible is the inspired Word of God. As the apostle Paul put it: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial.”—2 Timothy 3:16
Khandro, would I be so illogical as to say that there is or isn't a god? I would though, say that there is no evidence that such a thing as god exists so there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the 'overwhelming' lack of evidence. I thought that my mathematical proof of the existence of god worked very well to prove the opposite, ie. if nothing equals something then something equals nothing, unless asymmetrical equivalence exists elsewhere than in the mind of mankind.
Khandro, if I say there is an invisible flying teapot orbiting the earth, transmitting messages from aliens to influence human beings into killing each other, would you not say there is absolutely no evidence for such an idea, and that it must be barmy ? What if I then say ( as you do) that total and utter absence of evidence cannot logically rule something out ? If there is no evidence of any god, still you must accept that belief is valid? if there is no evidence of the teapot, so you must accept that belief in that is valid, too ?
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News3 mins ago
Jokes6 mins ago
Jobs & Education10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago