Discussion:
Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Add Reply
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 04:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html


Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
Yap Honghor
2017-08-10 07:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
The real basic thing is - if there is god of any kind, why do we need science????
Kurt Nicklas
2017-08-10 12:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
The real basic thing is - if there is god of any kind, why do we need science????
To build things like nuclear weapons and Zyklon-B?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 12:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
To design things like computers so information can be easily accessible.nuclear weapons were born mostly out of need.
ZyclonB was born from insane fanaticism.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-10 13:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
To design things like computers so information can be easily
accessible.nuclear weapons were born mostly out of need.
ZyclonB was born from insane fanaticism.
No, it is an insectcide. To keep things like piles of wheat grain from feeding
bugs instead of humans.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 23:10:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
To design things like computers so information can be easily
accessible.nuclear weapons were born mostly out of need.
ZyclonB was born from insane fanaticism.
No, it is an insectcide. To keep things like piles of wheat grain from feeding
bugs instead of humans.
I stand corrected on its reason for being created. Its use by the Nazi's was the result of insane fanaticism.
Post by Siri Cruise
--
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Yap Honghor
2017-08-11 01:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
The real basic thing is - if there is god of any kind, why do we need science????
To build things like nuclear weapons and Zyklon-B?
Oh dear, you are telling us here that your pixie knows absolutely nothing about nukes and Zyklon-B (whatever that is)?

And we see your Jesus knows exactly nothing when 9/11 happened, bringing down twin towers.....

Come on, give more excuses!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 07:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise that any of these people were theists for most of them were not involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated Transcript

Princeton, 3. 1. 1954

Dear Mr Gutkind,

Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."

Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes,

Yours,

A. Einstein

The original is also posted on that website.

The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't matter because they did not have access to the information that we now have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.

The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
b***@m.nu
2017-08-10 12:16:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise that any of these people were theists for most of them were not involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't matter because they did not have access to the information that we now have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.

Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 12:48:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise that any of these people were theists for most of them were not involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't matter because they did not have access to the information that we now have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
That's a lie.
Post by b***@m.nu
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church,
EVIDENCE???????


You are still a filthy liar who makes claims without any evidence to support them.
b***@m.nu
2017-08-11 19:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise that any of these people were theists for most of them were not involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't matter because they did not have access to the information that we now have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
That's a lie.
Post by b***@m.nu
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church,
EVIDENCE???????
read your history, go back to school, FUCKING quit believing in
fairies and then you could know that Galileo was imprisoned to house
arrest AFTER he recanted his findings because the church was going to
murder him if he did not you shit eating fuck
Post by v***@gmail.com
You are still a filthy liar who makes claims without any evidence to support them.
Ted
2017-08-11 20:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
That's a lie.
Post by b***@m.nu
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church,
EVIDENCE???????
read your history, go back to school, FUCKING quit believing in
fairies and then you could know that Galileo was imprisoned to house
arrest AFTER he recanted his findings because the church was going to
murder him if he did not you shit eating fuck
LOL. ArtyJoe is such an ignoramus. :)
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 12:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise that any of these people were theists for most of them were not involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't matter because they did not have access to the information that we now have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
The issue is belief in god, you illiterate scumsucking pig.
Post by b***@m.nu
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church
THAT'S A LIE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 13:44:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes Art, the subject is belief in God.
You were trying to once again claim that because some really smart guys believed in God then we lesser by humans should also.

This is not new territory. We have been over it before.

I simply pointed out some facts that When considering belief in a God has nothing to do with such a belief.

I also demonstrated once again that Einstein did not think of himself as a religious Jew but more of an ethnic Jew and found the bible to be silly and full of fables. Who am I to argue with such a clear and level headed assessment.

The point is, that what God or lack of God one chooses to believe in have nothing to do with their intelligence in any but the most general way. It may have a bearing on how they apply their intelligence.

We could come here and continue to insult each other about our different belief, but I see no point.

Certainly, screaming liar any time someone says something you disagree with or if someone makes an error of fact is hardly productive.

If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 14:16:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yes Art, the subject is belief in God.
You were trying to once again claim that because some really smart guys believed in God then we lesser by humans should also.
WRONG. I was debunking the claims by you and other arrogant atheists that people who believe in God are stupid.
Obviously, famous scientists cannot be stupid.

Who makes this idiotic claim????

You
Pissy Chrissy Lee
Yap
AtheistI
John Locke
default


I made this very clear in several posts I made in this and other threads.

YOU ATHEIST MOTHERFUCKERS ARE ABYSMALLY STUPID.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 19:48:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Art, you have made the post multiple times and it has always generated the same kind of response.

We maintain that religion is stupid because none of them stand up to objective scrutiny. Usually, we are talking about specific theists who are being stupid.

When you post the same topics repeatedly as if there will be a different response it doesn't indicate that you are doing anything but trolling.

If you act stupid and say stupid things it will get a negative response. None of this would happen if you could learn to play nice or just take it to a different NG.

There is no reason to post the same thing over and over again. As I said previously if you don't rant and rave about how great religion is or how great God is you won't be treated in such fashion.

Yes, we know we can't stop you from posting whatever you choose but if you keep posting things that have already been posted and answered you only make yourself a target in the same way that people take shots at JTEM and was.

If that's what you want it's What you will get.
b***@m.nu
2017-08-11 19:50:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:48:20 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Art, you have made the post multiple times and it has always generated the same kind of response.
We maintain that religion is stupid because none of them stand up to objective scrutiny. Usually, we are talking about specific theists who are being stupid.
When you post the same topics repeatedly as if there will be a different response it doesn't indicate that you are doing anything but trolling.
If you act stupid and say stupid things it will get a negative response. None of this would happen if you could learn to play nice or just take it to a different NG.
There is no reason to post the same thing over and over again. As I said previously if you don't rant and rave about how great religion is or how great God is you won't be treated in such fashion.
Yes, we know we can't stop you from posting whatever you choose but if you keep posting things that have already been posted and answered you only make yourself a target in the same way that people take shots at JTEM and was.
If that's what you want it's What you will get.
it says stupid shit because it is stupid but it also knows that
because of its stupidity that it will get higher number of responses
in the thread as though it accomplished something.
Yap Honghor
2017-08-11 01:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yes Art, the subject is belief in God.
You were trying to once again claim that because some really smart guys believed in God then we lesser by humans should also.
WRONG. I was debunking the claims by you and other arrogant atheists that people who believe in God are stupid.
If they aren't stupid, then give examples of them showing some intelligence!!!
The fact that they can believe in imagination or con stories means they are stupid, to a certain degree....
Post by v***@gmail.com
Obviously, famous scientists cannot be stupid.
If they can believe in a pixie, then they aren;t that smart too.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Who makes this idiotic claim????
I challenge you to list any intelligence in their belief in a pixie!!!
Post by v***@gmail.com
You
Pissy Chrissy Lee
Yap
AtheistI
John Locke
default
I made this very clear in several posts I made in this and other threads.
Your posts have no value, not even some support from many trolls here.
Post by v***@gmail.com
YOU ATHEIST MOTHERFUCKERS ARE ABYSMALLY STUPID.
We aren;t the ones who believe in a non-existent pixie, you mad crazy stupid moron!!!
b***@m.nu
2017-08-11 19:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yes Art, the subject is belief in God.
You were trying to once again claim that because some really smart guys believed in God then we lesser by humans should also.
WRONG. I was debunking the claims by you and other arrogant atheists that people who believe in God are stupid.
Obviously, famous scientists cannot be stupid.
Who makes this idiotic claim????
You
Pissy Chrissy Lee
Yap
AtheistI
John Locke
default
I made this very clear in several posts I made in this and other threads.
YOU ATHEIST MOTHERFUCKERS ARE ABYSMALLY STUPID.
being forced by the church to say that you believe in a god is alot
different than actual belief
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 14:19:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 23:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
What character flaws would those be?

I don't lie, no matter how many times you claim it, I have never posted anything that was intended to deceive or intentionally mislead anyone.

I have never claimed to be something I am not.

I separate my opinions from whatever facts I post unlike most theists here.

I always search for the best most reliable information I can find.
If I find that I have been wrong about something I don't scream and stomp my feet, I admit to it.

You, on the other hand, can not say the same.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-11 01:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
We've just had a woman convicted and sentenced for telling her boyfriend to kill himself. Care to join her in prison?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-11 08:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:48:08 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is
the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
We've just had a woman convicted and sentenced for telling her
boyfriend to kill himself. Care to join her in prison?
It's taken law enforcement long enough.

Whatever happened to Jabriol?
Siri Cruise
2017-08-11 09:17:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is
the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
All human life matters.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 09:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by v***@gmail.com
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is
the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
All human life matters.
Not to me,not here, it doesn't.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 09:37:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by v***@gmail.com
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is
the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
All human life matters.
All I did was mention suicide. You are overreacting.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-11 10:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by v***@gmail.com
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is
the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
All human life matters.
All I did was mention suicide. You are overreacting.
All human life matters. Suicide is a tragedy when nonexistence becomes the least
painful option. To be helpful do what you can to reduce their pain and live.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
walksalone
2017-08-11 10:53:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by v***@gmail.com
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that
killing yourself is the only practical solution. I'd be
glad to help. asshole.
All human life matters.
All life matters. But humans are at the top of the food
chain, for now.:::)))


walksalone who is contented with that situation. OTOH, the
future is not so certain.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 21:30:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
We've just had a woman convicted and sentenced for telling her boyfriend to kill himself. Care to join her in prison?
EVIDENCE????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-11 22:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
We've just had a woman convicted and sentenced for telling her boyfriend to kill himself. Care to join her in prison?
EVIDENCE????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
http://nypost.com/2017/08/03/suicide-text-girlfriend-sentenced-to-2-5-years-in-prison/
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-12 01:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Blue Ringed 8
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself
is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
We've just had a woman convicted and sentenced for telling her boyfriend
to kill himself. Care to join her in prison?
EVIDENCE????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
For fuck's sake...
Post by Blue Ringed 8
http://nypost.com/2017/08/03/suicide-text-girlfriend-sentenced-to-2-5-years-in-prison/
It's been in all the news.

Too bad they never arrested Jabriol for encouraging Chris Dubose to
kill himself,but at least the authorities are starting to do something
about these on-line psychopaths, at last.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 03:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Blue Ringed 8
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself
is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
We've just had a woman convicted and sentenced for telling her boyfriend
to kill himself. Care to join her in prison?
EVIDENCE????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
For fuck's sake...
Post by Blue Ringed 8
http://nypost.com/2017/08/03/suicide-text-girlfriend-sentenced-to-2-5-years-in-prison/
It's been in all the news.
ROTFL! There is no precedent.The two cases are completely different.

1.She already had an emotional relationship with the victim, which gave her influence over him. That's quite different than a comment over the internet by a complete stranger which contained no specific suggestions.

2. The victim had already been suicidal and depressed for months. Hobbit has not.

3. The ruling was issued in Juvenile Court, which does not follow normal
legal precedents and gives the judge almost limitless power.I doubt a jury
in criminal court would agree.
I have a great idea!!!!!! Why don't you ignorant atheist assholes report me
to the cops. Since I made the comment over the internet, the FBI has jurisdiction.

If you chickenshit bastards have the fucking balls to do anything, we'll see what happens.
Yap Honghor
2017-08-12 12:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Blue Ringed 8
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself
is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
We've just had a woman convicted and sentenced for telling her boyfriend
to kill himself. Care to join her in prison?
EVIDENCE????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
For fuck's sake...
Post by Blue Ringed 8
http://nypost.com/2017/08/03/suicide-text-girlfriend-sentenced-to-2-5-years-in-prison/
It's been in all the news.
ROTFL! There is no precedent.The two cases are completely different.
1.She already had an emotional relationship with the victim, which gave her influence over him. That's quite different than a comment over the internet by a complete stranger which contained no specific suggestions.
2. The victim had already been suicidal and depressed for months. Hobbit has not.
3. The ruling was issued in Juvenile Court, which does not follow normal
legal precedents and gives the judge almost limitless power.I doubt a jury
in criminal court would agree.
I have a great idea!!!!!! Why don't you ignorant atheist assholes report me
to the cops. Since I made the comment over the internet, the FBI has jurisdiction.
If you chickenshit bastards have the fucking balls to do anything, we'll see what happens.
Ya, since you have lost all you money in the casino, you want free meals by going into prison cell?

Why would we want to help you????
b***@m.nu
2017-08-12 04:13:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If you want we can just work on your character flaws instead.
That seems like it would be a much better use of your time.
Your character flaws are so numerous and glaring that killing yourself is the only practical solution. I'd be glad to help. asshole.
We've just had a woman convicted and sentenced for telling her boyfriend to kill himself. Care to join her in prison?
EVIDENCE????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
^^^ dumb ass brunos way of desperately trying to make itself feel like
its life has meaning by getting people to make more replies, even if
it already knows the answer
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-10 14:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise that any of these people were theists for most of them were not involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't matter because they did not have access to the information that we now have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science, they lived at a time when everybody was raised to be
heist so that was the default explanation, and that they revised
their beliefs in the light of their results.

He has to be seriously mentally ill to keep repeating the same
unsolicited lies-by-omission, so obsessively.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 14:28:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise that any of these people were theists for most of them were not involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't matter because they did not have access to the information that we now have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
I have been over this ground numerous times to debunk the implication by certain atheists that theists are stupid.

NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PROVE IT, YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GRASP IT.
YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.
Ted
2017-08-10 19:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
I have been over this ground numerous times to debunk the implication by
certain atheists that theists are stupid.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PROVE IT, YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GRASP IT.
YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.
Are you lying now, Joe?
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 20:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
I have been over this ground numerous times to debunk the implication by
certain atheists that theists are stupid.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PROVE IT, YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GRASP IT.
YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.
Are you lying now, Joe?
FORGERY
Ted
2017-08-10 20:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
I have been over this ground numerous times to debunk the implication by
certain atheists that theists are stupid.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PROVE IT, YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GRASP IT.
YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.
Are you lying now, Joe?
FORGERY
Looks to me like you're the forger.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-10 20:25:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
I have been over this ground numerous times to debunk the implication by
certain atheists that theists are stupid.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PROVE IT, YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GRASP IT.
YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.
They kept their theism where it was appropriate, and stepped aside
from it when they did their science.

Unfortunately, too many theists like Mad Joe can't step aside from it
where it is inappropriate.
Post by Ted
Are you lying now, Joe?
He's insane.
Ted
2017-08-10 20:41:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
I have been over this ground numerous times to debunk the implication by
certain atheists that theists are stupid.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PROVE IT, YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GRASP IT.
YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.
They kept their theism where it was appropriate, and stepped aside
from it when they did their science.
Unfortunately, too many theists like Mad Joe can't step aside from it
where it is inappropriate.
Post by Ted
Are you lying now, Joe?
He's insane.
Yes, I suspect so.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 20:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.

You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
Ted
2017-08-10 21:20:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.
You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
I agree with Christopher. You are indeed a certifiable lunatic.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-10 21:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.
You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
I agree with Christopher. You are indeed a certifiable lunatic.
Normal people simply don't act the way he does - and when you're on
the receiving end of it, it is obvious.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 22:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.
You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
I agree with Christopher. You are indeed a certifiable lunatic.
Normal people simply don't act the way he does - and when you're on
the receiving end of it, it is obvious.
YAWN! You already said that twice.Are you getting senile or just retarded?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 23:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.
You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
I agree with Christopher. You are indeed a certifiable lunatic.
Normal people simply don't act the way he does - and when you're on
the receiving end of it, it is obvious.
YAWN! You already said that twice.Are you getting senile or just retarded?
Then why post this same shit many times? Do you expect the response to change?
The only other possibility I can think of is that you think somehow because some great geniuses in science were allegedly theists, that somehow grants you some sort of intelligence that is not at all obvious.
Tim
2017-08-10 23:11:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.
You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
Prove that, or admit that you're lying.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 00:16:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.
You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
Prove that, or admit that you're lying.
He already described his educational background. He never went to medical school. You're too stupid to figure that out?HAHAHAHA!
Tim
2017-08-11 08:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.
You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
Prove that, or admit that you're lying.
He already described his educational background.
Prove it, liar.
Post by v***@gmail.com
He never went to medical school.
Prove it, liar.
Post by v***@gmail.com
You're too stupid to figure that out?HAHAHAHA!
Says captain quadratic, the guy who can't count to thirty, LOL!
Yap Honghor
2017-08-11 01:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.htmlTranslated
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck
me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the
human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal
with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making
life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human
element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a
language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection
of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle,
can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other
religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the
Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a
deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other
people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than
other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers
by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man
and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a
dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege
of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at
all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably
as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions
of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such
walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral
efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual
convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each
other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior.
What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization"
in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each
other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we now
have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even then
it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument from
popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and hear
in their own language simultaneously. The down side would either be
that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are fucked, or what
seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at how he has been
portrayed over the centuries and either kills every idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
Then why does the certifiable lunatic keep bringing it up?
I already explained that. YOU CAN'T READ.
You sure as hell can't certify me, since you have no professional mental health
qualifications at all.
How many times do I have to tell you that through our practices on you, we all are nearly full professional.
This is a process all qualified mental psychiatrists gone through too, real life hands-on practice and not classroom tutorial !!!
Smiler
2017-08-11 00:29:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would
have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
It is no surprise that Gregor Mendel was a theist. It is no surprise
that any of these people were theists for most of them were not
involved in philosophy and Einstein did not have a typical religious
view.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-
weakness.htmlTranslated
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Transcript
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in
your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What
struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life
and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your
personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented
desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on
the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican
attitude."
Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten
myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written
in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing
more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible
a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends
which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no
matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish
religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most
childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly
belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no
different quality for me than all other people. As far as my
experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups,
although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of
power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position
and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a
man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to
speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew
the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer
a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all
incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic
interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not
annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a
certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered
by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in
intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are
quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our
evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only
intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language.
Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well
if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
The original is also posted on that website.
The simple fact is we will never know for sure exactly how a lot of
the people on the list felt about the existence of a god. It doesn't
matter because they did not have access to the information that we
now have provided by archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology. Even
then it wouldn't matter because it is a personal choice, the argument
from popularity does not make god real. Atheists are already greatly
outnumbered in the US but are not stopping people from being
atheists.
The only thing that could ever change our minds is evidence that can
not have any other explanation. For me, that requires a live
performance from the big that every person on earth could see and
hear in their own language simultaneously. The down side would
either be that he is the God of the bible and all atheists are
fucked, or what seems much more likely is that he would be pissed at
how he has been portrayed over the centuries and either kills every
idiot theist on earth.
Einstein did not in any way believe in a god like dumb ass bruno does,
Galileo Galilei lived the latter part of his life in fear of being
murdered by the catholic church, there is no proof at all that he was
in any way a cock sucking theist like bruno is.
Bruno is a lame attention whore, it has posted this same shit several
time because it is a lonely little bitch.
The liar knows perfectly well that their theism had nothing to do with
their science,
I never said it did, you illiterate LIAR.
I have been over this ground numerous times to debunk the implication by
certain atheists that theists are stupid.
Yet you prove that implication in every one of your posts.
Post by v***@gmail.com
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I PROVE IT, YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GRASP IT.
Nope. We grasp that you're stupid.
Post by v***@gmail.com
YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.
ArtyJoe talks to the mirror.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Kurt Nicklas
2017-08-10 12:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
It doesn't matter if they believed or didn't and some of them would have been risking their lives if they had said they didn't believe.
In your desiccated little mind, nothing really matters unless it supports your dearly-held, pretension-filled,brittle little biases.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 13:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Kuntz, your comment has nothing to do with or any relevance to the subject.


Once again you demonstrate that you don't need a reason to be an add.

There is no correlation to theism and genius. As I stated, many of the people on that list could have been killed if they didn't declare their belief in God.

There are still places in the world where one's religion or lack of one can get you killed.

These are facts that are well known.
Tthese people would have been geniuses
whether they believed in a God or not.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-10 14:00:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Kunt, your Unevidenced claims are dismissed.

Are you posses that Einstein said those things about the bible? More likely your posses that I posted it.

What is your goal here? It obviously isn't to win converts cuz you suck at people skills.

What prompted you to decide that a great use of your time would be to come to an atheist NG and insult people who have done you no harm? Is it so horrible to you that people have strongly held beliefs that God is Imaginary?

How does your being here only to flame people accomplish anything?

Why set yourself up as a target?

I can't see how this is a good use of your time and it is in no way good PR for your faith.

Live and let live doesn't have any meaning for you?
John Locke
2017-08-11 04:19:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous
to one's health. Today, with access to modern technology and
education, there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior
of groveling to imaginary god.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 04:34:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous
to one's health.
Jeanne Douglas claimed that. I asked her for proof. She had none.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-11 08:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:19:04 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous
to one's health. Today, with access to modern technology and
education, there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior
of groveling to imaginary god.
The deliberate liar-by-omission knows this.

He also knows that they were raised as Bible-believing Christians,
stepped aside from that when they did their work, and revised their
beliefs in the light of their discoveries.

So why does he keep repeating the same old, same old where he knows
people realise he is being weaselingly dishonest?

What message is he trying to send?
Siri Cruise
2017-08-11 09:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous
to one's health. Today, with access to modern technology and
And some like Newton were discriminated against for being too religious. I think
Kepler got some grief for being the wrong flavour of christian.

They did live in a time when people could get an education and success outside
of the church. They would rarely have been persecuted for failing to make loud
and public declarations of faith--so any loud and public declaration would be
declaration of actual faith.

(I know Galileo was forced to recant; I would assume any subsequent declaration
to be coerced. But his case was unusual, especially compared to the milieu of
north European scientists.)

So those who declared they had some kind of religion should be assumed to be
deists, christians, jews, or pantheists, none of which are atheists.
Post by John Locke
education, there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior
of groveling to imaginary god.
Lists of famous who believe this or that are irrelevant to what you believe
unless you can't think for yourself. What the lists to do is provide evidence
against bullshit claims that atheists can't be moral or 'there's no excuse for
the strange, undignified behavior of groveling to imaginary god.'

It's a disappointing fact that believing no god, one god, or many gods are all
equally rational positions and that real morality includes tolerating people who
disagree with you.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Smiler
2017-08-11 20:28:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous to
one's health. Today, with access to modern technology and
And some like Newton were discriminated against for being too religious.
I think Kepler got some grief for being the wrong flavour of christian.
They did live in a time when people could get an education and success
outside of the church. They would rarely have been persecuted for
failing to make loud and public declarations of faith--so any loud and
public declaration would be declaration of actual faith.
(I know Galileo was forced to recant; I would assume any subsequent
declaration to be coerced. But his case was unusual, especially compared
to the milieu of north European scientists.)
So those who declared they had some kind of religion should be assumed
to be deists, christians, jews, or pantheists, none of which are
atheists.
Post by John Locke
education, there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of
groveling to imaginary god.
Lists of famous who believe this or that are irrelevant to what you
believe unless you can't think for yourself. What the lists to do is
provide evidence against bullshit claims that atheists can't be moral or
'there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of groveling to
imaginary god.'
It's a disappointing fact that believing no god, one god, or many gods
are all equally rational positions and that real morality includes
tolerating people who disagree with you.
The trolls here should observe "that real morality includes tolerating
people who disagree with you."
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 21:19:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous to
one's health. Today, with access to modern technology and
And some like Newton were discriminated against for being too religious.
I think Kepler got some grief for being the wrong flavour of christian.
They did live in a time when people could get an education and success
outside of the church. They would rarely have been persecuted for
failing to make loud and public declarations of faith--so any loud and
public declaration would be declaration of actual faith.
(I know Galileo was forced to recant; I would assume any subsequent
declaration to be coerced. But his case was unusual, especially compared
to the milieu of north European scientists.)
So those who declared they had some kind of religion should be assumed
to be deists, christians, jews, or pantheists, none of which are
atheists.
Post by John Locke
education, there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of
groveling to imaginary god.
Lists of famous who believe this or that are irrelevant to what you
believe unless you can't think for yourself. What the lists to do is
provide evidence against bullshit claims that atheists can't be moral or
'there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of groveling to
imaginary god.'
It's a disappointing fact that believing no god, one god, or many gods
are all equally rational positions and that real morality includes
tolerating people who disagree with you.
The trolls here should observe "that real morality includes tolerating
people who disagree with you."
ROTFL! Is this an example of your tolerance, idiot?
Post by Smiler
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Smiler
2017-08-11 23:30:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous to
one's health. Today, with access to modern technology and
And some like Newton were discriminated against for being too religious.
I think Kepler got some grief for being the wrong flavour of christian.
They did live in a time when people could get an education and
success outside of the church. They would rarely have been persecuted
for failing to make loud and public declarations of faith--so any
loud and public declaration would be declaration of actual faith.
(I know Galileo was forced to recant; I would assume any subsequent
declaration to be coerced. But his case was unusual, especially
compared to the milieu of north European scientists.)
So those who declared they had some kind of religion should be
assumed to be deists, christians, jews, or pantheists, none of which
are atheists.
Post by John Locke
education, there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior
of groveling to imaginary god.
Lists of famous who believe this or that are irrelevant to what you
believe unless you can't think for yourself. What the lists to do is
provide evidence against bullshit claims that atheists can't be moral
or 'there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of
groveling to imaginary god.'
It's a disappointing fact that believing no god, one god, or many
gods are all equally rational positions and that real morality
includes tolerating people who disagree with you.
The trolls here should observe "that real morality includes tolerating
people who disagree with you."
ROTFL! Is this an example of your tolerance, idiot?
Calling me an idiot certainly isn't an example of yours, ArtyJoe.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-11 21:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous to
one's health. Today, with access to modern technology and
And some like Newton were discriminated against for being too religious.
I think Kepler got some grief for being the wrong flavour of christian.
They did live in a time when people could get an education and success
outside of the church. They would rarely have been persecuted for
failing to make loud and public declarations of faith--so any loud and
public declaration would be declaration of actual faith.
(I know Galileo was forced to recant; I would assume any subsequent
declaration to be coerced. But his case was unusual, especially compared
to the milieu of north European scientists.)
So those who declared they had some kind of religion should be assumed
to be deists, christians, jews, or pantheists, none of which are
atheists.
Post by John Locke
education, there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of
groveling to imaginary god.
Lists of famous who believe this or that are irrelevant to what you
believe unless you can't think for yourself. What the lists to do is
provide evidence against bullshit claims that atheists can't be moral or
'there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of groveling to
imaginary god.'
It's a disappointing fact that believing no god, one god, or many gods
are all equally rational positions and that real morality includes
tolerating people who disagree with you.
The trolls here should observe "that real morality includes tolerating
people who disagree with you."
No.

Because tolerance implies that you have made a judgment, but you
self-righteously tolerate it.

The truly tolerant don't even realise they are, and are surprised to
be told it.
Ted
2017-08-11 21:37:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
...most of those scientists lived during the times when it was
culturally unacceptible to be an atheist or downright dangerous to
one's health. Today, with access to modern technology and
And some like Newton were discriminated against for being too religious.
I think Kepler got some grief for being the wrong flavour of christian.
They did live in a time when people could get an education and success
outside of the church. They would rarely have been persecuted for
failing to make loud and public declarations of faith--so any loud and
public declaration would be declaration of actual faith.
(I know Galileo was forced to recant; I would assume any subsequent
declaration to be coerced. But his case was unusual, especially compared
to the milieu of north European scientists.)
So those who declared they had some kind of religion should be assumed
to be deists, christians, jews, or pantheists, none of which are
atheists.
Post by John Locke
education, there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of
groveling to imaginary god.
Lists of famous who believe this or that are irrelevant to what you
believe unless you can't think for yourself. What the lists to do is
provide evidence against bullshit claims that atheists can't be moral or
'there's no excuse for the strange, undignified behavior of groveling to
imaginary god.'
It's a disappointing fact that believing no god, one god, or many gods
are all equally rational positions and that real morality includes
tolerating people who disagree with you.
The trolls here should observe "that real morality includes tolerating
people who disagree with you."
No.
Because tolerance implies that you have made a judgment, but you
self-righteously tolerate it.
The truly tolerant don't even realise they are, and are surprised to
be told it.
Excellent insight. Thanks Christopher.
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-11 19:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.

Think you're smarter than they were?????



Christian de Duve

Harold Kroto

James Chadwick

Ivan Pavlov

Richard Feynman

Francois Jacob

Zhores Alferov

Igor Tamm

Sir Peter Medawar

Niels Bohr

Richard J. Roberts

Pierre Curie

Sydney Brenner

Harold Urey

Herbert A. Hauptman

Ivar Giaever

Georges Charpak

Herbert A. Simon

Isidor Isaac Rabi

Patrick Blackett

Jerome Isaac Friedman

Peter D. Mitchell

Wilhelm Ostwald

Percy Williams Bridgman

David Gross

Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet

John Forbes Nash, Jr.

Michael Smith

Francis Crick

Paul Dirac

Nikolaas Tinbergen

Roald Hoffmann

Oliver Smithies

George Beadle

Paul Nurse

Peter Higgs

Simon van der Meer

James D. Watson

Paul Lauterbur

Thomas Hunt Morgan

Hermann Joseph Muller

Irenne Joliot-Curie

Hans Bethe

Elie Metchnikoff

Philip W. Anderson

Frederic Joliot-Curie

Jacques Monod

Erwin Schroedinger

Linus Pauling

Steven Weinberg

Hannes Alfven

Jack Steinberger

Sir John Cornforth

John Sulston

Camillo Golgi

Rita Levi-Montalcini

Max Perutz

Jean-Marie Lehn

Louis de Broglie

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

Paul D. Boyer

Leon M. Lederman

George Smoot

William Shockley

Lev Landau

Svante Arrhenius

James Franck


This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest




BR-8
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 19:37:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Ted
2017-08-11 20:16:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 21:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
That's a LIE:


From wikipedia:"The Religious Views of Albert Einstein."


"Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4"
Ted
2017-08-11 21:34:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
From wikipedia:"The Religious Views of Albert Einstein."
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often
misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God
of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns
himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described
as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4"
He only said that because he was Catholic and didn't want to be
excommunicated.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 21:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
From wikipedia:"The Religious Views of Albert Einstein."
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often
misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God
of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns
himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described
as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4"
He only said that because he was Catholic and didn't want to be
excommunicated.
Einstein was Jewish, LIAR.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-11 21:34:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
How many times do we have to keep reminding the in-your-face liar that
scientists who happen to be theist, step aside from their theism when
doing their science?
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 21:39:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
How many times do we have to keep reminding the in-your-face liar that
scientists who happen to be theist, step aside from their theism when
doing their science?
Let's see you PROVE THAT, you lying piece of shit.
Yap Honghor
2017-08-12 03:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
How many times do we have to keep reminding the in-your-face liar that
scientists who happen to be theist, step aside from their theism when
doing their science?
Let's see you PROVE THAT, you lying piece of shit.
Moron, you are first asking a person to prove, but claim he is lying????
How stupid is that?
Ted
2017-08-11 21:39:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
How many times do we have to keep reminding the in-your-face liar that
scientists who happen to be theist, step aside from their theism when
doing their science?
And necessarily, because otherwise you can't do science.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-11 22:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:39:23 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
How many times do we have to keep reminding the in-your-face liar that
scientists who happen to be theist, step aside from their theism when
doing their science?
And necessarily, because otherwise you can't do science.
Obviously - you can never be sure whether your results were natural
or the result of your god.

The scientists who were religious revised their beliefs in the list
of their results, even if they remained theist.

Galileo died a Christian but not a Biblical literalist.

Newton became a mechanist who believed in a god that set things off
but left the universe to run itself according to the laws of physics.

Darwin became an agnostic.

Kelvin remained a Christian but revised his views on the age of he
Earth - which were still wrong because he didn't know about
radioactivity.
Ted
2017-08-11 23:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:39:23 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
How many times do we have to keep reminding the in-your-face liar that
scientists who happen to be theist, step aside from their theism when
doing their science?
And necessarily, because otherwise you can't do science.
Obviously - you can never be sure whether your results were natural
or the result of your god.
The scientists who were religious revised their beliefs in the list
of their results, even if they remained theist.
Galileo died a Christian but not a Biblical literalist.
Newton became a mechanist who believed in a god that set things off
but left the universe to run itself according to the laws of physics.
Darwin became an agnostic.
Kelvin remained a Christian but revised his views on the age of he
Earth - which were still wrong because he didn't know about
radioactivity.
Interesting background, thanks Christopher. I've read all that too, but I
don't have the memory you do.
John Locke
2017-08-12 01:18:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:34:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
How many times do we have to keep reminding the in-your-face liar that
scientists who happen to be theist, step aside from their theism when
doing their science?
...but not all of them do, unfortunately. Some try to mix religion
with science. The outcome can be quite unfavorable for the
scientist. Michael Behe is a good example.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Don Martin
2017-08-12 11:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:18:32 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:34:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Ted
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that
people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a
list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this
twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
Einstein and Hawking - both atheists. No real scientist isn't.
How many times do we have to keep reminding the in-your-face liar that
scientists who happen to be theist, step aside from their theism when
doing their science?
...but not all of them do, unfortunately. Some try to mix religion
with science. The outcome can be quite unfavorable for the
scientist. Michael Behe is a good example.
He didn't do much good for his religion, either.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Yap Honghor
2017-08-12 03:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
You completely missed the point of my post. The atheists claim that people who believe in God are stupid. To prove them wrong, I posted a list of famous scientists who believed in God. I already explained this twice. YOU CANNOT READ.
If theists can believe in fantasies, how can they be not stupid????????
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 21:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
I researched your listing and found the following misstatements:


Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.

 

Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 

 

Sir Peter Medawar Medawar declared:
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 




Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion

 

Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion

Harold Urey biography does not mention religion



Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion



Wilhelm Ostwald -no mention

Percy Williams Bridgman The family was deeply religious; reading the Bible each morning and attending a Congregational Church.[5]

David Gross  Gross received his bachelor's degree and master's degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in 1962.



John Forbes Nash, Jr. -no reference to religion
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-11 22:39:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."

-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."

-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"

-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"

-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
Post by v***@gmail.com
Harold Urey biography does not mention religion
http://tinyurl.com/ycl67tso
Post by v***@gmail.com
Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion
"I have always considered myself a diehard atheist and materialist
who does not believe in any omens or inauspicious dates"

-- https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/Chertok_2.pdf
Post by v***@gmail.com
Wilhelm Ostwald -no mention
" Even Wilhelm Ostwald, who was the most radical atheist among these scholars,
uses the instrument of the 'Monistic Sunday Sermons' to spread his ideas on rationality."

-- Jürgen Kocka, ed. Work in a Modern Society: The German Historical Experience in Comparative Perspective.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Percy Williams Bridgman The family was deeply religious; reading the Bible each morning and attending a Congregational Church.[5]
" He was raised in the Congregational Church, but faith in God clashed with his well-known analytical nature and he told his family as a young man that he could not in good conscience become a church member."

-- http://www.nndb.com/people/750/000099453/
Post by v***@gmail.com
David Gross  Gross received his bachelor's degree and master's degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in 1962.
" He also said that he is atheist and humanist,.."

-- http://www.hri.org/news/greek/apeen/2015/15-10-01.apeen.html
Post by v***@gmail.com
John Forbes Nash, Jr. -no reference to religion
". In this circle, Nash learned to make a virtue of necessity, styling himself
self-consciously as a "free thinker." He announced that he was an atheist."

-- Sylvia Nasar "Chapter 17: Bad Boys". A Beautiful Mind.


BR-8
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 15:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Harold Urey biography does not mention religion
http://tinyurl.com/ycl67tso
DEAD LINK
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion
"I have always considered myself a diehard atheist and materialist
who does not believe in any omens or inauspicious dates"
-- https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/Chertok_2.pdf
"Charpak" is not the same as "Chertok"
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-12 16:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.

He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."

I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.

Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
On mine, it leads to:

https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false

Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Harold Urey biography does not mention religion
http://tinyurl.com/ycl67tso
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
On mine, it leads to:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yNev8Y-xN8YC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=%22Dr.+Urey,+a+somewhat+outspoken+confirmed+atheist+and+evolutionist,+answered%22&source=bl&ots=aiZ76jSAD8&sig=bXpKQhVcY3TxY4BsDdZlsJeFPPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhtvO8m9DVAhWI5oMKHSYdCj0Q6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=%22Dr.%20Urey%2C%20a%20somewhat%20outspoken%20confirmed%20atheist%20and%20evolutionist%2C%20answered%22&f=false

Short quote: "Dr. Urey, a somewhat outspoken and confirmed atheist
and evolutionist..."
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion
"I have always considered myself a diehard atheist and materialist
who does not believe in any omens or inauspicious dates"
-- https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/Chertok_2.pdf
"Charpak" is not the same as "Chertok"
You are correct. And I'm not quickly finding anything specific
to Charpak and god. Although he has said that if you place
a man on an island, he'll invent his own religion; it's a reaction
to the unknown.

"Placez un homme quelque part sur une île et au bout d’un certain temps,
il créera sa propre religion. Elle est la réaction de l’homme face à l’inconnu."

But no; I cannot confirm that Georges Charpak was an atheist.

So that's one.



BR-8
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 16:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 16:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-12 16:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sydney-brenner
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 17:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sydney-brenner
That doesn't mean shit to me.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-12 21:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sydney-brenner
That doesn't mean shit to me.
Facts never do.
Tim
2017-08-12 17:09:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
Many people here believe you're a big bullshitter, Count Quadratic. They also question whether you're really a Jew.
Ted
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve He was educated by the Jesuits at
Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the
Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
--
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church
school before entering the local theological seminary.
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my
belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is
sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of
seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 32027.
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not
that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists
because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world,
God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other
products of mind...
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his
book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from
the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
--
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id½HwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved
hUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&fúlse
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew
School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy
begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is
lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for
God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask
anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
Many people here believe you're a big bullshitter, Count Quadratic. They
also question whether you're really a Jew.
Count Quadratic? LOL.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 17:34:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
Many people here believe you're a big bullshitter, Count Quadratic. They also question whether you're really a Jew.
What lying scum like you and Chrissie believe is of no consequence.
Ted
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve He was educated by the Jesuits at
Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the
Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably
find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
--
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church
school before entering the local theological seminary.
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my
belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is
sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of
seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 32027.
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not
that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists
because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the
world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind...
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his
book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s]
from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
--
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id½HwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved
hUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&fúlse
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew
School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy
begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is
lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking
for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does
not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
Many people here believe you're a big bullshitter, Count Quadratic. They
also question whether you're really a Jew.
What lying scum like you and Chrissie believe is of no consequence.
You're a pussy.
Tim
2017-08-12 19:36:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Post by v***@gmail.com
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
Post by v***@gmail.com
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Post by v***@gmail.com
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
Many people here believe you're a big bullshitter, Count Quadratic. They also question whether you're really a Jew.
What lying scum like you and Chrissie believe is of no consequence.
You're of no consequence, Count Quadratic.
%
2017-08-12 20:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
"In particular, his insistence, in spite of his atheism, that organized religions
have a unique role to play in humanity's future, would probably find few sympathizers
among many non-believers."
-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2013/05/08/a-nobel-laureate-and-proponent-of-original-sin/#7b0b67ac7559
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary.
"Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years."
-- "Pavlov's Religious Orientation", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
vol. 25, no. 3 (Sept. 1986), pp. 320–27.
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind...
"... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for
saying, not that we believe in God because He exists
but rather that He exists because we believe in Him.
[...] Considered as an element of the world, God has
the same degree and kind of objective reality as do
other products of mind. [...] I regret my disbelief in
God and religious answers generally, for I believe it
would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it if it possible to discover and propound good
scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God.
[...] To abdicate from the rule of reason and
substitute for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold
it can be perilous and destructive. [...] I am a
rationalist something of a period piece nowadays, I
admit [...]"
-- " Peter Medawar, 'The Question of the Existence of God' in his book The Limits of Science (Harper and Row 1984).
THANK YOU. YOUR QUOTE JUST CONFIRMED MEDAWAR AS A THEIST
Actually it says precisely the opposite. Read it again.
He quite clearly says that he "regrets" that he cannot believe
in God, as such a belief "give[s] satisfaction and comfort to many in need of
it". And that adds that to believe in God, however, "abdicate[s] from the rule of reason and substitute[s] for it an authentication of belief by the
intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold", adding that
such an abdication "can be perilous and destructive."
I don't see how he could stated his disbelief any more clearly.
Read it again.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
"Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that
atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that
agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient
evidence to support belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects
outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate
stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God
does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He
thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of
hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis"
-- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-bright-journey-to-atheism-or-a-road-that-ignores-all-the-signs-1.1040886
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
-- http://tinyurl.com/y845rgcn
DEAD LINK
Actually it isn't. Perhaps your browser does not handle tiny urls.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bDHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=sydney+brenner+atheist+Candid+Science+VI:+More+Conversations+with+Famous+Scientists&source=bl&ots=DuNWarx1yJ&sig=HJV6P93x4czv3Kb5EqQdDaPIc98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBjeKX4fbOAhUE9h4KHUBAA4YQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=sydney%20brenner%20atheist%20Candid%20Science%20VI%3A%20More%20Conversations%20with%20Famous%20Scientists&f=false
Short quote: "then they asked What's your religion. I said I'm an atheist".
What Brenner said makes no sense at all. He claims he went to Hebrew School but quit at age 5. That's nonsense. I'm Jewish. No Jewish boy begins Hebrew School before he reaches the age of 10. I suspect he is lying. In any event, his tale is not credible.
There is more, too. The prayer that Brenner claims he recited asking for God's help is bogus. It's not even a complete prayer and it does not ask anyone for help. There is no reason any Jew would recite what he said by itself.
I suspect Brenner is nothing but a big bullshitter. He might not even be Jewish.
Translated
Many people here believe you're a big bullshitter, Count Quadratic. They also question whether you're really a Jew.
What lying scum like you and Chrissie believe is of no consequence.
You're of no consequence, Count Quadratic.
yes he is
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-12 09:47:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
 
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
 
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
Harold Urey biography does not mention religion
Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion
Wilhelm Ostwald -no mention
Percy Williams Bridgman The family was deeply religious; reading the Bible each morning and attending a Congregational Church.[5]
David Gross  Gross received his bachelor's degree and master's degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in 1962.
John Forbes Nash, Jr. -no reference to religion
Proves nothing about whether they were atheists or not. Lots of people who didn't beleive have gone to religious schools. Stalinn went to seminary, fuck you're stupid.
Ted
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve He was educated by the Jesuits at
Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic
University of Leuven in 1934.
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school
before entering the local theological seminary.
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we
believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we
believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the
same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind...
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
Harold Urey biography does not mention religion
Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion
Wilhelm Ostwald -no mention
Percy Williams Bridgman The family was deeply religious; reading the
Bible each morning and attending a Congregational Church.[5]
David Gross Gross received his bachelor's degree and master's degree
from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in 1962.
John Forbes Nash, Jr. -no reference to religion
Proves nothing about whether they were atheists or not. Lots of people
who didn't beleive have gone to religious schools. Stalinn went to
seminary, fuck you're stupid.
He also likes to eat shit.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-13 02:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Paul D. Boyer
Ooooo, oooooo, I know him; he's 99 now. I was at the ceremony renaming the building we worked in from the Molecular Biology Institute to Boyer Hall after he won his Nobel Prize.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 14:55:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
 
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
 
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
Harold Urey biography does not mention religion
Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion
Wilhelm Ostwald -no mention
Percy Williams Bridgman The family was deeply religious; reading the Bible each morning and attending a Congregational Church.[5]
David Gross  Gross received his bachelor's degree and master's degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in 1962.
John Forbes Nash, Jr. -no reference to religion
Proves nothing about whether they were atheists or not. Lots of people who didn't beleive have gone to religious schools. Stalinn went to seminary, fuck you're stupid.
No, you are stupid and cannot read.The list by itself does not prove that they were atheists. I researched the individual biographies on wikipedia. In many cases, wiki describes them as "atheist". If that notation is missing, I looked for other indications of religious belief. I reported what I found.

The difference is I report facts, while you just sling bullshit.
That's why I don't believe a word you say. You have no intelligence or integrity.
Ted
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve He was educated by the Jesuits at
Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic
University of Leuven in 1934.
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school
before entering the local theological seminary.
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that
we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because
we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the
same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind...
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
Harold Urey biography does not mention religion
Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion
Wilhelm Ostwald -no mention
Percy Williams Bridgman The family was deeply religious; reading the
Bible each morning and attending a Congregational Church.[5]
David Gross Gross received his bachelor's degree and master's degree
from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in 1962.
John Forbes Nash, Jr. -no reference to religion
Proves nothing about whether they were atheists or not. Lots of people
who didn't beleive have gone to religious schools. Stalinn went to
seminary, fuck you're stupid.
No, you are stupid and cannot read.The list by itself does not prove that
they were atheists. I researched the individual biographies on wikipedia.
In many cases, wiki describes them as "atheist". If that notation is
missing, I looked for other indications of religious belief. I reported what I found.
The difference is I report facts, while you just sling bullshit.
That's why I don't believe a word you say. You have no intelligence or integrity.
He's one of the most honest people here.
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-12 15:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Are you atheists gonna claim you are smarter than they were??????
And here are a few Nobel Prize winning scientists who were atheists.
Think you're smarter than they were?????
Christian de Duve
Harold Kroto
James Chadwick
Ivan Pavlov
Richard Feynman
Francois Jacob
Zhores Alferov
Igor Tamm
Sir Peter Medawar
Niels Bohr
Richard J. Roberts
Pierre Curie
Sydney Brenner
Harold Urey
Herbert A. Hauptman
Ivar Giaever
Georges Charpak
Herbert A. Simon
Isidor Isaac Rabi
Patrick Blackett
Jerome Isaac Friedman
Peter D. Mitchell
Wilhelm Ostwald
Percy Williams Bridgman
David Gross
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Michael Smith
Francis Crick
Paul Dirac
Nikolaas Tinbergen
Roald Hoffmann
Oliver Smithies
George Beadle
Paul Nurse
Peter Higgs
Simon van der Meer
James D. Watson
Paul Lauterbur
Thomas Hunt Morgan
Hermann Joseph Muller
Irenne Joliot-Curie
Hans Bethe
Elie Metchnikoff
Philip W. Anderson
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Jacques Monod
Erwin Schroedinger
Linus Pauling
Steven Weinberg
Hannes Alfven
Jack Steinberger
Sir John Cornforth
John Sulston
Camillo Golgi
Rita Levi-Montalcini
Max Perutz
Jean-Marie Lehn
Louis de Broglie
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Paul D. Boyer
Leon M. Lederman
George Smoot
William Shockley
Lev Landau
Svante Arrhenius
James Franck
This list doesn't include a number of others atheists who are top
scientists (or mathematicians) but who have not won
Nobels, such as Stephen Hawking, Herman Bondi, Marvin
Minsky, J.B.S. Haldane, Henri Poincare, David Hilbert,
Camillo Golgi, David Deutsch, Dennis Sciama, George Gamow
Roger Penrose. John McCarthy, and Paul Ehrenfest
BR-8
Christian de Duve  He was educated by the Jesuits at Onze-Lieve-Vrouwinstituut in Antwerp, before studying at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1934.
 
Ivan Pavlov Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local theological seminary. 
 
... I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him... Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind... 
Richard J. Roberts -biography does not mention religion
 
Sydney Brenner -biography does not mention religion
Harold Urey biography does not mention religion
Georges Charpak biog has no mention of religion
Wilhelm Ostwald -no mention
Percy Williams Bridgman The family was deeply religious; reading the Bible each morning and attending a Congregational Church.[5]
David Gross  Gross received his bachelor's degree and master's degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, in 1962.
John Forbes Nash, Jr. -no reference to religion
Proves nothing about whether they were atheists or not. Lots of people who didn't beleive have gone to religious schools. Stalinn went to seminary, fuck you're stupid.
No, you are stupid and cannot read.The list by itself does not prove that they were atheists. I researched the individual biographies on wikipedia. In many cases, wiki describes them as "atheist". If that notation is missing, I looked for other indications of religious belief. I reported what I found.
Or didn't find. What you characterized as my "misstatements".

Did you read my reply, where I provided quotes and/or
citations for every scientist in your response?


BR-8
Post by v***@gmail.com
The difference is I report facts, while you just sling bullshit.
That's why I don't believe a word you say. You have no intelligence or integrity.
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 15:29:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Did you read my reply, where I provided quotes and/or
citations for every scientist in your response?
HAHAHAHAHA! What you provided me was a confirmation of one man as a theist, 2 dead links and one misspelling.

You fucking athies just can't play the game straight, can you?
Ya always have to try shabby little tricks.
Loading...