independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Thu 14th Nov 2019 5:51am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Science and Religion - Mayim Bialik
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 05/24/17 5:08pm

morningsong

Science and Religion - Mayim Bialik

Not trying to turn you all off to TBBT but she puts it how I feel even though we are of different branches.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 05/24/17 9:47pm

riocoolnes

avatar

morningsong said:

Not trying to turn you all off to TBBT but she puts it how I feel even though we are of different branches.



Good stuff although I don't like what she said about the parking spot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 05/25/17 6:56am

Dasein

Meh.

She begins the video by essentially telling us her god is a merely one of the gaps; but she doesn't
also include that her particular faith believes this god has elected Jews as "His" chosen people.
Later, she makes an appeal to natural theology by worshipping the god who has created the awe-
inducing forces that govern our observable world; but if she is going to be consistent with that,
she must also acknowledge the inherent violence of this awesome world (typhoons, earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions) which has served to kill millions of innocent people since the beginning of time.
This would make her god responsible for those deaths.

But I do agree with her: there is no reason to make enemies out of science and religion. One makes
an attempt to explain the how of the world; the other makes an attempt to explain the why of the
world. You can hold both at the same time and not be contradictory.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 05/25/17 7:10am

Pokeno4Money

avatar

Dasein said:

But I do agree with her: there is no reason to make enemies out of science and religion. One makes
an attempt to explain the how of the world; the other makes an attempt to explain the why of the
world.


And yet you derive pleasure from making enemies out of those who explain the how's and why's of the world.

How deliciously ironic.

"Jussie Smollett wanted to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Black Men, but instead he became the Rosie Ruiz."

https://nypost.com/2019/0...a-is-long/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 05/25/17 9:00am

Dasein

Pokeno4Money said:

Dasein said:

But I do agree with her: there is no reason to make enemies out of science and religion. One makes
an attempt to explain the how of the world; the other makes an attempt to explain the why of the
world.


And yet you derive pleasure from making enemies out of those who explain the how's and why's of the world.

How deliciously ironic.


Nowhere in my posts can one make the determination that I am deriving pleasure from essentially
making enemies out of "scientists" {here, those professionals who explain the how's of the world}
and "theologians" {here, those professionals who explain the why's of the world}. Instead, you're
most likely responding to how difficult it is for me to suffer fools gladly.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 05/25/17 12:37pm

morningsong

Dasein said:

Meh.

She begins the video by essentially telling us her god is a merely one of the gaps; but she doesn't
also include that her particular faith believes this god has elected Jews as "His" chosen people.
Later, she makes an appeal to natural theology by worshipping the god who has created the awe-
inducing forces that govern our observable world; but if she is going to be consistent with that,
she must also acknowledge the inherent violence of this awesome world (typhoons, earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions) which has served to kill millions of innocent people since the beginning of time.
This would make her god responsible for those deaths.

But I do agree with her: there is no reason to make enemies out of science and religion. One makes
an attempt to explain the how of the world; the other makes an attempt to explain the why of the
world. You can hold both at the same time and not be contradictory.



God of the gaps explanation is where someone says, things work this way up to a certain point to where they can no longer explain the mechanisms that make it work, and that's when they apply God. God gets inserted for all the stuff they can't explain. The way she sees it and a whole lot of others is God is behind all the mechanisms, regardless whether there is an explanation on how they work or not, we are still in awe. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

To me there seems to be a movement to push people who are religious out of the science community and that concerns me greatly. Things like "all religious people have low intelligence" making it into the main populations way of thinking, as an explanation against religion is disconcerting. Especially when you see there are still a large community of religious, faithful people who do practice the scientific method and who do use logic and reason in the way they look at the world.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 05/25/17 1:02pm

Dasein

morningsong said:

Dasein said:

Meh.

She begins the video by essentially telling us her god is a merely one of the gaps; but she doesn't
also include that her particular faith believes this god has elected Jews as "His" chosen people.
Later, she makes an appeal to natural theology by worshipping the god who has created the awe-
inducing forces that govern our observable world; but if she is going to be consistent with that,
she must also acknowledge the inherent violence of this awesome world (typhoons, earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions) which has served to kill millions of innocent people since the beginning of time.
This would make her god responsible for those deaths.

But I do agree with her: there is no reason to make enemies out of science and religion. One makes
an attempt to explain the how of the world; the other makes an attempt to explain the why of the
world. You can hold both at the same time and not be contradictory.



God of the gaps explanation is where someone says, things work this way up to a certain point to where they can no longer explain the mechanisms that make it work, and that's when they apply God. God gets inserted for all the stuff they can't explain. The way she sees it and a whole lot of others is God is behind all the mechanisms, regardless whether there is an explanation on how they work or not, we are still in awe. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

To me there seems to be a movement to push people who are religious out of the science community and that concerns me greatly. Things like "all religious people have low intelligence" making it into the main populations way of thinking, as an explanation against religion is disconcerting. Especially when you see there are still a large community of religious, faithful people who do practice the scientific method and who do use logic and reason in the way they look at the world.


Isn't Bialik doing that when she says "God is gravity" or something along those lines? At this point
in our understanding of gravity, even though we know it is a property of spacetime, there isn't a fully
formed quantum model of gravity available, meaning Einstein's theory (and some still cling to
Newton's theory) is the best description of it for now. Given that we still don't know how to definitive-
ly explain gravity, or what it is, it doesn't make sense to say "it's God" given we don't know beans
about "God" either. I dunno . . . we don't have definitive and exhaustive knowledge about "gravity"
so saying it is God seemed spurious to me.

Besides, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, so why choose the weakest one to be
God? Choose the strongest one, which is strong interaction! And somehow, I don't think Bialik is
encouraging us to worship the good, the bad, and the ugly when we mention how awesome nature
is and equate it to being "God." I think it would be difficult to say "God is love . . . but also created
earthquakes and typhoons and influenza and white people. So yeah, worship it."

j/k

I am against pushing religious people out of science. That's fucking stupid. But I'm for pushing
stupid religious people out of science. That's fucking smart. I mean, you can wiki "scientist + Chris-
tians" and behold a mighty impressive list of who's who in various scientific fields.






[Edited 5/25/17 13:15pm]

[Edited 5/25/17 13:15pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 05/25/17 2:40pm

morningsong

Dasein said:

morningsong said:



God of the gaps explanation is where someone says, things work this way up to a certain point to where they can no longer explain the mechanisms that make it work, and that's when they apply God. God gets inserted for all the stuff they can't explain. The way she sees it and a whole lot of others is God is behind all the mechanisms, regardless whether there is an explanation on how they work or not, we are still in awe. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

To me there seems to be a movement to push people who are religious out of the science community and that concerns me greatly. Things like "all religious people have low intelligence" making it into the main populations way of thinking, as an explanation against religion is disconcerting. Especially when you see there are still a large community of religious, faithful people who do practice the scientific method and who do use logic and reason in the way they look at the world.


Isn't Bialik doing that when she says "God is gravity" or something along those lines? At this point
in our understanding of gravity, even though we know it is a property of spacetime, there isn't a fully
formed quantum model of gravity available, meaning Einstein's theory (and some still cling to
Newton's theory) is the best description of it for now. Given that we still don't know how to definitive-
ly explain gravity, or what it is, it doesn't make sense to say "it's God" given we don't know beans
about "God" either. I dunno . . . we don't have definitive and exhaustive knowledge about "gravity"
so saying it is God seemed spurious to me.

Besides, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, so why choose the weakest one to be
God? Choose the strongest one, which is strong interaction! And somehow, I don't think Bialik is
encouraging us to worship the good, the bad, and the ugly when we mention how awesome nature
is and equate it to being "God." I think it would be difficult to say "God is love . . . but also created
earthquakes and typhoons and influenza and white people. So yeah, worship it."

j/k

I am against pushing religious people out of science. That's fucking stupid. But I'm for pushing
stupid religious people out of science. That's fucking smart. I mean, you can wiki "scientist + Chris-
tians" and behold a mighty impressive list of who's who in various scientific fields.






[Edited 5/25/17 13:15pm]

[Edited 5/25/17 13:15pm]




What? There is a Law of Gravity with in the Theory of Relativity that Einstein expanded upon from the Gaps of Newton's Theory of Gravity. So no there is no gap with the exception of Dark Matter/Energy, which in truth in itself is a place marker for something that isn't currently understood. But she didn't say Dark Matter/Energy she specifically said Gravity encompassing everything that we understand and don't understand.


And yet the prevailing attitude of the average person on the internet seems to be that religion is the mark of stupidity, which is pretty much the basis of every "ism" that has ever been in the history of human kind. If you are this, then you must be that (99 times out of 100 it's you lack intelligence). And there is always data that backs up that kind of thinking. Can somebody explain to me how that attitude is the hallmark of an evolving intellect? It looks to me the same exact stupidity just bouncing from one subject to another. What does that say about people who parrot that kind of thinking?


[Edited 5/25/17 14:42pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 05/25/17 4:16pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

She's obviously a smart woman. Smarter than me that's for sure. But I think anyone raised in a religious atmosphere, that it becomes normal and your find a way to rationalize.
I remember recently attending a Catholic mass with a friend after not attending mass for over 10 years... it seemed far more bizarre than I remember. You get used to anything. You learn to accept anything. A foul smell in your house can become undetectable to you after a while but to someone coming in from the outside it will stand out.

All I'm saying is we can easily come to accept anything.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 05/25/17 7:46pm

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

She's obviously a smart woman. Smarter than me that's for sure. But I think anyone raised in a religious atmosphere, that it becomes normal and your find a way to rationalize.
I remember recently attending a Catholic mass with a friend after not attending mass for over 10 years... it seemed far more bizarre than I remember. You get used to anything. You learn to accept anything. A foul smell in your house can become undetectable to you after a while but to someone coming in from the outside it will stand out.

All I'm saying is we can easily come to accept anything.



Speaking from personal experience, sure as a child I was raised in the church, as an adult I spent decades outside of the church as an agnostic, to the point that my children were not raised in the church. I am what people call a born-again Christian at this point in my life. Now I didn't raise my children in church but my oldest ended up seeking out the church. So I would say your rationalization has some holes.



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 05/25/17 8:10pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

I think the video was great, and she did a very good job getting her point across. Didn't even know she was a scientist in real life?

"Jussie Smollett wanted to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Black Men, but instead he became the Rosie Ruiz."

https://nypost.com/2019/0...a-is-long/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 05/25/17 8:13pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

morningsong said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


She's obviously a smart woman. Smarter than me that's for sure. But I think anyone raised in a religious atmosphere, that it becomes normal and your find a way to rationalize.
I remember recently attending a Catholic mass with a friend after not attending mass for over 10 years... it seemed far more bizarre than I remember. You get used to anything. You learn to accept anything. A foul smell in your house can become undetectable to you after a while but to someone coming in from the outside it will stand out.

All I'm saying is we can easily come to accept anything.





Speaking from personal experience, sure as a child I was raised in the church, as an adult I spent decades outside of the church as an agnostic, to the point that my children were not raised in the church. I am what people call a born-again Christian at this point in my life. Now I didn't raise my children in church but my oldest ended up seeking out the church. So I would say your rationalization has some holes.





I'm not saying this to sound mean or anything, just honestly curious, from my personal experience, people who become born again christians more than any other religion do so out of a traumatic personal problem seeking a crutch. Did you have a trigger?

But no holes. You were already programmed to find it ok. It's called "tradition"

Tradition is a form of osmosis that makes a society accept things simply from exposure and the societal acceptance that comes from it. Like when Fox News or someone says something batshit enough times it stops sounding batshit to some, and even other "news sources" will regurgitate it first with a caveat, then slowly as a part of a "belief"

Did you know we accepted bacon as a breakfast food way back when, after a bacon company advertiseing company started saying doctors said it was a good choice. Now we accept it as normal, but there was a time it wasn't. It's delicious though so I don't mind being brainwashed sometimes, but we all are.

But I got to tell you, I'm glad you think the way you do. I'm glad that people go to church. I'm glad people are manipulated. It's good for me and society. God knows we need people manipulated to do good. The end justifies the means.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 05/25/17 9:37pm

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

morningsong said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


She's obviously a smart woman. Smarter than me that's for sure. But I think anyone raised in a religious atmosphere, that it becomes normal and your find a way to rationalize.
I remember recently attending a Catholic mass with a friend after not attending mass for over 10 years... it seemed far more bizarre than I remember. You get used to anything. You learn to accept anything. A foul smell in your house can become undetectable to you after a while but to someone coming in from the outside it will stand out.

All I'm saying is we can easily come to accept anything.





Speaking from personal experience, sure as a child I was raised in the church, as an adult I spent decades outside of the church as an agnostic, to the point that my children were not raised in the church. I am what people call a born-again Christian at this point in my life. Now I didn't raise my children in church but my oldest ended up seeking out the church. So I would say your rationalization has some holes.





I'm not saying this to sound mean or anything, just honestly curious, from my personal experience, people who become born again christians more than any other religion do so out of a traumatic personal problem seeking a crutch. Did you have a trigger?

But no holes. You were already programmed to find it ok. It's called "tradition"

Tradition is a form of osmosis that makes a society accept things simply from exposure and the societal acceptance that comes from it. Like when Fox News or someone says something batshit enough times it stops sounding batshit to some, and even other "news sources" will regurgitate it first with a caveat, then slowly as a part of a "belief"

Did you know we accepted bacon as a breakfast food way back when, after a bacon company advertiseing company started saying doctors said it was a good choice. Now we accept it as normal, but there was a time it wasn't. It's delicious though so I don't mind being brainwashed sometimes, but we all are.

But I got to tell you, I'm glad you think the way you do. I'm glad that people go to church. I'm glad people are manipulated. It's good for me and society. God knows we need people manipulated to do good. The end justifies the means.


I like how you're telling me who I am so that it fits within you view. Sound familiar. To answer you question no I didn't go back because of something tragic. Nobody died, nobody got sick. I didn't lose my things, like home or job. I didn't break up with anyone. It just nagged the heck out of me and I began looking at other sources. Im still trying to remember how i came across CJ Lewis and i cant remember it was so random. Now I did not go back to my traditional denomination though I love it deeply like a child loves a parent. I have some very strong fundemental opinions, like many people do with their parents. In other words people make a break with their upbringing on the regular so why is it hard to conceive that adults make a personal decision.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 05/25/17 10:18pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

^
I don't find human nature or human compulsion difficult to conceive at all, I was saying the opposite, that in aggregate it's pretty predictable.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 05/26/17 10:17am

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

^ I don't find human nature or human compulsion difficult to conceive at all, I was saying the opposite, that in aggregate it's pretty predictable.




Like our basic morality. Something that got passed on from generation to generation.



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 05/26/17 10:46am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

morningsong said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


^ I don't find human nature or human compulsion difficult to conceive at all, I was saying the opposite, that in aggregate it's pretty predictable.




Like our basic morality. Something that got passed on from generation to generation.





Yep.
But we also need perspective. Or else, as we've seen throughout the ages, religion gets prevented and fetishized. We see that now in the Middle East with isis. We say it in the 80's with televangelists.

Again I, and society benefits when it's channeled in a good way. Again, god knows there's a lot of people that need the nudge of religion to move them in the right direction. For that I am thankful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 05/26/17 11:40am

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

morningsong said:




Like our basic morality. Something that got passed on from generation to generation.



Yep. But we also need perspective. Or else, as we've seen throughout the ages, religion gets prevented and fetishized. We see that now in the Middle East with isis. We say it in the 80's with televangelists. Again I, and society benefits when it's channeled in a good way. Again, god knows there's a lot of people that need the nudge of religion to move them in the right direction. For that I am thankful.



But it isn't only religion then. Our whole society is based on passing down ideas from one generation to the next, and how those ideas get morphed like a case of the game telephone.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 05/26/17 12:03pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

morningsong said:


But it isn't only religion then. Our whole society is based on passing down ideas from one generation to the next, and how those ideas get morphed like a case of the game telephone.




Yes I completely agree. That's precisely why radical liberals try to bully those with opposing ideas, and try to shove their beliefs onto everyone at every level and all over the internet. Thankfully many, like myself, won't allow being bullied. But you're totally correct in stating how ideas get morphed, even the very definition of words get changed by those who want to rewrite dictionaries to suit their agendas.

"Jussie Smollett wanted to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Black Men, but instead he became the Rosie Ruiz."

https://nypost.com/2019/0...a-is-long/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 05/26/17 12:12pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

morningsong said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

morningsong said: Yep. But we also need perspective. Or else, as we've seen throughout the ages, religion gets prevented and fetishized. We see that now in the Middle East with isis. We say it in the 80's with televangelists. Again I, and society benefits when it's channeled in a good way. Again, god knows there's a lot of people that need the nudge of religion to move them in the right direction. For that I am thankful.



But it isn't only religion then. Our whole society is based on passing down ideas from one generation to the next, and how those ideas get morphed like a case of the game telephone.




Not only religion. But religion is a concentrate. Just like news media and social media, but it carries a certain weight of because it portends to speak for a God and all that it signifies. But you're absolutely correct that it's not just religion. Just that religion is a trans-generational mythos that cannot be quantified with a reach beyond common sense. That's the part that is kinda scary and concerning to me. And exemplified perfectly by Mayim. That we can so easily rationalize it, even by truly smart people. She herself adds to the fact that's about "tradition".

I only watched her video after my posts, and it was interesting to me how I touched all the bases of what she said without even hearing any of it before hand.

Yeah, again, in aggregate, human compulsion and motivation are pretty predictable.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 05/26/17 12:29pm

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

morningsong said:



But it isn't only religion then. Our whole society is based on passing down ideas from one generation to the next, and how those ideas get morphed like a case of the game telephone.




Not only religion. But religion is a concentrate. Just like news media and social media, but it carries a certain weight of because it portends to speak for a God and all that it signifies. But you're absolutely correct that it's not just religion. Just that religion is a trans-generational mythos that cannot be quantified with a reach beyond common sense. That's the part that is kinda scary and concerning to me. And exemplified perfectly by Mayim. That we can so easily rationalize it, even by truly smart people. She herself adds to the fact that's about "tradition".

I only watched her video after my posts, and it was interesting to me how I touched all the bases of what she said without even hearing any of it before hand.

Yeah, again, in aggregate, human compulsion and motivation are pretty predictable.



But that's still true for anything, until someone stands against it.

To be blunt...

Darwin concluded that adult females of most species resembled the young of both sexes and from this and the other evidence, "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (Kevles, 1986:8). Many anthropologists contemporary to Darwin concluded that "women's brains were analogous to those of animals," which had "overdeveloped" sense organs "to the detriment of the brain" (Fee, 1979:418). Carl Vogt, a University of Geneva natural history professor who accepted many of "the conclusions of England's great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin," argued that "the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellect and nature of the "grown up Negro" (1863:192). Many of Darwin's followers accepted this reasoning, including George Romanes, who concluded that evolution caused females to become, as Kevles postulated:

. . . increasingly less cerebral and more emotional. Romanes . . . shared Darwin's view that females were less highly evolved than males—ideas which he articulated in several books and many articles that influenced a generation of biologists. Romanes apparently saw himself as the guardian of evolution, vested with a responsibility to keep it on the right path. . . . University of Pennsylvania . . . paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope wrote that male animals play a "more active pan in the struggle for existence," and that all females, as mothers, have had to sacrifice growth for emotional strength . . . (Kevles, 1986:8,9).


Is he factual? Or was it an opinion based on not enough data?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 05/26/17 2:20pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

^
I think it's almost impossible to live as a nihilist. We all hope, and believe there is a purpose. That's why I consider myself agnostic. There has to be purpose i believe or else life is meaningless.
I follow religion threads and articles to see if there is something I'm missing, to see if someone has a fresh point of view.

I've been lucky that I've been able to go my own path and live comfortably without adhering to norms of society. And every time when I wake up and see folks running to their jobs at the coffee shop or grocery store and cops securing my safety, i feel relief that it's all there for my enjoyment and feel a little guilty that I can enjoy it without comformity. I'm happy that folks comform. It's nice. And I'm certainly happy that folks don't feel the same way as I do or my bubble will collapse. All our bubbles will collapse. We live in a golden age and people don't even know it. Humanity has never had it so good.

But I digress.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 05/26/17 2:43pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

Albert Einstein was agnostic.

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

"Jussie Smollett wanted to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Black Men, but instead he became the Rosie Ruiz."

https://nypost.com/2019/0...a-is-long/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 05/26/17 3:16pm

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

^ I think it's almost impossible to live as a nihilist. We all hope, and believe there is a purpose. That's why I consider myself agnostic. There has to be purpose i believe or else life is meaningless. I follow religion threads and articles to see if there is something I'm missing, to see if someone has a fresh point of view. I've been lucky that I've been able to go my own path and live comfortably without adhering to norms of society. And every time when I wake up and see folks running to their jobs at the coffee shop or grocery store and cops securing my safety, i feel relief that it's all there for my enjoyment and feel a little guilty that I can enjoy it without comformity. I'm happy that folks comform. It's nice. And I'm certainly happy that folks don't feel the same way as I do or my bubble will collapse. All our bubbles will collapse. We live in a golden age and people don't even know it. Humanity has never had it so good. But I digress.




Well good for you, hopeful you give others that same freedom.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 05/26/17 4:17pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

morningsong said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


^ I think it's almost impossible to live as a nihilist. We all hope, and believe there is a purpose. That's why I consider myself agnostic. There has to be purpose i believe or else life is meaningless. I follow religion threads and articles to see if there is something I'm missing, to see if someone has a fresh point of view. I've been lucky that I've been able to go my own path and live comfortably without adhering to norms of society. And every time when I wake up and see folks running to their jobs at the coffee shop or grocery store and cops securing my safety, i feel relief that it's all there for my enjoyment and feel a little guilty that I can enjoy it without comformity. I'm happy that folks comform. It's nice. And I'm certainly happy that folks don't feel the same way as I do or my bubble will collapse. All our bubbles will collapse. We live in a golden age and people don't even know it. Humanity has never had it so good. But I digress.




Well good for you, hopeful you give others that same freedom.




Lol what does that even mean?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 05/26/17 4:26pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

Albert Einstein was agnostic.

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."


Okay, I'll translate as requested.

He's saying he's not an atheist.

He's saying people become atheists mostly because they are rebelling against the religious traditions that they were forced to say, think and do as a child.

He's saying he's humble enough to realize we really don't understand how nature and our existence occurred, therefore he's not going to profess the absence of a God.


"Jussie Smollett wanted to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Black Men, but instead he became the Rosie Ruiz."

https://nypost.com/2019/0...a-is-long/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 05/26/17 5:58pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

Pokeno4Money said:

Albert Einstein was agnostic.

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."


Okay, I'll translate as requested.

He's saying he's not an atheist.

He's saying people become atheists mostly because they are rebelling against the religious traditions that they were forced to say, think and do as a child.

He's saying he's humble enough to realize we really don't understand how nature and our existence occurred, therefore he's not going to profess the absence of a God.


I never knew how Einstein thought about religion. Thanks for posting. I thought I had read somewhere else that he believed in God, but not that he was agnostic. I know a lot of science luminaries believe in God, which is cool. We all believe what we believe.

I hope my own thoughts are not taken that I would think to deny anyone the "freedom" to believe whatever people believe is in any way ok. As it seemed Morningsong was implying.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 05/26/17 6:35pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

I never knew how Einstein thought about religion. Thanks for posting. I thought I had read somewhere else that he believed in God, but not that he was agnostic. I know a lot of science luminaries believe in God, which is cool. We all believe what we believe.

I hope my own thoughts are not taken that I would think to deny anyone the "freedom" to believe whatever people believe is in any way ok. As it seemed Morningsong was implying.


You're welcome. And no, I didn't take your own thoughts that way. No worries, it's all good.

"Jussie Smollett wanted to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Black Men, but instead he became the Rosie Ruiz."

https://nypost.com/2019/0...a-is-long/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 05/29/17 5:56pm

Dasein

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 05/29/17 7:22pm

morningsong

Dasein said:





I adore him. And listen to him constantly. I'm very well versed on his thoughts on religion. I fully respect him and his approach, which seems to completely go over many heads.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 05/29/17 10:12pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

morningsong said:

Dasein said:





I adore him. And listen to him constantly. I'm very well versed on his thoughts on religion. I fully respect him and his approach, which seems to completely go over many heads.


What's there to go over people's heads?

And he is the best science ambassador we've probably ever had.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Science and Religion - Mayim Bialik