John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion
of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are.

In 1927

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on
creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact
that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in
doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble
admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in
the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can
comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for
us, not for God. " In 1945
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have
always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. 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
being." In 1954
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of
the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Keith



Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials,
acceptances, etc., again!


I made no personal statement of belief at all.

I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church,
mormon, catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles,
doctorine, the great flood, angels, jews, etc.


On that we can agree, I have not posted on such issues.

In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure =
logic = etc.


That would be your belief system I take it.

For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it
central to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into
any discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ...


I made no such attack, YOU raised the issue of the beliefs of
Albert Einstein, I merely reported them.

You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish
persuasions, and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs!


I did no such thing and frankly have no interest in discussing
biblical issues.

Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of
them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you
develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ...


You are projecting I fear.

To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane
background noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you
in this, have at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are
doing. I simply have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not
maintain such central focus to it ...

Me thinks you do protest too much.

Keith

On Jun 7, 5:44*am, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are.

In 1927

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of
his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic
causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior
spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and
transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the
highest importance-but for us, not for God. "

In 1945
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been
an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a
personal God is a childlike one. 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 being."

In 1954
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "

Shortly before he died
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive
legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Watch the denial tide sweep in as the kooks attempt to change the
above facts..

On 6/6/2011 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote:



Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't)
all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator?

To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually
honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question
of what started everything.

To say 'god did it', is just giving up.


Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and
reason is dishonest.

You can say THAT and then post THIS with a straight face?



Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals
which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would
take to create such


Of course you have a cite for this....Right?



and that such is the only reason conceivable for
its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures
to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on
where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed.


Of course he never said that...You did.
So who created YOUR creator?



He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what
proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow
for intelligent design.


You know, I'd ask for a cite (I know you don't have one) but
really who gives a **** what some dead physicist's religious
views were?

I'm more interested in why YOU believe in god, why YOU believe
in intelligent design, and why YOU believe in ether.

Well?


The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism"
encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and
constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious
belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance,
luck and spontaneous generation


I'd say, accident, chance, luck and time...Lots and lots of time.


.... obviously, Einstein refused to make
the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.)

To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality
and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because
"you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious
belief in and of itself!


I look around with eyes open and I see absolutely zero evidence for
and gods. If you have evidence for these mythical creatures, bring
it forth. If not, you're merely reciting fairy tales.





--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 6/6/2011 3:40 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote:



Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't)
all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator?

To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually
honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question
of what started everything.

To say 'god did it', is just giving up.


Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and
reason is dishonest.

You can say THAT and then post THIS with a straight face?



Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals
which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would
take to create such


Of course you have a cite for this....Right?



and that such is the only reason conceivable for
its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures
to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on
where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed.


Of course he never said that...You did.
So who created YOUR creator?



He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what
proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow
for intelligent design.


You know, I'd ask for a cite (I know you don't have one) but
really who gives a **** what some dead physicist's religious
views were?

I'm more interested in why YOU believe in god, why YOU believe
in intelligent design, and why YOU believe in ether.

Well?


The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism"
encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and
constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious
belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance,
luck and spontaneous generation


I'd say, accident, chance, luck and time...Lots and lots of time.


... obviously, Einstein refused to make
the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.)

To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality
and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because
"you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious
belief in and of itself!


I look around with eyes open and I see absolutely zero evidence for
and gods. If you have evidence for these mythical creatures, bring
it forth. If not, you're merely reciting fairy tales.

Yes, we are already quite familiar with your rants, opinions, personal
attacks, off the wall comments, fantasies, visions, etc.

I am sure you will have something of importance to post in the future ...


--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 6/6/2011 1:52 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion
of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are.

In 1927

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on
creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact
that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in
doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble
admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in
the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can
comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for
us, not for God. " In 1945
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have
always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. 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
being." In 1954
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of
the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Keith



Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials,
acceptances, etc., again!


I made no personal statement of belief at all.

I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church,
mormon, catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles,
doctorine, the great flood, angels, jews, etc.


On that we can agree, I have not posted on such issues.

In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure =
logic = etc.


That would be your belief system I take it.

For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it
central to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into
any discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ...


I made no such attack, YOU raised the issue of the beliefs of
Albert Einstein, I merely reported them.

You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish
persuasions, and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs!


I did no such thing and frankly have no interest in discussing
biblical issues.

Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of
them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you
develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ...


You are projecting I fear.

To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane
background noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you
in this, have at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are
doing. I simply have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not
maintain such central focus to it ...

Me thinks you do protest too much.

Keith



Personal opinion, beliefs, fantasies, off the wall comments, personal
attacks, defensive posturing, etc.

Did you want to post any accepted explorations of current science?

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 6/6/2011 2:06 PM, wrote:
That big wildfire in Arizona needs to move to Mexico and BURN ALL of
those Damn WETBACKS UP! Too dry over here too, doggy turned the water
sprinkler on.
cuhulin


Could anyone visiting bring back a burning twig and toss it at the
capitol when they are in session?

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 6/6/2011 2:27 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote:

....
--
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human
weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends
which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle
can (for me) change this."
Albert Einstein

Yes, hard to picture the creator-God bothering himself with
communications, at least with most ...

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

Message From California.Americans Need Not Apply.
http://www.standeyo.com
cuhulin

On 6/6/2011 5:27 PM, wrote:
Message From California.Americans Need Not Apply.
http://www.standeyo.com
cuhulin


INTERESTING TWO PAGES:
http://townhall.com/columnists/austi...apply%E2%80%9D

http://townhall.com/columnists/austi...2%80%9D/page/2

Excellent article, and points out:

1) Jerry Brown need to, immediately, be removed from the governors
office and put before a firing squad.

2) The college tuition you pay is funding free college for illegal
aliens -- and causing an increase in your costs.

3) The courts think it entirely fitting that they be allowed to break
and ignore the law, at Americans expense.

4) Illegal aliens are generally considered to be above the law.

5) Identity theft is legal for illegal aliens.

6) Illegal aliens are allowed to pass though security checkpoints at
airports.

7) Etc., etc.

The answer is either the removal from office, and imprisonment, or death
of the criminal and treasonous public servants involved ... I favor
neither above the other, and find either acceptable.

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On Jun 6, 4:38*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 2:27 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote:

...

--
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human
weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends
which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle
can (for me) change this."
* *Albert Einstein

Yes, hard to picture the creator-God bothering himself with
communications, at least with most ...

--

Regards,
JS
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government. -- Patrick Henry

Communicating by way of those category 5+ storms, 9+ earthquakes and
mega volcanoes seems to get my attention. GW and AGW just seems to be
the icing on the cake.

btw; Our Eden has been shrinking as it cools, as well as losing mass.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”