So that's it for the election.

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, no.... Einstein was definitely spiritual, but not in anyway a deist. Here are some of his quotes about religion and spirituality.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"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."

I find that those without spirituality tend to lose sight of the larger goal though which is why I have a hard time siding with with either side in this flame war.

Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator,

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Ferok [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nope, it's Mormons and abortions and gay marriage and guns and who has the silliest out of context quotes. Get your priorities straight.

you forgot big bird.

[Lucky]

This was more about the Alarti dumbfuck saying anyone who has ever believed in a God is some irrational nutcase whose ideas we should completely object so I threw out Ben Franklin and Einstein but obviously you can go down the list of millions of these kind of examples. Positive atheism is as blind as a faith.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a creator,

Yes, but read the fine print. They still believe in a creator i.e. a higher power. Einstein did not. Reread the quotes I posted.

[Lucky]

He said he didn't believe in a personal God. That is buddy Jesus, not a grand architect.

[kenzar]

Appeal to authority all up in hurr.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He said he didn't believe in a personal God. That is buddy Jesus, not a grand architect.

I will concede there are many of Einstein's quotes that deal with the idea of "a grand architect." e.g. "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." But he would go back and forth in the terms of there being a higher power and would refer to such things in a very ambiguous manner. He mostly related to agnosticism and being such, he was a clear opponent to positive atheism which I believe is the main point of bring Franklin and Einstein into this little quarrel.

I digress, Einstein was most certainly an agnostic.

"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 own being." -Dat big E.

[Saskrotch]

Figures most of you are Obama supporters. Not that supporting Mitt is any better.

Oh Gary Johnson, why can't they let you debate?

[stonez138]

A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
-Albert Einstein

Sounds like he was a buddhist.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Alarti

faith in a god as a creator is indicating a rationality deficit

I submit that that statement is false with the following explanation. Please follow that I am addressing the notion that belief in god is irrational. I am NOT exploring any particular religion or stance. Here, I am ONLY addressing the rationality of belief in God.

Most arguments that faith is irrational tend to be staged solely in a platonic field. Meaning that it is strictly a philosophical exercise using only formal logic. The arguments generally play out so that the answer becomes "God is unproven." However, it is misleading to state that belief in God is irrational because he is unproven without the corollary statement that "God has also not been disproven."

Ultimately, these types of strict inquiries tend to resolve little because someone will invoke the Cosmological Argument at which point the conversation implodes for want of more information in a logic setting that demands perfect information.

TLDR: Strictly logical proofs for or against the existence of a creator are generally found wanting in both directions.

That said, if we step out of the realm of Platonism and into the real word, belief in God can be extremely rational.

Something can be called irrational if there is no reasoning or purpose behind it. If you do something for a reason, we can begin to ascribe rationality to it. In effect, it can be rational for some to believe in God and rational (NOT "correct" simply rational) for others to not believe in God. This is because different people have different viewpoints and different understandings of the situation. Take the following example: Two men both have a disease that can possibly be cured by taking a pill. The first man refuses on grounds that the pill is untested and might harm him. The second accepts because the research indicates that it will cure him with a reasonable probability of safety and success. What you see here are two individuals making contrary decisions because their view or understanding of the situation is different.

I understand that this is not a perfect analogy by any means, but the point is simply to show that both are acting rationally while making contrary decisions.

When it comes to a belief in God, many view the choice as binary. You either do, or you do not. There is no "maybe." What then, is a person in this situation to do? Take two individuals. One, after examining a religion, feels that there is a greater probability than not that God is real. Perhaps it was an examination of history and a prophetic record or something else. Because he views it as a binary decision and feels God is more likely than not real, it is rational for him to believe. Conversely, a person might not feel that the religion has met a reasonable burden of proof and decide that there is a greater chance than not that God is not real. It is, in this case, rational for that person to not believe.

You can call a belief in God foolish, you can call it many things, but you cannot make a sweeping attribution of irrationality to the belief of God in all circumstances.