Better things to do? rest assured I've had a look on your comment history at the time before I advanced such a thing, I'm not stupid, I verified because you might have been absent, or busy, but it wasn't the case either way, your comment history for the last 2 days speaks for it self this is a FACT. Factual argumentation I don't need to derail or advance something which is not a fact and believe in it like you are doing here (you believe you've proved something without providing proves.
Yes you are stupid and yes I have got better things to do than urgently find the time to make my case to you, but I'll do it at my own leisure and choosing. Where do you think arguing with a close-minded religious moron (troll?) who is blatantly allergic to facts or reason is is on my 'To do list'? It's not a priority, but again, what does the duration I take to bother to reply to your crap have to do with the argument at hand? Absolutely nothing. “Without providing proves.” Lol. I have continually 'provided proves' whereas you have yet to provide anything other than your unsourced opinion. Unlike you I actually bother taking the time to get some sources whereas you just keep making one false claim after the other and derail the argument with pettiness and irrelevance to avoid answering the original questions or providing any kind of source for them (almost certainly because you have no argument whatsoever other than just incorrectly saying things are facts when they’re not). So, please take your time and provide me with the evidence I have
continually asked for here. Take as long as you want to respond.
1- Again which opinion you are talking about? I don't recall my self giving my opinion on something, I reported scientific, and quotes from the person them selves I didn't advance anything from there, unlike you
All of what you've said is your unbacked opinions. They haven't been 'scientific' at all, but have just been your opinions based on assumptions, fallacies and usually nothing at all. Here's some things you've yet to answer and you haven’t backed up with any sources but just made up to suit your argument:
No You are the one that might want to check his fact because you not only you are being fooled by some who tries to assimilate those scientist as atheist and spreads such FUD but their stance about religion was clear
Prove to me where their stance on religion is clear? It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about and that they're either agnostic or non-believers in god or religion and you haven't provided anything to the contrary. I provided you with some quotes (and more to follow) on how they're not religious at all but you still deny them for some reason.
Albert Einstein is Jew, and his work on light, general relativity had always a religious inspiration one of the most know example in science is the Cosmological constant
Can you provide me sources on where he stated his work has 'always had a 'religious inspiration' and what has his Cosmological Constant got to do with anything here?
This is a totally wrong, you are just taking a jab on religion with no proof here, fact are, half of the most prominent scientist and noble price winners are religious heck even the biggest figure of science of all times believes in God! such as Copernicus, Galilei, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Boyl, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Plank, Einstein, Sagan, Hawkins.... ect ect
Who is this biggest figure of all time? Also, where is your proof that half of the worlds prominent scientists are religious? You've seemingly just made that figure up. You provided a list of some, but that doesn't mean 50% are. Give me the evidence and source of the 50%. And if 50% are religious then 50% are also not. Whatever your point is here it's irrelevant anyway.
Also it's funny how now you've changed your reply from your list is fud (and I can quote you denying it) to there are people in that list that aren't religious? wasn't the whole argument here, that religion makes people stupid? and only stupid people follow religion? so the existence of such list that you cannot denies and one which you focus on one or two person to try discredited is a proof on it self that not only you are wrong, but your whole argumentation is unwholesome.
I haven't changed my reply. My original argument was always there's people in the list that aren't religious:
Einstein, Sagan, Hawkins.... ect ect
You might want to check your facts here because neither of those three believe in god. At a push you could call most of them agnostic, but they'd probably say otherwise.
So no, the whole argument here wasn't 'religion makes people stupid'. Where did I say that? My argument is that you've incorrectly put three non-religious people onto a list of religious people. Einstein, Hawking & Sagan are not religious and never believed in god. It's fud when you include them and continue to keep them on a list of religious people or believers when they're not. You haven't provided me with any facts that proves they are religious or why they should be on the list. Nothing at all. You've actually since admitted that Hawking isn't religious and Sagan is agnostic, but yet you're still arguing about them being included on a list of prominent people who believe in god. Agnostics are not believers in god. No sources, just your own opinion and incorrect assumption.
antisemite? what are you talking about here, I stated fact and to prove how your argumentation is malsain again you are derailing and not answering the facts I provided, Judaism is not a RACE or ETHNICITY it is a RELIGION, people who follow Judaism are Jewish as there are Muslims or Christians, this is fact, ANYONE can become Jewish or Muslim, or Christian being regardless of their ETHENICITY, there are Arab Jewish, Asian Jewish, Black Jewish, White Jewish, Berber Jewish... this is a FACT, I want to see arguing against this.
What facts have you stated? You haven't stated any facts whatsoever. It's become quite clear you don't know the difference between them and opinion. Facts are something shared by all and are without doubt. You need sources to back facts up. You can't just say things and that makes them true. Where are your facts that being Jewish is just a religion and nothing else? You are still fundamentally not understanding the difference between the Jewish
religion and the Jewish
people. They are not the same but different. Yes, of course you can join the Jewish
faith regardless of ethnicity, but that is not the same as being an
ethnic Jew. I could convert to Judaism but it doesn’t mean I'm descended from the Jewish people or Hebrews. I could convert to Islam but that wouldn't make me an Arab. Your explanation is just coming from your own misinformed and ignorant opinion and is 100% factually incorrect.
Here are some
facts with
sources on the difference and two meanings:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/JewJew:
1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an
ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews“The Jews also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and
ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites (Hebrews) of the Ancient Near East. According to Jewish tradition, Jewish
ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_American“American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans, are American citizens of the Jewish faith or Jewish
ethnicity”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism“Jewish atheism refers to atheism as practiced by people who are
ethnically, and to some extent culturally, Jewish”.
“One recent study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 10–15% of other American religious groups.”
How can Jews be atheists if being Jewish is just a religion to you? How can Einstein and Sagan be religious Jews when they've both stated they're agnostic and not religious? They either are or they aren't according to you and they've both said they're not, so it's you that's wrong.
Adolf Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish
race, not the religion. He viewed Jews as
racially impure and inferior and wanted to [/b]ethnically[/b] cleanse them. He didn’t want to kill random people who had just converted to Judaism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germanyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism “Anti-Semitism is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national,
ethnic, religious or racial group”
Here's a quote from Einstein on both his beliefs and the Jewish
religion and
people:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion“In the letter, he [Einstein] states: "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."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are 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."
If you continue to argue against this after the above then you're an infinite moron or a pathetic troll. What this has to do with my original argument just goes to show how much you derail the topic with redundancies and irrelevancies in order to escape disproving my actual points.
there is nothing to rephrase there are some mistakes but as a whole the comment is clear, you Quote Sagan and Einstein and then you try and explain what they are saying putting words on their mouth and transforming the whole perspective and meaning of the quote. Not only but the quotes you used only proves my argument as explained, Sagan him self said he is an Egnostic and this is I'm sure something I said my self, and I said he is an Egnostic Theist, because he never denied GOD, and consider Atheism to be stupid. (see no opinions here only facts).
I find this absolutely astonishing. It's very often not clear what you mean but it is also very clear that you have a hard time comprehending anything I say or are just unwilling to process and accept facts that don't support your arguments, but it's you that has put words in their mouth and taken what they said out of context to 'transform the whole perspective and meaning of the quote' to suit your case. You might be making sense in your own dense head but I guarantee you're not to anybody else. I already provided you with a quote from
Sagan himself giving you his explanation of what Einstein meant by Spinoza's god. Has he got it wrong too? Please provide me with a source where Sagan said he is a theist. Theism is the belief that at least one god exists. Well Sagan didn't believe that. Prove to me with sources where he did. This is your
opinion yet again. How does him saying atheism is stupid make him a believer or religious? I've explained the meaning of the full quote which you have taken out of context. Why do you ignore the first part of it and just latch on to the last atheism is stupid bit. And saying atheism is stupid proves what exactly? Nothing. The full quote proves his agnosticism. Not denying god does not make you a believer. Agnosticism is admitting you don't know which Sagan was happy to admit, so how can you include him on a list of so called prominent religious people?
Listen to this 7 minute video which is a perfect example of Einstein on God and Spinoza with explanations of the correct context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEK6WtHxNfw (not that you'll be able to comprehend or understand it).
The existence of only one proficient scientist proves my point (that there exist religious people that are as intelligent is not more intelligent than their atheist counterpart but I presented a list of people that changed our world and our understanding of science as a whole I also stated another fact is more than half of the most proficient scientist right now are religious. So not only you are nitpicking you are avoiding at all cost to talk about the rest of the list.
You seem to keep making an argument for something I never questioned or was arguing about. I don't understand why you keep going back to the rest of the list when it's irrelevant and not the point here; the three I mentioned are the point of discussion, but I guess you haven't got anything else, right? My argument isn’t and never was about the rest of the list or that there aren't intelligent people who are believers in a religion. I never said that. You can still be intelligent and make contributions to science but also have stupid beliefs. Newton believed in alchemy for example. You keep saying it's a fact that more than 50% of scientists are religious, but where's the source for this? I've never heard that. It's not a fact until you can back it up, but again if 50% are then 50% aren’t. I must say though, I find it ironic your list is full of ancient philosophers and old dead scientists and pretty much the only modern day ones on there are the three I've proved shouldn’t be there at all. Most people believed in Christianity back in the old days as well (usually under the punishment of death if they didn't) especially when modern science was still developing and people were first formulating their theories and we didn’t know then what we do now, but you'd be hard pressed to find many modern day pioneers of science who are big believers, especially not 50% of prominent scientists. Most religious people tend to be idiots like yourself, but yeah, you occasionally get some intelligent ones.
Please, if you want to continue this discussion start a thread in the politics section quoting these post and we'll take if from there, but there's no point if you're just going to keep touting your incorrect opinions as facts without a single shred of evidence to back them up.
Tl;dr Einstein, Sagan and Hawkin are not religious. End of.
