QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 17 2008, 05:25 AM)

Hi Clovis,
I believe because alot has changed since Einstein's time ?
In the time of Einstein--Atheists/Agnostics/non- theists did not care so much what others believed.
But ,since 9/11, Bush and his supposed conversations with god, Jesus Camp, Jonesboro Baptist, no end in sight with all the hypocrite "so called men of god" that are preaching & making big bucks, , religion sliming into politics, religion justifying discrimination, holy wars ,cults, Dominionists , distortion & lies of scientific facts/research .....................etc. etc. Y
Do you see why now ?
Of course it's not all bad . I'm just pointing out the disturbing developments lately.
Einstein WOULD understand it now, I am sure.
Besides, there are more non-theists these days. We have to push back a little if we want to survive.
Beliefs create behaviors. You know this. What people believe is important.
Atheism exists only to counter the claims of theists and would not exist were it not for such claims.
Some of us are upset and fed up with what we see as intellectual dishonesty or self-deception. And IT WILL affect us in our lifetime if not our children down the road. This is how I see it.
Kind regards
I see your points regarding recent events but this issue is much older and was especially strong in the 1800s. This debate was especially pertinent to Einstein's era and his words are very much applicable. Many of the posters here complain about growing up Christian and then seeing it was not for them, the perceived lies they saw, them not wanting to live the lie, and then the difficulty of breaking away. Westboro Baptist Church, 911, conservative politics, and Jesus Camp are not things that turned believers into non-believers they are weapons that non-believers use as believers as part of their arsenal even if most believers denounce all those things as well.
So while 911 especially has made stronger the case for those who despise religion it was not the beginning of this conflict which is a conflict not shared by all.
QUOTE
A common modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully.[1] Another view known as the conflict thesis, which has fallen from favor amongst historians but retains popular appeal, holds that science and religion inevitably compete for authority over the nature of reality, so that religion has been gradually losing a war with science as scientific explanations become more powerful and widespread.[2] This view was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. However, neither of these views adequately accounts for the variety of interactions between science and religion (both historically and today), ranging from antagonism to separation to close collaboration.[3]
QUOTE
The 19th century was a period in which the perception of an antagonism between religion and science was especially strong. During this period what scholars today call the historical conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science almost inevitably would lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[5] The framing of the relationship between religion and science as being predominantly one of conflict remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and much of the 20th centuries, was favoured by many scientists in the last 100 years, and is still prevalent in popular culture. However, most contemporary historians of science now reject it, considering that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research,[6][7] as is expressed by Gary Ferngren in his historical volume Science & Religion:
While some historians had always regarded the [conflict] thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.[8]
QUOTE
In the Medieval era, some leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, undertook a project of synthesis between religion, philosophy, and natural sciences. For example, the Islamic philosopher Averroes,[13] the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and the Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo, held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to re-evaluate either the interpretation of the scientific facts or the understanding of the scriptures. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible, but not yet equal with the authority of the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_...ce_and_religionSo I have to disagree that Einstein was speaking out of his time.
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 17 2008, 06:07 AM)

I'm sorry but grownups are not supposed to believe in fairy tales anymore.
And what makes you believe that non-believers are less grown up ?
Most of us want to believe in a loving god & heaven . This would bring incredible emotional comfort. It makes everything more bearable.
It's not about being stubborn and anti-authority you know.
We just want to think for ourselves. Is this being childish ?
There must be good reasons to believe, and we haven't found any.
Common sense is what is good for us.
Oh, and it's all about BEING REAL and seeking the TRUTH for us (on our own terms, I guess)
There is definitely nothing wrong with your view here it is only when someone claims we are wrong and that we believe in fairy tales is when a line is crossed. But one can say they believe it is fairy tales even though they understand another group does not. By all means think for yourself and find your own path or none at all. Believing in God is not for everyone and not everyone should. Reading many of your posts I can see how you steer on the side of remaining respectful of believers and try not to cross that line so commendations towards you. Just know there are believers who do not condemn non-believers as well.