• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists are now supporting intelligent design

That's right. That's because they're not inerrant and completely literally true.

Some of the Religious texts are literal truth to me:witch:just like evolutionist textbooks are literal truth to you. We arnt that different we both put our faith into something.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Some of the Religious texts are literal truth to me:witch:just like evolutionist textbooks are literal truth to you. We arnt that different we both put our faith into something.

Ah, jeez.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Some of the Religious texts are literal truth to me:witch:

Yes, I know. That's a problem.

just like evolutionist textbooks are literal truth to you. We arnt that different we both put our faith into something.
Nope, sorry. Books and articles that explain evolution are the truth because they give facts and evidence. They show you the evidence for their claims, so that you don't have to take them on faith. They don't just say "Evolution happens. I know this because God told me". They say "Evolution happens. Here's why:...", and then they show you why.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Some of the Religious texts are literal truth to me:witch:just like evolutionist textbooks are literal truth to you. We arnt that different we both put our faith into something.

You have no idea what evolution is. No, you're completely wrong. There is no "evolutionist text" that is literal truth to something called an "evolutionist." What there is is a scientific theory that gives the best currently available explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and which itself is constantly changing and being improved. There is no "faith" except belief based on evidence. Is your belief based on evidence? They are completely different.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Sources please. Your more than welcome to google his thoughts on intelligent design.

You can't prove a negative. We can't show you what Eienstien didn't say.

If you think that Eienstien said what you think he did say, the onus is on you to provide the proof.
 
Sources please. Your more than welcome to google his thoughts on intelligent design.

yes einstien was supportive of ID but was skeptical of religion. Einstien was also friends with Immanuel Velikovsky. Both einstien and velikovsky believed in catastrophes they both believed in the global flood etc.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
yes einstien was supportive of ID but was skeptical of religion. Einstien was also friends with Immanuel Velikovsky. Both einstien and velikovsky believed in catastrophes they both believed in the global flood etc.

Where did Einstein say that he believed in a global flood? I cannot imagine that he would say something as perversely stupid as that. My goodness. I'd also like to see a quote to that effect from Velikovsky.

I wonder where these lies come from. Surely you haven't read Einstein and Velikovsky. If you did, you wasted your time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where did Einstein say that he believed in a global flood? I cannot imagine that he would say something as perversely stupid as that. My goodness. I'd also like to see a quote to that effect from Velikovsky.

I wonder where these lies come from. Surely you haven't read Einstein and Velikovsky. If you did, you wasted your time.

i have never read einstein. i have read some of velokovsky though he wrote some interesting stuff.

Didn't Einstein support Velikovsky's theories?

The original letter from einstien to velokovsky:

I have read the whole book about the planet Venus.
There is much of interest in the book which proves that
in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be
attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is
evident to every sensible physicist that these catast-
rophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and
that also the direction of the inclination of the
terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have under-
gone a considerable change without the total destruction
of the earth's entire crust. It were best in my opinion
if you would in this way revise your books, which contain
truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this,
then what is valuable in your deliberations will become
ineffective, and it would be difficult finding a sensible
publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy setback
upon himself.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Until you tell us what you mean by "intelligent design," there is no way to tell who supports it, whether Einstein or any other scientist. Would you favor us with an explanation or definition please?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
i have never read einstein. i have read some of velokovsky though he wrote some interesting stuff.

Didn't Einstein support Velikovsky's theories?

The original letter from einstien to velokovsky:

I have read the whole book about the planet Venus.
There is much of interest in the book which proves that
in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be
attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is
evident to every sensible physicist that these catast-
rophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and
that also the direction of the inclination of the
terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have under-
gone a considerable change without the total destruction
of the earth's entire crust. It were best in my opinion
if you would in this way revise your books, which contain
truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this,
then what is valuable in your deliberations will become
ineffective, and it would be difficult finding a sensible
publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy setback
upon himself.

My goodness. The fraud never ends.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Some of the Religious texts are literal truth to me:witch:just like evolutionist textbooks are literal truth to you. We arnt that different we both put our faith into something.

See, that is the problem. You are working under the delusion that science works with literal truths. That is not only a falsehood, but it must always be so, because that is the only way for science to grown and improve itself.

To a significant extent, (Biological) Evolution is "believed" to this day despite some misconceptions from Darwin... because as it turns out, the facts are clear and numberous and allow one to tell the misconception from the fact.

Sorry, but your claim is simply (and seriously) misinformed, be it intentionally or otherwise.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
i have never read einstein. i have read some of velokovsky though he wrote some interesting stuff.

Didn't Einstein support Velikovsky's theories?

The original letter from einstien to velokovsky:

I have read the whole book about the planet Venus.
There is much of interest in the book which proves that
in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be
attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is
evident to every sensible physicist that these catast-
rophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and
that also the direction of the inclination of the
terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have under-
gone a considerable change without the total destruction
of the earth's entire crust. It were best in my opinion
if you would in this way revise your books, which contain
truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this,
then what is valuable in your deliberations will become
ineffective, and it would be difficult finding a sensible
publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy setback
upon himself.

It's obvious that you didn't read that entire quote, because if you had you would realize that einstien is not in agreement with his veiw. Start reading that quote from where it says, However. Just like a creationist, you stop reading where it's convenient.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Sources please. Your more than welcome to google his thoughts on intelligent design.

We're not the ones who need sources. You made the claim, which means you'd be the one to support it. Is there some reason you think he's a supporter of ID when he doesn't even believe in a god?
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
i have never read einstein. i have read some of velokovsky though he wrote some interesting stuff.

Didn't Einstein support Velikovsky's theories?

The original letter from einstien to velokovsky:

I have read the whole book about the planet Venus.
There is much of interest in the book which proves that
in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be
attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is
evident to every sensible physicist that these catast-
rophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and
that also the direction of the inclination of the
terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have under-
gone a considerable change without the total destruction
of the earth's entire crust. It were best in my opinion
if you would in this way revise your books, which contain
truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this,
then what is valuable in your deliberations will become
ineffective, and it would be difficult finding a sensible
publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy setback
upon himself.

Wow. You're seriously going to try to use that to say that Einstein supported the global flood story? Please tell me this is a joke.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
We're not the ones who need sources. You made the claim, which means you'd be the one to support it. Is there some reason you think he's a supporter of ID when he doesn't even believe in a god?

He believed in the God of Spinoza

Science today teaches that energy is just a property of materialism.
Unfortunately I think it is the other way around .
This would change the way the world is observed from cause and effect.
What is considered random is really guided by magnetisms and resistances.
Energy changing in and out of form through materialism.
Hermanns is constantly pushing Einstein to acknowledge his inherent mysticism. He succeeds in getting Einstein to say something that probably few scientists today would say—that there is a vital force or energy in creation. Einstein is willing to associate energy with what are generally seen as spiritual concepts.

I pulled out some notes. "Once, in England, I was at dinner with people highly trained in meditation, among them Professor Suzuki who asked me to ask you if spiritual vibrations and electricity have the same original cause or force."
"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."
This acknowledgment of at least certain types of energy that cannot, or not yet, be measured by instruments is noteworthy but it is perhaps not completely surprising. Einstein was responsible for showing us that matter and energy are interchangeable. He understood empiricism to be only a tool of intuition. Finally like Spinoza, he saw God, the universe, and all of life as a harmonious whole.
 
Top