Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[slabdans]

---

Atota ... sa elementary pa gani na ug kinder .. dinako mo skuela oi kay gikapoy nako ana ... ikaw research ug klaro nga ingon ka si Eisenstein diest nga pantheism mana siya ...

awa na ron diba mokalit rana ingon nimo na bogo kay napiit na hahaha or dili man gani ingnon ka kalit ana bayot kay wala naman ika support sa iyang arguments

[Jhared]

si Einstien mo tuo man to ug Ginoo .. Religios man to siya ambot lang kaha ug spiritual ba ...

parihas ani .. mao ni ingon ni idol nako ...

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."6

Einstein on Jesus

Albert Einstein received instruction in both Christianity (at a Roman Catholic school) and Judaism (his family of origin). When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Let's not forget that he also said:

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.

this

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.

also this

During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.

and this

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

[amingb]

sige lang bai @slabdans mo evolve rana sia nga mahimong sakto nga pagkatawo kay sa pagka karon mura paman na siya ug Homo- habilis ..

[Arteezy]

Atota ... sa elementary pa gani na ug kinder .. dinako mo skuela oi kay gikapoy nako ana ... ikaw research ug klaro nga ingon ka si Eisenstein deist nga pantheism mana siya ...

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."6

ikaw nalang ingon sa im0ng kaugalingon nga v0g0k ka

[Jhared]

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic,. . .

-Einstein

[amingb]

Let's not forget that he also said:

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.

this

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.

also this

During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.

and this

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Naka read nako ani brad jhared .. pantheism lagi na siya .. dili siya mo tuo anang personal God anang mga Organized Religion ...

[slabdans]

See awa basta lagi ma piit nani siya kalit lang likoy...patuga tuga sud ug discussion pero walay saktong bala

[Arteezy]

See awa basta lagi ma piit nani siya kalit lang likoy...patuga tuga sud ug discussion pero walay saktong bala

feeler sad kaau ka, ikaw ra bay pinaka-minus sa mga theist diri (mo-agree jud imong mga kauban)

dugay ra ko ni-undang og debate ngari.

gihimo ra nakong kataw-anan inyung kulto nga bulok

[amingb]

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic,. . .

-Einstein

but dili jud siya Totally Atheist kay naa pa siya other belief of divinity .. daghan man gud istoria2x .. wa lang ta kabalo sa tinood ...

"Einstein: His Life and Universe," he did find a pantheistic view of God rational. In simple words, pantheism is the belief that everything is God; the universe, nature, beings, and the planets are all the same thing as divinity. Pantheists, however, do not accept the personal, monotheistic God that most religions teach.

In his belief his agnostic kay no one knows the nature of God ... base lang sa mga statement naa siya reservation of God but not a Christian God ..

[Jhared]

Naka read nako ani brad jhared .. pantheism lagi na siya .. dili siya mo tuo anang personal God anang mga Organized Religion ...

Einstein denied he was a pantheist, most of the people during his time called him a pantheist and he strongly denied that as evident in what you posted a while ago "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.".. is what you said that Einstein said.. he dont also consider himself as an Atheist, because he believes that atheism is an act of liberation from religious indoctrination.. rather he expressly said that we may call him an agnostic... but there is no clear basis if he is.. again all of this ruckus about his stand is mainly due to our efforts of constricting him, and putting his ideals inside a bag.. but these are just labels,.. the true nature of einstein's belief is beyond what we are constricting him into..

Einstein was a believer of Spinoza's kind of god, some people hijacked Spinoza's idea and called it pantheism, that's why Einstein expressly denied he was a pantheist because for him, i mean the kind of god that he believed was how Spinoza originally defined it as it was, not how the Pantheists thought it was...