What a shame that man has not learned to truly appreciate the way Einstein felt about God. Instead human beings use some cocked up version called religion to kill and to control other human beings in the name of "God"
I think you're right nitro. If people thought more about questions of God in the way Einstein apparently did, the world might be a better place. But he famously didn't believe in a personal God. He often expressed God in terms that was the Universe he understood. Understood better than most and many since. “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.” (Albert Einstein to Beatrice Frohlich, 1952.) "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." (Albert Einstein, quoted in New York Times Magazine 1930) "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. " (written in a letter by Albert Einstein, 1954) emphasis mine.
yeah... that would be nice if science were the antidote or the answer... but our science stops at moments just after the big bang. Our science can't look back any further than that. The who what or why of creation is not ascertainable by our current science. most of here know the difference between faith and science. many times, you have implied or vaguely asserted science supports your anti God position and has ruled out a creator. Which I am suspect you will now deny.
Right. You and I may disagree on whether the Universe requires a designer or not. But for sure, we agree that at least the way human beings have twisted organized religion into what it is today, poisons nearly everything. There are places where organized religion has done and does a great service to humanity. For example, as I mentioned in my books thread, this does a good story telling of those things. I feel that the people that do good with religion would do the same good without it:
Perhaps: 1. An atheist is a religionist of no-God! Basically everybody has a self-imposed concept of God, otherwise (s)he cannot logically say: "There is no God", "I don't believe in God", or "God doesn't exist". 2. Our God has 3 principle research assistants: Philosopher, Religionist, and Scientist, in order to understand Her/Him. To serve His meaningful purpose of Creation of this Multiverse! If the Creation has had no any Meaningful meaning, why the Creation was done at all, by this powerful Creator?! 3. A scientist is trained basically for solving intelligence questions/problems, rather than solving wisdom/ meaningful questions/problems including ethics. As a not-so-wise scientist would show off his reproducible method for an invention that can definitely destroy the whole human race on earth, then another not-so-wise guy would feel happy trying to test the invention.
Of course I deny all those things you say which aren't true. And science hasn't stopped. You're confusing it with religion which stopped when it began with a conclusion.
I just think there is something fundamentally lacking in what's called the human spirit, which needs requires or demands a religious reason to do good. To have to be commanded or threatened by something in order to act virtuously seems to me contrary to what can be expected from the best of conscience and sense of morality. Especially when that something is a kind of psychosis that demands a consent to things like deities and holy ghosts before it supposedly knows what to do. If some people just can't act properly without religious faith, well so be it. But then there are those who can't function reasonably without alcohol too. I think that suggests perhaps there is better understanding, a more profound honesty in humanity than the reliance on a deity or booze provides.
Perhaps a possible problem potentially has been historically some religionists had/have been (mis)led by some narrow-minded theologians/ religions. Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion Regarding religion and science, Albert Einstein states (1940): "For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action; it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts…Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determine the goals, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up." [131] UQ