Insight in into Einstein's beliefs in God and the Jewish people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, I didn't read it, has Ice read it?
But I heard Gutkind used to send his philosophies to Einstein for his appraisal but then again that doesn't seem to have a lot to do with whether Ice is discriminating or not, your view and that of Ice seem to be based on the "fact" that atheism = correct but there are people who do not agree with that just like atheists do not agree with christians, buddhists etc. on their spiritual beliefs and my opinion is that this should be mostly taken out of judgement since we don't even really know why some people are more religious than others. One scientist I saw even said there's a part of our brain that seems to have an influence on how religious we are, so being religious is genetic and thus similar to being homosexual and saying that homosexuals are worse because they're homosexuals is pretty politically incorrect and thus saying a persona is worse for being religious is pretty politically incorrect which incidentally ends this argument for me here because it was not meant as a big deal anyway(I kinda like Ice you know, even though he's an atheist) and because Einstein was a great man anyway, no matter his religious beliefs.

Kthxbye.

---

I'm not an atheist, Husar. Reread the wording of my post.

Quote:

---

Jewish atheism sounds like a contradiction in terms

---

Perhaps thats because you don't understand the varied philosophies of atheism .
Edit to add ...not of course that I can understand them as there are so many and lots of them seem to be directly contradictory of each other ...I suppose thats why philosophers have been tearing their own and each others beards out for thousands of years .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Perhaps thats because you don't understand the varied philosophies of atheism .

---

I never studied atheism.

theos=divinity, or those beings posessing divinity (Greek)

a = against (I believe Latin, not sure if it was a Greek grammatical construct as well).

Therefore, atheos, against divinity or those beings possessing divinity.

In common parlance and the widely accepted usage of the term, atheists are those opposed to the belief in the supernatural, divinities included. Yes, there are people that call themselves atheists that don't technically meet this definition, but I would say they are mislabeled agnostics or some other such.

I do find it a conundrum for Jewish atheists. To Jews, what separates them from other semitic peoples is descent from Israel (Jacob) and the adherence to the coventant Yaweh established with Abraham and his descendants. If they deny the existence of Yaweh, then obviously they would deny the existence of said covenant, and therefore, there would cease to be a physical difference between themselves and their family versus other semitic peoples.

Well now Don thats better , but how about...

Quote:

---

Therefore, atheos, against divinity or those beings possessing divinity.

---

... what is the measure of divinity and how can a flawed creature have any understanding of it ?
The questions about atheism and what it is goes right back to them greek fellas that gave you the origins of the word and the philosophers stillargue about it ...but hey thats what philosophy is isn't it .
BTW that conundrum you speak of , if anyone out there can find a clip of Proffesor Liebermans (Sam Jaffe) scene from the film I mentioned (or even a transcript) it would be appreciated as I cannot recall it word for word and it is (although fiction) an interesting little piece on this subject .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

theos=divinity, or those beings posessing divinity (Greek)

a = against (I believe Latin, not sure if it was a Greek grammatical construct as well).

Therefore, atheos, against divinity or those beings possessing divinity.

In common parlance and the widely accepted usage of the term, atheists are those opposed to the belief in the supernatural, divinities included. Yes, there are people that call themselves atheists that don't technically meet this definition, but I would say they are mislabeled agnostics or some other such.

---

Thanks Don, that's what I meant but you can say it better than I can. :bow:

It reminds me of Satanists who don't worship Satan, it's like people sitting on a table but nowadays you can say anything and mean anything anyway. :dizzy2:

I might have found a transcript of the speech you refer to, Tribesman - is this it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lieberman/Jaffe

"I have no religion, so I am not Jewish by religion. I am a scientist, so I must rely on science which tells me I am not Jewish by race, since there is no such thing as a Jewish type... I remain a Jew because the world makes it an advantage not to be one. So, for many of us, it becomes a matter of pride to call ourselves Jews."

---

The quotation was embedded in this book preview.

Why thank you Kukri :2thumbsup: , though it makes a small mistake in calling the Lieberman charachter the second . The second would fall to Greens "but not the [insert Jewish slur]-ey ones" Jewish secretary .
Edit , oh perhaps I should explain . given the subject of this topic and the time frame it took part in the discourse between Einstein and Gutkind carried the the issues of the day together with the normal philosophical differences between the rationalists and fundamentlists .As would be noted for example by references to the likes of Kant and Spinoza by the two in their writings on the subject .
I suppose it goes back to python if I may crave the modertors indulgence...philosopher = unemployed bullshitter

Indulgence partially granted, as you make a salient point otherwise.

However, slur-speech, whether written by a member, quoted of a playwright, or spoken by god almighty... is not allowed (and was thus edited).

Kindly continue. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone[I

a[/I] = against (I believe Latin, not sure if it was a Greek grammatical construct as well).

---

I'm fairly sure it was also the Greek construct for the opposite.

So, Richard Dawkins was one of the (unsuccessful) bidders for the document
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...on-letter.html

which ended up selling for $340K.

Why is this suprising in any way? Einstein was a scientist. Scientists use the scientific method. All religions fail spectaculary in the scientific method, having no evidence whatsoever. Him believing in religion would just be being a bad scientist.

At least thats my reasoning anyway. Feel free to correct me if im wrong.