Finally, a famous quote (that I have never heard before) that backs up my sentiment perfectly! Religion and science go hand in hand. I've always believed that science answers the question "How does it happen?" and religion answers the question "Why does it happen?"

Science is not at all like religion. It is founded on the simple, obvious idea that we can gain knowledge through observation. Religion has no such foundation.

Nobody knows why we're here. Saying we're here because God put us here is just giving an easy answer to a question that can't be answered.

Science doesn't consider human emotion? What do you mean? Science allows us to study and understand emotions.

I think I have discussed this with you before, but I will try again.

You are either an atheist or a theist. There is no middle ground. Agnosticism is a totally separate issue. To be frank religious people have corrupted the word agnostic and I will explain why. If they define agnostic as a between position it accomplishes a few goals for them

1) They divide people who don't believe in their god

2) If agnostics are in the middle, they think they can still sway them over to their side.

3) It allows them to cast atheists in an extreme light.

Einstein also seems to have been confused about the meaning of the word as well, as he claimed "I do not believe in a personal God." That statement means you are an atheist.

If you just look at the definition of atheist it is "a disbelief in the existence of deities." This says nothing about if you think it is possible. I don't think it is impossible that there is a god. But there is absolutely no evidence otherwise. Therefore I do not believe in god. Therefore I am atheist.

Here is a little quiz to help you determine what you are:

1) Do you believe in a deity or deities?

Yes: You are a theist

No: You are atheist

2) Do you believe it is possible to determine the existence of a deity or deities with certitude?

Yes: You are gnostic

No: You are agnostic

So you can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist. There is no plain agnostic. In reality gnostic atheists don't exist. I have never met someone who doesn't believe in god, but thinks it is possible to prove god does not exist. And I have met a lot of atheists. The reason is where most atheists rejection of god comes from: a lack of empirical evidence. Anyone rational enough to not believe in something that doesn't have sufficient evidence is not going to claim that a lack of evidence proves a lack of existence. That would be totally irrational. Like I said, atheism in it of itself makes no statements about the existence of god. It is merely the lack of a belief in a god or gods.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

quote from Einstein.

Also

Im not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. 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 arrangement 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. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.

He says that he is an Agnostic and not an Atheist. Pretty upfront about it as well.

I think the quote you were referring to is the one where he says that other people may call him an atheist. But he was just saying how religious people would probably call him an atheist. I go through the same thing. Religious people all call me an atheist, but i'm not.

No Einstein was an atheist not an agnostic.

And yes I was just trying to quickly reference the quote and mixed it up.

although i agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal God and did not follow and religions and was basically an outright Agnostic, you got the quote wrong.

He said that Science without religions was LAME... not blind. He said religion without science was blind.

IDK if you read it wrong or wrote it wrong, but i just want it to be clear.

in fact, in the quote he was not saying that religion was right. He was just saying that religion becomes a sort of feeling that we create for something. A sense of explanation that goes beyond explaining.

Ya, that sound pretty logical. There's really nothing more annoying these days than a religious Christian who thinks science is "made up" and worthless.

So, if, religion answers the "why", what answers the "who." I mean, I've heard it over and over in other debates that people either say "God," or they actually don't care. But they care about the other questionable factors and somehow have the mindset to ignore the 'who.' I mean, if they're going to think that way, maybe they shouldn't think about it AT all, no what, where, when, why how.

Absolutely I do.

Anybody that completely ignores science as a whole is retarded. And anyone who cherry picks scientific theories that back their opinion or make the life they want to live more convenient, without truly thinking about it are closed minded. But those people will never admit that they do that.

Yes, Einstein was religious despite his monumental discoveries in physics that being the Theory of Special Relativity and Theory of General Relativity. He tossed back and forth between what his believes were and what he was the research that he achieved.

READ: THE WORLD AS I SEE IT by Albert Einstein.

Yes, this is true because it takes 2 to Tango. ;)

If God had violated the rules of nature, then everything would be magical. But just because there is no magic, does not mean that there is no God.

The present state of the human mind should be recorded i history as mutch as goals attained in the period. That or we whould just have abunch of answers and no questions...all beit the remainder = winged vs horned men like it was possible to live forever not just in death! or a giant song sweeping across the universe played perfectly in key....why the hell did you come up with that without knowing about telekinesis and modern day physics? It leads too more intresting and meaningful conversations then the bluntness of reality in the first place....a blinde life is worth living...but do you realy wanna live it?

Yes, also, with the fact that Einstein has an IQ of 500, I'm sure that most of the things he has said should be correct, if not to us, but then it's all about reality, though still, what he had mentioned was true. Religion has many interesting topics for Science to discover, without it, there shall be many limits binding an entire chunk away from science, due to the fact that there would be nothing much left for science to proof, plus if Religion kept it's belief without the reason why, and wether or not things are true, then of course, it's blind and ignorant towards any truth within' beliefs.- ;)

i'm surrounded by both atheists and Christians dude... and a lot of Jews.

All of them disagree with Agnosticism. Sorry you can't figure it out...

the whole comparison between God and Santa Claus is really upsetting... I thought we went beyond that.

God can be anything. From an intelligent designer to an unnatural, yet natural bundle of energy in the middle of the Universe. I consider these possibilities mainly because Random chance is not acceptable. But, to believe in random chance is to disbelieve in God. I believe neither, for we are merely at stage one of understanding the Universe.

I should have said "atheists don't need to prove that God doesn't exist". Once again, this is a far greater force than just Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. This is something that, when you ignore what religion has says, actually has some leg.

Agnosticism is surpassing that childish debate on whether one should believe in God or not and is just considering the possibilities. Atheists don't consider intelligent design. Atheists say "of course you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but the idea is just silly". They dismiss it completely. Agnostics, on the other hand say "Well, considering that the Big Bang had to occur in perfect conditions or else the Universe would never have formed it's not irrational to say that something might have guided it". That is the difference.

Once again, I can not give an answer on whether i believe that a "God" exists. I am not smart enough... sorry.

Atheists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're atheist. Actually, just how theists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're theists.

What makes the agnostic different from those two is that they decide not to bother in believing one or the other because they know they're not smart enough to make such a decision. They believe in progressing in knowledge and not making a decision to believe in some kind of theory that has no means of being proven.

God is still a vague and incalculable ideal. Agnostics realize that we are nowhere even near the understanding of the Universe. They say "a type of God is possible, and so is the absence of one". They don't say "Well, there's no true way of finding out, so i just will not believe in him." The appropriate response of an agnostic who is asked "do you believe that a type of God exists" is " I don't know".

So everyone's confused except you? I was just quoting what he said since you said "he's not an agnostic, he's atheist" and I provided how he said that he himself is not atheist and is agnostic.

Disbelief in a personal God doesn't make you atheist... a personal God is a God that watches over you and answers your prayers. People who believe in that are religious. Einstein made some hints about the idea of intelligent design, but never said that it was what he believed in. He always questioned things and was amazed by the laws of the Universe. This is why he refused to become atheist. To reject the idea that there may be an intelligent designer or some kind of superior force of energy seemed contradictory to his beliefs.

My answer to your first questions is the agnostic answer:

I don't know.

It's simple. I don't know if there is an intelligent designer or a superior force of energy. It seems possible, but it also seems possible that it was all random occurrences. But I am clearly not intelligent enough to just decide that there is or isn't a "God".

It's not exactly a middle ground, it's basically the acceptance that we are not capable of answering such a question. We admit to be clueless. That is agnosticism.

Atheism and Theism are bold beliefs. People who are bold enough to decide on whether they believe that God exists or not.

2. Atoms weren't proven to exist until this last century, but people believed that they did and have for over 2000, maybe even around 3000 years. Socrates spoke about philosophers that were long dead that believed that the universe was made of irreducibly small particles (of water) and Buddhists thought the same thing even before him. Santa and the Easter bunny do exist, even if it's just as a thought. Existence as a thought is still existence. If you disagree, fight with yourself about that because the idea of a self is a trick of the mind. In actuality your self doesn't exist just as santa doesn't exist.

3. It's more than sociological, it's psychological. I know, I see tons of people who claim to have lived horrible, drug ridden, lives before being "saved"... I know better than to argue with these people, because even though they're religious they seem to be more stable than they used to be, or at least happier with their lives. It's a deeply personal issue that does help a lot of people, and this I think is it's most important utility, something that should be considered in sciences. I know a lot of people who have went through rehab 1 or more times who are still on meth and heroin or something as harmless as weed, but I know more people who have found religion and changed for good, for just a little faith.

I don't know about you, but I think that should be worth sciences time, at least to find out why faith helps more than rehab. I tend to think, very quickly, that religion plays on parts of humanity that aren't as reasonable as maybe, we'd like them to be, but if it works it works. Faith does do good (not saying it doesn't do bad, or even that it doesn't do more bad than good), and that's something that I think science should be interested in.

First off, I would like to make it clear to you, that I am not religious, I do not believe in a personal god, I do not believe the universe was designed by anyone for any reason, I do not believe that people are only moral because of religious beliefs... I am not religious in any sense of the term. So, you're already wrong about my core beliefs starting with faith and then transcending from there, because I have no faith in religious doctrine.

Secondly, the idea of there being a god has never been disproved and likely will never be, using the scientific method, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed by the scientific community. If it hasn't been proven, or disproved, it should remain a topic until it can be. It may turn out, eventually, that though god doesn't seem to exist, it does in the minds of millions, maybe billions of people, and it more helpful to them than any scientific finding could be... Religious belief may be an important part of society (and then to social science) that is nearly irreplaceable.

Lastly, I think it's important to see how everything works independently and together. I am not the force binding religion and science together, they are both aspects of human life and by that fact are already bound. Which is not to say that they can't ever be separated, but for now whether you like it or not, each deals with the other and must be accepted until something right can be done about it. You can't just say that because they are different, they shouldn't conceder each other.

Okay, you successfully pointed out that I didn't know the context of this quote, why Einstein said it, or even his personality for that matter. But I feel that the portion that was given should have been up for interpretation. So I may not have understood this part the way he intended for me to interpret it, but I still hold my beliefs. :)

The only problem with your argument (that I want to pick on) is that you assume that religion doesn't already answer every question man needs to know the answer to. Science may very well be off course, or lead humanity off course (in accordance with scripture).

The only reason you disagree is because you disagree with religion? According to scripture, empirical things were created by God, so studying only empirical things is just studying God's creations, and does have an ultimate goal, does it not? If Science is out to explain the unexplained, and religion is supposedly there to spread the word of God, the being that is Himself the explanation... What do you think would happen if Science successfully explained everything (impossible, I know)???

Anyhow, I agree with you, but I don't agree with your argument, per say. Almost every social science (including political science and psychology) deals with religion, so if you dismiss religion because it's not verifiable, you still have to deal with it as a scientist.

I don't think Einstein meant if you're a scientist you should be religious, and if you're religious you should be a scientist too... He just meant that they are inherently intertwined and one without the other it's true to it's nature... to explain.

Im getting bored of arguing with people who take quotes from smart people out of context to ratify their dumb superstitions and never read the whole fucking thing. It is the same kind of people who only read the headlines off news and get outraged by them still. But what is there to do

Science itself has become a religion. Is that too made up?

science itself does not answer anything. It cannot answer the basic question.

why are we here?

Where religion fails it does not consider the human intellect and inherent curiosity. But attempts to correct for this with a sense of morality and ultimate responsibility for our actions.

Where Science fails, it too does not consider the human emotion. but attempts to correct for this by applying intellect and reason.