CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Is God not ultimately desired by both those whom believe in a deity and those that believe in spirituality? Einstein believed in something, and that was the spiritual side of the spectrum. Being in awe of the Universe is one reason why I believe in God, in a spiritual and literal sense. So, what say you?
I answered the question, that if you take the word religion to mean what einstein meant by it, than I agree with the statement.
Is God not ultimately desired by both those whom believe in a deity and those that believe in spirituality?
Maybe not with the people who believe in spirituality, because that doesn't need to be anything to do with a God of any sort. I don't however know what this has to do with what I said.
Einstein believed in something, and that was the spiritual side of the spectrum.
I'm unsure what this has to do with what I said. He could believe that fairies are at the bottom of his garden, it doesn't change what he meant when he used the word religion.
If he meant by religion supernatural, he didn't but lets suppose he did. I would in that case be on the other side of the debate. Me saying what einstein meant by the term religion was just to say if that is what we take religion to mean in this quote than I agree.
Being in awe of the Universe is one reason why I believe in God, in a spiritual and literal sense.
I would say that is a poor reason to believe in a God , but anyway I don't see what it has to do with what I said. What I said says nothing about whether God exists or not. So I don't see what relevance this has to it.
So, what say you?
None of what you said really had much relevance to what I said.
only if religion means what Einstein meant by it. Einstein used the word to mean being in awe and wonder about the universe.
Isn't it kinda arrogant to assume that you know for certain what he meant when he chose the word religion. If he really meant wonder as you say he did, than why did he not say that instead.
One definition of religion is this, any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief. A belief is an idea that one accepts to be true. Without religion there would be no science because nobody would believe new laws and theories. Although I believe the idea of a supreme being is bogus, I do believe that science in a sense is religion.
Replace religion with philosophy, and you are truly reaching a true statement everyone can agree on. Philosophy at least partially covers religion, but also morality, ethics, knowledge, love and more, allowing the statement to gain real meaning for everyone.
I don't think science needs religion but it does need belief. It needs belief that what has already been done in the field is correct in order to build on it. Sometimes this isn't the case and we actively challenging those believes but most of the time science is about trusting what has already been established is correct.
What Einstein meant by this words is the fact that science needed religion to soften its harsh rationality with emotions and compassion. It slows down the progress but lends fulfillment of values.
Science without religion is like the Nazi Experiments. Morality can easily be corrupted by rational need.
Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said an "attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Taken from wikipedia.
This only confirms more so what I said. He didn't believe in personal God(s). but he wasn't opposed to the notion of a god. Agnosticism is the belief in God without the religion.
The original letters were scanned and can be found on Google but they are in German so that is why I asked. My German isn't very good but with a dictionary I was capable to go trough it.
-- really? Stop with the Creatard thing, we mnake observations and draw conclusions the same as you, we just have a different conclusion.
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. -Alebert Einstein
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. -Albert Einstein
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. -Albert Einstein
-- really? Stop with the Creatard thing, we mnake observations and draw conclusions the same as you, we just have a different conclusion.
No you don't. You have a talking snake and you spent years of misinterpreting stuff and cutting stuff out of context to make it real. This isn't scientific method. This is creatard's method.
as I've said before you are just cutting stuff out from context.
Einstein was raised by secular Jewish parents. In his Autobiographical Notes, Einstein wrote that he had gradually lost his faith early in childhood:
. . . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it.[2]
Actually, it was thanks to religion that science has its foundations. The doubt of miracles produced outstanding effects to our view in life. (Unfortunately, there are still plenty of miracles that science cannot explain.)
Modern science is no better as it carries no appreciation of beauty. Rationality is the polar of emotions. As goes the proverb: "We must take care not to make intellect our gods"
A science without religion is uninspiring and dull. It will be too full of itself to even have its own personality
Science has no sense of justice. True that everyone has an instinct of unity and community, but that can easily be corrupted by the sense of rational need. If ever a war happened, and the need arises, without religion to handle the people, the Nazi Experiments will happen again
You don't need religion for justice, you don't need religion for morals, you don't need religion to be humane.
Wars happen all the time. The Nazi Experiments could happen with or without religion. It's really not related to religion that much. By the way, Mengele was Catholic. So really, it happens with religion too.
Things like that happen even if there is religion, sometimes even in the name of religion.
So no, we don't NEED religion to be humane, just, moral.
Morality is something that can easily be corrupted when the need rises. Would the Nazi's do those experiments if only they were not in a hurry as the Allies are gaining grounds?
During times of need, religion is the one responsible in keeping the society whole and humane.
Morality can be corrupted even if there is religion.
I'm not sure how are the experiments related to their hurry... They did them for research. How's that related to hurrying?
It's not. We can have morals without religion.
And if we can't, then we can be without morals. If a load of lies is what we need to keep something around, then we don't need that something. If something is held by a lie, it's a lie as well.
The Nazi research was done to provide maximum aid and discover weaponries that could further advance the german force.They conducted experiments on things that will be useful to the military
(e.g learning how to connect amputated limbs, healing TB, drinking salt water,...etch)
When Hitler gave unrestricted freedom to science,what happened to morality?
The fact that third world countries are the most religious persons is a solid proof that people needed religion in times of need. It maintains the society and protects the people. Unlike science who aims only to seek knowledge without any self awareness
That's not related to them hurrying or not. They did the experiments for research.
Religion doesn't always protect the people or instill morals in them - research Jasenovac camp or the last exYugo war if you're interested in that topic.
They would have researched even if they weren't losing ground in the war.
They definitely do. Much more connection than the Nazi experiments.
You say that religion is needed, for morals, helping people, etc.
I'm saying not only that it is not needed, but it also can be very bad for people.
In Jasenovac, people were killed in the name of religion.
In exYugo wars, people were killed quite often (not all cases, some of them) in the name of religion.
Which means that even though religion can sometimes be good for people and instill morals, it can also feed the monsters inside of them and give them an excuse for disgusting deeds.
Which means that religion doesn't always protect the people, maintain the society or keep it humane.
The human mind is a fragile thing. Simple mourning for a dead love one can break a person. Without religion to support everyone, our society will never prosper
The human mind is a fragile thing. Simple mourning for a dead love one can break a person. Without religion to support everyone, our society will never prosper
Though, I will accept your reply as admitting that Science and morality does not mix
One doesn't need religion to mourn for a dead loved one. Atheists and agnostics lose loved ones, however they still survive, prosper, keep living. So no, one doesn't need religion for anything.
Because they're decieved, brainwashed, behaving erraticaly because of the hard situation they're in. They look for a way out - and when there are bombs blasting around your house, or you didn't eat for a few days, you start losing your sanity and then it's easy to believe there's a dude up there that can affect our lives. It's a way out, a fantasy to keep them from losing their shit, it's simply a made up concept to make us feel better about things we can't control or even explain.
That's really simple.
They pray to "god" because there's nothing, absolutely nothing else they can do. There's no one that can help them and they can't do it themselves. They feel helpless, but in need of help. So they believe in anything that seems like a way out - so even if it's unrealistic and unbelieveable for a normal person, it becomes reasonable for them because it's their only chance.
I don't think science needs religion but it does need belief. It needs belief that what has already been done in the field is correct in order to build on it. Sometimes this isn't the case and we actively challenging those believes but most of the time science is about trusting what has already been established is correct.
A world without religion is not lame! Just imagine how much better the world would be without religion the concept of war would probably not exist, no religious intolerance and the damn world trade center would still be intact!
You do realize that during times of trouble, people flock around churches and prays their rosaries, right?You may say its non-beneficial. But dont deny that they have nothing else to support their mental health.
Without religion,society will break under the right tragedy
I am speaking against organized religion not faith alone! You could still call out to a higher power in times of trouble without believing in it (if you get what I mean) this disputing that there are no atheists in foxholes!
Technically speaking, organized religions exists because the people agrees for order.Without a leader to stand for them, the philosophical stand will fall into disarray and the belief system will be useless.
