Religion, what's the point?

Mutter Merkel said:
Christianity isn't about feasts and festivals. Christ gave us the bread and the wine in communion, which we're to take regularly in remembrance of him. we celebrate Christmas and Easter with Santa, Christmas trees and easter eggs because that's just all cultural. Why wouldn't you celebrate them as a Christian? It's only your heart condition and the worship that comes from it God cares about. If someone's worshiping a Christmas tree or an Easter bunny I think they've got problems.
Click to expand...
If Jesus (AS) was here today, what would he say about the current way of celebrating Xmas and Easter? Personally, I'd think he'd want to dissociate himself from it. Even if we ignore the paganistic parts of the celebration, did Jesus (AS) ever celebrate his birthday? Did the disciples celebrate his birthday? Essentially, that is what Xmas is - a celebration of the birth of Christ (right?). To me, it seems to be an innovation which has no real tangible link to Jesus (AS) and his teachings. This is why I think the religion has been corrupted by man.

Also - do you believe the bread and wine being his flesh and blood to be a literal or metaphorical meaning?
 
Mutter Merkel said:
The dentist mentioned war, destruction and poverty, all man-made problems that stem from the corrupt character of man, and the patient correctly responds that God cannot right the wrongs of a man's character if he does not come to him. God did make people "nice", but man decided to follow his own schemes. God didn't create over-grown toddlers who have no responsibility.

It's really not very complicated.
Click to expand...
Considering that 'God created man on his own image', then by definition, God's character is corrupt too.
VorZakone said:
Revan, I cannot comprehend the stupidity of that video. :wenger:
Click to expand...
Bullshit religious videos existed always. You have probably seen:



Not that it is factually incorrect, but they couldn't ask for a wrong example. Einstein was completely atheist on the existence of a personal God.
 
carvajal said:
Two days ago there was the bloodiest terrorist attack in the history of Europe, but I think it is better to debate about how bad are other religions, we must put them all in the same boat. The problem is in 2015 exactly the same for all.
Christians, although send tens of thousands of missionaries to Africa still run into conflicts in Centroafrica (a moderate country against muslim militias who were saints), or Buddhists, considered a global danger.
It is better to discuss how bad the Western has done, the power of money and the press. The Jihadi phenomenon is four kids throwing stones at some Israeli tank , certainly are not a current, a rising phenomenon or a style rooted in generations.
99% of muslims condemn it, with that all is said. It makes no sense to talk about reforms, progressive changes or look for possible causes or guilty.
The best is to follow the populist path and turning the other cheek
Click to expand...
There are threads discussing ISIS, and the bloodiest terrorist attack in the history of Europe. It is actually hard to miss them, considering that there are a few of them in the first page of current events.

This thread is a 7-8 years old thread which discusses religions. And as far as I can see, no one is putting religions on the same boat. Obviously, there are some similar things, considering that both Jews, Christians and Muslims have as religion a derivative of old Hebraism.
 
Uzz said:
If Jesus (AS) was here today, what would he say about the current way of celebrating Xmas and Easter? Personally, I'd think he'd want to dissociate himself from it. Even if we ignore the paganistic parts of the celebration, did Jesus (AS) ever celebrate his birthday? Did the disciples celebrate his birthday? Essentially, that is what Xmas is - a celebration of the birth of Christ (right?). To me, it seems to be an innovation which has no real tangible link to Jesus (AS) and his teachings. This is why I think the religion has been corrupted by man.

Also - do you believe the bread and wine being his flesh and blood to be a literal or metaphorical meaning?
Click to expand...

I think Jesus has more to say about the rampant consumerism around Christmas time. And yes, God celebrated the birth of Christ; it's recorded in Luke and Matthew and is commonly called the nativity.

The bread and the wine are symbolic. They do not become Christ's flesh and blood. Christ said to break the bread in memory of Him, not physical consumption. Jesus spoke of spiritual things all the time, and many of the Jews, such as those in John 6, just did not comprehend him.
 
Revan said:
Considering that 'God created man on his own image', then by definition, God's character is corrupt too.

Bullshit religious videos existed always. You have probably seen:



Not that it is factually incorrect, but they couldn't ask for a wrong example. Einstein was completely atheist on the existence of a personal God.
Click to expand...


Wrong on both counts. God's character is not made corrupt by man's chosen schemes. God created creatures who were capable of love and kindness, but for love to be such it must be freely given, and if it can be freely given it must also be possible to withhold it. Creatures that are capable of love are superior to automatons who are not.

You cannot be "atheist" with regard to a specific God. Atheism is the rejection/lack of belief in God. Einstein cannot both believe in a kind of God and be an atheist at the same time.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
I think Jesus has more to say about the rampant consumerism around Christmas time. And yes, God celebrated the birth of Christ; it's recorded in Luke and Matthew and is commonly called the nativity.

The bread and the wine are symbolic. They do not become Christ's flesh and blood. Christ said to break the bread in memory of Him, not physical consumption. Jesus spoke of spiritual things all the time, and many of the Jews, such as those in John 6, just did not comprehend him.
Click to expand...
The nativity was the birth of Christ, yep - but was that celebrated every year from then on in around the time Jesus (AS) was here? Did the disciples celebrate it?

And also - when is the day? Is it Dec 25th? Jan 6th? Something else?

Thanks for the responses, btw.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Wrong on both counts. God's character is not made corrupt by man's chosen schemes. God created creatures who were capable of love and kindness, but for love to be such it must be freely given, and if it can be freely given it must also be possible to withhold it. Creatures that are capable of love are superior to automatons who are not.

You cannot be "atheist" with regard to a specific God. Atheism is the rejection/lack of belief in God. Einstein cannot both believe in a kind of God and be an atheist at the same time.
Click to expand...
1) God create man on his own image. If our character is corrupt, then so is his. Because after all, our character was created on the image of his own character.

2) You can. Pretty much every atheist is atheist with regard to a personal God (because every religion has personal Gods). I consider myself an atheist, but I wouldn't say that there is no such thing as a higher power. Be it a magician, a programmer or the universe itself. However, I reject all personal Gods. Zeus, Amon-Ra, Jehowa, Shiva etc, because the evidence in the existence of them is equals to zero. I cannot reject an unknown God, but considering that he is unknown, is a rejection by default.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
War, destruction and poverty are all directly linked to man's wickedness. So long as there are wicked men, there will be war, destruction and poverty.
Click to expand...

Its the same rhetoric as saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"!!!!!
 
Uzz said:
The nativity was the birth of Christ, yep - but was that celebrated every year from then on in around the time Jesus (AS) was here? Did the disciples celebrate it?

And also - when is the day? Is it Dec 25th? Jan 6th? Something else?

Thanks for the responses, btw.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the early Christians did celebrate birthdays annually, no; it wasn't the culture of a first-century Jew to do so.

This is a good explanation of why it's permissible to celebrate Christ's birth annually from a Messianic Jew:

And you're welcome.
 
shivab said:
Humans have killed in the name of democracy vs communism/oil/religion/honour. Theres no one reason. would you blame democracy for what the US did in Vietnam or oil for what they did in iraq? would you blame communism for what russia did to afghanistan? then why blame religion in this case? Bad people misinterpret and manipulate religion (or any other belief) to suit their needs and their rhetoric.

(read this- http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...gion-that-creates-terrorists-its-the-politics)
Click to expand...

Who else would you blame for those wars? That they just happened on it's own? Yes, it is common knowledge that Cold War was a serious root cause of Afghanistan and Vietnam. I don't think anyone argues against that anymore, do that?


shivab said:
The label of "terrorist" and "terrorism" is the issue here not what %. what the US did in iraq was directly responsible for the creation of ISIS (which killed scores of women and children). nobody brands the US as a terrorist. What about israel? The % you talk of would be a lot smaller when we start labelling fairly instead of being biased. What about economics being used as means to attack a nation instead of guns? We are very restricted in our thinking and the media has a lot to do with it.

(read - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eorge-w-bush-s-invasion-in-iraq-10115243.html)
Click to expand...

I think you lost track of distinction between a war and a act of terrorism. If you do your research properly, you'll find that ISIS originated under Saddam and even currently most ISIS leaders were officers under Saddam. Irrespective, Saddam was a megalomaniac and deserved to be overthrown. I certainly don't agree with 'US created ISIS' argument at all. It fundamentally ignores everything that was already wrong in that region.

shivab said:
Your third point is a misinterpretation of my point. Its quite clear that the media is eurocentric and westcentric. it doest make world wide news and things dont start trending on twitter when a bomb explodes in the developing world eg. india. and no those countries dont always have bombs exploding left right and centre. my point was not only about baghdad it was about apathy in general.
Click to expand...

This is the era of social media and instant networking. Blaming 'lack of TV/newspaper time/ is quite lame as any other excuse goes. If was a serious effort, then I'm sure the hurdles you mention can be easily overcome.

shivab said:
Christianity is still being used to kill people. Just take a look at africa, we just ignore this fact because the world is too busy right now with blaming islam and islamic fundamentalism. Do we talk of reforming Christianity or Buddhism (because of what happened in Myanmmar) or Hinduism (because of organizations such as RSS, VHP and bajrang dal)?

(read - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26274198)

you might think again that religion is to blame..i would again say - its a few people killing people for vested interests, power and control. These few manipulate the many uneducated unemployed misguided fools and soon you have an army of clueless idiots. religion is not the cause. its just a tool. when wall street steals money from people you dont blame money and currencies you blame the companies and their greed then why blame religion in this case?
Click to expand...

What's your point here? That we don't give them mean headlines means we should ignore this too? Yes, VHP/Bajrang Dal are as bad as ISIS and should have no place in modern society. Maybe not in public, but these are oft debated in desi convo (which I think you need to be in, btw) as it is a more regional debate opposed to ISIS. Yes, people do kill for reasons other than religion, but that no way impact what they do in name of religion.

shivab said:
" are all muslim terrorists?" why even ask that question. are all americans terrorists? does anyone ask that? no because that would be preposterous. But then do we go around asking every american to apologize for vietnam iraq etc. publically all the time? Muslims fight against ISIS and the educated ones are taking to social media to show their support. The media in my opinion doesnt do enough to highlight that. muslim terrorists killing people is just better sensational news. not muslims march against isis. take any incident and i will show you a small news story where muslims have condemned it. the notinmyname campaign is doing quite well but the moderate muslims need help from the media which they arent getting enough of.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...i-am-a-muslim-paris-attacks-social-media.html
Click to expand...

Whether you acknowledge it or not, Islamophobia is a growing and a realistic problem. There is a growing culture where any muslim or person with a muslim name or even any person of Indian/Pakistani/Arabic looks gets pulled for extra security checks or gets profiled. If this trend is not curtailed right away, then yes, I believe the distrust would extend to all muslim and other brown skinned people in general.

shivab said:
Im a hindu. i know about and have experienced fundamentalism first hand. at the end of the day it was about power and control rather than religion. i believe in most cases its the same.
Click to expand...

It is always about power and control. Religion is just the tool.[/QUOTE]
 
Revan said:
1) God create man on his own image. If our character is corrupt, then so is his. Because after all, our character was created on the image of his own character.

2) You can. Pretty much every atheist is atheist with regard to a personal God (because every religion has personal Gods). I consider myself an atheist, but I wouldn't say that there is no such thing as a higher power. Be it a magician, a programmer or the universe itself. However, I reject all personal Gods. Zeus, Amon-Ra, Jehowa, Shiva etc, because the evidence in the existence of them is equals to zero. I cannot reject an unknown God, but considering that he is unknown, is a rejection by default.
Click to expand...

You haven't understood. God's character cannot be sullied by man's own wayward choices. Man was given all the grace and opportunity to stay in communion with God and to follow after him. As I have previously explained, man must have the ability to act according to his will if he is to love freely. God deemed it right to create man with the capacity for love, in his own image, as you say.

And no you cannot be an atheist and believe in a higher intelligence (which is just your way of saying God. If we dug deeper we would see your idea of a higher power would start to take on the characteristics of God).


bleedred said:
Its the same rhetoric as saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"!!!!!
Click to expand...

Who do you put on trial for a murder by gunshot? The gun?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I think you lost track of distinction between a war and a act of terrorism. If you do your research properly, you'll find that ISIS originated under Saddam and even currently most ISIS leaders were officers under Saddam. Irrespective, Saddam was a megalomaniac and deserved to be overthrown. I certainly don't agree with 'US created ISIS' argument at all. It fundamentally ignores everything that was already wrong in that region.
Click to expand...

True. I am getting so tired of this argument that ISIS would not have happened if not for american intervention in Iraq. Saying that is silly because applying cause and effect to geopolitical situations is always a complicated and dangerous thing to do.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Who do you put on trial for a murder by gunshot? The gun?
Click to expand...

No, But We can clearly say that if for lack of guns, the number of deaths will be low and there is evidence to back it up throughout the world. So, you believe the easier access of guns has nothing to do with massacres in US??.

No one is saying that there will be no problems in the world without religion. But Religion is one reason which people fight for and do bad things. And if not for that people may kill for all other bad reasons( nationalism, racism etc.,.,) which will also be and need be criticized upon. Nobody is denying that.
 
bleedred said:
No, But We can clearly say that if for lack of guns, the number of deaths will be low and there is evidence to back it up throughout the world. So, you believe the easier access of guns has nothing to do with massacres in US??.

No one is saying that there will be no problems in the world without religion. But Religion is one reason which people fight for and do bad things. And if not for that people may kill for all other bad reasons( nationalism, racism etc.,.,) which will also be and need be criticized upon. Nobody is denying that.
Click to expand...

Do you think if we didn't have any guns at all ISIS wouldn't have them all of a sudden? If we didn't have an armed force, do you think we'd be safe from the wicked men in the world who want to do wicked things?
 
bleedred said:
No, But We can clearly say that if for lack of guns, the number of deaths will be low and there is evidence to back it up throughout the world. So, you believe the easier access of guns has nothing to do with massacres in US??.

No one is saying that there will be no problems in the world without religion. But Religion is one reason which people fight for and do bad things. And if not for that people may kill for all other bad reasons( nationalism, racism etc.,.,) which will also be and need be criticized upon. Nobody is denying that.
Click to expand...
I am getting really tired of constantly expressing this, as if we don't know that religion is not the only problem.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Do you think if we didn't have any guns at all ISIS wouldn't have them all of a sudden? If we didn't have an armed force, do you think we'd be safe from the wicked men in the world who want to do wicked things?
Click to expand...

What are you on about?. Did you even bother reading my post?. I was referring to the guns as an analogy when you keep on saying people are bad only because of their wickedness.

Edit: people kill people only cos of their wickedness
 
bleedred said:
What are you on about?. Did you even bother reading my post?. I was referring to the guns as an analogy when you keep on saying people are bad only because of their wickedness.

Edit: people kill people only cos of their wickedness
Click to expand...

I am sorry, your posts aren't coherent.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Indeed. Part of a process that continued over centuries.
Click to expand...

The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. As I have already said, it was arranged to debate the trinity and the divinity of Christ because of people like Arius with scripturally errant views. The problem is, most of you have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the historicity of any of the things you say in relation to Christ and the early Church. You're clearly waaaay outside of your area of expertise.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. As I have already said, it was arranged to debate the trinity and the divinity of Christ because of people like Arius with scripturally errant views. The problem is, most of you have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the historicity of any of the things you say in relation to Christ and the early Church. You're clearly waaaay outside of your area of expertise.
Click to expand...
So how do you think/believe the Canon of acceptable scripture was decided upon?
 
Feedingseagulls said:
So how do you think/believe the Canon of acceptable scripture was decided upon?
Click to expand...

It wasn't done in one sitting, nor could it have been. It was done slowly as the different books of what would later comprise the new testament circulated among God's people. For one thing, the books weren't all written at the same time. And that's why I say, if you understood anything about early-Church history, you would know that the process began as soon as the first documents were written and began to circulate, and that the process was not finished until about 400 AD. Although you have the Muratorian canon date of 170AD, which was short of several books.

The confirmation of which books would comprise the new testament was based on the teaching of the apostles.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
And no you cannot be an atheist and believe in a higher intelligence (which is just your way of saying God. If we dug deeper we would see your idea of a higher power would start to take on the characteristics of God).
Click to expand...

If there's one thing you can say about religion, is that after all these centuries of "digging deeper" it's certainly produced a pretty clear and unified idea of God.

Oh wait..
 
Mutter Merkel said:
The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. As I have already said, it was arranged to debate the trinity and the divinity of Christ because of people like Arius with scripturally errant views. The problem is, most of you have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the historicity of any of the things you say in relation to Christ and the early Church. You're clearly waaaay outside of your area of expertise.
Click to expand...
Given that the discussion of the Arianist 'heresy' resulted in the suppression/destruction of pro-Arian literature it is not unreasonable to presume that this attitude affected the discussions on biblical texts which seem to have also taken place. So any text that might support Arian would be negatively viewed, since this would bolster the majority view that Arian's doctrine was misguided.

So we have a group of men collectively deciding on doctrine for textual and political reasons and probably also judging the acceptability of various competitors for canonical inclusion even if no official Canon was issued following the council
 
Phurry said:
Not to mention events like the Council of Nicaea where a bunch of blokes sat round a table and decided what, in their opinion, should & should not be included.
Click to expand...

Indeed, this is another thing that baffles me.

So many people revere the bible and such as if they were written by their deity itself. The Bible isn't even a fixed text. Every tom dick n harry wrote their own version and proclaimed it as correct. Then they had numerous meetings like the council of Nicaea to determine which bits of who's text's should be put forward to the masses as correct, as well as deciding things like how, when and who should practise their religion.

The papacy even grants legitimacy to beliefs/denominations that differ from each other.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Given that the discussion of the Arianist 'heresy' resulted in the suppression/destruction of pro-Arian literature it is not unreasonable to presume that this attitude affected the discussions on biblical texts which seem to have also taken place. So any text that might support Arian would be negatively viewed, since this would bolster the majority view that Arian's doctrine was misguided.

So we have a group of men collectively deciding on doctrine for textual and political reasons and probably also judging the acceptability of various competitors for canonical inclusion even if no official Canon was issued following the council
Click to expand...

Any student of the Bible and follower of Christ would reject Arianism outright.

The great thing about studying the Bible is realising the harmony between the old testament and the new testament and how absolutely ludicrous a unitarian notion of the Biblical God is just going by the old testament and the earliest Church writings and traditions we have.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
It wasn't done in one sitting, nor could it have been. It was done slowly as the different books of what would later comprise the new testament circulated among God's people. For one thing, the books weren't all written at the same time. And that's why I say, if you understood anything about early-Church history, you would know that the process began as soon as the first documents were written and began to circulate, and that the process was not finished until about 400 AD. Although you have the Muratorian canon date of 170AD, which was short of several books.

The confirmation of which books would comprise the new testament was based on the teaching of the apostles.
Click to expand...
So the formation of the Canon was an extended selection process by perfectly normal fallible humans with major political as well as religious motivations.

Later events sometimes revisited those decisions as well as looking at the production the documents actually in use in the chosen language. Once vernacular bibles began to supersede Latin you had the issue of the scholarly ability of new translators to effectively represent whatever 'original' texts were used, in addition to the possibly corrupt nature of those texts.

Obviously since the Dead Sea finds we have been exposed to some earlier versions of some texts. So we face then the issue of whether closer-to-origin or sanctified-by-tradition should decidec between textual variants in modern bible production.

All in all, people are entitled to be sceptical of the authenticity of the texts given all the variables that gave affected their production.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Any student of the Bible and follower of Christ would reject Arianism outright.
Click to expand...
Well given that you are looking at a bible possibly deliberately chosen to exclude Arianism, that isn't that surprising is it?

Given that Christ is the 'lead figure' within this new Paulian sect, I am not surprised they hated the idea of someone proposing the lesser Arianist image of their Unique Selling Point.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
So the formation of the Canon was an extended selection process by perfectly normal fallible humans with major political as well as religious motivations.

Later events sometimes revisited those decisions as well as looking at the production the documents actually in use in the chosen language. Once vernacular bibles began to supersede Latin you had the issue of the scholarly ability of new translators to effectively represent whatever 'original' texts were used, in addition to the possibly corrupt nature of those texts.

Obviously since the Dead Sea finds we have been exposed to some earlier versions of some texts. So we face then the issue of whether closer-to-origin or sanctified-by-tradition should decidec between textual variants in modern bible production.

All in all, people are entitled to be sceptical of the authenticity of the texts given all the variables that gave affected their production.
Click to expand...

The textual variants mostly consist of copying errors that don't affect meaning and doctrine.

As to your point on the compiling of the new testament, that's much too simplistic. Again, you're trying to put your own spin on it. As I have said before, the texts were compiled on the basis of the apostles' teachings, and those are the earliest we have. Given the wealth of manuscript evidence, it's very easy to look back now to the earliest sources and see the very obvious emerging harmony between the teachings of the various apostles. You have to fight a battle against the most well-preserved documentation of antiquity in order to call the new testament's authenticity into question.

I also believe it was God who decided what would and would not go in the new testament. It makes no sense for a Christian to speak of these processes apart from God.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
The textual variants mostly consist of copying errors that don't affect meaning.

As to your point on the compiling of the new testament, that's much too simplistic. Again, you're trying to put your own spin on it. As I have said before, the texts were compiled on the basis of the apostles' teachings, and those are the earliest we have. Given the wealth of manuscript evidence, it's very easy to look back now to the earliest sources and see the very obvious emerging harmony between the teachings of the various apostles. You have to fight a battle against the most well-preserved documentation of antiquity in order to call the new testament's authenticity into question.

I also believe it was God who decided what would and would not go in the new testament. It makes no sense for a Christian to speak of these processes apart from God.
Click to expand...
Ah. The old divine inspiration gag. Sadly lacking in all those wonderful people determined to be heretical. Like Protestants back in the day.

I am indeed putting a very sceptical spin on all this coherent textual tradition stuff, because in my view it is a post-hoc decision, not an inherent property of truth being revealed. In deciding upon apocrypha from OT times onwards, those with power endorsed texts promoting their views and excluded those which were contrary. So you gain coherence, and accuracy in portraying their views - but not necessarily accuracy to any objective truth. The same thing would apply when considering the Gospel of Judith for example, which was always going to get excluded on a gender basis if nothing else.
 
If the bible really is chosen by God and he/she/it is omnipotent, why does it need revisions, reinterpretations and translations?

And what happens to those not exposed to the bible? After all, he picked a pretty shitty age to get the word out.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
You haven't understood. God's character cannot be sullied by man's own wayward choices. Man was given all the grace and opportunity to stay in communion with God and to follow after him. As I have previously explained, man must have the ability to act according to his will if he is to love freely. God deemed it right to create man with the capacity for love, in his own image, as you say.

And no you cannot be an atheist and believe in a higher intelligence (which is just your way of saying God. If we dug deeper we would see your idea of a higher power would start to take on the characteristics of God).
Click to expand...

Never said, that I believe in a higher intelligence. Just that you cannot rule out the possibility of a higher intelligence.

On the other side, you can rule out (with high probability) the existence of a personal God. Be it by using logic, or by the large number of contradiction in any of the holy books. Or by the nonsense written there.

If we use Dawkins scale (1 - I am sure that there is a God, up to 7 - I am sure that there is no God), I would consider myself as:

God - around 4 (agnostic)
Personal God - around 6.9 (very strong atheist)
Abrahamic God - 6.999999999 (complete atheist)
 
Revan said:
Never said, that I believe in a higher intelligence. Just that you cannot rule out the possibility of a higher intelligence.

On the other side, you can rule out (with high probability) the existence of a personal God. Be it by using logic, or by the large number of contradiction in any of the holy books. Or by the nonsense written there.
Click to expand...

Einstein could not be an atheist if he believed in God, whether he viewed that God as personal or not. That was the original point. It hardly makes Einstein a Christian, so it doesn't concern me. It's just not logically compatible to call him an atheist towards only some gods. An atheist does not believe in God.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Einstein could not be an atheist if he believed in God, whether he viewed that God as personal or not. That was the original point. It hardly makes Einstein a Christian, so it doesn't concern me. It's just not logically compatible to call him an atheist towards only some gods. An atheist does not believe in God.
Click to expand...
Einstein was pretty much atheist. He didn't believe in any higher power, though obviously being a scientist, he couldn't rule out the existence of a higher power. He didn't believe in personal God, neither on afterlife or all other stuff which comes with that.

At times he was considered as pantheist (God = Universe), which is as atheist as you can get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.