Re: Einstein's century

Religions > Atheism > Re: Einstein's century

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	09 Jan 2005 03:53:16 AM
Object:	Re: Einstein's century

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a deist and a
pantheist, Christian fascist historian, David Ford?

No.
Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/ not-material God
having an intellect far superior to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.
.

User: "Dubh Ghall"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	09 Jan 2005 12:20:17 PM

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:53:16 +0000 (UTC), david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/ not-material God
having an intellect far superior to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.

That does rather beg the question, and the question it begs, is: So what?
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	09 Jan 2005 09:45:11 PM

Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:53:16 +0000 (UTC), david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:

That does rather beg the question, and the question it begs, is: So what?

No, it *raises* the question. The conclusion is not assumed ;-)
--
John S. Wilkins

web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	10 Jan 2005 07:14:37 AM

John Wilkins wrote:

Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:53:16 +0000 (UTC), david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:

That does rather beg the question, and the question it begs, is: So what?

No, it *raises* the question. The conclusion is not assumed ;-)
--
John S. Wilkins

web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com

God cheats

Strange how so often in their frustration to find some any piece of data that
will show their god exists they say 'Well the worst and most horrible man in
this world was Hitler, and one of the cleverest was Einstein. Hitler
disbelieved in religion god and Einsein supports it so let's quote them.
They are wrong on both counts.
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	09 Jan 2005 10:42:56 AM

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a deist and a
pantheist, Christian fascist historian, David Ford?

No.

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/ not-material God
having an intellect far superior to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.

"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."
[Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side,
edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.]

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	10 Jan 2005 07:23:20 PM

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a deist and a
pantheist, Christian fascist historian, David Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of deism and
Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are incapable of using Google to
look up definitions. Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that Einstein wrote
an approving forword to Barnett's book-- see below.

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed light on anything."
=======================================.
Einstein, Albert. 10 September 1948. Foreword to
Barnett, Lincoln. 1948-- first edition, first printing.
_The Universe and Dr. Einstein_, foreword by Albert Einstein
(New York: William Sloane Associates, Publishers), 127pp.
Einstein's foreword:
ANYONE WHO HAS EVER TRIED TO PRESENT A
rather abstract scientific subject in a popular manner knows
the great difficulties of such an attempt. Either he succeeds
in being intelligible by concealing the core of the problem
and by offering to the reader only superficial aspects or
vague allusions, thus deceiving the reader by arousing in him
the deceptive illusion of comprehension; or else he gives an
expert account of the problem, but in such a fashion that the
untrained reader is unable to follow the exposition and
becomes discouraged from reading any further.
If these two categories are omitted from today's popular
scientific literature, surprisingly little remains. But the little
that is left is very valuable indeed. It is of great importance
that the general public be given an opportunity to
experience-- consciously and intelligently-- the efforts and
results of scientific research. It is not sufficient that each
result be taken up, elaborated, and applied by a few
specialists in the field. Restricting the body of knowledge to
a small group deadens the philosophical spirit of a people
and leads to spiritual poverty.
Lincoln Barnett's book represents a valuable contribution to
popular scientific writing. The main ideas of the theory of
relativity are extremely well presented. Moreover, the
present state of our knowledge in physics is aptly
characterized. The author shows how the growth of our
factual knowledge, together with the striving for a unified
theoretical conception comprising all empirical data, has led
to the present situation which is characterized--
notwithstanding all successes-- by an uncertainty concerning
the choice of the basic theoretical concepts.
Princeton, New Jersey
September 10, 1948
=======================================.
Barnett, Lincoln. 1948-- first edition, first printing.
_The Universe and Dr. Einstein_, foreword by Albert Einstein
(New York: William Sloane Associates, Publishers), 127pp.
Chapter 14 and the beginning portion of chapter 15, on
96-106:
AT THE TIME EINSTEIN EVOLVED HIS COSMOLOGY,
he was unaware, however, of a strange
astronomical phenomenon which was only interpreted
several years later. He had assumed that the motions of the
stars and galaxies were random, like the aimless drifting of
molecules in a gas. Since there was no evidence of any unity
in their wanderings he had ignored them entirely and
regarded the universe as static. But astronomers were
beginning to notice signs of a systematic movement among
the outer galaxies at the extreme limits of telescopic vision.
All these outlying galaxies, or "island universes," are,
apparently, receding from our solar system and from each
other. This organized flight of the distant galaxies-- the
remotest of them being about 500 million light years away--
is an entirely different affair from the indolent wheeling of
the nearer gravitational systems. For such a systematic
movement would have an effect on the curvature of the
universe as a whole.
The universe is, therefore, not static; it is expanding in
somewhat the same manner as a soap bubble or a balloon
expands. The analogy is not quite exact, however, for if we
conceive of the universe as a kind of spotted balloon-- the
spots representing matter-- one would expect the spots to
expand too. But this cannot be, because then we would
never notice the expansion, just as Alice in Wonderland
would have been unaware of her sudden changes in stature if
all her surroundings had grown and contracted along with
her. Therefore, as cosmologist H. P. Robertson of the
California Institute of Technology has pointed out, in
visualizing the universe as a spotted balloon, we must think
of the spots as inelastic patches sewn upon the surface.
Material bodies retain their dimensions while space stretches
out between them, like the skin of the balloon between the
patches.
This extraordinary phenomenon greatly complicates
cosmology. If the spectroscopic analysis that indicates the
recession of these outer galaxies is correct (as most
astronomers believe it to be) then the velocities at which they
are vanishing into limbo are almost beyond belief. Their
speed appears to increase with distance. While the nearer
galaxies, about one million light years away, are traveling at
a mere 100 miles a second, those 250 million light years
away are flying off at the fantastic rate of 25,000 miles a
second, almost one seventh the velocity of light. Since all of
these remote galaxies, without exception, are moving away
from us and from each other, one must conclude that at some
epoch of cosmic time all of them were clustered together in
one fiery inchoate mass. And if the geometry of space is
shaped by its material content then the universe in this
pregalactic phase must have been an uncomfortably cramped
and crowded receptacle, characterized by an excessive
curvature and packed with matter in a state of inconceivable
density. Calculations based on the velocities of the receding
galaxies show that they must have separated and started their
flight from the "center" of this shrunken universe about two
billion years ago.
Several theories have been advanced by astronomers and
cosmologists to explain the enigma of the expanding
universe. One, put forth by the Belgian cosmologist, Abbe
Lemaitre, proposes that the universe originated from a single
stupendous primordial atom which exploded and thus
precipitated the expansion which we still perceive. An
analogous theory, made public recently by Dr. George
Gamow of George Washington University, reconstructs in
detail how the constituent elements might have been forged
in the dense flaming core of the universe before it started to
expand. In the beginning, says Dr. Gamow, his nucleus of
the universe was an inferno of homogeneous primordial
vapor seething at unimaginable temperatures such as no
longer exist even in the interiors of stars. (The temperature
of the sun, which is an average star, ranges from
5500{degrees} Centigrade at the surface up to
40,000,000{degrees} in the interior.) There were no
elements in such heat, no molecules, no atoms-- nothing but
free neutrons in a state of chaotic agitation. When the
cosmic mass began to expand, however, the temperature
began to fall; and when it had dropped to about one million
degrees the neutrons condensed into aggregates; electrons
were emitted which attached themselves to nuclei, and atoms
were formed. All the elements in the universe were thus
created within the space of a few critical moments in the
cosmic dawn and their roles fixed for the two billion years of
continuing expansion that ensued.
An earlier theory of the expanding universe, put forth some
years ago by Dr. R. C. Tolman of the California Institute of
Technology, suggests that the cosmic expansion may be
simply a temporary condition which will be followed at some
future epoch of cosmic time by a period of contraction. The
universe in this picture is a pulsating balloon in which cycles
of expansion and contraction succeed each other through
eternity. These cycles are governed by changes in the
amount of matter in the universe; for as Einstein showed, the
curvature of the universe is dependent on its content. The
difficulty with this theory is that it rests on the assumption
that somewhere in the universe matter is being formed.
Although it is true that the amount of matter in the universe
is perpetually changing, the change appears to be all in one
direction-- toward dissolution. All the phenomena of nature,
visible and invisible, within the atom and in outer space,
indicate that the substance and energy of the universe are
inexorably diffusing like vapor through the insatiable void.
The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying
embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning to
cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being
dissipated into empty space.
The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate
"heat-death," or as it is technically defined, a condition of
"maximum entropy." When the universe reaches this state
some billions of years from now all the processes of nature
will cease. All space will be at the same temperature. No
energy can be used because all of it will be uniformly
distributed through the cosmos. There will be no light, no
life, no warmth-- nothing but perpetual and irrevocable
stagnation. Time itself will come to an end. For entropy
points the direction of time. Entropy is the measure of
randomness. When all system and order in the universe have
vanished, when randomness is at its maximum, and entropy
cannot be increased, when there no longer is any sequence of
cause and effect, in short when the universe has run down,
there will be no direction to time-- there will be no time.
And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful
principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
which stands today as virtually the only pillar of classical
physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the
fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature
moves just one way.
There are a few contemporary theorists, however, who
propose that somehow, somewhere beyond man's meager ken
the universe may be rebuilding itself. In the light of
Einstein's principle of the equivalence of mass and energy, it
is possible to imagine the diffused radiation in space
congealing once more into particles of matter-- electrons,
atoms, and molecules-- which may then combine to form
larger units, which in turn may be collected by their own
gravitational influence into diffuse nebulae, stars, and,
ultimately, galactic systems. And thus the life cycle of the
universe may be repeated for all eternity. Laboratory
experiments have indeed demonstrated that photons of
high-energy radiation, such as gamma rays, can, under
certain conditions, interact with matter to produce pairs of
electrons and positrons. Astronomers have also determined
recently that atoms of the lighter elements, drifting in space--
hydrogen, helium, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon-- may
slowly coalesce into molecules and microscopic particles of
dust and gas. And still more recently Dr. Fred L. Whipple of
Harvard has described in his "Dust Cloud Hypothesis",
published in 1948, how the rarefied cosmic dust that floats in
interstellar space in quantities equal in mass to all the visible
matter in the universe could in the course of a billion years
condense and coagulate into stars. According to Whipple
these tiny dust particles, barely one fifty-thousandths of an
inch in diameter, are blown together by the delicate pressure
of starlight, just as the fine-spun tail of a comet is deflected
away from the sun by the impact of solar photons. As the
particles cohere, an aggregate is formed, then a cloudlet, and
then a cloud. When the cloud attains gigantic proportions
(i.e., when its diameter exceeds six trillion miles), its mass
and density will be sufficient to set a new sequence of
physical processes into operation. Gravity will cause the
cloud to contract, and its contraction will cause its internal
pressure and temperature to rise. Eventually, in the last
white-hot stages of its collapse, it will begin to radiate as a
star. Theory shows that our solar system might have
evolved, in special circumstances, from such a process-- our
sun being the star in question and the various planets small
cold by-products condensed from subsidiary cloudlets
spiraling within the main cloud.
Presupposing the possibility of such events as these, one
might arrive ultimately at the concept of a self-perpetuating
pulsating universe, renewing its cycles of formation and
dissolution, light and darkness, order and disorder, heat and
cold, expansion and contraction, through never-ending eons
of time. And yet this picture has not been widely accepted
because no definitive evidence has been found to support it.
Although dust clouds of all dimensions and degrees of
density can be seen hanging in the abyss of interstellar space,
no one can state from man's brief temporal perspective that
they are proto-stars, any more than one can say with
assurance that a white cumulus cloud riding the blue
atmosphere of our earth on any given day is tomorrow's
thunder storm or simply an evanescent wraith of mist that
winds have gathered and will presently disperse. But apart
from conjecture on the origins of our solar system or the
individual stars or any component part of the system of
nature in which we stand, there are theoretical as well as
empirical difficulties inherent in every suggestion that the
universe as a whole may still be abuilding. Nothing in all
inanimate nature can be unmistakably identified as a pure
creative process. At one time, for example, it was thought
that the mysterious cosmic rays which continually bombard
the earth from outer space might be byproducts of some
process of atomic creation. But there is greater support for
the opposite view that they are byproducts of atomic
annihilation. Everything indeed, everything visible in nature
or established in theory, suggests that the universe is
implacably progressing toward final darkness and decay.
There is an important philosophical corollary to this view.
For if the universe is running down and nature's processes
are proceeding in just one direction, the inescapable
inference is that everything had a beginning: somehow and
sometime the cosmic processes were started, the stellar fires
ignited, and the whole vast pageant of the universe brought
into being. Most of the clues, moreover, that have been
discovered at the inner and outer frontiers of scientific
cognition suggest a definite time of Creation. The unvarying
rate at which uranium expends its nuclear energies and the
absence of any natural process leading to its formation
indicate that all the uranium on earth must have come into
existence at one specific time, which, according to the best
calculations of geophysicists, was about two billion years
ago. The tempo at which the wild thermonuclear processes
in the interiors of stars transmute matter into radiation
enables astronomers to compute with fair assurance the
duration of stellar life, and the figure they reach as the likely
average age of most stars visible in the firmament today is
two billion years. The arithmetic of the geophysicists and
astrophysicists is thus in striking agreement with that of the
cosmogonists who, basing their calculations on the apparent
velocity of the receding galaxies, find that the universe began
to expand two billion years ago. And there are other signs in
other areas of science that submit the same reckoning. So all
the evidence that points to the ultimate annihilation of the
universe points just as definitely to an inception fixed in
time.
Even if one acquiesces to the idea of an immortal pulsating
universe, within which the sun and earth and supergiant red
stars are comparative newcomers, the problem of initial
origin remains. It merely pushes the time of Creation into
the infinite past. For while theorists have adduced
mathematically impeccable accounts of the fabrication of
galaxies, stars, star dust, atoms, and even of the atom's
components, every theory rests ultimately on the a priori
assumption that something was already in existence--
whether free neutrons, energy quanta, or simply the blank
inscrutable "world stuff," the cosmic essence, of which the
multifarious universe was subsequently wrought.
COSMOLOGISTS FOR THE MOST PART MAINTAIN silence
on the question of ultimate origins, leaving that issue
to the philosophers and theology. Yet only the purest
empiricists among modern scientists turn their backs on the
mystery that underlies physical reality. Einstein, whose
philosophy of science has sometimes been criticized as
materialistic, once said:
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can
experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of
all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who
can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as
dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists,
manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant
beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their
most primitive forms-- this knowledge, this feeling is at the
center of true religiousness."
And on another occasion he declared, "The cosmic religious
experience is the strongest and noblest mainspring of
scientific research." Most scientists, when referring to the
mysteries of the universe, its vast forces, its origins, and its
rationality and harmony, tend to avoid using the word God.
Yet Einstein, who has been called an atheist, has no such
inhibitions. "My religion," he says, "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 minds. That deeply emotional conviction of
the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed
in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
So far as science is concerned, there are at the moment two
gateways which offer the promise of closer access to
physical reality. One is the great new telescope which soon,
from Palomar Mountain, California....
=======================================.
On 114, the last paragraph of the last chapter, chapter 15:
Man's inescapable impasse is that he himself is part of the
world he seeks to explore; his body and proud brain are
mosaics of the same elemental particles that compose the
dark, drifting dust clouds of interstellar space; he is, in the
final analysis, merely an ephemeral conformation of the
primordial space-time field. Standing midway between
macrocosm and microcosm he finds barriers on every side
and can perhaps but marvel, as St. Paul did nineteen hundred
years ago, that "the world was created by the word of God so
that what is seen was made out of things which do not
appear."
=======================================.
The earth is presently dated to be 4.5 billion years old, and
the universe is about 15 billion years old.
Premise 1: If the universe was infinitely old, then it would
have run down by now in accord with the second law of
thermodynamics.
Premise 2: The universe has not yet run down.
Conclusion: The universe is not infinitely old.
[Barnett]"The universe in this picture is a pulsating balloon
in which cycles of expansion and contraction succeed each
other through eternity."
do a control - f / "find" for: Grib
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	11 Jan 2005 05:01:35 PM

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian, David
Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist scums are
incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad generalizations about people.

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that Einstein
wrote an approving forword to Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is
Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics
shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed light on anything."

So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter?

I don't comprehend your metaphor. What does [m]"Fort Sumter" represent?

[...]

It still doesn't agree with your Christian fascist interpretaion.

Vallentin, Antonina. 1954. _The Drama of Albert Einstein_
(New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.), translated by
Moura Budberg, 312pp. A dust jacket paragraph:
It is doubtful that the work of any other single man has
made so profound an impression on the life of the
twentieth century as that of Albert Einstein. And this is
the first book to treat in entirely human terms a man
who has become a legend in his own lifetime. Madame
Vallentin has known Einstein well over a period of
many years and, drawing on this extensive personal
background, she has written a life story that is
sometimes wondrously amusing and frequently as
suspenseful as a top-notch thriller.
On 154:
The real conflict between faith and science revolved
around the concept of a personal god. Einstein refused
to admit a God who would reward or punish the beings
that he himself created, a God who could be reached by
prayer or angered by the neglect of some secular rite.
But he recognized the existence of a force superior to
our petty lives, which follow their course between the
limits of what is possible, illuminated only by the light
of knowledge.
On 300:
The man whose spiritual power has penetrated the
widest domains of human speculation has given priority
to ethics. "The moral qualities of great personalities are
perhaps more significant for a generation and for the
course of history than purely intellectual
accomplishments." The universe of Albert Einstein is
governed in the twilight of his life by this moral
obligation. He submits to a force which he sometimes
calls "reason displayed in life," which in its more
intimate depths is inaccessible to man. More and more
often he calls it God. Not the personal and revengeful
god of his ancestors, but the God of the supreme order
of nature, who leaves nothing to chance. It is God who
has given him the faith that made him persevere in his
research, alone, and attacked even by those who were
closest to him in thought.
Einstein's 1948 foreword; 1948 Lincoln Barnett
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34g499F49a835U1%40individual.net
.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	11 Jan 2005 07:33:22 PM

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian, David
Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist scums are
incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad generalizations about people.

That may be true. But isn't it for the Courts to decide in your case?

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that Einstein
wrote an approving forword to Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist

interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

Your Christian fascist interpretaion still fails the test. You can
always try a peer reviewed History of science journal.

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is
Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics
shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed light on anything."

So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter?

I don't comprehend your metaphor. What does [m]"Fort Sumter"

represent?
Christian fascist terrorism.

[...]

It still doesn't agree with your Christian fascist interpretaion.

[...]
It still fails the test.
.

User: "Fencingsax"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	11 Jan 2005 09:22:04 PM

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian,

David

Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist scums are
incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad generalizations about people.

That may be true. But isn't it for the Courts to decide in your case?

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics

laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that Einstein
wrote an approving forword to Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist

interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

Your Christian fascist interpretaion still fails the test. You can
always try a peer reviewed History of science journal.

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is
Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics
shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed light on anything."

So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter?

I don't comprehend your metaphor. What does [m]"Fort Sumter"

represent?

I see you have no or little knowledge of American History. Good for
you. Your motto should be "Ignorance is Bliss!". Kinda Orwellian, while
at the same time falsely beneficial.
Although I have to admit, it was kinda sorta out of the blue.

Christian fascist terrorism.

Ummm, the war was in a general sense, about slavery. Not religion. I'd
just like to point that out. While many creationist tactics are
reprehensible, they are 'only' supporting intellectual slavery, not
physical slavery.

[...]

It still doesn't agree with your Christian fascist

interpretaion.

[...]

It still fails the test.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	11 Jan 2005 10:06:06 PM

Fencingsax wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian,

David

Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist scums are
incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad generalizations about people.

That may be true. But isn't it for the Courts to decide in your

case?

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics

laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian

fascist

apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that

Einstein

wrote an approving forword to Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist

interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

Your Christian fascist interpretaion still fails the test. You can
always try a peer reviewed History of science journal.

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is
Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics
shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed light on anything."

So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter?

I don't comprehend your metaphor. What does [m]"Fort Sumter"

represent?

I see you have no or little knowledge of American History. Good for
you. Your motto should be "Ignorance is Bliss!". Kinda Orwellian,

while

at the same time falsely beneficial.

So why do think there was a Civil War?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/6e717821c4c6a37a

Although I have to admit, it was kinda sorta out of the blue.

Christian fascist terrorism.

Ummm, the war was in a general sense, about slavery. Not religion.

I'd
"My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no
attributes that will harmonize with slavery; and that all men are born
free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away his Bible as Mr.
Jefferson did his and then they will be fit companions. But never
disgrace the Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor Mr.
Jefferson by deriving his sentiments from it. Mr. Jefferson did not bow
to the authority of the Bible, and on this subject I do not bow to
him."
[Rev. Thornton Stringfellow, D.D., in "Scriptural View of Slavery," a
work showing that the Bible sanctions slavery, from John E. Remsburg,
"Six Historic Americans. Chapter 2: Thomas Jefferson"]
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy
Scriptures, both by precept and example."
[Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina]
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many
regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
[Rev. Alexander Campbell]
"The extracts from Holy Writ unequivocally assert the right of property
in slaves."
[Rev. E.D. Simms, professor, Randolph-Macon College]
"I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to
hold the slave in bondage."
[Rev. Thomas Witherspoon, Presbyterian, of Alabama]
"In another area of human rights, many Christian clergymen advocated
slavery. Historian Larry Hise notes in his book 'Pro-Slavery' that
ministers 'wrote almost half of all defenses of slavery published in
America.' He lists 275 men of the cloth who used the Bible to prove
that white people were entitled to own black people as work animals."
[James A. Haught, 'Holy Horrors']
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755784/
"The delegates of the annual conference are decidedly opposed to modern
abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to
interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave
in the slave-holding states of the union."
[Methodist Episcopal Church, Statement of the General Conference,
Cincinnati, May 1836]

just like to point that out. While many creationist tactics are
reprehensible, they are 'only' supporting intellectual slavery, not
physical slavery.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr1.htm
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs7003.htm

[...]

It still doesn't agree with your Christian fascist

interpretaion.

[...]

It still fails the test.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	12 Jan 2005 07:16:16 PM

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian, David
Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist scums are
incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad generalizations about people.

That may be true. But isn't it for the Courts to
decide in your case?

What are the specific names of some of these [m]"Courts"?
Do you think that I will be arrested and tried in [m]"the Courts"?

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that Einstein
wrote an approving forword to Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

Your Christian fascist interpretaion still fails the test. You can
always try a peer reviewed History of science journal.

I [m]"try" [m]"Einstein's archives" below.
Does the Dukas & Hoffmann material below [m]"tally"?

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is
Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics
shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed light on anything."

So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter?

I don't comprehend your metaphor. What
does [m]"Fort Sumter" represent?

Christian fascist terrorism.

So you asked me, [m]"So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter
[i.e., firing on [m]'Christian fascist terrorism']?"
I just took off my shoes, so no.

[...]

It still doesn't agree with your Christian fascist interpretaion.

[...]

It still fails the test.

Dukas, Helen and Banesh Hoffmann. 1979. _Albert
Einstein: The Human Side: New Glimpses from His
Archives_ (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press), 167pp. A section on 66:
There is in the Einstein Archives a letter dated 5
August 1927 from a banker in Colorado to Einstein
in Berlin. Since it begins "Several months ago I
wrote you as follows," one may assume that Einstein
had not yet answered. The banker remarked that
most scientists and the like had given up the idea of
God as a bearded, benevolent father figure
surrounded by angels, although many sincere people
worship and revere such a God. The question of God
had arisen in the course of a discussion in a literary
group, and some of the members decided to ask
eminent men to send their views in a form that would
be suitable for publication. He added that some
twenty-four Nobel Prize winners had already
responded, and he hoped that Einstein would too. On
the letter, Einstein wrote the following in German. It
may or may not have been sent:
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly
influence the actions of individuals, or would
directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own
creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that
mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been
placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the
infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the
little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding,
can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest
importance-- but for us, not for God.
1954 Antonina Vallentin re: Einstein on God
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34igbqF4ae7lsU1%40individual.net
Einstein's 1948 foreword; 1948 Lincoln Barnett
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34g499F49a835U1%40individual.net
.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	12 Jan 2005 07:41:21 PM

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian,

David

Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist scums are
incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad generalizations about people.

That may be true. But isn't it for the Courts to
decide in your case?

What are the specific names of some of these [m]"Courts"?
Do you think that I will be arrested and tried in [m]"the Courts"?

Thta's for the Grand Jury to decide, Christian fascist scum.

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics

laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian

fascist

apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that

Einstein

wrote an approving forword to Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

Your Christian fascist interpretaion still fails the test. You can
always try a peer reviewed History of science journal.

I [m]"try" [m]"Einstein's archives" below.
Does the Dukas & Hoffmann material below [m]"tally"?

It doesn't, Christian fascist scum.

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is
Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics
shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed light on anything."

So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter?

I don't comprehend your metaphor. What
does [m]"Fort Sumter" represent?

Christian fascist terrorism.

So you asked me, [m]"So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter
[i.e., firing on [m]'Christian fascist terrorism']?"
I just took off my shoes, so no.

So your Christian fascist allies are going to do it, Christian fascist
scum?

[...]

It still doesn't agree with your Christian fascist

interpretaion.

[...]

It still fails the test.

[...]
Christian fascist apologetics won't get you far, Christian fascist scum.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	17 Jan 2005 08:44:15 PM

"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> on 12 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian,
David Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist
scums are incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad
generalizations about people.

That may be true. But isn't it for the Courts to
decide in your case?

What are the specific names of some of these [m]"Courts"?
Do you think that I will be arrested and tried in [m]"the
Courts"?

Thta's for the Grand Jury to decide, Christian fascist scum.

Typically, charges are brought prior to someone appearing before a grand
jury. Before I am brought before [m]"the Grand Jury," what are some of
the things I will be charged with?

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of
physics laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian
fascist apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that
Einstein wrote an approving forword to
Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

Your Christian fascist interpretaion still fails the test. You can
always try a peer reviewed History of science journal.

I [m]"try" [m]"Einstein's archives" below.
Does the Dukas & Hoffmann material below [m]"tally"?

It doesn't, Christian fascist scum.

Does the 1934, 1930, and 1941 Einstein material below [m]"tally"?

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is
Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics
shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed
light on anything."

So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter?

I don't comprehend your metaphor. What
does [m]"Fort Sumter" represent?

Christian fascist terrorism.

So you asked me, [m]"So you're only capable of firing on Fort
Sumter [i.e., firing on [m]'Christian fascist terrorism']?"
I just took off my shoes, so no.

So your Christian fascist allies are going to do
it, Christian fascist scum?

I try not to predict what other individuals will or will not do.

[...]

It still doesn't agree with your
Christian fascist interpretaion.

[...]

It still fails the test.

[...]

Christian fascist apologetics won't get you
far, Christian fascist scum.

[1934 Einstein]"the scientist.... his religious feeling takes the form
of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an
intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly
insignificant reflection."
Einstein, Albert. 1954. _Ideas and Opinions by Albert
Einstein_ (New York: Bonanza Books), 377pp. On 40, the
section "The Religious Spirit of Science," which originally
appeared in Einstein's _Mein Weltbild_ (Amsterdam:
Querido Verlag, 1934):
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of
scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.
But it is different from the religiosity of the naive man.
For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes
to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a
sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its
father, a being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a
personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with
awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal
causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary
and determined as the past. There is nothing divine
about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious
feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of
such superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an
utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding
principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds
in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It
is beyond question closely akin to that which has
possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
[1930 Einstein]"What a deep conviction of the rationality of the
universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble
reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must
have had...."
Einstein, Albert. 1954. _Ideas and Opinions by Albert
Einstein_ (New York: Bonanza Books), 377pp. On 39-40,
the last two paragraphs of a 9 November 1930 _New York
Times Magazine_ article:
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science
to religion very different from the usual one. When one
views the matter historically, one is inclined to look
upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists,
and for a very obvious reason. The man who is
thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the
law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea
of a being who interferes in the course of events--
provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of
causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion
of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A
God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him
for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined
by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes
he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate
object is responsible for the motions it undergoes.
Science has therefore been charged with undermining
morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical
behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always
fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other
hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the
strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.
Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above
all, the devotion without which pioneer work in
theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp
the strength of the emotion out of which alone such
work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life,
can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of
the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it
but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this
world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable
them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the
principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose
acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly
from its practical results easily develop a completely
false notion of the mentality of the men who,
surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to
kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the
centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar
ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired
these men and given them the strength to remain true to
their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic
religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A
contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this
materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers
are the only profoundly religious people.
[1941 Einstein]"whoever has undergone the intense experience of
successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence
for the rationality made manifest in existence. ....he... attains that
humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in
existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man."
Einstein, Albert. 1954. _Ideas and Opinions by Albert
Einstein_ (New York: Bonanza Books), 377pp. This was
originally published in 1941 by the Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic
Way of Life, Inc., in _Science: Philosophy and Religion_.
On 49, the article's closing material:
It [science] also seeks to reduce the connections
discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually
independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving
after the rational unification of the manifold that it
encounters its greatest successes, even though it is
precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest
risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has
undergone the intense experience of successful advances
made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for
the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of
the understanding he achieves a far-reaching
emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and
desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind
toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence,
and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to
man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be
religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it
seems to me that science not only purifies the religious
impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also
contributes to a religious spiritualization of our
understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances,
the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine
religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the
fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after
rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the
priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice
to his lofty educational mission.
1927 Einstein Archives letter
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34lckcF4cg7kvU1%40individual.net
1954 Antonina Vallentin re: Einstein on God
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34igbqF4ae7lsU1%40individual.net
Einstein's 1948 foreword; 1948 Lincoln Barnett
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34g499F49a835U1%40individual.net
Einstein's library analogy
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	17 Jan 2005 09:02:37 PM

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:44:15 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:

what's ironic is that ford quotes a book about einstein's view of
natural law.
being a creationist, however, ford does not believe in natural law,
but magic
another creationist contradiction.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	25 Jan 2005 06:32:18 PM

Bob wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

what's ironic is that ford quotes a book about einstein's view of
natural law.

being a creationist, however, ford does not believe in natural law,
but magic

another creationist contradiction.

Do you think [B]"magic" can, or can't, occur?
Suppose matter transformed into a living bacterium, all
totally apart from the input of any mind/intelligence
whatsoever. Would that be "magic"?
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
Suppose Jesus existed, died, and came back to life after 3
days. Would that be "magic"?
In which if any of the following hypothetical situations is
[B]"natural law" broken/ violated? [B]"magic" occurring?:
I imagine and construct a transportation vehicle
I imagine and construct a biological lifeform out of
non-living matter.
I sculpt a mountainside to produce a small-scale version of
Mt. Rushmore
I pick up an apple that fell from a tree
I make an arrowhead out of rock and a clay pot out of clay.
A bacterium dies, and three days later, comes back to life.
Someone that claims to be God dies, and three days later, comes back to
life.
Non-living matter gives rise to life without the input at any level of
mind/intelligence.
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	26 Jan 2005 04:27:38 AM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:32:18 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:

Bob wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

what's ironic is that ford quotes a book about einstein's view of
natural law.

being a creationist, however, ford does not believe in natural law,
but magic

another creationist contradiction.

Do you think [B]"magic" can, or can't, occur?

how can i know what magic is? you creationists never tell me.
if supernaturalism was as common as you say it is, we'd see it all the
time.
we see electricity. we see magnetism. we see gravity. we see nuclear
reactions
we've never seen magic
creationism, like UFO's, is a solution in search of a problem.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.

User: "Steve Mading"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	25 Jan 2005 06:56:11 PM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:32:18 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Bob wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

what's ironic is that ford quotes a book about einstein's view of
natural law.

being a creationist, however, ford does not believe in natural law,
but magic

another creationist contradiction.

Do you think [B]"magic" can, or can't, occur?

Pretty much by definition, I'd say it cannot occur, because things
that actually occur are not things I'd call magic. If it is proven
to actually happen, it becomes science at that point, even if nobody
understands why it occurs. Gravity, for example, is still a very
mysterious force. It's just that, unlike for example "telekenesis",
gravity is a force we can demonstrate and measure and learn some things
about, even if the mechanism is still a mystery. Science is the
sum of stuff that actually is known to happen. Magic is the stuff
that we'd like to believe happens without really having any reason
to believe it does.
.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	17 Jan 2005 09:04:27 PM

david ford wrote:

"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> on 12 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian,
David Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist
scums are incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad
generalizations about people.

That may be true. But isn't it for the Courts to
decide in your case?

What are the specific names of some of these [m]"Courts"?
Do you think that I will be arrested and tried in [m]"the
Courts"?

Thta's for the Grand Jury to decide, Christian fascist scum.

Typically, charges are brought prior to someone appearing before a

grand

jury. Before I am brought before [m]"the Grand Jury," what are some

the things I will be charged with?

You should ask the concerned parties.

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of
physics laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian
fascist apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that
Einstein wrote an approving forword to
Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

Your Christian fascist interpretaion still fails the test. You

can

always try a peer reviewed History of science journal.

I [m]"try" [m]"Einstein's archives" below.
Does the Dukas & Hoffmann material below [m]"tally"?

It doesn't, Christian fascist scum.

Does the 1934, 1930, and 1941 Einstein material below [m]"tally"?

Christian fascist apologetics will never tally with Einstein's
archives.
"Thus I came -- despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiosity, which, however,
found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. 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. Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out
of this experience, a skeptical attitude towards the convictions which
were alive in any specific social environment .... "
Go to http://www.westegg.com/einstein/, page down to the "In His Own
Words" section, and follow the link labeled "Einstein on Science and
Religion" to the URL http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/ESR.html
where more of Einstein's comments on religion can be found.

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/

The Discovery That the Universe Is
Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Did the World end in 1930, Christian fascist
historian, David Ford?

No, it didn't.

So why would your Christian fascist apolgetics
shed light on anything?

I've never been accused of having [m]"shed
light on anything."

So you're only capable of firing on Fort Sumter?

I don't comprehend your metaphor. What
does [m]"Fort Sumter" represent?

Christian fascist terrorism.

So you asked me, [m]"So you're only capable of firing on Fort
Sumter [i.e., firing on [m]'Christian fascist terrorism']?"
I just took off my shoes, so no.

So your Christian fascist allies are going to do
it, Christian fascist scum?

I try not to predict what other individuals will or will not do.

But you're one of the Christian fascist leaders.

[...]

It still doesn't agree with your
Christian fascist interpretaion.

[...]

It still fails the test.

[...]

Christian fascist apologetics won't get you
far, Christian fascist scum.

[1934 Einstein]"the scientist.... his religious feeling takes the

form

of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals

intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly
insignificant reflection."

[...]
How would that validate Christian fascism? He didn't even believe in
Judaism.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Einstein's century	18 Jan 2005 07:10:33 PM

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> on 12 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

maff <maff91@yahoo.com> on 9 Jan 2005:

david ford wrote:

maff wrote:

david ford wrote:

[snip]

Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist

http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net

Don't be stupid. Do you know the difference between a
deist and a pantheist, Christian fascist historian,
David Ford?

No.

So why don't you use the Google for the definition of
deism and Pantheism, Christian fascist scum?

As you probably already knew, [m]"scum" are
incapable of using Google to look up definitions.
Scum does, though, add a lovely green sheen to
certain ponds.

So you agree Confederate and other Christian fascist
scums are incapable of thought?

No.
Also, I try to avoid making broad
generalizations about people.

That may be true. But isn't it for the Courts to
decide in your case?

What are the specific names of some of these [m]"Courts"?
Do you think that I will be arrested and tried in [m]"the
Courts"?

Thta's for the Grand Jury to decide, Christian fascist scum.

Typically, charges are brought prior to
someone appearing before a grand
jury. Before I am brought before [m]"the
Grand Jury," what are some of the things
I will be charged with?

You should ask the concerned parties.

Who are [m]"the concerned parties"?
Are you one of [m]"the concerned parties"?
Do you know anyone on [m]"the Grand Jury"?
If Einstein were alive and still had the views mentioned in his remarks
to Hermanns and Salaman below, do you think he would have to go before
[m]"the Grand Jury"?

Einstein came to believe in a [Einstein]"spirit"/
not-material God having an intellect far superior
to man, and that created/made physics
laws and physics, but that doesn't:
reward and punish humans,
act on prayers,
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of
physics laws.

Einstein's archives doesn't tally with your Christian
fascist apologetics.

Instead of [m]"Einstein's archives," how about
the Barnett below,
particularly the last 9 blocks of text? I observe that
Einstein wrote an approving forword to
Barnett's book-- see below.

But it still doesn't tally with your Christian fascist
interpretation.

How about the Vallentin below-- does it [m]"tally"?

Your Christian fascist interpretaion still fails the test. You
can always try a peer reviewed History of science journal.

I [m]"try" [m]"Einstein's archives" below.
Does the Dukas & Hoffmann material below [m]"tally"?

It doesn't, Christian fascist scum.

Does the 1934, 1930, and 1941 Einstein
material below [m]"tally"?

Christian fascist apologetics will never tally with Einstein's
archives.

What are some hypothetical remarks that, if found in [m]"Einstein's
archives," would [m]"tally"?

"Thus I came -- despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiosity, which, however,
found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. 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. Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out
of this experience, a skeptical attitude towards the convictions which
were alive in any specific social environment .... "

An intriguing remark appears in the elided material. What does
[Einstein]"it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal
connections" refer to?

Go to http://www.westegg.com/einstein/, page down to the "In His Own
Words" section, and follow the link labeled "Einstein on Science and
Religion" to the URL http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/ESR.html
where more of Einstein's comments on religion can be found.

Einstein, Albert. 1979. _Autobiographical Notes_ (LaSalle
and Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company), ~5.
Cited at
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/freethink.html
As the first way out there was religion, which is
implanted into every child by way of the traditional
education-machine. Thus 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.
Not all conversions stick/ remain/ continue their hold. I
grant that young Albert had a freethought conversion
experience at the tender age of 12 as a result of reading
popular science writing, including the German Darwinian
materialist physician Ludwig Buchner's _Kraft und Staff_
(_Force and Matter_), which was a sort of atheists' Bible that
induced numerous mass conversions to materialism. However,
Einstein's conversion _didn't stick_: Einstein didn't
remain a freethinker/ atheist/ materialist. A person's
views can sometimes change, and Einstein's atheism
didn't last.
See Jammer, 24-25, 97, 148-149,
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 12, and
Goldschmidt, Richard B. 1956. _Portraits from Memory:
Recollections of a Zoologist_ (Seattle: University of
Washington Press), 181pp., 35.
Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology_ (USA: Princeton University Press), 279pp. On
122-3:
It was therefore only natural that the discussion turned
to the notion of cosmic religion in the 1954 interview.
Hermanns asked Einstein for "precise statements on
God.