| |
| Quotes |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Cold Fusion |
 Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: Quotes |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 793
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; 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"
"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"
-Einstein
The idiots that populate this planet constantly claim that they need religion to provide their morals and ethics. Now, not that many people would call Einstein an idiot; what he said directly revokes that stupid idea. So either you have to believe me when I say that religion is if anything detrimental to ethics and moral, or you can discredit me, AND EINSTEIN, AND every person that he drew knowledge and inspiration from.
And I am tired of idiots that either give a stupid irrelevant response or try to claim something like, "That quote is not real" or "He did not mean it in the way that you interpret it".
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Africa
|
Although I agree with some of your sentiments, I have to point out that citing Einstein (or like) on matters of faith and morals etc. is little more than an argument from authority. Einstein was a genius when it came to physics, true, but it does not necessarily mean he was a genius regarding other things. I think it is a logical fallacy to cite him with the sentiment of "Einstein was a genius, so everything he says must be true and valid". Please understand, I am not disagreeing with your quote per se, just with the premise of his authority.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
As jy dom is, moet jy kak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| daytonturner |
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1045
Location: Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
|
Cold (con)Fusion said:
| Quote: |
| So either you have to believe me when I say that religion is if anything detrimental to ethics and moral[ity]. . . |
Which religion is being referenced. Condemning all religion based on one's own misperception is both unethical and immoral in itself.
_________________
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 793
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
I have already given all the logical proof necessary yet people do not believe me when it comes to this, so I am only using this as a reinforcement to my previous statements.
If you look up his philosophical quotes you can see that he was in fact also a philosopher. He is not known for philosophy only because his study of physics dwarfed it.
I am referencing this to all people of all religions who claim that they need to be threatened to adhere to logical morals.
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 659
Location: Montreal
|
Appeal to athority is not an argument, you have to then proove why Einstein is right 
Regardless, the conclusion is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3331
Location: England, UK.
|
I actually go by Einsteins philosiphy which I've only just realised sounds similar to mine. Curious.
But I do disagree with the blind faith notion, to follow rational information can be deceptive, its best to make a chaotic path and leave a trail, after all the universe comes from chaos, the only way to explain things is by way of chaos. That doesn't mean that you don't have to strive for rational information, I strive to learn more to help me better the world, to make people happy. That is the way I follow science, becasue I feel greater motivated to help knowing others are better off than myself. So to sum that up, blind faith in God is more of an apparatus than an experiment itself.
_________________
"Victory is in trying. Defeat is in not". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| daytonturner |
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1045
Location: Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
|
Cold said:
| Quote: |
| I have already given all the logical proof necessary yet people do not believe me when it comes to this, so I am only using this as a reinforcement to my previous statements. |
For the life of me, I am at a complete loss to figure out what it was in your OP which you construe as being "logical proof." You pulled out two quotes from Einstein and used them to come to a conclusion that is not supported by the Einstein quotes.
If it were that far back, I would requote the whole original post here, but it is not that difficult to go back to it from here.
While I pretty much agree with the Einstein quotes, they are far from proving your original statement.
Beyond the reality that Einstein is neither philosopher nor theologean, and therefore not an authority, he does not even come close to saying that religion is detrimental or that fear is THE motivational factor for all people who are in some way religious. He merely states that fear is an improper motivation.
To that extent that I would pretty much agree. The Bible concurs in that it says, "It is God's goodness that leads to repentence."
In the OP, Cold says:
| Quote: |
| The idiots that populate this planet constantly claim that they need religion to provide their morals and ethics. |
I don't think any one, even an idiot, is claiming that. If God did establish the basis of morality and ethics within us, they have already been provided and one should not need God to provide them again. It would be equally idiotic for someone to claim that they need religion to provide their oxygen. Oxygen is there whether you know it, agree with it, recognize it or fight it. Morals exist whether you know them, agree with them, recognize them or disagree with them. You don't NEED the Bible or any other religious faction to tell you what is right and wrong -- you already know. Whether you do right or wrong is a completely different matter.
So I do agree with your conclusion that you do not need a religious source to apprise you of what is moral. It is as built in as the instinct to suckle.
Cold claimed:
| Quote: |
| If you look up his philosophical quotes you can see that he was in fact also a philosopher. He is not known for philosophy only because his study of physics dwarfed it. |
I addressed this a little bit earlier but to expand upon my earlier words: Einstein did make utterances which have some philosophical meaning. But so does just about everybody else. That does not make one a philosopher. It is possible that Dave Hume may have said something that was pertenant to physics, but that does not make him a physicist. Einstein also said things of a religious nature, but that does not make him a theologian. Preachers sometimes have mathematical references in their sermons. That does not make them mathematicians.
Einstein's philosophical observations are just that -- philosophical observations. They are no more or less authoritative because of his acclaim in the field of physics. They are what they are -- valid or invalid in their own right, not because Einstein was a reknown physicist.
And Cold concludes:
| Quote: |
| I am referencing this to all people of all religions who claim that they need to be threatened to adhere to logical morals. |
Well, if Cold can show us some of "all" those people from "all" religions who are making such claims, then perhaps we can deal with them. I cannot speak for other religions, but I am not aware of what threats are being used to compel Christians to adhere to morals.
If one is rejecting Jesus Christ only because one is not afraid of the consequences of rejecting Him, it is not a good reason. If one rejects to take an umbrella only because he does not fear getting wet, that is probably not a good reason. Wanting to be right with God is a proper motivation for accepting Jesus Christ just as wanting to stay dry is the proper motivation for taking an umbrella.
_________________
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 793
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
No, my morals are not innate. Yes I was given the list of morals when I was very young, but I questioned every single of them since through objective methods and ended up eliminating the illogical ones.
You would not call your example a mathematician because what math he uses is nothing compared to the math used by professionals. What Einstein said does in fact compare to the philosophy of Plato, Nietzsche, and Kant. Which is why you could call him a philosopher.
Many people on this forum previously stated that we need religion for morals. Not only that, but it is the main argument of all the theists that I know once I logically defeat their religion. They always say, "Oh....well, we still need it to maintain order and give people ethics". WE DO NOT; if religion did not exist, the only difference would be that parents would use logic instead of fear to convince their children to maintain various morals. And really, even if logic was not enough and the populaces morals were not as "strong" as they are right now, the number of people not killed and hurt because of religion would far exceed those hurt by weak morals.
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| GhostoftheFallen |
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 39
Location: Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
|
| Cold Fusion wrote: |
No, my morals are not innate. Yes I was given the list of morals when I was very young, but I questioned every single of them since through objective methods and ended up eliminating the illogical ones.
You would not call your example a mathematician because what math he uses is nothing compared to the math used by professionals. What Einstein said does in fact compare to the philosophy of Plato, Nietzsche, and Kant. Which is why you could call him a philosopher.
Many people on this forum previously stated that we need religion for morals. Not only that, but it is the main argument of all the theists that I know once I logically defeat their religion. They always say, "Oh....well, we still need it to maintain order and give people ethics". WE DO NOT; if religion did not exist, the only difference would be that parents would use logic instead of fear to convince their children to maintain various morals. And really, even if logic was not enough and the populaces morals were not as "strong" as they are right now, the number of people not killed and hurt because of religion would far exceed those hurt by weak morals. |
Think about it, you said that people would use logic for ethics, wouldn't all of their logic be concerned about themselves and only them which would lead to many problems?
How do you know that ethic weren't based on religion that they would be based on logic? Does everybody uses logic and thinking to determine their path in life or do some just go with the flow? Many parents have tried to use religion to base their kids morals on but have failed. Wouldn't the same hold true if logic was used instead?
_________________
Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1221
Location: Norway
|
| GhostoftheFallen wrote: |
Think about it, you said that people would use logic for ethics, wouldn't all of their logic be concerned about themselves and only them which would lead to many problems?
How do you know that ethic weren't based on religion that they would be based on logic? Does everybody uses logic and thinking to determine their path in life or do some just go with the flow? Many parents have tried to use religion to base their kids morals on but have failed. Wouldn't the same hold true if logic was used instead? |
No, because logic has and is always used. People who are religious follow a logical cherry picking of the things they like in the bible and discount "kill disobedient children" and "stone nonbelievers" etc. Even if you follow the flow you'll have morals that has been chosen, cherry picked or made exclusively. Of course, logic is often applied with personal belief etc and can be a bit twisted at times. Like christians who hate homosexuals and other christians who kill abortion doctors. I know I'm picking on the christians, but it was only two quick examples.
Yes, logic would be applied with self-interest, but humans (having been evolved in groups) has to think about how they'll be percieved by others. There's no conscious deed without benefit, and having a good reputation will help a great deal in a group.
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| GhostoftheFallen |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 39
Location: Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
|
| Obviously wrote: |
| GhostoftheFallen wrote: |
Think about it, you said that people would use logic for ethics, wouldn't all of their logic be concerned about themselves and only them which would lead to many problems?
How do you know that ethic weren't based on religion that they would be based on logic? Does everybody uses logic and thinking to determine their path in life or do some just go with the flow? Many parents have tried to use religion to base their kids morals on but have failed. Wouldn't the same hold true if logic was used instead? |
No, because logic has and is always used. People who are religious follow a logical cherry picking of the things they like in the bible and discount "kill disobedient children" and "stone nonbelievers" etc. Even if you follow the flow you'll have morals that has been chosen, cherry picked or made exclusively. Of course, logic is often applied with personal belief etc and can be a bit twisted at times. Like christians who hate homosexuals and other christians who kill abortion doctors. I know I'm picking on the christians, but it was only two quick examples.
True logic has always been used but does everybody use it? If presented with a case of helping a person stranded on the side of the road, how would logic deal with the situation. Stopping would make you late to were you going and take up your time so logically you wouldn't stop. Logic wouldn't make very good ethics or morals.
Unfortunately religion can be twisted but more often than not it is used the way that it was suppose to.
Yes, logic would be applied with self-interest, but humans (having been evolved in groups) has to think about how they'll be percieved by others. There's no conscious deed without benefit, and having a good reputation will help a great deal in a group. |
But a good reputation and what it really is depends on what kind of person you are and what group you are involved with. A good reputation in a gang would be very different than having a good reputation in a church. Most people, I would venture to say, only primary concerned about themselves and those close to them, and would primary think of themselves.
Logically is there any reason to help out some else? Would there be any bases for ethics and morals?
_________________
Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1221
Location: Norway
|
| GhostoftheFallen wrote: |
True logic has always been used but does everybody use it? If presented with a case of helping a person stranded on the side of the road, how would logic deal with the situation. Stopping would make you late to were you going and take up your time so logically you wouldn't stop. Logic wouldn't make very good ethics or morals.
Unfortunately religion can be twisted but more often than not it is used the way that it was suppose to.
But a good reputation and what it really is depends on what kind of person you are and what group you are involved with. A good reputation in a gang would be very different than having a good reputation in a church. Most people, I would venture to say, only primary concerned about themselves and those close to them, and would primary think of themselves.
Logically is there any reason to help out some else? Would there be any bases for ethics and morals? |
You're kidding, right?
Of course gang people and church people have different moral values, that is quite evident. You're obviously not thinking logically 
You're example of the stranded stranger is intriguing. If it were on a highway, I doubt many people would in fact stop. Some may, some might not notice and others wouldn't care or had reasons not to. Now I'm not sure if you meant driving or walking, but let's take both. Off the highway driving a car most people might not care, some might call the ambulance and some might in fact stop to help, it depends.
Now let's consider walking. In fact, I remember I saw a program (or show) where they tested if people in the US would help a person needing medical attention. NOBODY HELPED! In fact, the only person willing to help the man who was practically begging for help was a european! I could be so bold and suggest that given the US high religiousity, perhaps that could be the reason people did not help But that would be unfair, and probably not correct.
There's actually greater benefit to help the man, logically. You would be considered a "team player" (hero) and gain a good reputation. The benefits there would/could be many.
If it weren't for logic, the human world would be chaotic and random, without any moral code whatsoever, probably.
EDIT:
In fact, let me give you this paradox. What would you do? You say you would probably help the guy. Are you saying that that is not logical? Think about it.
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 793
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
| Quote: |
Think about it, you said that people would use logic for ethics, wouldn't all of their logic be concerned about themselves and only them which would lead to many problems?
How do you know that ethic weren't based on religion that they would be based on logic? Does everybody uses logic and thinking to determine their path in life or do some just go with the flow? Many parents have tried to use religion to base their kids morals on but have failed. Wouldn't the same hold true if logic was used instead? |
Why would their logic cause them to be only concerned about themselves? How did you draw that conclusion?
I stated in a world free of religion, as in, a world free of stupidity. The term "In a nutshell" is intrinsically implied here.
Most people seem to not know the definition of logic on this forum. Logic is pure thought without bias or self interest. It is pure mental power used towards an intellectual goal regardless of the consequences. I use LOGIC constantly. It is why I do not drink alcohol, do not smoke, randomly attack and insult people etc...
Through logic and statistical thought you can determine whether you should help a random person. Such as, If I were in the bad part of my city and saw someone asking for help, most likely I would not help them; because 1. They could be a mugger, in which case I would need to get my cloths dry cleaned. 2. There would be a 99% chance that they are not worth helping. 3. I have heard very many stories of someone who tried to help someone else, did not fully succeed and was later sued by the victim for not "trying hard enough".
Though If I were in the good part of town I would most likely help them.
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Africa
|
99% chance that they are not worth helping ? Jeez dude, that is one reason why pure logic is probably not the way to go. We have to allow emotion and empathy to at least have some influence on your choices!
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
As jy dom is, moet jy kak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| prasit |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 495
|
Kalster wrote:
| Quote: |
| I think it is a logical fallacy to cite him with the sentiment of "Einstein was a genius, so everything he says must be true and valid". |
I have said that all along. 
_________________
Einstein is not always right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Page 1 of 2 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
