jump to last post 1-43 of 43 discussions (403 posts)

Albert Einstein: Concept of a Personal God is the Source of Conflict

  1. Rishy Rich profile image79
    Rishy Richposted 6 years ago

    ...if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.

    - Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)

    I am a peaceful messenger of Einstein smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Clever man Einstein. A personal god will always be a source of conflict. Ridiculous notion if you think about it.

    2. 0
      crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

      - Epicurus

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Epicurus often has some pretty good things to say, generally, from what (little) I know. Certainly this is my line: either he is a callous ass who doesn't care about suffering even though he can intervene (God, I mean, not Epicurus...), or he is UNABLE to prevent it. I think I'd prefer the latter of the two -- if I was forced to believe in a God at all, that is

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Actually I was thinking of Epictetus, but whatever

      2. 0
        crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The counter argument to Epicurus is that God doesn't choose sides.  If Baseball Team A is praying to win, and Baseball Team B is praying to win who does God choose?  If Team A wins, they give thanks to God, but they really did for themselves.  And vice versa.  Furthermore, man cannot comprehend everything that God is, and everything that God knows.  In the Ramayana, an Indian epic tale, this paradox of evil is addressed quite nicely.  If Rama's father hadn't had him banished from his home because of his jealous wife, the Rakasha (spelling?) would not have been slain.

        I do not necessarily agree with everything I say - just thought I'd put that out there

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand why that is a counter-argument. If he doesn't choose sides, then he is "unwilling", right

          1. 0
            crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think unwilling is the right word to use in that case, I think unnecessary is.  Like in the Ramayana you don't understand until the end why the "evil" was necessary.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              OK but the Ramayana comes from a different tradition, arguably a much more complex tradition. The Judaic tradition (at least as portrayed by Christians and Muslims) is one of a unitary, ominpotent, ominiscient, all-compassionate, all-merciful, all-loving God... who nevertheless (apparently) sits by and watches 27000 children die per day of needless causes, when there are ample examples in the Bible of him intervening in human affairs.

              In other words, frankly, the Judaic conception is logically inconsistent... that is, its own propositions contradict one another. The Hindu tradition is not really set out in the same way, so perhaps is not so open to criticism on these grounds (the grounds of internal contradiction).

              1. 0
                crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I was just using it to illustrate what I was trying to say, and that was the first example that came to mind.  I know more about  Islam and the Eastern -isms than I do about Judaism and Christianity so I couldn't think of a Christian example.

              2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Applying Logic to Metaphor is really a waste of time. IT'S  LIKE DEMANDING YOUR DREAMS TO BE LOGICAL. They are not.  Metaphors have a different language and the only thing that you should pay attention to is the emotion and the relationships within the metaphors because these things that we are metaphorizing (if there is such a word, i think not) are non-verbal, they exist outside our cultural and temporal knowledge. It's outside language. The universal knowledge hides in these visions and unless you decode it and unfold it in its mundane form, you will be lost in what the Jewish Mystics called Binah Consciousness. The darkness of mystery that never mixes with light. Like a woman never giving birth to a child. Binah Consciousness is Understanding that never results to KNowledge (Daat)

                In other words, know they are metaphors for something real in the energy level or thought level and then you will see what it means. These stories are real,but they are not histories, they are instructions on how to manipulate the mind in order to AVOID suffering.

                1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, it depends on your starting point. Seeing as most of the talk about religion around here seems tied up to ethics (for some reason, most of the time, anyway), then I tend to start from the question: "How does all of this square up according to my understanding of ethics."

                  The Judaic-Islamic-Christian God is an active personal God, anthropomorphic, such that we are in his image (ie, we would expect him to conform in some way to the rules of being a person... even if only roughly).

                  So I am going to judge Him based on ethics and ethical behaviour as I understand it applying to humans (what is ethics anyway if it does not apply to human behaviour?)

                  And in my view, therefore, the Judaic view of God is one of someone irresponsible.

                  In addition, I cannot understand why God would create his major creation, us, having as its hallmark feature a vast intelligence and ability for logic and rationality (among other things, obviously). And then say: "Oh but when it comes to thinking about Me, please park that all over there in the back out of the way."

                  Finally, not to be rude, but millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians disagree with you that it is all metaphorical. To coin a phrase, Who died and left you God (just using an expression -- not trying to be personal roll)

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That is true, comparative mythologists are a rare breed.  But I have a couple of heroes in the field
                    Namely Joseph Campbell, James Hillman, Pinkola Estes and Thomas Moore. These interpretations have been around a couple of decades. It's called Depth Psychology. The study of consciousness. Jung and Freud being their pioneers.

                    There is a lot of fragmentation going on by virtue of ignorance. The economy based religions that teaches these metaphors do not want their captured markets to shop elsewhere for metaphors. So it became monopolies rather than free markets. Priests need to eat and so they don't want you blessing your own food before you kill it, seriously. They don't want you professing love under a tree and declaring yourself united with god in marriage.

                    So all these things that you find absurd about religious doctrines are actually brought about by these supposed champions way way back hiding what they mean, so they can attain and maintain power. It doesn't mean that it didn't survive, it survives, this wisdom because the symbols are still there. The metaphoric symbols are transcendent.

                  2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Judaism introduced Ethics. smile It is being credited in philosophy as the originator of ethics in western world.

                    Now that is not to say that it is necessarily followed.

      3. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps being human we experience evil subjectively and we cannot see past the negative experience, when actually it is a phenomenon that requires attention. It requires action and understanding. It is there because no one is tending it. It is being neglected.

        Evil grows when it is ignored. When evil is present, that means a good, an action of tending is being called to come into being.

        You create heroes from disasters, and lakes form craters. To see evil for what it is, you have to suspend judgement and find the root. The root is usually a small seed of good waiting to grow in the right light.

      4. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is a very minute expression of his philosophy and for lack of a better pun, a "Garden Variety" epicure.

        The notion simple requires one to consider: with or with out the immediate visibility/presence of Creator -who is far beyond human understanding- the unequal force of good/evil rests in the human condition. (which today we call consciousness)

        He was expressing the task of the human who considers either side.
        The epicure is for the human to perceive and differentiate between singular or collective elements of both, thus not relying on the 'coming down' of omni but the raising up of the human to a much clearer place of understanding.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, James. Press the button again.  It's just like I said.

    3. mohitmisra profile image61
      mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Three is a dark side to god as well in this dimension the ying and yang exist.

      In another dimension there is only god .God is very, very personal as well.

    4. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Einstein's notion again was speculative.
      I admire his attempt, but still as even he said -the two formulas for mysticism (scientific v romantic) will find conflict because the methods they use to come any determination is limited to their perspective.

      The personal god ideology isn't new and was highly disputed long before he (or even Epicurus -who's perceptions of the universe were preposterous, according to all present scientific explanations).

      What they -and many today- fail to realize is that even though all is Creator, the human limitation of that understanding puts them into a mixing bowl of consciousness, be it of self-deity or necessitated-deity, to rationalize or emotionalize their experience and lack thereof.


      This statement clearly shows Einsteins clever, but confused desire himself to understand the elements that drip with causality. If there is reward/punishment aka justice, how can it be since Creator is all. What he missed was simply this: judgment is not negative or positive in its approach to either reason or sensation. Judgment is beyond the scope of the human condition.

      This paradox is what holds humans back from being the actual entities they were fashioned to be.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well he was also confused with newtonian and quantum, he was a transition point. So you can imagine he would have that conflict in his world view.

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol no doubt.
          (ps, good afternoon)

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            happy lunchtime and i need to wean myself of forums as I am not getting anything done. smile

    5. 68
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi friend Rishy Rich

      Did he appoint you? sorry to ask you

      Thanks

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        finally a sense of humour from you, good one. (no offense R)

        1. 0
          crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol, I'm not sure he was joking

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            funny just the same lol

            1. 0
              crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              haha, I think that's what makes it even funnier

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol

        2. mythbuster profile image85
          mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good one, that joke by parrsurrey...

          I agree with cb

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I know right, he surprises me sometimes.

    6. goldenpath profile image81
      goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The entire universe was created on the principle of agency or choice.  Just as we had a choice to come down to Earth for our mortal probation we continue to utilize such agency here according to the eternal confines and boundaries that God has put in place for our agency and protection.  Yes, he created us and all creation, but we, through His power, have agency to use or misuse creation around us.  All blessings are predicated upon the laws in which they are set.  We are truly agents unto ourselves.  Were it not so there would be not logical reason for creation in the first place.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Utter nonsense and an ongoing source of conflict as Einstein so clearly pointed out. Beliefs such as this - whilst providing you with a source of income without working - are guaranteed to cause conflict, priest. wink

        Clever man - Einstein.

      2. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Just for the change can we have proof ? (Don't refute by saying that i don't have proof against your this little story and hence it must be true or have 50/50 chances. Duh...

    7. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I really appreciate the fact that you started off with a quote, from a very serious scientist, and broached the subject of science and religion together.  Religion needs science.  And, it is only this personal conflict within our own self, that keeps the two apart.  He is right you know about how personal conception is the real source of trouble in religion.

      He has another beautiful quote concerning this subject matter.  It is in a book of mine.  I should dig it out and share it with you.  Yes, I think I will.  I'll be back.  Until then, thanks for starting an intriguing thread such as this.smile

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        and vis-a-vie.
        big_smile
        who's in da house? "Ism" in da house!

        Hi Intimat!

      2. Rishy Rich profile image79
        Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Intimat...Im still waiting...smile

      3. IntimatEvolution profile image82
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. it should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology.  Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.  Buddhism answers this description.

        ....If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."---Albert Einstein

        I love that quote.  What a great man.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh wow! Where did you get this quote. I am so surprised he said this! smile

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Cecelia:
            Go to this site ref Einstein and religion.

            http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-ei … eology.htm

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks I will!

              1. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                YW...:-)

          2. IntimatEvolution profile image82
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It is in a book I own called, "Awaken the Buddha Within."  Great book by the way.  Sorry I'm eating lunch, so I'm a little sporadic getting back and responding.  Thanks for asking.  You know if you are interested in another great website on Buddhism, Google Lama Surya Das.  He is a fantastic Buddhist Lama.  I love his teaching style.  He was raised Jewish and when he went off to find himself during College, he stumbled into Buddhism in Tibet.  Very interesting man, ceciliabeltran.  I think from what I've read of yours, you'd like his line of thinking.

            Hi 21.

    8. 0
      crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It takes two to have an argument, and one to walk away.  It is difficult to fight, and degrade an empty space.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You cannot run away when backed into a corner., wink Will you run away and leave me your house?

        1. 0
          crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You can always walk away from a verbal corner by ceasing to respond.  A physical corner; however, you do have to fight your way out of.

          I don't have a house, I don't even have a lease, I'm just an occupant in my roommates appartment lol... but I can run away and leave you an empty space if you'd like wink

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmm semantics.......

            But I think you get what I was saying. When backed into a corner - there is no option but to fight. See any history book for religion backing people into a corner. WHich is what you get from a belief in a personal god - as Einstein was pointing out.

            Source of conflict. Just wander through these forums. lol

            1. 0
              crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You always have a choice.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So what? You choose to fight or lose what is dear to you. How is that a choice?

                1. 0
                  crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Nobody can take from you that which you are not willing to give away.

                  Virtue is living a life worth dying for - I'd give up my life instead of being forced into a new way of life.  And that is my choice.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Dear me - how very, noble of you. Not sure what that has to do with choosing not to have a conflict though, but - umm - very, very well done.

                    You would rather die in conflict than give in. So - that is your choice - conflict. So you don't have a choice after all. And I hate to break it to you - but all sorts of things can be taken way without you being willing to give them away.

                  2. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Mmmm. I don't like that definition of virtue, to be honest. Don't we already have a definition of virtue (and I'm not talking about sex roll). Virtue is doing good, in other words, taking care of the less fortunate and the weak, not lying or cheating (at least, not without good cause), etc. Your definition is way off the mark, if you don't mind me saying so. Not to wheel out an old chestnut (or to mix my metaphors), but by that definition Hitler was virtuous

              2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                True.  MASADA was a choice. And a costly one. Sometimes people do the most absurd things just so they will not lose. But to allow yourself to lose sometimes is the winning move that will turn the tides to your favor.

                1. 0
                  crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, but then you've chosen to lose wink

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    because you will win something more valuable (like time, energy, self-respect you know or even a few more days to live and see the clouds float by, kiss your little girl goodnight.)

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        exactly, I hate having to go down the low road, but sometimes that's the language they speak and then some miracle happens and they get it! On that note, Einstein's predicament with the atom bomb mirrors many things going around in this social experiment.

        He discovered a formula for understanding and transcendent knowledge and it was used to escalate something that is quite the opposite.

        You can extend a hand of peace but if the person is in an internal war and is in chaos, she or he will not recognize it and see it as an evil trick.

        Evil sees only evil.

        1. 0
          crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How true this is, you see this a lot in patients who suffer from Clinical Depression, Bipolar Disorder, one of various Personality Disorders etc.  That is one of the difficulties in treating some major depression and personalities disorders - it is almost impossible to get them to see that it isn't you that is the problem.

          Also, social experiment is right - maybe I'll forget my thesis on language and consciousness and do it on forum psychology instead! haha

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What an interesting thesis you have! I so envy your topic! It's fun!
            Have you done any research on Joseph Campbell and James Hillman? It seems so apt to your topic.

            1. 0
              crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I haven't touched on either of those two because Joseph Campbell is a Mythologist, and James Hillamn's work is more applicable to the psychology of religion.  I am not doing very much philosophical work into the area of consciousness (which is too bad, because that's really interesting too) .  My research is more on the neurological side of consciousness, and the structures of the brain that are important for consciousness, as well as the effects degrees of attention have to learning and memory.  Where language comes in is in determining how much of a contribution language has to our ability to be self aware.  I'm hoping to show that structured language is not a prerequisite for self-awareness, and that you do not need to have a concept of mind to have one.  In effect I'm hoping to show that we are not the only sentient species on Earth.  A lot of headway has already been made with the Bottlenose Dolphin, and attempts are being made to declare it a non-human person.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Why?

                1. 0
                  crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I've posted this in another forum, but I'll post it again here smile:

                  It has actually been scientifically proven that dolphins, specially bottlenose dolphins, are sentient.  They display complex emotions, can recognize themselves in a mirror, have demonstrated empathy, and are the only other mammals that have sex for pleasure.

                  I'll suspend my judgment on whether they are non-human persons because I don't know enough about the research they've done, but it is quite interesting.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I mean why are there attempts being made to have it declared a non-human person?

              2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well, in the creative business it is common practice  to get to a new insight by connecting separate fields and bridging them. As a matter of fact, The research that I am doing is along the lines of your thesis. My contention is, the language of symbols and dreams communicate consciousness that is not based on language. Like an awareness of self.

                The visual language of our dreams and artistic expressions communicate emotions and relationships independent of language. Hence the weirdness and lack of logic.

                I actually have neurological maps for popular religious symbols. It seems that the consciousness of man is talking to itself about itself.

                Like "this is me, these are my parts and this is the best way to use me". I am delaying writing it into a hub because well, i spend so much time in forums (which is a cue to say time to write another hub and actually get my research going). I do have a deadline I keep pushing. So we are all procrastinators here. I have a workshop to conduct here in lower manhattan and I haven't done anything! (ahhhhh)

                But I will cue you in when its out. Need your thoughts on the matter actually. smile

                1. 0
                  crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Haha, ya... I am procrastinating too.  My Personality and Religion exam is in 7.5 hours lol.

                  I can't post my own hubs on anything relating to my thesis because it's intellectual property of my university; however, I'd be happy to comment on yours! smile

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks, dear. smile

          2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And also it is always the "I" that's the problem. You know somebody is insane, so you must speak in the language of insanity to lead her out of it. You can't insist a person to be sane for your comfort. The person is insane!

            But easier said than done, right? wink

    9. Haunty profile image83
      Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm of the mind that this has been taken out of context and since I don't know the rest of the text it would be silly to say anything regarding Einstein's message.

      Having decided this I'm being silly enough to say there is no bone for atheists here as this is not questioning the existence of God, only that of a personified God.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Semantics, You mean the personified god that 13 billion christians believe in? lol lol

        1. Haunty profile image83
          Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yea, I didn't know you're only denying the Christian God and the likes of him.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Oh - the doesn't affect anything, has no interaction, never steps in, does not need to be preyed to, did not create anything, cannot be seen, heard or found and did not give any rules to anyone, no one built any churches to it, does not make any difference if it exists god - god ?

            Sure - I will buy that one. wink

            Call me a believer.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              well all those are for man's own convenience not god.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Aww - He told you that himself did He? lol

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  yeah, he did. He also said you're screwed.lol

    10. BDazzler profile image84
      BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      100% of US cancer patients have eaten potatoes. Within the world, about 99% of all cancer patients who did not eat potatoes had at least heard of potatoes. I have, therefore, concluded that the concept of potatoes causes cancer.

      I am a peaceful messenger of Mr. Potato Head. Please do not eat potatoes. tongue

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Atleast  we are peaceful all of a sudden! lol

      2. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        BeDazzler,

        I just envisioned a thousand tanned Irishman w/ semi automatics, shooting tater tot bullets into the sky and some fellow w/ a makeshift ketchup & salt cart. weird.

        Pomme de terre ou akbar!

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          what is with ou akbar and the constant changing of profile pics?

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            it began with the insinuation that myself, you, OD, Myth et. al were forming a 'HubGang' against a certain not-to-be-named individual (no not Harry Potter's nemesis). I rebutted that this person thought it was a Hub Forum Jihad against them. You know digial characters flying in the air, etc. Out came the "HubPages ou akbar" statement and has kinda stuck in my head.

            The photo thing. Yeah, no. Can't decide on which one I like "bestest".

            1. Obscure Divine profile image61
              Obscure Divineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Speaking of photo things, which OD profile pic do you like best?  This account or the other one?  Ha-ha!

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                the OD or the DO profile jejejejejeje.

            2. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              tongue
              Saying "you know who" is the same as saying my name.

              Creepy is as Creepy does.
              It doesn't get any creepier then this.

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                only Creepy would know, now wouldn't they?
                Thanks (...) for responding. Cheers.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No..it is called not being stupid..cheers

                  1. 0
                    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
                2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  She who must not be named? lol Like it.

                  Still - she who must not be named is pretty touchy, so you can expect a recital of qualifications gained and esoteric texts translated from an ancient language any time now.

                  Plus the ferry schedule to Italy from Greece..... which is the same as going to France,.... 'cause they are connected you know. wink

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm the touchy one?
                    He who spouts hate and spews ridicule in every post.

                    He who offers nothing that informs or supports his "Theories"


                    I am a peaceful dis-liker of Mark Knowles

                    I love my family, my friends and Oreo ice cream.

                    The Great Audi is God forever more, plus the Beamer and the Porsche'

            3. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              totally the black and white, but this one has a girl and it looks authory.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm going to join you in the image crisis, and maybe change my picture too. smile

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  the evidence is written all over your face. jeje.
                  great photo!

            4. mythbuster profile image85
              mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh...ohyes, I remember now...

              The hub gang *nods*

              "our" bad

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                and that is just one of many.

                Broadcasting neurosis certainly attracts annoyance from even the most peaceful types.

    11. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey cool avatar!

    12. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I thought the concept of a personal god was that it was personal.  Ie: between me and god only...

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Now you know what it really means. wink

  2. TLMinut profile image59
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    That doesn't make sense from the beginning. Being ABLE to do all things and control all things doesn't mean one does.

    There are many things I can control in the lives of my grandchildren but I leave a lot up to them to experience and learn by.

    1. Rishy Rich profile image79
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You didnt designed your grand children, u didn't decided their DNA codes, u didn't bound their rationality...Because you couldnt

      But If theres a God, then It must have designed us as he intended...

    2. mohitmisra profile image61
      mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Every thought, every action happening in this cosmos is totally controlled by god.

      1. TLMinut profile image59
        TLMinutposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I can see how that could be true but I don't believe it. There are evidences of micro-management on the part of God but I don't see that it's a constant thing. Besides, that makes it sound like God is just a giant-sized, way better version of us that's in charge of the world like we would be in charge of something. That view makes God way smaller and less than "he" really is.

    3. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      TL:
      What doesn't make sense, is what you just offered.
      If you were "omnipotent," loving and caring you would create your children as perfectly as you are and a world within which they could live which is perfect.
      There would be no "problems."

      1. mohitmisra profile image61
        mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Its all a big joke, the cosmic joke, all is you, all is god.
        Its just too good, gods sense of humor is phenomenal.

        Try and think in this way, all is you.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Mohit:
          What do you define this god you mention to be?
          If all you have to offer is "opinion," forget I asked this question.
          I could not consider you to be a credible "hubber" in ref. to this god thing.
          You'd be just another "guessing" follower.

          1. mohitmisra profile image61
            mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Quark my work is ranked over the Bibles, Qurans and Bhagwat Gitas you will not find more credibility on this planet.

        2. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I like this comment, except the last bit (the last sentence) which I don't. In fact I think it is odd

  3. TLMinut profile image59
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    Ok, I didn't know you were arguing it from that type of view.

    1. Rishy Rich profile image79
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Its not ur fault...u were designed like that hmm

  4. TLMinut profile image59
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    lol

  5. LOKESH SAHU profile image59
    LOKESH SAHUposted 6 years ago

    heyy

    1. Rishy Rich profile image79
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wat?

  6. TLMinut profile image59
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    No, it isn't ridiculous unless you distort the meaning. If one chooses an interpretation that makes no sense, then it will make no sense. Einstein's words as quoted are wrong unless seen through a specific point of view that people choose to discredit God. Some people do believe that way, I've met a couple. People believe a lot of nonsense, the fact that some have odd beliefs of how something works doesn't discredit what they believe in. Kids for a time may believe there were little people in a TV, doesn't mean TV doesn't exist.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      As far as I am concerned, the idea of a personal god is nonsense. And - as Einstein pointed out - is guaranteed to cause conflict.

      What do you mean by "personal god"?

      1. TLMinut profile image59
        TLMinutposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Personal God, an annoying concept really. It's much easier to think of God as some sort of force but that's apparently not true.

        Discussing God with someone who doesn't know/experience "Him" is like you giving a book report on a book I read. Or explaining the atmosphere in a room where something has happened and the recipient of the explanation wasn't there. Or like describing the feeling that suddenly comes over you when your child is in danger but they're off on a camping trip and you have no direct knowledge. 
        Or the cold dread that comes over you a few minutes before the phone rings and someone tells you a friend has just been killed.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I see. Best to stick to condescending platitudes then. wink

    2. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Poor analogy, you need to compare gods with things that are invisible, not with real world objects that we can see and feel. smile

    3. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      TM:
      Plssss...!!!
      What is this god thing you speak of as if you know and understand it?
      If you cannot factually define "it" you are blowing smoke out of yer "bunghole."

      1. aguasilver profile image88
        aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Some times you make stupid remarks, designed simply to annoy, other times you are simply boring.... either way plssss stop being such a pillock.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Aqua:
          Lolol...
          I am only annoying to those who have no logical response to my very "logical" questions.
          The "adhominem" attack you just posted, seems to me, to qualify you as being one who has no logical response.
          I cannot be insulted.
          When insult seems to be the purpose of a response, I chuckle and consider the source.
          You are entertaining tho! TY....:-)

    4. LiamBean profile image88
      LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What if "god" is a highly advanced entity who made a mistake in "our" creation?

      We certainly can create things, as humans, that we could not imagine creating 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. Certain hobbies, once reserved to the professional with advanced tools, are now within anyone's reach. It is not beyond imagination than in another 100, 50, 25 years we could have "create your own life" kits.

      So if the "creator" could create life there is no reason for that creator to stick around after creation to see how its creation was doing. It does not even have to be an eternal "creator" so long as it can create life that can self-sustain.

      From that perspective we could all become "god" to some life-force (or our children or grand-children) when technology allows it.

      Should we expect total devotion from our creations?

      1. Obscure Divine profile image61
        Obscure Divineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, we got screwed & neglected at our early 'Homo Erectus' stage.
        Oh well, maybe we can manipulate some other race of beings in the near future, for revenge.  Ha-ha!

      2. TLMinut profile image59
        TLMinutposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I remember worrying about one of my boys when I saw the drawings he created. I worry about God when I look at the people he created. (But no, I don't believe God literally reached down for some dirt and made humans; this is just one of the things that crosses my mind sometimes.)

        Total devotion? It seems to me more like something for our benefit, the way things work the best. Of course, people get it all screwed up usually. If we were devoted to being one with all other people and love, we wouldn't be having wars and hate. When we 'create' children, the plan is for them to grow up and be able to manage on their own. I wonder if anyone's child has ever grown up and not thought any differently than the parent? I've never met anyone like that.

        My problem with Einstein's statement was just in the fallacious if-then. Someone (OD maybe?) made the point that if God COULD create all perfection, why wouldn't he? I don't see why he would have, maybe it would be too boring. Besides, I think we're all (human race) God's science experiment.

        1. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Let's not forget the Einstein also said "god does not play dice with the universe."

      3. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Just thinkin out loud. 
          Yours is an excelent analogy.
        But I suppose that when we creat something it would then be in our enviroment however large that may be.
           If I created something that shared my environment; I might want to keep an eye on it to make sure that it doesn't burn my house down? .. or eat all of my blue bell icecream.

  7. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    "Rakashasa"

    1. 0
      crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks I thought it was something like that.  I'm on a train so the Internet is too slow to bother googling the correct spelling lol

  8. thisisoli profile image66
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

    Einstein was far from religious, but he was also not an Atheist, he did not deny thet there could be some form of god out there, and indeed often refered to a personal God (Although msot religious people fail to understand that this is not a religious position).

    Einstein was a clever man, which is why he skirted conflict with religious groups.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Einstein had a transcendent view of G-d. He called the universe the Mind of G-d. I will not bother to repeat myself why he may be right. But yeah, I think he's on to something there.

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Your o is stuck wink

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's the only superstition I have left. wink  I also find it cute.

  9. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Hinduism has concept of 33 crore gods and they don't even mention work/stature of each god(I can understand population was not even 3 lakh when they invented 33 crore gods). Again recently this number is contradicted by many people and now this number is drop down to 33. There are many points on which Hinduism can be easily contradicted. For example, lord shiva who is considered as god of destruction failed to recognize his son ganesha and moreover failed to give ganesha's human-head back. There are lot of contradictions it's just that people are not open to it.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Myths like these are metaphors for events in human consciousness. Its not meant to be taken historically.  Shiva is passion and when you are at odds with Shiva, you conjure her destructive face in your being.  When you see that your hate is actually the shadow of your love, she will reveal her benevolent side. 

      I find Hinduism to be powerful metaphors for achieving self empowerment. But again, religion is an evil that needs tending. You need to bother to know these things before the teachings can help you.

      1. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ironically my name is named after lord shiva (i.e. Mahesh)  roll LOL...

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Coolness. You know the Mystics also say that name that you are called sticks to your consciousness and influences your personality because the phonetic sound is recognized by your brain to mean something.

          Like AHHHH means breath
          RRRRRR means some kind of motor
          HEY! means look at me, and  so and and so forth

          So your name with be Water attends to Fire. You are very logical and you probably can be very objective, having mastery over emotions. smile just a little party trick I pull from time to time.

        2. mohitmisra profile image61
          mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol   and you have no idea what the name represents lol

          Shiva is  an awakened one who knows his source and the source of ll is god ,Home.

          1. skyfire profile image74
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Really ? What made you think so that i don't know what it represents ? (Typical religious assumptions) roll

            Still mad at me, Mr Mishra ? wink

            Long time no see, ha. What happened to your claims of god particle ? Found official journal site of person who first mentioned god particle and that proves your point ? tongue



            Really ? I thought you'll say that he's father of karthik/ganesha and is known as god of destruction. First time i've heard about this awakened thingy. Looks like someone was into hibernation lol

            1. mohitmisra profile image61
              mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You have heard abut it but don't know god as you don't believe in god.

              Shiva is considered as the first yogi, the first enlightened or awakened one on this planet .

              Learn there is a lot I can teach you. smile

              Would you like me to stick my tongue out at you all the time? Be nice.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I am interested in this. Could you tell me a source? As a myth it's fascinating.

                1. mohitmisra profile image61
                  mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  A little bit here.

                  http://www.ishafoundation.org/news/colu … eb2009.pdf

                  He supposedly shared this knowledge with the Sapta Rishis- 7 sages, who spread it to the rest of humanity. smile

    2. 0
      crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is a misconception that Hinduism is polytheistic.  They believe in one transcendent God, all the rest are avatars of the same God to illustrate his many faces in a way a human mind can understand because the "Beyond" defies ordinary language.  The stories about the different avatars are not usually believed to be actually occurrences, but illustrations of an important message.

      1. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I've to disagree with that cause my experience with hinduism is different. Some hindus think of this as hierarchy of gods and female goddess "durga" at the top of creation,so there we have polytheistic religion. Some think of "vishnu" at the top of creation and rest of the gods are discarded. And there are people in India worshiping  multiple gods without considering who is at the top of creation. 



        Right,but there is a lot of talk these days about last avatar of vishnu "kalki" which is considered as last reincarnation before next matrix-reload(err i mean creation rewind).

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I would not take it at face value.

          1. skyfire profile image74
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Which one ? Kalki avatar ?

    3. mohitmisra profile image61
      mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The elephant head also symbolizes an awakened or enlightened one, he dies and comes back stronger ad far more intelligent.

      Every human has god in him.

      From god comes all and goes back to god.

      1. mohitmisra profile image61
        mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Then Durga on Ma is popular in the east side of India .Vishnu was the word used for god by the south Indian  and Shiva by the north Indian.

        Just a difference in names for the almighty .

  10. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    lol

  11. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Indeed? Judaism is credited?

    Ironically, the clause of Judgment for ones deeds in pre-Mosaic and (more recently) post-Mosaic is reserved for those of 'faith' not good/evil deeds. So the omnipotence factor puts Creator without necessity -which is what he designed humans to be. However, according to Judaism -even the Talmudic version- the entering into that necessity (knowing the two sides) forced humans to consider judgment of both cause and effect.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, interesting.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I always thought that the dichotomy of knowledge of good and evil was separating two extremes of opposing camps causing conflict. rather than as the tree of life shows in its diagram that hese extremes are like pulses to a process of concept coming down to experience. Realm of Light goes down to Realm of Action.

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't like this line of reasoning. I promise I am not being oppositional (or argumentative) just to be difficult. It's just I think some things are simply evil, and rather than being assimilated in some way, or balanced with Good, or seen as yin and yang, they should be vigorously attacked.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I agree, evil needs tending, otherwise it grows.

            the idea is not to separate your own evil from your good. Your evil is a result of a desire for good that is untended. The tree of life is very personal. when you attend to your own evil, you create good.

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              why consider either?
              since both are lacking.

              good is just as evil as evil is just as good, yes?

              i dislike quoting but:

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                (rrrr....i need to eat, you reeled me back in)

                I agree, hence the idea that they are but facets of a process.

                good as i mean it means deliberate action to create order.

                they are like the action of drinking water, the gulping is the alternating allowing of good and restricting it in order for water to pass down through the passage.

                All things/energies are passing through passages hence the illusion of evil and good. The wavelike motion shows the alternating presence and absence. What is absent and present? it is merely absence of awareness and presence of awareness alternating for consciousness to flow. just like water flows down the throat when we drink. the pacing of light(knowing)so as not to flood darkness (mystery) and create another( greater mystery) darkness (endless light where nothing can be comprehended).

                (That said, I want to eat. and i promise myself to do a 12 step program on forums and its time-suckage.)

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  ditto.

            2. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't mean "my" or "your" evil. I find it hard to believe that anyone posting on this thread possesses any real evil.

              It is a dangerous thing to go using terms like evil without distinguishing relatively minor things from MAJOR EVIL.

              The world is full of major evils. It is our RESPONSIBILITY to judge those as such.

              I find the word "evil" is being used entirely erroneously here. I doubt highly you have any evil inside you. Go read an account of the Rwanda genocide. That'll give you an idea of what I am talking about

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                yes, that would be hard to understand but i'm hungry and you are still under the impression that specifics are separate from the universal. the evil in rwanda is an individual lack/evil (disorder, chaos) that was untended so it grew in such a scale that americans can now philosophize about it.

                your evil. (meaning the things that cause you to be disorderly, chaotic, to suffer and so on and so forth)  if you have recognized what causes you to be evil as defined by the parenthesis, then you would be orderly and at peace, empowered to actively tend to the evil of others and then it grows. Now multiply that to a thousand individual rwandans and you will see some change. 

                i know one woman restarted cambodian economy by healing herself, sharing this with other women and so the women is healing the evil that transpired there. she said : if the women are ok,the children will be ok and the nation's future will heal.  This is ONE woman who was raped multiple times, her children were murdered and all her belongings were taken away. she was not an intellectual, she was just a woman who tended her own wounds that she became an expert in healing similar wounds and so she shared it and her personal healing grew outside of her. that said. bon appetite

          2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Also, I have no issues with oppositional, it is great mental exercise to bridge to sides of truth two achieve coherence.

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh wait, I misread you. now that I read it again I go back to Oh, interesting.

  12. thisisoli profile image66
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    I have never actually researched the origin of ethics, however considering the fact that the human race has grown from co-operation and community, Ii find it hard to believe that Judaism is the origin of ethical behaviour.

    Einsteins personal God was the belief that there was more connecting nature than could be observed by man.

    Religion is an irrational explaination of things we don't understand, Einstein merely talked about how it was foolish to believe that we understand everything. Einsteins personal God was usually mentioned in relation to scientific methods which were wayyy beyond my own personal understanding.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      einstein did not believe in a personal god. he like spinoza's god, a god beyond human and is therefore unconcerned with human dealings.

  13. TLMinut profile image59
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    I didn't really mean to get so morbid. Some happier examples may be the feeling evoked by a favorite song or the way your mood is elevated by being around someone who is in a very good mood. I know experiments are being and have been being done of the effect different types of music has on people. Too many still refute the idea of 'gut feelings' but I'm sure we all know that really happens.

  14. TLMinut profile image59
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    Condescending platitudes? Example?
    I certainly didn't feel any condescension toward you or anyone else.
    --------------
    Maybe I see what you mean. But I was only telling how difficult it is to come up with the right words to explain.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I know what you mean. I was just being facetious.

      Simple. I have a strong connection to the rest of existence. I have an even stronger connection with some people, and places. I can connect at will to what I "think" you are calling god.

      Does it have a personality? No.

      What do you mean by "personal god"?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Do you connect with all life as one conscious being or do you still think you are the only favored conscious life?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I never claimed consciousness. What does that even mean? Are you conscious?

          Please define that word - "conscious"

          Thanks.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Your life. If you are alive, you have consciousness. Ability of life to survive and adapt to the environment.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So - means nothing then. Alive = consciousness. Why not just us the word "alive" instead? Adapt. Did not adapt - was not conscious. Dead - was not conscious.

              Do not understand the question now.

              Try again.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I see what you mean now about awareness of mortality.

                you are questioning the need to separate the consciousness as an integral part of life which is a good point.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  but then how do you account for the necessity to have genes?

              2. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol Do you even understand evolution? I don't think you do. All of those books and you still don't get it.

                I would bet you are still clueless in recognizing the conscious thoughts in evolution are what leads to the physical characteristics and changes.

                Maybe you are just a subconscious mechanism repeating what your heroes write. Nevertheless, you are still conscious, I guess. lol

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry - you have lost me. What are you talking about? We were not talking about evolution were we?  Subconscious and unconscious  are surely the same as conscious? Are they not? No need for distinction.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Unconscious is still subconscious. A person can be unconscious and still be alive subconsciously, the heart beats subconsciously, you don't have to consciously remind your heart of when to beat every beat of the day. When a person is dead, they have no observable subconsciousness or consciousness. I just don't understand how you recognize humans having consciousness, but don't draw the link of other life being designed by consciousness.

              3. Obscure Divine profile image61
                Obscure Divineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't mean to interject amid queries, but I like clarity and detest poor wording.  Anyway, I think Marine is implying that life - in all forms - are singular capsules from multiple cells that stem, adapt, and evolve from one grand form of universal consciousness. 

                From there, it is up to y'all to debate about religion & science...and everything in between.  These things can get ugly...  neutral

            2. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Consciousness is..Self awareness..when the mind knows it exists and is aware of those outside of self.

              You can be alive and in a coma, with no consciousness. I know because my brother was in a coma for three days before he died.

              He was on life support, a machine that beat his heart...made him breathe..etc. He could not do it on his own. He had faint brain waves meaning he was alive.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol That is the religious definition of consciousness, I was giving a logical one. Consciousness doesn't require a mind, only conscious cells. I don't think consciousness requires a brain, only a membrane. Possibly there is outside of observation as a mind rather than a membrane or brain guiding consciousness.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  to cut that long biology book short, yes that would be the conclusion.

                2. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Religious?

                  That's the true and medical definition.
                  '
                  Your definition is the true one? Logical?

                  Yours is the one that sounds religious..  mine is based on true definition.

                  WOW

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes very religious, only a religious one would claim their definition as absolute when there is no absolute definition.
                    "Enlighten" me on how my defintion sounds religious? I believe all life is conscious, you believe only humans are conscious. Who is the religious one?

                3. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That's not according to any biology book.

                4. 0
                  crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That isn't the religious definition of consciousness, that was the psychological definition of consciousness.  Consciousness is having the capability to know what "I" is.  It is looking in a mirror and knowing that it is you that is reflected, and not another person standing in front of you facing you.  If the membrane does not know it exists, than it is not conscious.  Consciousness is not merely just existing, it is knowing that you exist.  Consciousness takes complex process, which a membrane alone cannot do.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Absolutely correct..word for word..

                  2. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol consciousness doesn't require knowing who "I" is. That would be awareness of your consciousness. The membrane and cell do the basic functions of every lifeform with consciousness which is to survive, adapt, reproduce. Consciousness is required by all life for survival, not just humans.

                  3. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, well thing is there are stages of consciousness. You are obviously right in what you know. That is the psychological definition but it is also a religious definition in as far as Buddhism is involved. But where I am coming from is from a biological standpoint.

                    Here is where we are always reaching a sort of deadlock. And no matter how I explain and give sources, it is just not accepted. Something about the idea that cells have a rudimentary consciousness is incomprehensible to many people.

                    But it is the case. I cannot repeat myself over and over and I will just like to lead you to the study of epigenetics. It shows that the membrane not the DNA is adapting. The DNA is the memory, not the brain. This is repeating itself in our neurons where it is the membrane that decides when it will absorb a chemical.

                    What this means is,the membrane made of chemical proteins is the substance that "feels" its separation from its environment. So it (as the established biological model for consciousness) has the ability create a model of reality. The protein membrane can do this, albiet in a scale relevant only to its food, comfort and survival. It is empowered to move in the direction at least away from harm or towards food. So is it conscious, the answer is YES it is conscious that it is separate from the environment is an entity that is self-contained and can move. Does it know it is thinking, we cannot know that because obviously that requires that we will have our day being eukaryotes.

                    So I am not dreaming it. I can give additional sources. But Epigenetics will be the place to start.

  15. TLMinut profile image59
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    Mark, what do you mean by this?

    I can connect at will to what I "think" you are calling god.

    Yes, that sounds like what I mean to but for me it's something beyond words. More like existence itself, being but of course more than just our being alive. Tell me what you mean by that okay?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for deleting that ramble. I could barely make it out other than you want it but you are not sure what it is that you want. big_smile

      Easy - everything is connected. I think we can both agree to that?

      So - I can become aware of this connection and "feel" it at will.

    2. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

      is attempting to see the difference:
      uber, active, sub, un, hyper-active, vexed, etc.
      All of it is still consciousness.
      The unit or creature perhaps defines the expression of consciousness based on necessity -with or without a glucose based organ...

      if consciousness evolves, it can only evolve into variations of that stasis. Thus, will always be limited to that stasis. Even an act of natural selection or meteor from the sky won't change the organic system it is or its purpose.
      (possibly why i dispute some evolutionary claims of hybrid/morph genetics jeje)

    3. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      91crmhaskeposted 3 minutes agoin reply to this
      I'm far greater the expert than you, I know what I'm talking about, I'm confident of that.  What makes you so sure you are the expert?



      lol The only thing you are an expert in is making up your own silly definitions from your overpriced education in which you learned little to nothing. Your buddy debo agrees with your made up definitions. Are you both religious? You both have even more illusions of me being female, trust your religious intuitions. lol

      1. 0
        crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This does not in any way qualify you to know anything about consciousness, sorry.

        And for the record, I'm in Canada so my education is government subsidized.  And with my scholarships and government grants, I haven't paid a cent.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol No wonder, it's funded by the government. Government never gives anything of individual education. Keep studying. You lack consciousness in recognizing that evolution of plants display consciousness such as natural and sexual selection.

          1. 0
            crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe in America, in Canada our government actually cares about education.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Only to keep you supportive of the government. It worked, you got played. lol

      2. mohitmisra profile image61
        mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        She does have spiritual knowledge something you have no idea about.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Calm down prophet, keep feeding her and she will buy your $2.00 ebook which is holier than both the Bwatgita , the Quaran, and the bible. lol At least it's ebook rankings say so. lol

          1. mohitmisra profile image61
            mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ebook is electronic book if you don't like it stop writing on forums ,its electronic.
            .
            I send her a copy or doing a numerology reading,reciprocated ,she will understand and appreciate it.She likes my style.

            Sent you a copy earlier and only got attitude as you couldn't understand it. smile

    4. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      78Deborah Sextonposted 20 minutes agoin reply to this
      In another thread...Marine stated that Flowers are conscious the same as we are.....I opposed that view.


      lol Ignorance and a lies. I at no time said that plants have the same level of consciousness of humans. I said humans have a raised consciouness over other observable life.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I will try to find the thread. You argued with me for days on this.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I have always said there are different levels of consciousness. The higher conscious life has the most capabilities. I think consciousness evolves at levels, not all at one time.

          1. 0
            crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            This first correct thing you've said in this thread.

            But anything without a brain does not have consciousness.  End of story.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You are wrong. Why do you think that it requires a brain for consciousness? Plant evolution is impossible without a level of consciousness.

              1. 0
                crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Evolution is an unconscious act.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, evolution is not an act, really. But I know what you mean.

                  I would view it as phenomena, a consequence of life's desire to retain knowledge and to continue to live.

                  smile

                  1. 68
                    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi friends

                    "Evolution is an unconscious act." maybe the word "process" instead of "act" would be better if you both like it; evolution continues, it has not halted.

                    Thanks

                    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      yeah, i agree with you!

                2. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol At evolution being an unconscious act. Maybe you are an unconscious host of evolution is the reason you think it's an unconscious act.

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    it is not an act marine! you don't act evolved, you evolve as result of a choice. it is a phenomenon.  SOME PEOPLE act evolved but are as primitive as the texts they are confined to reading. lol

                    if you know what i mean wink

                    1. marinealways24 profile image60
                      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      I do I do. They let the text and education title define their mind. lol

              2. 0
                crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You have the worst case of anthropomorphism I have ever seen.

            2. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Sexual selection by plants..Gosh I hope my roses don't start..Hum---- my other plants smile

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                If you don't understand sexual selection in plants, what other parts of evolution are you clueless in?

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol lol

                  That's a theory and it's not held by many. This stuff started in 1983 after there was a book on it.

                  Let's stick to reality.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Typical religious answer. lol

                    1. marinealways24 profile image60
                      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      How can someone be allowed to be a doctor or nurse that doesn't understand or believe evolution? Medicine has had an evolution. How can you claim to understand the design of the body/biology, yet you can't comprehend that evolution designed it? Why be a nurse or a doctor anyways, why not just rely on your religious belief to heal? lol

          2. mohitmisra profile image61
            mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes there are different levels of consciousness ,the highest being god consciousness something you have no idea about marine yet you insist you have awareness lol

      2. mohitmisra profile image61
        mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There are different levels of consciousness .
        There is also god consciousness.

    5. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      91crmhaskeposted 1 minute agoin reply to this
      I have no intention of retiring young. But I am capable of being equally as rude as you are.  It doesn't go anywhere - you are the one my friend that appears to be in arrested development.


      Why not, so you could gain more materialistic posessions?

      If I could retire today, I would. lol
      lol and what is this arrested development you think i'm in?

    6. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      IE and Rishy, do either of you agree that omnipotence does not mean you are controlling everything? I realize Rishy was looking at it from the point of view that God specifically designed each gene, molecule, atom, quark, thought, and all that of every single thing.
      But the two do not actually equate, nor does one require the other. Omnipotence does NOT require that point of view and the idea of a personal God doesn't have to mean that. Einstein must have been dealing with people who defined it that way but it doesn't make it so.

      As Mark asked back several pages, "What do you mean by personal god?"

    7. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      Mark Knowles wrote:
      I can connect at will to what I "think" you are calling god.

      TL wrote:
      Yes, that sounds like what I mean too but for me it's something beyond words. More like existence itself, BEING but of course more than just our being alive. Tell me what you mean by that okay?

      Mark:
      Thank you for deleting that ramble. I could barely make it out other than you want it but you are not sure what it is that you want. big_smile

      TL:
      If I pretend posting something like that was just an attempt to practice humility ...
      Will you pretend to believe me? Please?

      Mark:
      Easy - everything is connected. I think we can both agree to that?

      TL:
      Yes. Does that change anything for you? How did you become aware of such a thing?

      Mark:
      So - I can become aware of this connection and "feel" it at will.

      TL:
      Is there ever a time when you choose not to do so? Is there any particular reason you WOULD choose to do so?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes - right now. A strong connection makes it hard to function in reality.

        Yes - when it is time to move on to the next phase of my life.

        Now - what do you mean by "personal god?"

        I know what Einstein meant - and I agree with him.

    8. Rishy Rich profile image79
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago

      HERES ANOTHER ONE:

      "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, Albert Einstein: The Human Side.

      http://de.toonpool.com/user/4590/files/albert_einstein_531895.jpg

      1. Obscure Divine profile image61
        Obscure Divineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ...Many of us have wasted time spinning that globe before, when we should have been concentrating on more important things in life......

    9. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

      OK then, for those who feel I am volatile and snicker.. lol lol  back at you for being wimps who don't stand up for yourself. lol lol for the bully who sees themselves as being all knowing.. lol lol for those who state you follow such written Kabbalah as Bahir, being the Dogmatic Kabbalah, then turn around and state you follow the Oral Tradition (two different things) lol lol and isn't it also funny how my fans went from 130 to 151 after I created the thread "The Name Jesus" with notes to me stating they want to know more.

      Having my Masters in Nursing I have to update each year..and my grades and credentials, along with my fingerprints have to be on file with the FBI

      Just checked and my fans are now at 153...

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        congratulations to the you as this is your domain for validation, nurse. Now go and give some sick person her meds as that is what you are qualified for (as far as you keep on mentioning).

        After this, I am no longer going to dignify your pettiness and insecurity. You want to be an expert in Kabbalah, do me a favor. Let it reach Malkhut in your being and transcend yourself.

        You are so annoying, even the peaceful muslim is sarcastic towards you.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It was you who said my credentials are out of date. Bullying people is unkind..hating people is wrong. It's sad you claim to know everything and are so full of hate.

          Allow Paarsurrey to speak for himself..you're always into someone else's business. And actually he has paid me many compliments

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            your astuteness in assessing nuances of words said to you is as literal as your interpretation of the sacred texts you purport to know. Oh well, that too is valuable. People with no or little knowledge of the sefirotic tree will find your work valuable, and indeed it is.

            Now stop impacting your credibility by acting like a silly girl.
            If you know what you're talking about people will see it.

            MOST importantly, this is about Albert Einstein's G-d. He did not share your beliefs about G-d, because well he's Einstein...and by the way, he is a real JEW.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And Deborah, you are the bully around here. Bullies threaten people and demand them to stop talking. People who tell you the truth are just people who tell you the truth. Now, can we get past this? I'm sooooo way past my budget for pettiness.

    10. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

      Back to the topic.

      Albert Einstein believed in Spinoza's God who does not meddle with the lives of men. He was more interested in how everything works in Creation.

    11. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

      HubPages ou akbar?!

      lol.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Another hater.
        But full of Grace of course smile

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What time is it where you folks are??? I just turned on my computer for the first time today, and people are already at it???

          It would be great if one thread on this whole site was not mixed with vitriol and fighting... I mean, fighting over the topic is one thing, but frankly this is not what I can see here...

    12. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      A personal god is one who does intervene in the lives of humans. I can not enumerate the 'rules of engagement' for you. Capricious? No, I doubt it, though it may look that way from our point of view.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Right. Which is what Einstein was saying. This belief is the cause of conflict.

        And goes back to what I first said - This idea is ridiculous. wink

        1. TLMinut profile image59
          TLMinutposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not exactly what Einstein said - his statement was more along the lines of what Mohit just said. A personal God does not require that.

          The fact that 'it causes conflict' is irrelevant to its veracity!

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Of course it is. Look at all you religionists fighting over it and sharing god's love. Sure - you believers pretend that never happened.

            "...if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God."

            The very idea is completely ridiculous.

            1. mohitmisra profile image61
              mohitmisraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              All is the Light or god even man .Its is true that every thought and action is that of gods because all is god.

              The reality is that this dimension we are in sucks ,its hell.

              This reality is gods manifestation into physical matter ,to experience himself,it a big game in one way. but painful , no one is spared of pain.

    13. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      Nobody can take from you that which you are not willing to give away.
      -----------------------------
      That's an absurd statement, of course they can. Unless you're only claiming it only as refers to abstract things.

      1. 0
        crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Material things don't matter, so no, I am not talking about anything material.  Of course that can be taken from you, I know all about that, I've had my apartment robbed.

    14. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      Look at all you religionists fighting over it and sharing god's love. Sure - you believers pretend that never happened.
      ----------------------------
      You're not a religionist and you seem to be always 'in the fight' so what's your point?
      Pretend what never happened? Fighting? And fighting for or over something doesn't make anything true or untrue.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And where is the source of the conflict?

        No - I agree - whatever happened in the past does not prove that there is no personal god. Pretty good indicator though.

        Either way - it is still a ridiculous idea.

    15. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      For anyone who believes God is not personal, do you mean no god intervenes in human affairs? When things happen that seem like God intervening, do you think it's only coincidence every time?

      Why do you think the idea of a personal God is ridiculous? Because of the fact of evil and suffering in human life? Because  you've never met anyone in real life who claims experience that you find credible?

      I know some think the only things that are real are the things humans can prove through our senses (with the aid of human-made machines and such also of course). For those who think there's something more, whatever it may be, whether inside us or out, what do you call it and could it be what others call God?

      1. 0
        crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The below is what I think when I say or hear someone else say personal God:

        1. A creator that chose to create mankind and is aware that She/He/It created mankind

        2. A God belief system that includes the passing of judgment after death

        3. A God that one prays to, and addresses by a name (whatever that may be)

        4. A God that has a special interest in the fate of mankind

        It is possible that I am missing something, but I think that this illustrates it enough.

        I do not believe in a personal God because I do not believe that 1, 2 or 4 is true, and I do not do 3.

        I believe in a unifying consciousness that is within us all, but it is impersonal, and indescribable by language.

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Because it is ridiculous. Laughable actually. And look at the conflict it causes.

      3. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This site has all the answers:

        reality.sys  smile

    16. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      QUOTE:
      Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.

      --------------
      Beautiful!

    17. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

      'G/god' is a personal agenda which is what is misleading humans.
      Really, either side of Ism is misleading because both lacking.

      We forget spirit-body or body-spirit is connected by the mind.
      This is where the issue is. The body & spirit desire to be united eternally, but the mind is playing a third wheel and can't see it is just a tool.

      Good/Evil is the knowledge of the difference.
      The intervention of Creator is required to remove that blockage -either by renewal of the mind or dispersing the three from each other so the spirit is not lost.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You bring up a very interesting point here 21, and that is concerning the "spirit-body or body-spirit is connected by the mind."

        If you so chose, you might be interested in The Gospel of Mary Mag.  The entire Gospel is one of such message.  Apparently, from what I am understanding, Jesus tells Mary that the true way to heaven or to the "heavenly realm" is through the knowledge of enlightenment. 

        Like Albert Einstein stated,"arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity." There is a union between our spirit body and our minds.  Most of us however, get lost in the great divide of translations and theology.  Why Christians choose to ignore this message, and dismiss it as the "devils work" truly floors me. 

        Personally I think Albert was right on the money.  Have a good day all, I'm off to study.  Be well.

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          big_smile ello ello!

    18. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      crmhaske - Very helpful and clear, thank you.

    19. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      1. I think God is a creator in the sense of being EXISTENCE - life arose from that. I do believe God is a sentient whatever God is, but of course, sentient is not the right word. Goes way beyond any such thing. Just like Mark said earlier, no personality. I don't think God lacks a personality, I think God is way beyond such bounds.

      2. Judgment to me would be the natural consequence of whatever you are. If your 'spirit' or part of it is flammable in the sense of being susceptible to whatever 'spiritual fire' is, it won't last.

      3. Prayer I believe in. It isn't what I always heard prayer is though. It's a connection, not a dialogue, monologue or any such thing.

      4. Special interest in mankind? This is what gets into the whole idea of intervention and where God always surprises me.  Either whole floods of coincidences or intervention. Changes in my own self and my own perceptions that I didn't expect (and sometimes didn't want). Jury's out for me on this one still.

    20. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

      "it looks authory."

      Making up words? or can't spell... smile

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What was that thing you wrote about petty remarks??????  What was that you said to 21?

        Ah, I remember...tongue 

        What a laugh.lollollol

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Does anyone care about your opinion?

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Did I give a direct opinion? 

            How about this petty remark?  Part of your practice???

            Do tell us again how that goes?  What was that you said about petty remarks?  Seriously, I'm sure everybody wants to know.tongue

            I'm still waiting for your enlightening answer, from the last post.  Do hurry back with it.

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        can't spell;) give you A for Attempt to be witty.

    21. Daniel Carter profile image92
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

      Wow.
      This is like reading celebrity divorces! Lots of interesting stuff and never really getting to the truth.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This truth is abstract.

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know - I think the entire thread bears testament to the original premise. wink

        Clever man Einstein........

        1. Rishy Rich profile image79
          Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah ryt...the funniest part is...Einstein, The most intelligent Jewish mind ever ,didn't find Judaism nor Kabbalah to be interesting roll

          1. Rishy Rich profile image79
            Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, cant stop laughing... lol lol lol

        2. Daniel Carter profile image92
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I have a tendency to agree with Einstein's premise as well.
          Yes, truth is abstract, Deborah. I don't see many abstracts about truth being discussed, however.

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            As I don't see any remarks of pettiness either.

            Still waiting debbie dearest.........!tongue

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              somebody evolved? can it be proof of evolution?

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Stop with your hate..thanks

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Please stop showing hate debs.

                  Thank you for doing as you are told.

                2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  nobody hates you, deborah. You however hate jokes.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Joke? Don't fabricate.

                    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      *shakes head*

                3. IntimatEvolution profile image82
                  IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Pettiness and hate.............., chick practice what you preach.hmm 

                  "Thanks"lollol

                  Still waiting......

                  What was that you were saying about making petty remarks? 

                  Can you say fake and shallow?

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes SIR

                    1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
                      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Deleted

              2. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                ibid.

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We discussed it for days here and on two other threads.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              How you doing Deborah? big_smile

    22. donotfear profile image93
      donotfearposted 6 years ago

      "No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence."/ Ann Landers

      http://www.christisall.org/wp-content/Leavened%20with%20heaven.jpg

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "If you don't want people to laugh at your beliefs - you shouldn't have such funny beliefs."

        Mark Knowles big_smile

        1. donotfear profile image93
          donotfearposted 6 years ago in reply to this


          "I'm not looking for your approval...."
          A.S.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Good.

      2. Daniel Carter profile image92
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Does that apply to people like Jim Jones and the Guyana tragedy, the Waco, TX debacle of the mid 90's, and many, many others like them? It seems that emperical evidence in these cases would have allowed some blind followers to save their own lives.

        However, let me clarify that the intent behind Ann Lander's words was "destroy." Purposely destroying I don't agree with unless it's to save a life or something very drastic to make them see truth right now. But on the whole, shining a spot light on facts isn't going to hurt beliefs in the end. It will help them be based on facts instead of lies.

        I'm just sayin'...

    23. skyfire profile image74
      skyfireposted 6 years ago

      If we start to follow this quote then we're back to medieval age... wink

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Everybody's free to delude themselves, Skylar. Meow!

        1. Obscure Divine profile image61
          Obscure Divineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's true, being counter-productive in thought via delusion, is simply being elementary in mind.  ...Life goes on, with or without.  Roar!

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why are you always trying to upstage my antics mad scat! lol
            kidding Obscure. you're free to copy cat anytime.

            1. Obscure Divine profile image61
              Obscure Divineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I never thought I was, plus, mine sounded better!  LOL!  tongue

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                tongue yourself!

      2. Haunty profile image83
        Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And why is that again?

    24. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

      Speaking of personal dogma.
      Do you know why the Lollipop Guild were always pissed at Edgar?
      Cuz even knowing it was out of order, he kept ringing those damned bells!!

      1. Obscure Divine profile image61
        Obscure Divineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Bing-ding-ching!  Bing-ding-ching!  Bing-ding!  Bing!

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol Haaaa *wipes eyes*

    25. TLMinut profile image59
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago

      QUOTE:
      Let's not forget the Einstein also said "god does not play dice with the universe."
      ------------------
      But Einstein said he's not acquainted with God so he could easily be wrong. Have you ever heard of a book called "The God Who Risks"?

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is the problem with being a Germanic Hebrew physicist.
        Public value/opinion outweighed his limited moral device and thus mandated an explanation for that limitation -which he could not supply through various methods of approach.
        So, better to make an atomic expression, than get caught up in the status quo of good humor boy meets zealot. 16 million fellow humans suffered at his lack of courage and conviction. Today, his work controls the 'proliferation' agenda and has gripped the united world into a stasis of fear.


        Conflict? Yeah, there was some serious conflict. Good job Albert!

    26. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

      You know what, donotfear, read it yourself.

      However, you might want to change your profile goal.

      You are just getting yourself involved in something, YOU clearly do not have a clue about.  Like allllllllll the HISTORY. 

      When you have finished doing your own research, then I'll give you my time.  until then,  I'm off to do some encouraging.tongue

      1. donotfear profile image93
        donotfearposted 6 years ago in reply to this


        No problemo. smile

    27. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      I think all of you people are insane. lol

    28. 0
      crmhaskeposted 6 years ago
      1. mythbuster profile image85
        mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

        1. 0
          crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol, anytime

          It is actually kind of ironic because back when I was doing my undergrad I was having a pretty intense religious debate with a couple people in my livingroom, and one of my roommates whose bedroom was adjacent to the livingroom went on youtube and blasted that song tongue

          1. Rishy Rich profile image79
            Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You are Awesome smile

    29. LiamBean profile image88
      LiamBeanposted 6 years ago

      Wow. I blew it. Here I'm attempting to add something to the conversation when I should have gotten a tub of popcorn, settled on the sofa, and watched the fight.

      Carry on ladies!

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh sorry about that. I totally take responsibility for shaking my head in disbelief.

        This thread is no longer about Einstein. I think it is pretty much settled that he did not believe in a personal G-d.

        1. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You were only peripherally involved as far as I can see.

          One can always tell when a Forum thread is dead when it takes a sharp, high speed turn into La La Land.

          1. Obscure Divine profile image61
            Obscure Divineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, cool!  Start a new one for us!  You're totally awesome with your originality!  Com'on now. Ya start that new thread and stuff!  Show us the way to sanity; we need ya!

     
    working