Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 89 by JP Cusick]

The sentence means what it says - it does not mean any hidden interpretation.

Apart from the meaning where religion equals scripture equals Genesis? Ya know...the meaning you've been pushing very hard on this thread?

Because the sentence has a literal meaning - in and of itself.

So the word religion literally does not mean the catch-all term of faith-based belief systems, Einstein's literal meaning was Scripture, Genesis in particular?

All I really said about that one sentence is that he said what he meant and he meant what he said.

To date, you have provided nothing from Einstein that supports your interpretation, while your opponents have been able to cite plenty from Einstein as to what he thought about God and religion.

and now here I take Einstein literally and you say the verse means differently. ~ irony indeed.

Outside of Einstein's quote, if someone says the word "religion" to you, do you take them as meaning Judaeo/Christian Scripture?

Me using her first name would seem disrespectful of me.

Giving her nationality as a Serbian physicist just seems more respectful.

Notice I did not specify or demand that you use her first name only. Her article on Wikipedia does not identify her by the moniker of Einstein (which she would have gotten after marrying Albert), but instead uses her first name and her maiden name.
So, would it not seem weird if I and others started saying 'The Jewish physicist'? I fail to see how referring to someone (Twice!) by nationality and profession only is respectful.

The evidence about the theory of Relativity comes from the Bible,

Nope. I have already disproven this.

I did give that way back in my comment #4 on the 1st page of this thread.

In comment 4, you mention you believe he used the Bible. At no point in comment number 4, do you cite anything to support this. The ONLY citation you have from Einstein (indeed, the ONLY thing you have EVER cited from Einstein, as far as I know) is this thread's line about "Science without religion is lame".

Among other things, it seems you are literally clueless as to what the word 'evidence' actually means, what constitutes evidence, what counts as evidence.

As such there is no need to quote anything from him.

So you can sit there and say "Einstein got ToR by reading the Bible" and you honestly think you DON'T have to cite ANYTHING from him?

Nothing more from him - no.

He was a spineless immoral jerk.

What does his being a 'spineless immoral jerk' (to date, you have not explained WHY you keep calling him that) have to do with his search for a unified theory?
Do you even know what it is he sought to unite?

All we need do to see is apply seeking the "unified theory" along with this famous principle:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I thought you didn't have to quote Einstein? That you can, for all intents and purposes, just make it up and throw it out there?
How does a random reader of yours find out whether what you say about Einstein, his theories and his beliefs, ISN'T made up if you honestly seem to think you don't need to cite or quote him?

[Justin108]

I really can not grasp why you and others (Bust Nak) can not comprehend that I do not like Einstein and I do not promote Einstein, and me making quotes from Einstein simply mean that I embrace the quote but not the person.

I never said you're promoting him. What I'm saying is that you're pretending to be an authority on what Einstein meant when he said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". You insist that this quote means he got his Theory of Relativity from the Bible and you refuse to acknowledge that this is merely your own personal interpretation of Einstein's quote. You present your own interpretation as some objective fact about what Einstein actually meant. My point is that you have absolutely no authority on what Einstein actually meant because you are not Einstein. Unless Einstein openly stated that he got his Theory of Relativity from the Bible, your claim that he did is a lie.

I would consider myself to be mentally ill if I did have too much insight into Einstein's brain or his thinking, and whatever Einstein meant by his words is just none of my concern

Yet you continually insist that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" means "I got my Theory of Relativity from the Bible". If his words were "none of your concern", you would not constantly be making this claim.

Now after doing some more research then now I figure that the Theory of Relativity surely came with the help of his Serbian physicist wife, and that Einstein was surely the one who used the info from the scriptures while working with his wife.

Prove it

[Justin108]

All I really said about that one sentence is that he said what he meant and he meant what he said.

You are saying that it does not mean what it says.

And you are saying that he did not mean what he said.

We could see the ironic humor in this that people take the Bible literally and other argue what the Bible really meant, and now here I take Einstein literally and you say the verse means differently. ~ irony indeed.

I can't believe you're persisting...

Let's try this again, shall we?

Is saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" the same as saying "I got my Theory of Relativity from the Bible"?

[Bust Nak]

Einstein saw beauty and order in universe.

Aye and so do I, what does that have to do with what I said about the kind of god Einstein believed in?

Because the sentence has a literal meaning - in and of itself.

I just do not really care what Einstein meant, as I do not give him much regard in anything.

The sentence means what it says - it does not mean any hidden interpretation.

That IS like an atheist cheering a pastor for saying "there are no atheists in hell."

All I really said about that one sentence is that he said what he meant and he meant what he said.

You are saying that it does not mean what it says.

And you are saying that he did not mean what he said.

No, I am saying he did meant what he said, but he did not mean what you thought he meant.

[Monta]

Einstein saw beauty and order in universe.

Aye and so do I, what does that have to do with what I said about the kind of god Einstein believed in?

Don't get it what are yu trying to say.
The creation is mirror-image of God. Einstein saw it.

Einstein:
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 94 by Monta]
I am saying what Einstein saw was very different to the theistic God as he was a deist.

[KenRU]

Einstein did not believe in a personal god, therefore he could not mean the quote the way you interpret it.

He said religion and did not say "a personal God" and thereby he did mean religion as I do.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Please do elaborate then how the quote could possibly mean what you say it does when the word "religion" used in PROPER context means religion WITHOUT a personal god.

Then, if you can do so, please link for me how this same man who thinks religion is childish could possibly derive his ToR from a holy book.

-thanks

[JP Cusick]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

I firmly believe that Einstein himself used the Bible to get his own basic ideas and really he is saying just that in that quote.

The theory of relativity comes straight out of the old Testament as it tells of people living hundreds of years, then the Bible tells that God shortened the human life span down to 120 years, and it tells that a day for God is 1000 years, and the old method of measuring time was the Moon cycle of 19 years, so all of this told Einstein that time was relative and he expanded from there.

This is his own principle:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

It puzzled me that after Einstein died they cut out his brain to see why he was so brilliant, and instead of having a larger brain it turned out to be a bit smaller than normal, and so in their logic perhaps a smaller brain could be a smarter brain = such fools.

No one took his words literally that science without religion is lame.

Religion without science being blind needs no comment.

I say that I have spent enough time on this discussion, and my comment #4 quoted above really tells the entire point.

So I stand behind everything that I said, as all of mine are accurate and my comments are all true.

There is no reason for me to keep pounding on a topic which is already done and complete.

So I am moving out and going onward.

[Clownboat]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

I firmly believe that Einstein himself used the Bible to get his own basic ideas and really he is saying just that in that quote.

The theory of relativity comes straight out of the old Testament as it tells of people living hundreds of years, then the Bible tells that God shortened the human life span down to 120 years, and it tells that a day for God is 1000 years, and the old method of measuring time was the Moon cycle of 19 years, so all of this told Einstein that time was relative and he expanded from there.

This is his own principle:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

It puzzled me that after Einstein died they cut out his brain to see why he was so brilliant, and instead of having a larger brain it turned out to be a bit smaller than normal, and so in their logic perhaps a smaller brain could be a smarter brain = such fools.

No one took his words literally that science without religion is lame.

Religion without science being blind needs no comment.

I say that I have spent enough time on this discussion, and my comment #4 quoted above really tells the entire point.

So I stand behind everything that I said, as all of mine are accurate and my comments are all true.

There is no reason for me to keep pounding on a topic which is already done and complete.

So I am moving out and going onward.

I trust the readers of this thread have more than enough to go on to see if what you say is credible or not.

At this point, it would be best if you were to move on from this topic.

For giggles though, before you go, please read this and pretend one of your debate opponents said it. Trust me, it is hilarious:

"So I stand behind everything that I said, as all of mine are accurate and my comments are all true."

Too funny, right?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 98 by Clownboat]

"For giggles though, before you go, please read this and pretend one of your debate opponents said it. Trust me, it is hilarious:

"So I stand behind everything that I said, as all of mine are accurate and my comments are all true."

Too funny, right?"