betsy

You practically pressured me to give my point. Now that I gave it, you're mad! Because you don't agree with my opinion. Period. Now you want me to leave out the conversion part, perhaps because you find the truth to what I say....the grave implications of these conversions by atheist scientists to Christianity....undeniable. Then why react so strongly to my simple statement: Einstein was a deist. This topic is about Einstein's Thoughts on Religion. It was TruMetis, followed by you who tried so damn hard to bring in the theory of Evolution to this topic. You insisted bringing in the theory of evolution to a topic that's about a Deist scientist's thoughts on God.....what do you think will happen? They won't collide? I know most scientists (regardless of their belief) don't start out working on a theory to prove their belief. But the sudden conversion from atheism to Christianity by some scientists while working their theories cannot be just set aside as irrelevant especially when they've confirmed that it was in the course of their work that they've discovered the Christian God. So to some of them it's like stumbling on a miracle. And like the Philosopher Antony Flew who for decades had been on debates fighting for Atheism.....only to find himself in the end convinced instead to Christianity. Logic and reason was used in this instance. True that there are still scientists who still cling to Atheism.....but the fact that there are also scientists from different fields who not only oppose the views of their atheist counterparts, but oppose them with action (conversion - which also entail humble submission) holds a lot of weight. In my view. Analysis of behaviours and thoughts by popular scientists is done everyday....tons of books have been written about them. So what is the problem about talking about these Christian converts? Especially when their strong action - from the extreme of believing that there is no God to suddenly changing to the other extreme by outright conversion and saying I believe and worship the Christian God - is quite surprising, to put it mildly. As I said, why didn't they just embrace Agnosticism, and leave it at that? Let me just correct you there. TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, it was YOU and TruMetis who insisted to connect religion to science in this topic. Even after the fact that I've said a couple of times that I don't want to embark on any discussion about evolution....which to tell you frankly I now find so dis-interesting. I don't give a damn about it even if they'll claim to have found the missing link tomorrow. If there is any show of obsession....it comes from you. You are obsessed with science....most especially with the theory of Evolution. And we both know the real reason for that obsession. It's noteworthy the aggressive reactions coming from some atheists in this forum - the knee jerk reactions - most of whom hurl insults. That's okay. It's understandable. The opinion expressed must've been viewed as threatening to Atheism. I suggest after some calming down, you guys just sit down and think about the grave implications of Agnostics, Deists and Atheist scientists who converted to Christianity, what these mean to the religion of Atheism. Perhaps Agnosticism is the next step for you guys. Your reaction only serves to prove my opinion (Darwin thread): Scientific books/peer-reviewed publication is to you as The Bible is to me. You rely heavily on science to validate your belief. You need and ache for validation. You may argue about this, but action speaks louder than words.

Hey GostHacked, I made a blooper! At Einstein thread....I just saw that I said Einstein was a deist! Oh brother.....

I am not saying that fame and money will stop me or anyone from being a good Christian. I am sure that there are wealthy and famous people who are good Christians. It only makes it harder to follow the teachings of Christ....temptations abound all the more. It's easy to lose focus in that kind of environment. Christ Himself likened it (wealthy person) to a camel going through the eye of a needle. I'm happy to see that you haven't lost your sense of humor....that's good...quite refreshing to get this far without us slamming each other. Btw, just to remind you that the only reason I got embroiled in this discussion about agnostic scientists namely Einstein and Darwin.....was because of the reaction of both ToadBrother and TruMetis in the Einstein thread when I just simply stated a sentence: Einstein was an Agnostic. I was just reiterating a fact....is all. Not my intention to get to any lengthy debate. If I'm not mistaken, the reason Darwin was Agnostic was because he cannot reconcile himself to the idea of a "brutal God"....perhaps this was brought on too by the loss of his daughter. I assume that some Agnostics (and perhaps some Atheists) don't want a God or any god that do not conform to their own idea of how or what God or a god should be like. As for the reason of these scientists' conversion to Christianity, they may have their own reasons ....what is truly in their hearts....only God knows. Belief is personal. You have your own reasons for yours, I have mine. It was nice exchanging views with you GostHacked.

Of course it does not. You are an Agnostic! It's the neutral zone. The grave implication is on the Atheists for they've been waiting with baited breath for science to prove that there is no God. Because only then can their belief be validated. They need that validation. Otherwise, why would there be so much excitement over these theories that supposedly will prove just that...it's like sports fans eagerly watching the game every step of the way. But Agnostic scientists are throwing a damp towel over that....by saying the possibility of a God exists! Furthermore, the possibility of an existing God - which Agnostics believe - is greatly enhanced when Atheist scientists ended up converting to Christianity - most of whom while in the midst of working on a theory.

Yes, it awes me in way. I speak here as a Christian. Hard to explain what I really mean, so I'll try: They have this knowledge and wisdom....intellect...this great capability.....and yet this also seem like a curse (can't find the right word) for along with it must come ego. Just like it must be more difficult for those with riches and fame to follow the teachings of Christ...it must be more difficult for someone with ego to humbly accept without question and submit. That is why I am fascinated by those atheist scientists who ended up converting to Christianity. From one extreme to the other. Why not just be an Agnostic? That is why I said in the other thread, something convinced them without any question. They'd discovered or seen something without any doubt. it's like they've seen some sort of a miracle. I am awed by their spiritual experience

But you see, true believers (and I am referring to Christians) do not rely or need science for spiritual comfort. We don't need proof. It's all about faith. If it so happen that some scientists are proving our belief.....well, that's just a bonus, to say the least, as far as we're concerned. The attitude is something more like, "See? Like it sez in the Bible!" ..."That's not a surprise!" Mind you I am emphasizing about the attitudes of true believers....some may call us as fundamentalists or Bible-thumpers (but that's okay). Atheists, on the other hand believes that there is no God....and most rely on science to prove that there is indeed no God. I suppose there are also true Atheists that will cling to their belief, whether science prove there is a God or not. Agnostic scientists pose a serious question to Atheism. The possibility of a God. All the more so when atheist scientists not only become simply Agnostic.....but go as far as outright converting to Christianity. Now, that's really knocking on the very foundation of their belief.

Spoken like a any true believer of his/her faith! This is not meant as an insult but to me, Agnosticism is the ultimate "maybe" stance....or the "wait-and-see" stance....or the shrugging "I-don't-care" stance....or the "I-can't-be-bothered" stance...or the "sitting-on-the-fence" stance....or the "I'm-not-ready-yet" stance....or the neutral stance....or the "I-need-more-proof" stance....or the "I'm-halfway-there" stance....or the "I'm-just-not-sure" stance....or the "I-don't-want-to-be-wrong-so-better-play-it-safe" stance....or the "I-believe-in-God-but-cannot-really-commit-myself-to-that" stance....or the "hide-in-the-closet-not-ready-to-come-out" stance....or "I-believe-in-God-but-no-religion-suit-me" stance....or just the simple "no-stance" stance.... But hey, to each his own.

deleted. double posting.

True. The reason Christianity was mentioned in my post is because there were atheist scientists who converted from Atheism to Christianity. The list of names are in the thread "Rejoice On This Day." I never did mean that Darwin and Einstein - being Agnostics - believed in the Christian God. Of course for me, there is never an "if" about it, but I agree with your statement. The latest one I heard was about quantum physics. Name and link on the thread "Rejoice..." From the interview on tv, this scientist was saying that they were left with no other options but to arrive to that conclusion of Creation.

Yes, the possibility of God. That is a serious implication that does not lend support to Atheism....but actually throws question to it. Open mind. Yes, I agree with you....that is what I hoped Atheists would have when I say that they have some serious thinking to do.

I have nothing against these men as scientists. Nor do I have anything against them as men. With this latest discussion, which is actually a spin-off from the thread Einstein, I am not talking about their theory. I only pulled up this thread for the convenience of TruMetis....since she was bringing up evolution into the discussion in Einstein thread. I've already said everything I want to say about evolution (and my position has not changed on that)....and I have no wish to re-visit and rehash the debate on evolution for I find it quite insignificant and stale now. I am simply stating the grave implication of their belief, - being Agnostics - which they maintained until their death, how their belief pose a crucial question for Atheists. On one hand Atheists have peer-reviewed theories....(theories which according to ToadBrother are not complete, therefore unproven. ToadBrother even goes further to say that no theories are complete. Since ToadBrother sounds like he does follow these peer-reviewed theories religiously, I therefore assume that he knows what he's talking about)...and on the other hand you have reknown scientists like Darwin and Einstein maintaining their Agnostic belief until death, not to mention other scientists from various fields (listed in the thread "Rejoice....") who converted from Atheism to Christianity. To an Atheist, that is definitely a serious matter to think about.

I don't quite understand the question but what I can say is: When Agnostic scientists - like Darwin and Einstein - maintained their agnosticism until their dying days....that couldn't be irrelevant for Atheists, for it poses a question as to why. When an atheist scientist convert to agnosticism......that couldn't be irrelevant for Atheists. In fact, it's like hearing the alarm bell going. When an Atheist scientist eventually convert from Atheism to Christianity....that couldn't be irrelevant, especially if he's been working on a theory that could somehow impact the question of God's existence. Something definitely convinced him without question! The closest thing to a miracle. How can that be irrelevant?

Sorry ToadBrother and Dre, but as I've stated in the other topic....I have no wish to get back into the same rut of rehashing an old issue...everything I've got to say about the topic was already said and explained in the numerous evolution threads all over this forum. Besides, this theory of evolution is, for me, just so passe'.... just so insignificant now compared to the big picture. Just in case Dre has not been following what transpired in the other thread "Einstein's Thoughts On God," I'm pasting one of my posts here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16971&pid=575947&st=45entry575947 Both of you wield books on theories, especially those that were peer-reviewed so mightily....your biggest comfort must be drawn from the contested, incomplete and unproven theory of evolution (for it's been well-guarded - as ToadBrother had zealously demonstrated in Einstein thread and here). And speaking of peer-review, there is also a question to its credibility since the process isn't without any criticisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination how and why these allegations are made....and why these allegations have a ring of truth to them. Anyway.....if you draw comfort from these books that bear the stamps of having been peer-reviewed....that's your choice. I can relate to that. Peer-reviewed books to you is what The Bible is to me. My reply to you in Einstein thread was focused mostly about them - Einstein and Darwin - being agnostics. The implications of scientists like Einstein and Darwin being Agnostics to the end is actually simply just small fry when one looks at the bigger implication of scientists - not just botanists, but from various fields (math/cosmologists, philosophers etc..,) - who in the process ended up converting to Christianity. See the thread "Rejoice...." for some of these names. You look to science for validation of your faith. Well, being Atheists, you both got a lot of very serious thinking to do that definitely goes way, way beyond the theory of evolution....and certainly way beyond scientific books of peer-reviewed theories.

I just finished Suikoden IV, and now starting an old Arc The Lad. I'm more into RPG and Strategy/RPG.

It was you and TruMetis who brought up evolution in this topic! Not me. I guess somehow you connected evolution with Einstein being an Agnostic. I don't blame you. Atheists got bigger issue to think about...much bigger than just mere evolution theory. The implication of scientists like Darwin and Einstein being confirmed Agnostics. And if I'm not mistaken, they were Agnostics to the end. Anyway, all I did was state a very simple fact - Einstein was an Agnostic - and bam! It's so amusing really seeing the reaction that simple one-liner got. Well, you actually twisted my arm to come up with a point when I really had no intention of making a point at all...I didn't feel like getting into the same-old same-old again, at least not for a while. So there you go. You wanted me to get to the point....got to the point I did. Actually pulled that point out from your last reply.

Quite a revelation you made there about yourself. Of course my belief is well-known. And so is yours. Someone mentioned that Einstein was an agnostic. I gave a simple reiteration of that fact (Einstein was an agnostic). You didn't leave it at that. Like a dutiful sentry of the fortress of Atheism, you had to hold me back by saying..."theists shouldn't find comfort to that"....and now I say the same to you that Atheists most definitely shouldn't... and couldn't find comfort in that! How can you? More so the problem for you than for me, don't you think so? I don't need any proof. Your concern about the toppling down of evolution theory is just a minor detail.....your whole belief structure falls with it! If scientists like Einstein....and Darwin...are confrimed AGNOSTICS, for them the possibility of a God is always there. Where does that leave your belief? Especially when Atheists are pinning their hopes on science? Increasingly, science, your foundation, is turning against you. Agnostic scientists - especially with the stature of Einstein and Darwin - don't make a foundation for Atheist belief. In fact, it poses a question to atheists. I highlighted that statement you made above. What you're actually saying is.... My very simple reiteratement of a fact - Einstein was an Agnostic - was so threatening for you and TruMetis. Got you both all armored up for war. Gee, you make me feel like I'm banging at the fortress gate!

Depends on the show. I imagine there are some Jerry Springer-type of show that thrives only on sensationalism. There are trashy shows. Not only are they informative, phone-in or talk shows (and I'm talking about political ones) gives the people a chance to vent. Frustration is lessened when you see someone venting it out for you. There are people who are "doers." These folks had taken on the task to try to help by explaining to the public what's going on inside some mosques....the attitudes of the Imams....etc, These folks are worried about what might be backlash against all Muslims - everyone being lumped together. These folks are bravely showing Canadians where they firmly stand....leading through example by giving a strong public denouncement of jihadists and Hamas. True, it is not an obligation....but they chose to do it....out of frustration perhaps over the lack of response from notable people who should be speaking out but so far, had remained silent. These people are risking their lives for this. In a way, they are heroes.

Deleted. Something's wrong with my computer. It's double posting.

I'm just curious.....do we really still have any treason laws, or has it been scrapped? I don't think I ever heard anyone from politics or the law mention it at anytime for years now.

Why, does everything have to have a specific point? One can't muse....or express....or ramble on? My entry into this topic is just to simply state that Einstein was an agnostic. And you replied to that with this: To which I answered: And it's true. A believer with true faith does not need any proof...hence I doubt they seek spiritual comfort from scientists! I also mentioned another thread titled "Rejoice...." that documented what I was on about....notable people some of whom had set out to do their own investigative research to prove the Christian faith as false, only to find themselves converted. I explained what fascinated me about the scientists....and even reiterated that I speak as a believer in God. And it just truly fascinates me that these men who eventually converted must have been blown away by what they found----that's why it's not just enough for them to just abandon the experiment and move on. Oh no, they just had to convert! To me, that must have been the closest for anyone to have come face-to-face with God. Based from TrueMetis' initial crudely contentious reaction to my statement, - and your latest post, what I want to know now is: Why the knee-jerk reaction?

So you don't trust Asa Gray or the ASA for some reason that you claim, but that is your own opinion....which is worth nothing on this debate since your claim is based on nothing. Not to mention how you just showed your opinion in this topic is askew. I'm telling you we're not on the same page! I couldn't care less whether Asa Gray or the ASA is right or wrong. I'm not debating whether evolution is real or not. I've already done that...in lots of other topics. Anyway, here's another link. Now surely you must trust the CBC! • Darwin described himself as an agnostic, and was puzzled by the sometimes heated arguments between evolutionists and creationists. In an 1879 letter to his friend John Fordyce, Darwin wrote, "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist." In 1898, he said "there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness." http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/natural_science/topics/3696/ And another interesting site: Letter 12041 — Darwin, C. R. to Fordyce, John, 7 May 1879 Dear Sir It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041 Yes, indeed that's what my link is revealing isn't it? The WAVERINGS.....AND FLUCTUATIONS (Darwin's own word!).....which is what I was musing about! I'm not going to reply anymore unless you've got something worthwhile to say. Bye-bye.

Speaking of the justice system....I don't think home-grown terrorism should be treated just like any other criminal act. Sabotage. Treason. Since we can't send these Canadian citizens back to their country of origin, and since we no longer execute men guilty of treason....a very stiff sentence like life without parole should be enforced. The doors to Canada had been thrown wide open, immigration and refugee system became a joke.....and now that we see the disastrous result from the broken system.....the public is just thrown to deal with wolves!

Actually, these three outspoken individuals all point to the IMAMS as largely responsible for the radicalization of the youth. All three are saying the Imams are not doing enough....or are doing nil....in helping to stop the radicalization. They say the Imams would not issue a STRONG DENOUNCEMENT of the jihad....that the Imams would not clarify to the youth that what the terrorists are doing are not part of the real Islam doctrine. One went as far as saying that if an Imam remains silent....then it means he approves of the jihadist violence! One of the women made an appeal that now "is not the time to be politically correct." She is fighting for her children.

Yes, he's in quite a few talk shows. He's a regular at Michael Coren. He is quite outspoken despite the death threats he gets.....I admire this man. Two other females from Muslim Canadian Congress came out strongly the last week....I've never seen them before. One went head-to-head opposing, clarifying and challenging another Muslim guy at Evan Solomon. She's quite fiery and so sensible in her opinion. Labels do intimidate most from speaking out strongly - and I would emphasize thatt word "strongly" - and I also think most are afraid to be given the sentence of a fatwa, or targetted by radicals like the stabbing of a film director in (was it Sweden?).

This man, also author of the book "The Jew Is Not My Enemy," has been very vocal with his views regarding the jihadists and radicalization of the youth. Mr Fatah, who was on CTV just a few minutes ago said that politicians sitting now are too occupied with their politicking. He called on retired former leaders (naming Chretien and Broadbent), prominent intellectuals of this country...asking why no one with that stature had come out to publicly and strongly denounce radical Islam jihadists in Canada. He asked why is it only him (Fatah) and a few others who are publicly vocal in trying to do something about this problem....that it is unfair this responsibility be shouldered by ordinary people like him. He ask if these prominent people will still remain silent if it were Nazis or Supremacists creating troubles in our midst. And I ask the same thing. Where are our leaders? Where are our former Prime Ministers? The leaders of various rights group? The few ordinary people like Mr Fatah had placed their lives on the line to speak out in public. Now that he named names....calling on Chretien (who is still very much around)...Broadbent...Margaret Atwood....I am waiting to see who will be brave enough to come forward and speak out.