10 Reasons I Am Not A Christian
April 7, 2008 by chillinatthecabstand
After sitting through some kid’s (UPDATE: to clarify, we’re talking late teens here) lecture about how the bible is an accurate history of the world, I decided to throw together a little essay for him concerning my thoughts on the subject. I’m calling it “Why I Am Not A Christian”, Bertrand Russell-style. I decided that I should start with an outline, 10 reasons I am not a Christian, plus an intro and conclusion. Here’s the list.
…
10 Reasons I Am Not A Christian:
1. There is no reason to believe that God exists
2. The “Holy Bible” is anonymous mythology with bad messages and almost no historicity
3. Christianity is mentally and emotionally abusive
4. Scripture can be interpreted to justify almost anything
5. Christianity is run on suffering, guilt, punishment, and condescension
6. Christianity inspires hatred, intolerance, and violence
7. Religion is “the opium of the masses” used for political means to keep suffering people in subjugation
8. Faith is the antithesis of intelligence and critical thinking
9. Christianity devalues human life
10. Christianity is built on self-deceit and denial
Really a gran finale and multitude of reasons there not to be a Christian. Commends and congrats to chillinatthecabstand.
But a crazy unwise or otherwise guy like me never need even one reason to be a religion or god believer for I just ‘live’ my life and who the hell can dare to label me as Christian, Hindu or any dead labels. I am just myself. Labels or some peripheral identities may be needed just for our peripheral utilty function. Otherwise I care no hell there.
The first point is highly arguable, and really depends on personal perspective.
The list seems really familiar, almost like your just spitting out sentence fragments from a Christopher Hitchens lecture. I concede certain points but none of it is as black and white as you suggest.
http://www.QuestioCunctus.com
I think that people wanting those labels is a big reason religion endures. The herd mentality, people want to fit in…
All of these statements are arguable, these are just simplifications of complex arguments.
As I said, I intend to expand this into an essay which will make the reasoning behind each point clear.
I’m not really sure I agree with number 8. Even Einstein, arguably the most intelligent of us all, still believed in some form of “God”.
Einstein did not believe in a theistic God, and was merely a pseduo-deist who used the term “god” metaphorically.
Unfortunately, that’s not what the theist spin doctors of the world would have you believe.
Richard Dawkins addressed this in the beginning of “The GOD Delusion.”
Faith is an intentional suspension of disbelief, whereas Einstein was simply moved by the wonders of nature, which he describes metaphorically as “god.”
Will Entrekin- “I’m not really sure I agree with number 8. Even Einstein, arguably the most intelligent of us all, still believed in some form of “God”.”
>>So even if (Adam clearly say he does not “Einstein did not believe in a theistic God”), but just say he did believe in god, the Christian one at that. Just because he believed in it does not make it right. If he said that smurfs were real would you believe that too.
lol
I’m sure he would have had a good reason for thinking the smurfs were real, if he did.
I probably shouldn’t have mentioned Einstein, as he seems to have overwhelmed my point, which is this: I tend to think that both theism and atheism are two extreme, if disparate, points-of-view, and I find it ironic that atheism, as propounded by Hitchens and Dawkins, can be as rigid and inflexible in its perspectives as the religions it condemns.
Sam Harris did an interview with Rolling Stone in which he mentioned that, though his work is generally a full-on treatise against organized religious fundamentalism, he still seeks some form of spirituality.
It is in the face of awe, I think, that atheism ultimately fails, if only because it tends, as a mindset, not to have the receptors to deal with awe, nor the means to convey it.
Take Jesus, for example. There were a lot of back and forth posts arguing about the historicity/actual existence, but I feel like neither side really got to any truth. I think it’s reasonable to believe that, around the middle of the first century, a man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans as punishment for political insurrection. I also think that, after he was killed, a mythology based on popular stories of the time was built around his death, some of which (and only some of which) posited a resurrection; those some became the foundation for a rigid institution that sacrifices the teaching of its most exalted leader in favor of smallmindedness favored by its followers.
That said, however, I don’t think the idea of ‘Christ’ is so easily dismissed. ‘Christ,’ after all, like ‘Messiah’ or ‘King,’ is merely a title; my personal belief is that it is an idea/title to which all of humanity might aspire, and by which we might come to a greater relationship with the awesome that is the universe.
This is different from the neo-Christian idea of and belief in Jesus, but it is, still, a belief about Jesus around which I have centered my personal faith. I think the difference is that this faith is the filter through which I experience life; we all of us have our filters, our ways, and so, to me, we all have our own faiths. Just because Jesus might have become the Christ doesn’t mean we can’t all, and just because Christians tend to either disagree with that thought or not understand it doesn’t really speak, to any degree, to its validity (or lack thereof).
That sounds like the good ol’ “atheism/evolution is a fundamentalist belief.”
Richard Dawkins has disspelled that argument over and over…
As for your belief in at least a crucified man named Jesus, that makes sense, but you don’t seem to have any evidence to lend the claim credibility.
As I once said to someone else on here (or at least I don’t think it was you… it might have been angryxtian), atheists are not restricted. Atheism is liberating. It has so many different kinds of free people in it - objectivists, liberals, conservatives, LaVey Satanists, etc.
It’s too varied a group with too little structure and no outlined universal ideology to call it rigid like religion.
No, I don’t think evolution is something one can believe in, only understand. Much like gravity; whether one believes in gravity or not, one still sticks to the ground.
I haven’t read Dawkins, so I don’t know what he says. My feeling about atheism is that even someone like Harris acknowledges that there is more that he does not know/understand. I don’t claim it’s a fundamentalist belief, though, not even a little.
As for evidence of Jesus’ existence, you’ve already stated how you feel about the subject and argued about it at length. For myself, I was most convinced by a book by Donald Spoto, called The Hidden Jesus. Note that I neither state that I believe that he died for our sins, nor that he came back to life; I only know that all sources seem to indicate that crucifixion was relatively popular at the time, and that plenty of men named Jesus were alive (it was as common a name as John, for the most part). I’m not offering any evidence, but remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I’ll check out the Hidden Jesus next time I’m at Barnes and Nobles.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absensce, but it’s pretty much evidence of absence when you’re trying to prove something true.
Something isn’t true because there’s no proof for it.
“lol
I’m sure he would have had a good reason for thinking the smurfs were real, if he did.”
>>The line between genius and insane, is very thin.
Sometimes it doesn’t even exist.
Well said Adam.
The other day I found an interesting reading on the following link:
Priests and Porn
sulochanosho- thats great man, it is true we should not deny our bodies, it’s no wonder so many priests are child molesters.
True. True.
Chillin,
I’ve noticed in reading your posts that you usually have a problem with theists posting broad statements with no backing, but this is probably the third post of yours that does exactly that. The generalized statements that you placed in this post rest on a weak foundation based in a stereotypical understanding of the Christian faith. Don’t let the irrational psuedo-Christian bloggers and speakers cloud your judgment of us all.
p.s.
When you finish your essay, send it my way. I’d like to look it over.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that myself.
I’ve been getting in a lot of theological arguments lately and it’s been wearing my patience thin… I’m thinking about taking a break for a week or so.
The essay will be a while, I’ll better explain these points so they won’t just be generalizations, they just come off that way compressed like this, especially when I add my own sarcastic, rather mean-spirited humor to it all.
You should post on chocolate next time. That usually restores my patience.
I’m just gonna take a break, get some more sleep…
Maybe I will write about chocolate, too.
[...] April 14, 2008, 8:50 am Filed under: Uncategorized I just read a post on another blog that was called: “10 Reasons I’m not a Christian.” While it was tempting to write [...]
[...] Check out my original post at 10 Reasons I Am Not A Christian. [...]
Here are a few incomplete responses from a Christian stumbler onto this post, who probably won’t waste a whole lot of effort wrangling over these points with someone who might think of me and my kind as purveyors of “douche baggery,” but who holds no such ill feelings toward his atheistic interlocutors:
1. When you meet God and begin to know God, then you have the only meaningful reason there is to believe he exists. If you don’t know God in love, it really matters little what you think of his existence, and anything you say about him is questionable. Regardless, in him you live and move and have your being, and his existence is actually as obvious as your own.
2. Depends on your criterion of historicity, I suppose. If it’s a journalistic historicity or the kind of historicity that academia drives for, well then, you’re right. And that’s not a problem for Christianity. The Bible, for a Christian, is front to back a book about Jesus Christ, who is encountered as present now just as in the beginning and at the end. The Bible is not foremost a book of history, though it contains a significant amount of history despite your dismissal of it. Mythology? Maybe in places, using the broad definition of “myth,” but there’s archaeology to back up quite a bit of what’s in the Bible, not that that is the point, anyway. So what if (some of it) is anonymous? It was written and compiled in communion. Personalities of the authors are of secondary importance in many cases. Bad messages? Such as “love your neighbor as yourself” and “God is a good God and loves mankind?” As for messages, see point No. 4. For Christianity, the only message in the Bible is the person of Jesus Christ and all that he implies. Anything in the Bible that, when read literally, contradicts the revealed person of Jesus Christ must be read in a way other than literally.
3. There are some Christians who are mentally and emotionally abusive, to be sure. But Christianity itself is nothing but good news that God became human and thereby recreated (or, more properly speaking, according to key Church fathers, completed the creation of) humanity so that humanity might become divine. Each person is caught up in this reality but is invited to participate or free not to participate as he desires. Obviously, in practice, there are personalities who use Christianity in an abusive way, but they are disobeying clear teachings of scripture. But this leads us to your fourth point …
4. Yes, hyperbolically speaking, scripture can be interpreted to justify almost anything. That does not mean that it does justify almost anything. Scripture ought to be interpreted together with the worshipping community, and its parts should be interpreted in the light of the whole. Certain things about scriptural interpretation that are argued about ad nauseum in the Christian world these days were settled matters in the Church of the early centuries, and therefore are actually settled matters today. In any case, the criterion for a Christian interpretation of scripture is a person, Jesus Christ, who is encountered not only in scripture, but also in lived experience together with all others who strive to know him. This is something that someone who expressly disbelieves in God or does not wish to know God cannot understand through discourse, but anyone who wishes to “taste and see” will quickly understand. Sorry, that’s not a very satisfactory answer for those who prefer to ratiocinate, but it is what it is. The sole meaning of scripture for a Christian is Jesus himself. “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the father, He has declared Him.” (John 1:1
This means that, for the Christian, the only understanding of who God is, is provided by Christ himself, not so much in concepts that Christ and his apostles taught, but in who Christ is and what he has done.
5. Certain denominations and wayward congregations might be run on suffering, guilt, punishment and condescension or some combination of those. It’s unfortunate that those might have been your experience. Either that, or perhaps you have taken your cues from others who have had such church experiences. Suffering is a reality in the world. All of worldly existence is “run on suffering,” in a sense. Nobody escapes suffering in one form or another, and nobody escapes death. Christianity deplores this reality, but finds it transformed in Christ’s identification with human (and cosmic) suffering. Guilt and punishment? These are realities in Christianity, but they are not at the heart of the New Testament message, despite the emphasis on them in some Christian circles. “Christ did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live” is a good saying that I’ve heard, which doesn’t deny the importance of being good but recognizes the problem as being elsewhere than in good or bad, guilt or punishment. Horrible as it is understood to be, death, in classical patristic thought, is seen less as a punishment and more as a consequence of the free movement by the human person away from the source of life, which is God himself. That this consequence is not removed by God can be seen as a merciful provision that puts a term to the fallen ontological mode of existence that the human person has entered into, from which it is impossible to turn back because human will no longer knows with certainty what is good but instead must deliberate about what is good using its own limited perceptions and in the midst of countless known and unknown influences. This ontological mode of existence was redeemed by a reconstitution of humanity in its identification with divinity in Jesus Christ, but no human person should be (or even can be, in truth) coerced into living in accordance with the reconstituted humanity.
I say all this despite your apparent disbelief in God and fallen humanity, etc., but I must say it to counter your misrepresentations of classical Christian understanding into simple metaphors of guilt and punishment. Unfortunately, there are many Christians who are all too happy to bolster you in this misrepresentation, and the fact that I disagree with those Christians could possibly bolster your thoughts related to point No. 4. But I am trying to represent the common consensus reading of scripture found in the Church during the first millennium of Christianity.
It’s interesting that you would use the word “condescension.” I know you meant it in its more ordinary sense, as in “looking down on someone patronizingly.” But, there’s also the more original sense, which is a Christian sense, in that God “came down with us.” In this sense, Christianity is, in fact, run on condescension. God came down with us or to us, “emptied himself” as the Apostle Paul puts it, and he did so not patronizingly but lovingly, with the intention of taking us up with him.
6. Christianity inspires hatred, intolerance and violence only in the hateful, intolerant and violent — and in the poorly instructed — just as any religion or philosophy that makes any claim to truth is capable of being reduced into ideology by thugs or mobs. I recall learning about atheistic ideologies exerting a hateful, intolerant and violent sway in the 20th century, but you won’t see me accusing all atheists of being exemplified by the worst among them. In the same way, I won’t accuse every Muslim as being a terrorist, etc., etc. However, I’m sure you are quite aware of various words of the Christian master, Jesus, as well as words from his apostles, which run directly counter to hatred, intolerance and violence (regardless of whether you believe Jesus or the apostles to be real or not). However, on the topic of intolerance, many Christians are quickly labeled “intolerant” when the more appropriate term is more like “disapproving” or “in disagreement.” For instance, should I label you as being intolerant because you have an apparent disdain for those who believe in God?
7. Nice irony, quoting Marx, a shiftless atheist whose ideas have been widely used for political means to keep suffering people in subjugation. This “opium of the masses” talk really rings hollow in a country like the United States, where people can change religious affiliation like they change shirts. Or in many Western European nations, where by default you are considered to be the modern secular man or woman. Maybe among some populations, I suppose, religion has the effect as a mass opiate … and maybe in some eras this effect has been a reality among so-called “Christian” nations … and certainly this is a danger to be on guard against continually, but it is not an indictment against Christianity itself; it is only a call to beware of demagogues of all stripes. There have been atheistic demagogues as well, I’m sure you realize. I would say that consumerism is a more powerful “opiate of the masses” than religion in our day and age.
8. No it isn’t. That kind of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of what faith actually is. In a Christian context, it is not blind belief in a collection of unprovable precepts. It is the experiential knowledge of personally encountered transcendent and personal reality. It is relational. Comparing it to reason and intelligence is like comparing literacy to a pinprick. As for intelligent people and critical thinkers who believed in a deity and thus had faith, at least in the more generally used sense of the word, you can count the large majority of all of the major philosophers. You might not agree with them, but you can hardly call them unintelligent or lacking in critical thinking capabilities. But this is neither here nor there. The fact is that some intelligent people believe in God and some intelligent people disbelieve in God, just as some boors believe in God and some boors disbelieve. The boors, however, are more likely to go along with whatever the general populace thinks, though, so statistics prove nothing in this regard, in case you were thinking of bringing those up.
9. Odd thought, considering how in Western societies, the Christians lead the charge against such things as abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment (though not all brands of Christians on this one, I do admit), etc., etc., precisely on the basis of a valuation of human life considered apart from and steadfastly (or stubbornly, depending on your point of view) opposed to any utilitarian or other notions. It is from an atheistic group of people I’m acquainted with at a local cafe that I have heard statements such as “human beings are little more than so many cancer cells in the world,” and “I think that every person is worthless if he or she doesn’t do something to prove his or her own worth.” That last one I heard just yesterday, and it’s closely related classic atheistic existentialism à la Sartre, who called those bourgeois (which included the Christians) who lacked the “courage” to exercise their freedom in radical engagement “plants” and “rocks” and defined their value according to their action. But inversely, Christianity sees the value of every human person as being objectively apart from any notion of merit, in the fact that each person is created in the image of God (though the likeness is considered damaged because of mankind’s turn away from God, still the image is there guarantees the value of each person; and “image” in this case means more than appearance). This applies not simply to the beautiful people or to men and women of action, but just as much to the unproductive and “useless,” the weak, the wicked, the shiftless (yes, Marx, too) and every oft-despised sort of person. Classical patristic Christianity gave us the concept of human personhood that is taken for granted today (this concept is a little-recognized revolution in the face of previous Western and Eastern thought, and it springs straight out of the Church’s struggle to give words to the mystery of the Trinity … but the modern Western individualistic notion of person often ignores the basic Christian understanding that a person must exist in communion with other persons). It is secular modernism that has developed such philosophies as pragmatism and utilitarianism that often devalue human life in many ways. It is a purely secular or atheistic understanding of the data of scientific discovery that promulgates the notion that human life is purely a random phenomenon and no more significant than any other plant or animal life. It is also an ethic at odds with the teachings of Christianity that sees human beings as expendable or easily replaceable cogs, considered as less important than or, at best, on par with the primacy of profit in the machine of continual economic and mercantile expansion that often feeds on the baser desires of the easily addicted among us, not giving people what’s good for them but rather what’s good for the stockholders.
Finally, it is a paramount Christian teaching that the follower of Christ is to love his neighbor as himself. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and his love has been perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.” (1 John 4:7-12) “If someone says ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this is the commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.” (1 John 4:20-21) “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.” (1 Cor. 13:1-4). Certainly, some fail in this regard, and some outrightly disobey the commandment to love, but it cannot be said that Christianity devalues human life.
10. Though the Christian, of course, might easily say with equal confidence that atheism is built on self-deceit and denial. Just as your bald assertion is not enough to convince the typical Christian, so the Christian’s bald assertion is not enough to convince you. Thus an impasse. “But,” you might say, “it is your duty as a theist to prove what you claim exists!” So says you (hypothetically, of course). But such is not my duty. For one thing, Christians aren’t (or shouldn’t be) theists, strictly speaking. Theism is a notion or idea or set of ideas about a deity held without regard to whether one knows or even can know this deity. But in Christianity, God is beyond all conceptualization, and therefore cannot be proved by conceptualization, is found and known in relational encounter with the living Christ Jesus through the presence of the Holy Spirit, who acts by grace. This all happens in the heart and in lived experience, not in argument, not in the mind (though the mind rooted in the heart can make statements about God based upon lived experience as understood in relation with the lived experience of all other believers — for it is a shared experience). It is the Christian understanding that God is sustaining and upholding your existence, along with that of all people and things, at all times through his loving grace. You are exposed to this sustaining grace (power, activity) at every moment, and this has nothing to do with your recognition or rejection of the idea of this grace. May you someday come to know it for what it is.
Of course, by now I’m certain that, from your stated perspective, I have given you more than enough reason to call me delusional, self-deceived and in denial. It’s OK. Just please don’t call me a douche bag!
I’ve typed a lot, and I don’t expect to have convinced you of anything, and it’s not what I really set out to do. Do Internet arguments ever convince anybody of anything except what they already thought? Probably only rarely. So why bother writing all this? I don’t know. I guess I had some time to kill. Maybe I wanted to clog your combox. Perhaps I was just appalled that your reasoning was too simplistic, though you admitted this from the get-go. I really found it somewhat ridiculous that some people seemed genuinely impressed with your reasons. I mean, come on: your first commenter really thought that you had issued the “gran finale” on the topic?
Seriously, you were inspired to write your reasons after listening to a children’s lesson? You certainly weren’t hearing the stuff of mature theology. I’m not going to say that your objections to Christianity have no merit based on your experience, but I have to say that you essentially reveal a lack of substantial knowledge of what it is that you criticize. At most, you criticize a highly publicized portion of Americanized evangelical Christendom rather than the heart of historical universal Christianity. Your reasons for not being Christian appear to have more to do with caricature (i.e., exaggerations of instances of truth) than with essence. These caricatures have significance, though, because there are unfortunate realities that they highlight. But you have not really critiqued Christianity by going after the easy targets, the immature and the hypocrites. Why not critique the teaching of the martyrs and confessors instead? If you want to make a convincing argument, then critique the best of Christianity. Or simply say, “I’m not a Christian because I don’t see evidence for God” (which is far more truthful than what you say in reason No. 1) or something like, “I’m not a Christian because I’m not convinced that Jesus was a real historical person (or if he was a historical person, that he wasn’t what his disciples portrayed him to be).” Such reasons are more straightforward and seem much less like the run-of-the-mill sophistry that seems to currently dominate the atheistic stage these days.
I mean no sarcasm when I say this: May God richly bless you and yours now and forever.
Do you want me to refute your comments? You seem not to, so I don’t think I will.
I will address the “inspired by children” thing. By “kid,” I’m talking 16 or 17, not like 8 spewing garbage. We’re talking WBC-level ignorance here. It just inspired me to lay out the atheist’s case for him.
Thanks for the blessing.
PS I’m glad you caught the irony in #7 lol
Do what you please with my statements. They aren’t by a long shot the end-all, be-all of Christian apologetics. I just said that I might not devote a whole lot of time to an extended argument. Whether I would do so really just depends on whim and how your responses strike me and what kind of energy I happen to have at the time. Despite the length and nature of my words to you, I do tire of endless argumentation, especially about a topic that is not subject to syllogisms and whatnot. So my responses would be less likely to be the kind of tit-for-tat sort of argumentation and “proof” that you might be partial to. Rather, I’d be more inclined to throw out thoughts that happen to be engendered by whatever comments I find.
The living God of classic Christianity is not the objectified god of philosophical speculation. This isn’t mere cop-out; it’s the only way it can be when you have a creator, who is not subject to any necessity, and his creation. The creator cannot be circumscribed by his creation, and whatever belongs to the categories of creation can only, at best, approximate a description of its creator. Nor is the source of all being subject to the constraints of being itself. Surely, if the living God exists, which he certainly does, then he is such that anything that can be said about him can and must also be negated about him, including the very term “existence.” God cannot belong to any category of human conceptualization. Any conceptual statement about God must be accompanied by the appropriate negation of that conceptual statement, lest God be demoted in human thought into a human construct, in which case you would be right when you say that God is a human invention. Such a god is a human invention and falls short of the living God.
For the Christian, the phenomenon in creation that most truly depicts God is the human person, which was created in the image of God.
I wrote what I wrote as an initial reaction to this particular post and then took some time to peruse other postings and comments here at the Cabstand. You’ve written a lot since this post, and it seems that you’ve moved into a lively back-and-forth with some Christian correspondents for whom you’ve developed some amount of respect.
Thanks for the clarification about “kids,” though in some contexts, the lesson you heard might as well have been for 6 year olds rather than 16 year olds. I just don’t know.
I also don’t know what “WBC-level ignorance” means.
Good lol I don’t feel like starting some lengthy argument myself. I think your comment stands well by itself and my readers can draw whatever conclusions they want from it. I might change my mind later, though, when I’m not feeling quite so lathargic.
Yes, I’ve been arguing with a lot of Christian correspondents (so to speak) ever since I started this blog. Fortunately, Chris Dills and Taylor are a lot smarter and more civil than my earlier jousting partners. I’d say I respect you, too, as you seem to be at least intelligent and a good writer.
Thanks for pointing that out; I edited the post to clarify the age bracket I’m refering to.
I apologize for not making myself clearer; WBC is short for the Westboro Baptist Church. It’s the racist, homophobic, self-righteous carnival of idiocy/ignorance and prejudice run by Fred Phelps. They’re the group that’s been picketing funerals with the “GOD HATES FAGS” signs.
To be fair the WBC is a short term annoyance. 90% of the congregation are family members and they aren’t picking up new members. The family probably won’t survive any longer than the church will since finding mates is hard when your that crazy. Give it a generation or two and it will just be a foot note in the history of gay rights, they’ll either tone it down or “social selection” shall take care of the problem.
Ah yes, I know of the WBC. They’ve even come to my locale to protest soldiers’ funerals and a murdered girl’s funeral. I wholeheartedly disapprove of them.
I’ll drop by at the Cabstand from time to time. Take care.
Einstein on Religion and Bible:
A recently rediscovered letter reveals that Einstein considered religious beliefs as childish superstitions.
All these days the famous quote of Einstein used to appropriate and promote the ‘theistic’ way was:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
The other day a news report appeared in the Guardian that a rare letter penned by Einstein, the greatest scientist of the 20th century, is rediscovered and it makes some contrary stunning revelations on the actual view point held by the scientist. This letter by now might have publicly auctioned in London, as reported in the news. Among other things, Einstein states the following in this rare piece of letter:
Please read the full story and more on the following links:
markii.wordpress
http://www.guardian
digital-dharma.net
Thanks for the heads up, sulochanosho