Religion reduces deviance..and that is why the left hates religion.

[Syriusly]

Pssst..the scientists think man made global warming is a joke. In case you missed it.

I think the problem here is that progressive nutbags don't recognize science when they see it. They attribute the term *science* to a lot of silliness that isn't science, and they deny science when it's valid...but shows their idiotic policies as idiocy.

Based upon of course your keen understanding of science.....

How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming - Scientific American

Green and her colleagues found 4,014 papers that endorsed global warming, rejected global warming or explicitly stated they did not hold a position on it. Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the "consensus" that global warming is human caused.


Is there a scientific consensus on global warming

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

 

[koshergrl]

By "religion", the OP means to say "Christianity", but decides to use the blanket term of "religion" in order to sound more inclusive.

Kosherghoul loses yet again.

Naw, the link provided, from whence the OP quote came from, quite clearly establishes they are talking about "Christianity" and the "Church". I didn't use the term "religion"...the source did.

But it's too much to expect extremist, uneducated nutjob trolls to react in any way except the way you have..stupidly and incoherently.

 

[koshergrl]

Pssst..the scientists think man made global warming is a joke. In case you missed it.

I think the problem here is that progressive nutbags don't recognize science when they see it. They attribute the term *science* to a lot of silliness that isn't science, and they deny science when it's valid...but shows their idiotic policies as idiocy.

Based upon of course your keen understanding of science.....

How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming - Scientific American

Green and her colleagues found 4,014 papers that endorsed global warming, rejected global warming or explicitly stated they did not hold a position on it. Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the "consensus" that global warming is human caused.


Is there a scientific consensus on global warming

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

Yes, the human-caused global warming loons are quite vocal.

That doesn't make them sane, or scientific.

 

[RoshanNair]

By "religion", the OP means to say "Christianity", but decides to use the blanket term of "religion" in order to sound more inclusive.

Kosherghoul loses yet again.

Naw, the link provided, from whence the OP quote came from, quite clearly establishes they are talking about "Christianity" and the "Church". I didn't use the term "religion"...the source did.

But it's too much to expect extremist, uneducated nutjob trolls to react in any way except the way you have..stupidly and incoherently.

So why then, dissembling duffer, didn't you underscore that "Christianity" reduces deviance instead of just leaving it "Religion"? It's not like Christians know the meaning of the worlds religious pluralism, moderation, tolerance, or inclusivity.

Tell us again how Christians invented the first hospitals and universities in the world, hahahahaha.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, we are adding lies to obfuscation.

Click, ignore.

 

[RoshanNair]

Ah, we are adding lies to obfuscation.

Click, ignore.

Before you do that, please....I implore you....please tell the world again what you said earlier about Christian inventions. LMAO.

 

[guno]

Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Einstein letter calls Bible pretty childish - US news - Faith NBC News

Einstein was a theist. He also said, ""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

No he wasn't my grandparents knew Dr Einstein and like them he was secular Jew

Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God nor was he a theist

Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

"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, letter to an atheist (1954),

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

- Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

 

[guno]

Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Einstein letter calls Bible pretty childish - US news - Faith NBC News

Einstein was a theist. He also said, ""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

No he wasn't my grandparents knew Dr Einstein and like them he was secular Jew

Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God nor was he a theist

Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

"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, letter to an atheist (1954),

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

- Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

The original, handwritten, in German, letter and envelope, sent on Princeton University letterhead, to Eric B. Gutkind, on January 3, 1954, a year before Einstein passed away, sent as response to Gutkind's book “Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt”.

Key Passages:
... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised 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.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalization' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours, A. Einstein