No, this is actually just FUD spread by Christians to try make some of their claims valid, when it's actually lies.
Einstein being a Jew is irrelevant. Where is his work religious in inspiration? "Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_EinsteinCarl Sagan was essentially an agnostic but against religion. Do some research. You might want to read his
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God book.
And I have literally no idea what you just said about Hawking, but he's probably the most atheistic of them all, regardless of whether he comes out and point blank says 'There is no God', but clearly you haven't read his book The Grand Design ( I recommend you do):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.htmlSo please stop trying to claim prominent scientists as your own to further give any credence to childish myths.
FUD ? What are you talking about, I didn't get some opinioned post like you did here, I got facts and clear quotes from the people here
2) Being a Jew is not relevant? this claim is plainly stupid do you even read what are you saying here ? and just another fact since you say that
3) Einstein believes in Spinozas God isn't that God, The God and not many? as in the main 3 religions where non of them says that God is human? and where is his work religious is inspiration? you don't see two of the most well known example in modern science I've mentioned? if you don't understand those just ask for explanation but don't go in denial as if I didn't back up what I said with know facts
4) Carl Sagan against religion? he was during much of his life an Agnostic THEIST, if he wasn't why would he say "Atheism is stupid." and other quotes that you are just plainly ignoring it again obviously because you can't argue against it.
My comment on Hawking is clear you can read and reread it, also claiming I didn't read a book is a proof on it self on how you make your own thing and believes it but does that makes a fact NO it does not.
5) And as I said in my previous comment that you did quote if you want me to remove Hawkins from that list, as he did NOT start a clear stance about it I have no problem with that, but on the other hand how come you are just plainly ignoring the dozen of prominent scientist I mentioned, and focusing on one of them only, see where again you self denial kicks in and you just ignore as proven above again what was written
So please stop trying to claim prominent scientists as your own to further give any credence to childish myths.
for reference lol.
You're actually wrong on every single point you've tried to make.
1) I find this very ironic. Your post is both highly opinionated, incorrect and is fud because you claimed those scientists to be religious when in fact they're nothing of the sort and the ones I pointed out are either atheist or agnostic, hence FUD which you continue to try spread. You didn't get any clear quotes and arent dealing in any facts at all but just misinformed opinion and assumption.
2) Clearly you don't know the difference between an ethnic Jew and the religion. Sagan was a Jew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism3) No. You're getting confused just because it has the word god there. Clearly you're not familiar with Spinoza's 'God'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism God is not literally meant as a god just like in the phrase 'God doesn't play dice with the world'. God in this sense means nature / physical laws, not a person or being. You clearly have trouble dealing with literal and figurative meanings (as do most religious people) and you still havent provided me with anything that alludes to Sagan being a theist (which he wasn't). He was actually a non-theist, but maybe you got confused there. I also still don't understand how you just saying Einstein's work on light & general relativity is religious in nature, especially with nothing to back it up but your opinion, so no, it's not clear. Please elaborate.
A quote from Sagan on Einstein and Spinoza's god:
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
A quote from Einstein:
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
4) Again, you are taking the 'atheism is stupid' quote out of context and misunderstanding its true meaning / intent. The full quote:
"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."
He says atheism is stupid because according to him one cannot possibly know whether there is or isnt a god. Charles Darwin also disliked the term atheist and didn't claim to be one. Are you going to try claim him as a prominent religious scientist now?
If you read Sagan's works (clearly you haven't), whilst he never came out publicly and said he was an atheist, he was not a believer in religion or god, but to me he seems to be more of an atheistic agnostic, but if you watch this video from his lifelong friend James Randi he gives you an answer why Sagan never came out and said he was a full blown atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqkxo9gXzA5) You provided a list of allegedly religious people and I knew instantly three of them were not. I've already proved that they were not religious and essentially non-religious, yet you still seem to think they are based on nothing but your own desires and misinformed understanding. My argument wasn't everybody on that list but the three, so the rest are irrelevant to this. You really seem to go on the defensive attack and project your denial on to other people here. I really don't understand what I'm meant to be in denial about as I've backed up my points and you've either failed to provide any proof or continually taken yours out of context or misunderstood them completely, not to mention just making stuff up just to suit your argument.
Took you 2-3 days to comes with a reply hmm. sure
1-How my post is opinioned when I've clearly posted, what the scientist said and did, the scientists I listed are not religious? but I don't see you challenging that, the only ones you are talking about of the dozen I mentioned is one or two, how come? this on it own is a prove and an admitting from your side that those relevant scientist that changed the world are indeed religious.
2- there is no such thing as a ethnic Jew, and the prove, is that Jews are from everywhere in the world and that anyone can become a jew like with any other religion, Jewish is a religion, and some Zionists wants to make it or make it look as an ethnicity as it serves their interest. so no you are totally wrong again
3- Both your quote do not contradict in any mean what I said, I clearly said that Sagan is an Agnostic THEIST and you've quoted that, as for Spinoza I've read that before I commented on the matter, it is GOD, I do not believe god is a Person or a Being, as God creats persons and beings You can find this notion clearly said in Islam, Judaism, the only religion that partially assimilated God to human is Christianity and even whiting Christianity and it branches it is a very discussed point.
Also stop giving your own explication on other people quote, especially when they are clear, that's opinioning the words (see what I'm talking about here)
4- You didn't prove that 3 of them were not, One of them was disputable, and I removed him, the other two are not, not rather than trying to avoid the matter and derail, how about proving the others were not religious go ahead I want to see you trying.
I've got better and more pressing things to do than argue with a blind-sighted fool in continual denial who is impervious to facts or reason and can't construct an intelligible point or argument, so I'll refute your (non-)arguments when I've got time, but the duration it takes me to respond to your nonsense is a petty and puerile matter. Why don't you take a couple of days to comprehend what I'm saying and do some research or, you know, actually make a valid point or argument? You've yet again provided nothing satisfactory or refuted any of my points with any facts at all; just incorrect opinion. Seriously, you're either really no good at comprehending or processing the information and facts I've given you or you're stupidly in denial and doing your best to avoid answering my questions.
1) You haven't clearly done anything and it's opinionated because you haven't provided any evidence of your argument other than your own opinion which has been based on your misunderstanding of quotes that you've not understood the meaning or context of. You said Einstein's work was religious in nature but where is your proof? And listen to what I've got to say now: My argument is not and was never to disprove the entire list of scientists and philosophers you gave, my point was you included three ones that
werent in any way religious. Do you understand that? You need to drop thinking that you're somehow onto a winning argument here. You're asking me to prove a square is a circle. I never said they were. If you cannot comprehend this then there's no point continuing. Your only argument here seems to be a point I never made. And I proved that not one or two but all three of the people I initially pointed out are not religious, but it's becoming clear nothing will convince you otherwise.
2) Ah, so you're an anti-semite? Again, this is your misinformed opinion. Saying Jews arent an ethnicity is absolutely moronic and there's a difference between the people and religion whether you think it or not. Again, your
opinion is wrong. Anybody can join the Jewish faith, but it doesn't give you Jewish heritage or ancestry. How can Sagan be Jewish? How can Woody Allen or Sasha Baron Cohen be Jewish and also Atheists? Or are they not to you? Maybe all their work is inspired by god too? Do some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions. Jews are Hebrews and
originated from Israel and surrounding areas, but have since spread throughout the world like most ethnicities.
3) Little of that makes any sense so if you care to rephrase it I'll have a go at deciphering your point, but your
opinion of Sagan is wrong, just like everything else. He wasn't a theist. Where have I quoted that? Please read and process the information of what I've said in my previous message.
4) Seriously, is that the only argument you've got here? You are trying to win an argument based on a point I'm not making. I've proved without doubt the three are not religious with quotes from all of them but you disregard these. You have not read any of their works at all. Read them then get back to me. Your insistence on still trying to say that Hawkings religiosity is debatable or 'disputable' is laughable, but it's clear your denial is not going to let you drop this. If you can't disprove the points I've made above in my previous message and just want me to try prove to you that squares are circles then there's really no point continuing this, but I will continue to answer you points in my own time if you so wish to do so, but answering the same unsourced and unfounded crap is a little boring.
In this day and age such thing should be inadmissible, means of communication are available, technological resources as well all they need to do is work together and set milestones, also I don't understand why china was disregarded in this matter, instead of waving their epeens on geopolitical matters, people should work together to solve this problem especially in the beginning where there was a chance of survivors, it is really outraging that in this day and age we still such attitudes
Yes, but technology is not foolproof and all-knowing and omnipresent; accidents happen and people make mistakes.
Human error is a factor in most accidents.