Actually, it interests me that Einstein's letter was "deep sixed" over a half century.

It also interests me that everyone including the Pope and other Theists, and the Press then and now still find this topic quite important.

Not unlike yourself, I find their interest, past and present, rather amusing.

As to the rest of it, you can
find recent posts on this site that also show deeply held beliefs as to what Einstein did or did not believe, with regard to gods,
and religion.

Lastly, Einstein was a fascinating character whose response to queries from the Press and the public was very clever. Rather than say what he privately said about god and religion, he played the game very well by publicly responding: "My God is the God of Spinoza."

A brilliant response!

Granted, no one knew who the hell Spinoza was, and what Spinoza's non-personal god meant, except for a select few.

However, as to any personal "importance", regarding the topic. I've no more an investment in it, than watching you vomit. Although
it would be more interesting
and ...

I REALLY liked your approach!
Well done. And EXACTLY the sort of "uninterested" response I fully nderstand the purpose of.

Any more spam you'd like to contribute?

The "Einstein God Letter" was deep sixed for 60 years.

The "Einstein God Letter" was sold at public auction for
$400,000.

$400,000. for a rather short letter is not insignificant, nor was it insignificant that the letter has been hidden.

Interestingly, not only was the name(s) of the original owner(s) not made known, but the buyer's name was also not made known (the buyer being anonymous is not unusual, but the original seller's names not made known IS.)

If anyone ha the slIghtest doubt as to the significance of Einstein's beliefs in god and religion, simply put up a post in a religious forum and claim the same.

EVEN THE IDEA that Einstein was an Atheist is STILL a reminder of assholes like the one above this post that are reay to pounce on any suggestion of Einstein not believing in god.

It remains highly important, even to asshole Atheists!

I forgot to LOL.

I can't edit the thread post to add a more comprehensive translation of the letter, but check this one out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

I think it would be more accurate to say that it "remains", rather than "is".

After all, we're talkin about
approximately a period of 3 generations i.e. 75 years.

That is hardly a "fetish" or fad.

I addressed the point of it above, and in previous posts.

BTW. This independent thread is not "dragging Einstein into the discussion" the
"discussion" IN THIS THREAD is that Einstein clearly was actually a "closet Atheist!,
not a Pantheist, as he claimed publicly.

Do you have any idea what would have become of
Einstein's career, had he admitted to actually being an Atheist?

The conclusion is obvious!

Perhaps it has not ocurred to you that Atheists have been and are rejected and persecuted to various degrees, in a wide variety of ways worldwide! THAT is no fad, nor fetish.

That you would like to deep six any discussion of this hidden letter shows very little understanding of the relevance of a variety of relevant facts which pertain to Atheists and their status, particularly those closet Atheists that are held in very high regard by world opinion but whose Atheism is DENIED by them.

On the other hand, you may be insipid rather than ignorant of the "conditions" Atheists find themselves in.

There was a reason and purpose that this letter was hidden over 50 years.

There was a reason and purpose that Einstein referred to Spinoza and constantly referred to God in his lectures at Princeton.

There is a reason and purpose that Einstein is still talked about today withregard to HIS OWN views on god and
religion.

I leave all of that for you to dis over when you grow up,
as I'm not here to spoonfeed
anyone's child.

Thanks!

On second thought, let's drag
Einstein's "God letter" into the Modulators dumbasshoe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

Einstein was a closet Atheist, foos!

Here's an example of the interest and importance of Einstein's beliefs in god and religion to a Theist (i.e. the poster is a Theist). It was posted on this web site in another thread, only a few hours ago. (My PDA prevents me from certain lookups, such as a direct URL to that post. So, here it is as posted. Note the other posters that were equally interested in the topic.)
Here's the post:

Moe spam.

Read the links to Eistein's God letter I posted in the thread and learn something, ya Jerk.

I've never lost a debate with an educated person, but I can not debate a fool, such as yourself.

Which one, Elmo or Melvin?

You could have let this go. I did. But tell me why your first thought was that this is a debate and  that there has to be a winner? Competative debates I am familiar with are scored by judges. Those on the internet only have self-declared winners which you might hove noticed are less than worthless. They are merely a declaration of ego and dumbness.

Here is the link you cited in its entirety.

[blockquote]

Letter to Eric Gutkind (partial)
Albert Einstein (1954)
Translated from the German by Joan Stambaugh

...

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, 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 priviliege 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 monopolisation. 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, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and `rationalisation' 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.

[/blockquote]

The most I can see you can do is take the first three words "the word God" as meaning god and a Germanic excess of words or you need agree this is not about theism but about "the word god" and Judaism. If you have a third or fourth alternate please express them.

He refers to the bible as primitive legends and while the may include New and Old testaments it rapidly focusses upon the Old. If that is not enough the New may contain legends but in context cannot be described as primitive. Dumb, stupid, irrational, magical but not primitive. He is talking about Judaism only, not theism in general. I have no idea what his opinions were on theism in general but I do not find that opinion here.

The issue of the Jewish people to whom he "belongs" is poorly thought out. If he did in fact believe in this belonging it is unclear how he could identify with the Arabic speaking Jews who identified with Arabic culture while maintaining their only difference was their religion. I know some people are skilled at denying what is clearly written by Jewish Arabs but that does not change the fact.

He then goes on to say these Jews which more or less has to have been the Ashkenazi "are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power."It was citing that power which zionism would give a Jewish nation which caused him to reject and condemn zionism. Only a die-hard zionist could claim that has not been proven in spades. "Jews stole the land. The owners want it back." Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the power exposed Jews to the cancers of power, in this case wholesale theft, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. And far from an error of the past on ongoing crime in killing to keep what was stolen, a crime which can never end until the private property is returned to the owners.

That is just the first paragraph. If you would like to go into the other two please feel free to start the discussion. If you want to call it a debate then I want neutral judges to create rules and judge by them and not just some kid declaring he won just because he thinks he got in the last word.

If you think you are up to it I am here until I am banned again.

For Einstein the Word God was Devoid of the Divine.

Most mortals believe in a "personal God", in heaven and souls, in idols and all kinds of sacred follies - - - and they also believe that Einstein believed in God. 

Not only Einstein's personal God had been dead all along. In fact God was never even alive according to Einstein. 

According to Einstein, God is "a product of human weakness". Einstein's quotes were used by dealers of delusions to confuse the common man to fool him about Einstein true religious beliefs. Einstein categorically rejected the supernatural. 

For further elucidation see my new blog: Einstein the Atheist

 http://einsteintheatheist.blogspot.com/

 It is amazing to me that so many well educated, open minded, sincere seekers of empirical truth still argue about  It is amazing to me that so many well educated, open minded, sincere seekers of empirical truth still argue about weather there is or there is not a god. Einstein is once again leagues ahead of so many as he writes this letter. He is not writing of existence here he is writing of concepts and more specifically the idea that an anthropomorphic god exists that has human attributes and interacts with humanity as one person would with another. He is right when he out that Judeo-Christian scripture is so redacted that any essential information they may have originally contained may be entirely missing. When Einstein refers to the god of Spinoza he implies that the concept of god takes on the attributes that the perception of god gives it and that his own concept that reflects an impersonal and abstract god. Ironically, I believe Einstein eloquently points out that God blinks in and out of existence like an observable quantum particle or wave as each person conceives whatever god might or might not be .  The real catch in this letter seems to be the refutation that any one group of human beings is chosen in any preselective way. Weather chosen for good or ill being chosen implies a kind of specialness and that can be perceived as superiority. Clearly, it is that tendency toward the human concept of what god is that Einstein warns against in this portion of his letter.  there is or there is not a god. Einstein is once again leagues ahead of so many as he writes this letter. He is not writing of existence here he is writing of concepts and more specifically the idea that an anthropomorphic god exists that has human attributes and interacts with humanity as one person would with another. He is right when he out that Judeo-Christian scripture is so redacted that any essential information they may have originally contained may be entirely missing. When Einstein refers to the god of Spinoza he implies that the concept of god takes on the attributes that the perception of god gives it and that his own concept that reflects an impersonal and abstract god. Ironically, I believe Einstein eloquently points out that God blinks in and out of existence like an observable quantum particle or wave as each person conceives whatever god might or might not be .  The real catch in this  It is amazing to me that so many well educated, open minded, sincere seekers of empirical truth still argue about weather there is or there is not a god. Einstein is once again leagues ahead of so many as he writes this letter. He is not writing of existence here he is writing of concepts and more specifically the idea that an anthropomorphic god exists that has human attributes and interacts with humanity as one person would with another. He is right when he out that Judeo-Christian scripture is so redacted that any essential information they may have originally contained may be entirely missing. When Einstein refers to the god of Spinoza he implies that the concept of god takes on the attributes that the perception of god gives it and that his own concept that reflects an impersonal and abstract god. Ironically, I believe Einstein eloquently points out that God blinks in and out of existence like an observable quantum particle or wave as each person conceives whatever god might or might not be .  The real catch in this letter seems to be the refutation that any one group of human beings is chosen in any preselective way. Weather chosen for good or ill being chosen implies a kind of specialness and that can be perceived as superiority. Clearly, it is that tendency toward the human concept of what god is that Einstein warns against in this portion of his letter.  seems to be the refutation that any one group of human beings is chosen in any preselective way. Weather chosen for good or ill being chosen implies a kind of specialness and that can be perceived as superiority. Clearly, it is that tendency toward the human concept of what god is that Einstein warns against in this portion of his letter. 

After the basics of grammar and spelling the first rule is to know your audience.

While primitive and legend appear redundant it is a long rejected fallacy to assume our ancestors where childlike. Homer did not write for children. But the identification of the childish nature does in fact indicate the intended audience of the authors of these stories was children.
 

Pardon but his description as childish is not saying the OT religion is no better than. The very use of childish indicates his opinion is that it is inferior to other religions. And of course it is. We have plenty of examples of other religions confirming this.

The only thing that lives on his his mathematics and theories, every thing else is really opinion and pointless.

Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence. Einstein stated: "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." According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

http://books.google.com/books?id=6IKVA0lY6MAC&pg=PA516#v=onepage&q&f=false