First of all I clearly want to state to everybody that this is a side discussion MM and I are having, this discussion has no validity whatsoever for the question of whether god exists or not, and it has bearing at all for the question prozelyting. I am sure everybody understands that
argumentum ad verecundiam, ie appeal to authority is an invalid argument. References to authorities are only valid if:
1. The authority in question is actually qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject.
2. Experts in the field have a common consensus in the question.
3. The autority in question is not quoted out of context, was joking, was under influence of drugs or psychiatric disease when s/he made the claim you refer to.
4. The reference is an original reference, not only second hand hearsay.
This means:
"Einstein said the velocity of light is the same for all observers in uniform relative motion" is valid since this is part of the theory of relativity and Einstein was an expert on theoretical physics.
"Einstein said eating carrots can cure cancer" is not valid since Einstein was not an expert on diet or oncology
"Einstein said gravity redshift exists" is valid since this is common consensus among experts, and was later demostrated by observation.
"Einstein said black holes does not exist" is not valid, since this in not common consensus among other experts, and observations support that black holes may exist.
"Einstein said 'I am deeply religious man' is not valid since it is taken out of context, the whole passage looks like this:
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.
my bold
"In his biography of Einstein, AB Smith wrote Einstein believed in a god" is not valid if no original reference of this exist. AB Smith might have made the story up to sell a few extra copies of the book.
Now I move on to discussing specific people's religions beliefs with MM.
@MM: This was exactly the discussion I didn't want, since we both know "appeal to authority" is an invalid argument anyway. Saying "Einstein believed in a god" has no more validity than saying "Brittney Spears believe in a god". Einsten was a physicist, and an expert on physics - he could not more than Brittney Spears, you, I or anyone else prove or demostrate the existence of a god. I know you didn't mention Hawking
I did, because famous scientists like Einstein and Hawking are people who are often exploited for their commercial value and popularity. They both represent the "true genius" in modern society, and and such, some people use arguments like "Aha, you don't believe in god? Einstein believed in god, do you think you are smarter than him?" The invalidity of this argument should be obvious.
However, since MM has demonstrated his liking for the "appeal to autority" argument, ie MM seems to feel that gods existance is more likely because some famous people and well known scientists believe in god, I feel I must go through with this, hopefully to a conclusion. If MM wants to use invalid arguments that is of course his personal choice, but using invalid arguments including factual errors, is something I really ask MM to refrain from.
@MM: the world is full of famous, intelligent people - scientists included - who believe in a god, why don't you use them for your argument instead of people who either don't believe in god, or who we don't know whether they believe or not? You are not strenghtening your cause by using false claims. Use correct claims instead - you risk casting a shadow of doubt over your other, perhaps true statements by mixing them with false ones. You mentioned Newton and Luther among great minds who were also christians, I could give you a long list of other great minds who were/are christian or believe a theistic god
but please do not impose religious views on people who were not religious, or people who we do not know whether they are religious or not
Have you ever read the famous chemistry professor Schaefer's lectures from 1994? Schafer makes all the classical mistakes. He is a great chemist, but he is not an expert in mind-reading and he claims he knows a lot of other scientist's beliefs. Please MM, don't use this cheap trick, I know you are a smart guy and a skillful debater and I also sincerely think that you mean well with your attempts to argue for christianity.
Except for the quote above in italics, which is authentic and comes from Einstein's own book "The world as I see it", (Philosophical Library, NY, 1949), here is why should drop Einstein from your list:
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
Personal letter, 1927
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.
"My Credo", speech to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, 1932
I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable. 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.
Personal letter, 1954
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
New York Times, 1955
This does not sound like person who believes in the OT or Judaism, this sounds to me like a person who believes in a spiritual aspect that shows itself through nature but has little to do with human life, nothing to do with moral and rules, and does not give humans eternal life or a life after this earthly one. In other words, it sounds like
Pantheism, ie what Fable belives in IIRC.
Whoaa. Sorry for the lenght of this! It seems it's only MM that can draw these huge posts out of me! 
