Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Bardo State]

Your man Hawking is so stupid

lol

 

[HARKER]

Debating whether there is a god or not seems ludicrous when there is 0 evidence to suggest there is one. I would rather the question be, Do you wish a theistic god existed? Whether it be the judeo-christian, islamic or jewish god. Perhaps that is for another thread though.

The answer should largely be NO, given a position where we had no history of whether this god/gods would be good for us or not.

If the starting point was of no knowledge to the diet of gods we'd been handed down, would we really want one? I don't think so.

 

[Boston tiger]

Is Hawkins serious about this or is he just putting things out there?

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going."

So we have spontaneous creation now. That was lucky.


Here's some clown having a go Hawkins. Slightly cruel but what the hey.

So, let me get this straight. It took the existence of another solar system billions of miles from our own to cement in his mind that there’s not a big dude in the sky watching over us. That seems a bit excessive. If he really wanted to go the "no God" route, I think he could have started a little closer to home. For example, what about the fact that he’s CONFINED TO A F*CKING WHEELCHAIR?

And what’s even more disturbing is the fact that he was 50 by the time he made up his mind. It took him 50 friggen years to reach a conclusion most smug atheists come to after attending a freshman philosophy class. What was the friggen hold up, Stevie?

Again, if religion is your thing, don’t sweat it. There’s a lot going on in this dude’s life that could have easily swung him the other way. For one thing, he was suppose to have died in his early 20s, and now he’s pushing 70. That’s nothing short of miraculous (unless it isn’t). But what’s even more impressive is that this dude has been married…twice! Granted, the first wife was on board before he became Robocop. But the second one married him well after he was sick. In fact, Hawking stole her away from the guy who designed the computer that allows him to talk. Talk about balls of steel! Sure, they got divorced too, but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that one without thinking a higher power was involved.

Then again, the smartest man in the world went through the hell that is marriage twice. What kind of God would allow that? More importantly, why would the smartest man in the world not learn after the first time. It just goes to show that Hawking probably isn’t as sharp as we previously thought. (Source)

 

[skilts]

Is there a strawmans argument in amongst all that?

This joke is so bad it makes me squirm in discomfort, and it's all the better for that.

 

[skilts]

Is Hawkins serious about this or is he just putting things out there?

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going."

So we have spontaneous creation now. That was lucky.


Here's some clown having a go Hawkins. Slightly cruel but what the hey.

So, let me get this straight. It took the existence of another solar system billions of miles from our own to cement in his mind that there’s not a big dude in the sky watching over us. That seems a bit excessive. If he really wanted to go the "no God" route, I think he could have started a little closer to home. For example, what about the fact that he’s CONFINED TO A F*CKING WHEELCHAIR?

And what’s even more disturbing is the fact that he was 50 by the time he made up his mind. It took him 50 friggen years to reach a conclusion most smug atheists come to after attending a freshman philosophy class. What was the friggen hold up, Stevie?

Again, if religion is your thing, don’t sweat it. There’s a lot going on in this dude’s life that could have easily swung him the other way. For one thing, he was suppose to have died in his early 20s, and now he’s pushing 70. That’s nothing short of miraculous (unless it isn’t). But what’s even more impressive is that this dude has been married…twice! Granted, the first wife was on board before he became Robocop. But the second one married him well after he was sick. In fact, Hawking stole her away from the guy who designed the computer that allows him to talk. Talk about balls of steel! Sure, they got divorced too, but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that one without thinking a higher power was involved.

Then again, the smartest man in the world went through the hell that is marriage twice. What kind of God would allow that? More importantly, why would the smartest man in the world not learn after the first time. It just goes to show that Hawking probably isn’t as sharp as we previously thought. (Source)

I am a bit confused. Is this piece your work, or are quoting someone? I'm a bit slow.

 

[Boston tiger]

I am a bit confused. Is this piece your work, or are quoting someone? I'm a bit slow.

Sorry no not mine. Must be Aussie though has a bit of a tall poppy feel to it.

 

[skilts]

Here's some clown having a go Hawkins.

I thought this might have been self referential.

 

[little graham]

It just goes to show that Hawking probably isn’t as sharp as we previously thought. (Source)

He tells big lies. If there is no god, why would he need to lie about it?

 

[Pie eyed]

Is philosophy dead?

"In 2010, Professor Hawking declared that scientists rather than philosophers “have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge”.

Philosophers argued their case at a debate held at the British Academy in London this week. According to Tim Crane, Knightbridge professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge, Professor Hawking himself proved that philosophy is unavoidable, since he put forward a lot of philosophical views. Unfortunately, these amounted to “bad philosophy, because he is unaware of it as a discipline and a practice with a history,” Professor Crane said.

Greg Radick, professor of the history and philosophy of science at the University of Leeds, put the case for cross-fertilisation between science and philosophy.

Three of the most powerful scientific thinkers – Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Noam Chomsky – were also notably “philosophically literate”, he said. Lesser scientists could easily become “too dogmatic”, as their “teachers shut down access to foundational questions”, Professor Radick told the event, held on 15 February.

Philosophical debate, on the other hand, he continued, ran the risk of nit-picking “scholasticism” if it wasn’t “enlivened by contact with the natural sciences”.

“If you’re pro-reason,” said Rebecca Goldstein Newberger, a research associate at Harvard University who is currently a visiting professor of philosophy at the New College of the Humanities in London, “you need all the resources you can get.” Recent outbreaks of “philosophy jeering” such as Hawking’s were ill-informed, incoherent and irresponsible – faced with today’s extremes of irrationality”, she added.

Also speaking at the event, “What Is the Point of Philosophy?” organised by the Ax:son Johnson Foundation on 16 February, was Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas. She urged philosophers to address the malaise of current educational thinking where “knowledge itself is being gutted of depth and complex ideas reduced to soundbites”.

The notion of “learning outcomes”, she added, was completely “antithetical to the open-ended pursuit of truth”.

Stephen Law, senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop College, put the case for philosophy’s role in “raising autonomous critical thinkers”.

He asked whether, since “I have an unavoidable responsibility to make my own moral judgement, a responsibility I can’t hand over to some supposed expert… shouldn’t our education system both confront us with that responsibility, and also ensure we have the intellectual and emotional maturity we’ll need to discharge it properly?”

If recent decades had seen “great moral advances in our attitudes towards women, gay people and other races”, this was “largely as a result of our being prepared to question received moral opinion and to think things through in just the way philosophy requires of us”, he continued.

Yet despite the many benefits of philosophy, Professor Crane argued that “academic philosophy is in crisis” and no longer really hospitable to “the idea of challenging everything”, not least because the need to be published in a few top journals “encourages incredible conformism around a very narrow range of ideas”.

Professor Newberger took a similar line, reflecting that she had “only managed to maintain my enthusiasm for philosophy by staying away from philosophers”.

Me thinks philosophers need to get some documentaries up on Foxtel.

Philosophers justify their own existence as a matter of course in fact "philosophy" as a science may simply exist to support itself, philosophically speaking.
If you call philosophy out for what it is "thinking, writing and talking about thinking" it is far less intimidating.
In fact it's hard to find even the most rudimentary discussion which is not pure "philosophy" so it's hardly unusual that a gaggle of professional philosophers would find anyone who cast doubt on their own personal woo was partial to the same woo.
It's like a professional diver accusing everyone else of practicing "his personal" breathing method.
Only the dead can opt out of thinking and/or breathing to be the exception when you cast such a wide net.
I am not tied to that philosophy though, I could change my mind.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Your man Hawking is so stupid and ill-informed that he has no realisation that if you are operating at the leading edge of any 'science' you are, of necessity, and inevitably, doing philosophy. FFS, he even manages to create room in his so-called cosmology for a supreme being. The most overrated turkey in the history of the abysmal level of thought which represents the meanderings of 'science'.

Please point us to any 'scientific' thesis which depends in no way on language to explicate its ideas. Your heroes are, of necessity, and inevitably, forced into the realm of real philosophy to make every utterance, almost invariably appallingly badly. You seem to be proud that you have this in common with such gormless cretins.

and look at the philosophy students come out of the woodwork defend their out of date claptrap. As i said science took what it required and moved on. if you wish to sit there and pretend philosophy is of any use in the 21st century be my guest. in the meantime literally everything else you could have possibly studied will result in actual gains to the world, while philosopher's sit on there arse's and rabbit on about irrelevant bullshit.

philosophy is nothing more then the long road to nowhere. you're attempts to discredit science, as i stated earlier would sound good but contain no substance. philosophy does not contribute to the world moving forward, instead it attempts to take credit for others achievements by sighting overlapping fields. its canned nonsense, shipped with 30,000 dollar HEC's fee attached.

I glad you seemed to have enjoyed it. now if you could actually point out the major contributions philosophy has made to the world in this century? it was a worthy endeavour some 1500 years ago, but today it contributes nothing.

I mean if'd you'd like we can sit here and have a dick measuring contest on electric powered computers chatting over the internet on a forum in our ergonomic chairs massed produced by the latest plastic extrusion Techniques, shipped to aus from china in doubled hauled cargo ships and dispatched to the local office works using a GPS based ordering system. about which discipline has actually contributed the most to the planet in the last 100 years. But its not really a contest is it?

Philosophy itself is a lie, it doesn't seek truth, it seeks believers. people willing to throw out evidence to suit a theory. instead of questioning the theory itself.

 

[skilts]

and look at the philosophy students come out of the woodwork defend their out of date claptrap. As i said science took what it required and moved on. if you wish to sit there and pretend philosophy is of any use in the 21st century be my guest. in the meantime literally everything else you could have possibly studied will result in actual gains to the world, while philosopher's sit on there arse's and rabbit on about irrelevant bullshit.

philosophy is nothing more then the long road to nowhere. you're attempts to discredit science, as i stated earlier would sound good but contain no substance. philosophy does not contribute to the world moving forward, instead it attempts to take credit for others achievements by sighting overlapping fields. its canned nonsense, shipped with 30,000 dollar HEC's fee attached.

I glad you seemed to have enjoyed it. now if you could actually point out the major contributions philosophy has made to the world in this century? it was a worthy endeavour some 1500 years ago, but today it contributes nothing.

I mean if'd you'd like we can sit here and have a dick measuring contest on electric powered computers chatting over the internet on a forum in our ergonomic chairs massed produced by the latest plastic extrusion Techniques, shipped to aus from china in doubled hauled cargo ships and dispatched to the local office works using a GPS based ordering system. about which discipline has actually contributed the most to the planet in the last 100 years. But its not really a contest is it?

Philosophy itself is a lie, it doesn't seek truth, it seeks believers. people willing to throw out evidence to suit a theory. instead of questioning the theory itself.

In your one-dimensional mind, science morphs into mere technology, in which every change is considered an 'advance'. Had you undertaken any philosophical enquiry, even at its most rudimentary, your encounter with existence would be more nuanced and better informed, instead of being shallow and obsessed with the obvious. It comes as no surprise that you are so violently opposed to thinking. It obviously makes you feel uncomfortable to do so. You seem to be under the misapprehension that philosophy is something which happens exclusively in academia. You will never understand philosophy until you make some effort to find out what it is. A warning: to do this might require some thought.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

In your one-dimensional mind, science morphs into mere technology, in which every change is considered an 'advance'. Had you undertaken any philosophical enquiry, even at its most rudimentary, your encounter with existence would be more nuanced and better informed, instead of being shallow and obsessed with the obvious. It comes as no surprise that you are so violently opposed to thinking. It obviously makes you feel uncomfortable to do so. You seem to be under the misapprehension that philosophy is something which happens exclusively in academia. You will never understand philosophy until you make some effort to find out what it is. A warning: to do this might require some thought.

hehe, mere technology, he says ungrateful of the fact that technological advancement is the only reason he lives at a time where the average child doesn't die before there twelfth birthday.

perhaps if got you're head out of clouds and realised the reason society advanced was questioning philosophy, in its most zealous forms political and religious it was science that did away with caste systems and superstitions and all the worthless s**t that restrained society for so long.
belief was challenged on empirical evidence.

your problem is you think that in order to critical analysis anything one must dive wholesale and give credit to the entire realm of philosophy. this utter nonsense feed to you by self aggrandising w***ers. once again there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water you take the some principals and foundational ideas from philosophy and move on. that is advancement, you take what is needed you, refine it, you produce a better product.

for someone who claims that philosophy gives you a better more intermittent understanding of existence. you seem to have a toxic objection to the very things that enable to indulge in such mental masturbation. and this is where philosophical crap falls apart, you could have attempted to sight a number of things from the evolution of modern democracy, women's rights, peace movements. economic theory, ethics, hell even modern tv programs. But you didn't and the reason is, is because like all pedallers of philosophy you've lost sight of what actually matters. tangible results. so caught up in you're woo you've failed to address that which is demanded of actual progress. advancement. here is where we were, here is where we are, here is where we're going. philosophy as a field of study has not just slowed down its stopped.

No amount of pondering ever put a man on the moon, eventually you're going to have to pick up a tool, if you want to actually contribute to the world, produce something. mindless prattling doesn't cut it these days.

 

[Monniehawk]

Philosophers justify their own existence as a matter of course in fact "philosophy" as a science may simply exist to support itself, philosophically speaking.
If you call philosophy out for what it is "thinking, writing and talking about thinking" it is far less intimidating.
In fact it's hard to find even the most rudimentary discussion which is not pure "philosophy" so it's hardly unusual that a gaggle of professional philosophers would find anyone who cast doubt on their own personal woo was partial to the same woo.
It's like a professional diver accusing everyone else of practicing "his personal" breathing method.
Only the dead can opt out of thinking and/or breathing to be the exception when you cast such a wide net.
I am not tied to that philosophy though, I could change my mind.

True!
Science is the child of philosophy.
Science sometimes seems to have forgotten its own gene pool.

 

[Number37]

 

[tesseract]

Que the hamster wheel spun rationalizations from atheists about how nothing isn't really nothing...

 

[Sydney Bloods]

how many times does this need to be repeated, an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. The END!
whatever they believe about how the universe began is irrelevant.

An atheist can believe in an eternal universe if they want. they could believe any number of bullshit. Just as theists don't have to believe in a creator god.
try and think of the wider argument, think beyond whatever bullshit belief system you have and take in the larger argument.

why does an atheist have to believe in in the big bang? why does an atheist have to believe in evolution? the answer is they don't. But you haven't even considered it because you can not think beyond your own limited belief system.

you're thoughts are literally the regurgitated musings of your particular branch of religion. you didn't even take the time to consider other types of theistic views, did you?

It gets so frustrating having to explain the same things over and over and over again. forget whatever your church, synagogue, mosque, ceremonial hut. told you about what atheists believe. An Atheist is someone who does not believe in god, thats it. beyond that atheists believe in a whole host of things.

For the millionth time, its not like a religion at all, there's no belief structure, no set of rules, no laws, no guidelines, nothing. If you don't believe in god you're an atheist. arguments beyond that statement are irrelevant to the notion of being an Atheist.

 

[Number37]

how many times does this need to be repeated, an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. The END!
whatever they believe about how the universe began is irrelevant.

An atheist can believe in an eternal universe if they want. they could believe any number of bullshit. Just as theists don't have to believe in a creator god.
try and think of the wider argument, think beyond whatever bullshit belief system you have and take in the larger argument.

why does an atheist have to believe in in the big bang? why does an atheist have to believe in evolution? the answer is they don't. But you haven't even considered it because you can not think beyond your own limited belief system.

you're thoughts are literally the regurgitated musings of your particular branch of religion. you didn't even take the time to consider other types of theistic views, did you?

It gets so frustrating having to explain the same things over and over and over again. forget whatever your church, synagogue, mosque, ceremonial hut. told you about what atheists believe. An Atheist is someone who does not believe in god, thats it. beyond that atheists believe in a whole host of things.

For the millionth time, its not like a religion at all, there's no belief structure, no set of rules, no laws, no guidelines, nothing. If you don't believe in god you're an atheist. arguments beyond that statement are irrelevant to the notion of being an Atheist.

Relax, why so defensive?

 

[skilts]

Relax, why so defensive?

Possibly, for him, the nothing did not noth.

 

[Monniehawk]

You might be confusing all atheists with New Atheism. And Evolutionists as atheists.
Similar to the logic that cats are actually dogs. Each are mammals, carnivores, have tails, are domesticated pets and carry fleas. So, must be the same!!?
Sydney Bloods is on the money: atheists don't believe in deities. Strict definition. That's it!!
Some may choose to believe in the Big Bang, some may believe religion is the root of all evil, some have leftist leanings and some to the right. Some are racist, bigots or philanthropic or rationalists. Up to the individual, I guess. Most Christians I know accept evolution and reconcile it with their beliefs.
There is also confusion between the terms belief and religion. I'll save that for another time.
I have a problem with New Atheists because their primary belief is that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." That tends to make them anti-religion rather than atheist, but they have now redefined the general term atheist within those narrow parameters. I don't identify with them at all and resent their intrusion. I am an atheist, but not anti religion. I have a range of other beliefs, but detest bigots and fundamentalists. New Atheists are both by virtue of their mantra.
So are some Christians.
Hmmmm! Does this also mean that Christians are actually atheists?

 

[Number37]

You might be confusing all atheists with New Atheism. And Evolutionists as atheists.
Similar to the logic that cats are actually dogs. Each are mammals, carnivores, have tails, are domesticated pets and carry fleas. So, must be the same!!?
Sydney Bloods is on the money: atheists don't believe in deities. Strict definition. That's it!!
Some may choose to believe in the Big Bang, some may believe religion is the root of all evil, some have leftist leanings and some to the right. Some are racist, bigots or philanthropic or rationalists. Up to the individual, I guess. Most Christians I know accept evolution and reconcile it with their beliefs.
There is also confusion between the terms belief and religion. I'll save that for another time.
I have a problem with New Atheists because their primary belief is that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." That tends to make them anti-religion rather than atheist, but they have now redefined the general term atheist within those narrow parameters. I don't identify with them at all and resent their intrusion. I am an atheist, but not anti religion. I have a range of other beliefs, but detest bigots and fundamentalists. New Atheists are both by virtue of their mantra.
So are some Christians.
Hmmmm! Does this also mean that Christians are actually atheists?

Nice post!

 

[Pie eyed]

Que the hamster wheel spun rationalizations from atheists about how nothing isn't really nothing...

No matter what nothing may turn out to be it won't be any less likely to be a unicorn.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Relax, why so defensive?

forgive me if i came across as hostile my patience wears thin having to constantly repeat basic concepts to god botherer's. It makes it rather hard to avoid labelling you all as stupid when the go to argument for abrahamic believers is so asinine.

 

[Number37]

forgive me if i came across as hostile my patience wears thin having to constantly repeat basic concepts to god botherer's. It makes it rather hard to avoid labelling you all as stupid when the go to argument for abrahamic believers is so asinine.

Pretty sure you will never convince anyone of anything...that's just human nature.
That is good insofar as people should come to their own realisations, bad insofar as it doesn't hurt to apply a little common sense and take on board what others have to say.


Edit: my previous post was a comment on the level of debate that pervades these type of discussions, rather than a comment on Atheism.

 

[evo]

Philosophers justify their own existence as a matter of course in fact "philosophy" as a science may simply exist to support itself, philosophically speaking.
If you call philosophy out for what it is "thinking, writing and talking about thinking" it is far less intimidating.
In fact it's hard to find even the most rudimentary discussion which is not pure "philosophy" so it's hardly unusual that a gaggle of professional philosophers would find anyone who cast doubt on their own personal woo was partial to the same woo.
It's like a professional diver accusing everyone else of practicing "his personal" breathing method.
Only the dead can opt out of thinking and/or breathing to be the exception when you cast such a wide net.
I am not tied to that philosophy though, I could change my mind.

Thinking about thinking isn't trivial. That you believe philosophy is an exercise in woo is proof positive that with age doesn't necessarily come wisdom.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Pretty sure you will never convince anyone of anything...that's just human nature.
That is good insofar as people should come to their own realisations, bad insofar as it doesn't hurt to apply a little common sense and take on board what others have to say.

and that's what this is supposed to be about, anyone thinking their going to change someone else belief in an online forum, is a narcissist of the highest order. this is about trying to understand other peoples view points this cannot occur if A) someone refuses to explain their position and simply s**t talks someone with explaining what their own beliefs what their point of view is. or B) has no interest in understanding someone else point of view.

don't get me wrong we can all s**t talk each other but there has to be give and take, because otherwise its not a debate its just an old man yelling at a cloud.