dogma wrote:No you aren't. If you were actually interested in an answer, instead of trolling and thread derailment, you wouldn't have half the people posting here on ignore.
Frazzled wrote:
No, again thats your problem not mine. Its means we're saved and you're ed. WE're not superior, we just got on the lifeboat and you said "what ocean?"
I'm not superior to you, I'm merely better educated, better paid, more perceptive, more attractive, younger, and generally more popular.
Is that roughly the argument being made here? Because that's what it seems like to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadowbrand wrote:Question, I've read nearly all ten pages but I cannot say I once saw a link of Hawkings proof.
Could someone post it? I am curious.
I assure you by my good word I am not trolling. I just can't grasp how you disprove the supernatural.
*Edit* saw the link I am spit shining the glasses as we speak.
I imagine that he is taking the positivist tack, which is basically what I mentioned earlier: all evidence which does not support the existence of a thing is evidence that the thing does not exist.
dogma wrote:Its worth remembering that Christianity is not itself directed towards exclusive salvation, despite what some people happen to believe.
I disagree, Dogma. Christianity is based upon the teachings of a figure called Jesus, unsurprisingly called Christ. You're to follow in his example to remain "pure", and thus, achieve salvation and earn your reward of a seat in heaven. This outlook is based upon the definition of Christianity, found here, as well as the word Christian, found here. While it may be slightly off, that is the general meaning of Christianity -- if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?
As for a user earlier in the thread saying that Hawking cannot say "Heaven can't exist" as he lacks the empirical and objective knowledge to do so (and I paraphrase) -- first such evidence must be supplied first in order to establish the basis that Heaven can exist. In order to claim that it does, you must demonstrate a number of things, not limited to discovering the components of the human spirit and how it can travel faster than anything in the universe (it is implied that Heaven is outside the bounds of our reality, thus, our universe) as well as proof that such a place CAN exist in the fashion described by religious texts.
The Airman wrote:I disagree, Dogma. Christianity is based upon the teachings of a figure called Jesus, unsurprisingly called Christ. You're to follow in his example to remain "pure", and thus, achieve salvation and earn your reward of a seat in heaven.
I think that's incorrect. Christianity is the belief in the divinity of Christ. You can be "Christ-like" without being Christian.
Muslims teach that Jesus was a prophet and that his teachings should be followed (insofar as they don't contradict with later prophets, namely Mohammad), but they aren't Christian because they don't believe in the divinity of Christ.
The Airman wrote:if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?
For every Christian there is another that would say that the former isn't really a Christian. It isn't that homogeneous a group with a wide array of expressions. The "True Scottsman" argument is not a very good one and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
biccat wrote:I think that's incorrect. Christianity is the belief in the divinity of Christ. You can be "Christ-like" without being Christian.
Muslims teach that Jesus was a prophet and that his teachings should be followed (insofar as they don't contradict with later prophets, namely Mohammad), but they aren't Christian because they don't believe in the divinity of Christ.
I'm operating off of the definitions of Christianity, which believes in the divinity of Jesus. I didn't specify that this was so because I thought it was understood. Your argument is forgetting that Islam requires a belief in Allah who sent his prophet, Muhammad, to Earth. Or at least that's what I'm gathering so far -- correct me if I've been misled.
Ahtman wrote:
The Airman wrote:if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?
For every Christian there is another that would say that the former isn't really a Christian. It isn't that homogeneous a group with a wide array of expressions. The "True Scottsman" argument is not a very good one and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
Sects, you mean? I'm simply establishing the basis that Christians share the same baseline belief. I understand this is wrong in a few instances, as Christianity encompasses a wide variety of ideas, but I don't see why I should make such notes when I'm already using widely-accepted definitions (I consider Merriam-Webster to be widely accepted, though there are a few iffy definitions -- the one they had for 'Atheism' was wildly inaccurate). The point I'm trying to make as a whole is Christianity is a path to salvation, thus should be considered as such. I'm by no means saying it is THE path to salvation (I'm an atheist. Take a guess what I think about it :| ) but that it is one pathway society perceives as such.
If my basis is entirely incorrect, feel free to let me know; criticism and correction helps one to become a finer individual.
The Airman wrote:
I disagree, Dogma. Christianity is based upon the teachings of a figure called Jesus, unsurprisingly called Christ. You're to follow in his example to remain "pure", and thus, achieve salvation and earn your reward of a seat in heaven.
Some Christians believe that, sure, but it is hardly definitive.
The Airman wrote:
While it may be slightly off, that is the general meaning of Christianity -- if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?
Sure, but what Christ's teaching constitute is a matter of great debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
For every Christian there is another that would say that the former isn't really a Christian. It isn't that homogeneous a group with a wide array of expressions. The "True Scottsman" argument is not a very good one and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Airman wrote: (I consider Merriam-Webster to be widely accepted, though there are a few iffy definitions -- the one they had for 'Atheism' was wildly inaccurate).
If Merriam-Webster is wildly inaccurate in one case, then why are they not wildly inaccurate in other cases?
dogma wrote:Its worth remembering that Christianity is not itself directed towards exclusive salvation, despite what some people happen to believe.
I disagree, Dogma. Christianity is based upon the teachings of a figure called Jesus, unsurprisingly called Christ. You're to follow in his example to remain "pure", and thus, achieve salvation and earn your reward of a seat in heaven. This outlook is based upon the definition of Christianity, found here, as well as the word Christian, found here. While it may be slightly off, that is the general meaning of Christianity -- if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?
As for a user earlier in the thread saying that Hawking cannot say "Heaven can't exist" as he lacks the empirical and objective knowledge to do so (and I paraphrase) -- first such evidence must be supplied first in order to establish the basis that Heaven can exist. In order to claim that it does, you must demonstrate a number of things, not limited to discovering the components of the human spirit and how it can travel faster than anything in the universe (it is implied that Heaven is outside the bounds of our reality, thus, our universe) as well as proof that such a place CAN exist in the fashion described by religious texts.
I would like to place the input that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Supporting my own statement would require a lengthy explanation of my beliefs.
The Airman wrote:What he's teaching is irrelevant, just that he's often held in high regard.
Then why did you explicitly mention Christ's teachings?
Because I explicitly mean that his teachings are generally held in a high regard and thus they believe in Jesus as a means to, eventually, salvation. If Christianity cannot be defined, then simply say so and let's get on with our day.
Kasrkai wrote:I would like to place the input that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Then there is no observable and objective way of determining the existence of spirits, thus your point holds no weight rationally.
The Airman wrote:
Because I explicitly mean that his teachings are generally held in a high regard and thus they believe in Jesus as a means to, eventually, salvation. If Christianity cannot be defined, then simply say so and let's get on with our day.
Then you meant that Christ's teachings were central to the question at hand, which means you either lied, or didn't know what you were saying.
In any case, Christ's teachings can be defined, but it would take a book, or many books, as the argument's 2000 year life might indicate to anyone who isn't an idiot.
The Airman wrote:
Then there is no observable and objective way of determining the existence of spirits, thus your point holds no weight rationally.
The Airman wrote:What he's teaching is irrelevant, just that he's often held in high regard.
Then why did you explicitly mention Christ's teachings?
Because I explicitly mean that his teachings are generally held in a high regard and thus they believe in Jesus as a means to, eventually, salvation. If Christianity cannot be defined, then simply say so and let's get on with our day.
Kasrkai wrote:I would like to place the input that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Then there is no observable and objective way of determining the existence of spirits, thus your point holds no weight rationally.
I would like to repeat that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Observation is material. To imagine an afterlife is to try and make a sixth sense. Or try to imagine a color outside of our spectrum of observable light. Metaphorically speaking.
Kasrkai wrote:I would like to repeat that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Observation is material. To imagine an afterlife is to try and make a sixth sense. Or try to imagine a color outside of our spectrum of observable light. Metaphorically speaking.
Then how do you know it exists?
dogma wrote:Then you meant that Christ's teachings were central to the question at hand, which means you either lied, or didn't know what you were saying.
In any case, Christ's teachings can be defined, but it would take a book, or many books, as the argument's 2000 year life might indicate to anyone who isn't an idiot.
Look up the word 'Christian' and get back to me.
dogma wrote:That isn't what "rational" means.
Ra·tion·al
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible; 5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers.
Rea·son
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.; 2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
I don't mean to be obtuse (though I'm sure you would strongly disagree), but isn't the belief in something with no evidence not reasonable, thus not rational? I'll admit right now that I'm not exactly an intellectual, but this seems to me what 'rational' means.
Kasrkai wrote:I would like to repeat that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Observation is material. To imagine an afterlife is to try and make a sixth sense. Or try to imagine a color outside of our spectrum of observable light. Metaphorically speaking.
The Airman wrote:
Look up the word 'Christian' and get back to me.
Hilarious.
Are you under the impression that dictionaries, or any indirect source for that matter, have anything to do with argument regarding what a thing is?
The Airman wrote:
I don't mean to be obtuse (though I'm sure you would strongly disagree), but isn't the belief in something with no evidence not reasonable, thus not rational? I'll admit right now that I'm not exactly an intellectual, but this seems to me what 'rational' means.
No, rational relates only to reason. I can have reason to believe in X without evidence that X is real.
For example, I might believe my mother loves me because that belief helps me get up in the morning, and I want to do that, even if my mother does not actually love me; therefore the belief has utility per reason.
dogma wrote:No, rational relates only to reason. I can have reason to believe in X without evidence that X is real.
For example, I might believe my mother loves me because that belief helps me get up in the morning, and I want to do that, even if my mother does not actually love me; therefore the belief has utility per reason.
But, even if your mother does not actually love you, to rationally come to the conclusion that she does means there'd have to be some sort of evidence that suggested she did indeed love you.
The Airman wrote:
Please provide examples of what is reasonable when it comes to the existence of things and places we can't interact with in the natural world.
If my belief in God allows me to continue living, and I want to live, then believing in God is rational.
Its a generalized form of Pascale's Wager.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
But, even if your mother does not actually love you, to rationally come to the conclusion that she does means there'd have to be some sort of evidence that suggested she did indeed love you.
Nah, it just has to be possible. So, if some mothers love their children I might conclude that my mother does because I want to believe my mother does in order to continue with my life.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
But, even if your mother does not actually love you, to rationally come to the conclusion that she does means there'd have to be some sort of evidence that suggested she did indeed love you.
Nah, it just has to be possible. So, if some mothers love their children I might conclude that my mother does because I want to believe my mother does in order to continue with my life.
Ah, but there is evidence then. The observation that some mothers love their children.
Fafnir wrote:I'm aware of the peanut butter joke. I spent a while laughing at that video.
'Cogito ergo sum' is a logcal conclusion to various existential questions. It doesn't go into explore any depths, but rather accept the rules of the world around the individual based on their individual perception of it.
Souls on the other hand, are just an abstract concept with no real logical base.
People have reported seeing ghosts and apparitions, the reasoning behind that may vary as either delusion or some other sort of mental trickery however there may be times that actual ghosts exist. If a ghost exists then it is possible for souls to exist seeing as though ghosts are supposed to be earth bound souls.
I mean Descarte was on to something with the Cogito Ergo Sum discovery, but he was stranded in a cabin alone for some period of time before he came up with it and he pretty much said that he knows he exists because of universal standards and truths such as '2+2=4'. Sure, that's cool but if the possiblity of infinite numbers of parallel universes is to be true then its possible for '2+2=5' in some cases as opposed to '2+2=4'. In which case we were wrong about an infinite number of parallel universes being present or we were wrong about being real.
Us being real is an abstract concept and we really can't prove it besides believing it to be true for some arbitrary reason. 2+2=4 at all times on Earth so I know that Earth is real, I could accept that or I could look at it and say that it was a really good bit of programming as well. Can't really prove that we are or aren't a computer program but most people tend to believe that we are an organic life force for some arbitrary reason.
I believe that ghosts exist and therefor souls exist, that's a nice little arbitrary reason right there. Its based in logic as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Airman wrote:
dogma wrote:No, rational relates only to reason. I can have reason to believe in X without evidence that X is real.
Please provide examples of what is reasonable when it comes to the existence of things and places we can't interact with in the natural world.
I can believe in the good of mankind despite the fact that there's a messload of evil ot there.
dogma wrote:I'm wondering if The Airman is a certain Cynical Brit, or a follower thereof.
I don't know, but I find it funny that you're arguing for the possible existence of something despite the lack of physical proof funny in this context. I'm talking about your sig BTW.
halonachos wrote:
I don't know, but I find it funny that you're arguing for the possible existence of something despite the lack of physical proof funny in this context. I'm talking about your sig BTW.
I'm not arguing for anything, I merely gave phrase to my speculation.
Ahtman wrote:I have to admit I am enjoying the argument that souls have exist because ghosts might exist.
Hey, ghosts are supposed to be trapped souls so if they exist then that means souls trapped on Earth exist and if trapped souls exist that means untrapped souls can also possibly exist. Sure it's farfetched for most people, but it works for me.
@Dogma: I just think its funny that you're speculation on this subject seems pro soul/heaven by being anti-Hawking and your sig is a quote from a man who wrote "Why I am Not a Christian".
@Airman: Your view on Christians seems incredibly broad and vague, its like saying all Muslims are the same despite the fact that there are Sunni and Shiite muslims. Not all Christian faiths follow the same traditions and beliefs, predestination was popular to certain groups while there were other faiths that used depictions of the Saints and then there are those who don't really celebrate the Saints. Even then you have different sects of those sects; Baptist and Southern Baptist for example.
halonachos wrote:
@Dogma: I just think its funny that you're speculation on this subject seems pro soul/heaven by being anti-Hawking and your sig is a quote from a man who wrote "Why I am Not a Christian".
Bad arguments are bad regardless of their actual content.
halonachos wrote:
@Dogma: I just think its funny that you're speculation on this subject seems pro soul/heaven by being anti-Hawking and your sig is a quote from a man who wrote "Why I am Not a Christian".
Bad arguments are bad regardless of their actual content.
I just lost a bit of respect for Hawking through this, that's all. Clearly he's entitled to his opinions I just thought he was a bit classier than that.
Ahtman wrote:I have to admit I am enjoying the argument that souls have exist because ghosts might exist.
Ghosts do exist!
...and you have proof?
Despite the fact that my neighbor's son stays at home, and nobody named "Abi" has ever been to their house he'll sometimes ask "Where's Abi?". Then there's the fact that my neighbor's fiancee has dreams about a young girl named "Abi" and when my friend was young he once saw a young girl sitting on his bed. Their front door opens and closes on its own sometimes and it's the primary reason I never slept over his house when we were younger, tried it once but that damn door pulled one of its tricks that night.
Then there was the time I saw my cat, which was cool except he had died the week before.
halonachos wrote:@Airman: Your view on Christians seems incredibly broad and vague
As it should be since they're a large and diverse group. I was trying to tie them together via the following of Jesus (as a path to salvation) but I'll admit I was flawed in my approach. The original point that was made was that Christianity isn't based upon salvation, in which I disagreed with. But apparently that's just me.
halonachos wrote:Despite the fact that my neighbor's son stays at home, and nobody named "Abi" has ever been to their house he'll sometimes ask "Where's Abi?". Then there's the fact that my neighbor's fiancee has dreams about a young girl named "Abi" and when my friend was young he once saw a young girl sitting on his bed. Their front door opens and closes on its own sometimes and it's the primary reason I never slept over his house when we were younger, tried it once but that damn door pulled one of its tricks that night.
Then there was the time I saw my cat, which was cool except he had died the week before.
We cannot understand these things unless we understand what consciousness is. Some scientists argue that it is preserved after death in quantum particles (or something like that), which if it was true, would give a good explanation for a lot of things, like ghosts. Not a supernatural one, but a scientific reason why ghosts could, in fact, exist. Of course, there is little evidence to support this, but I think it is plausible, if scientists think so too.
Mike Noble wrote:We cannot understand these things unless we understand what consciousness is. Some scientists argue that it is preserved after death in quantum particles (or something like that), which if it was true, would give a good explanation for a lot of things, like ghosts. Not a supernatural one, but a scientific reason why ghosts could, in fact, exist. Of course, there is little evidence to support this, but I think it is plausible, if scientists think so too.
Which scientists?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:
Fafnir wrote:Photoshop's wonderful, ain't it?
See, you clearly didn't see it; go back and look again.
If you look in the bottom right hand corner, next to the stairs, there is an uncanny giant sperm.
halonachos wrote:Despite the fact that my neighbor's son stays at home, and nobody named "Abi" has ever been to their house he'll sometimes ask "Where's Abi?". Then there's the fact that my neighbor's fiancee has dreams about a young girl named "Abi" and when my friend was young he once saw a young girl sitting on his bed. Their front door opens and closes on its own sometimes and it's the primary reason I never slept over his house when we were younger, tried it once but that damn door pulled one of its tricks that night.
Then there was the time I saw my cat, which was cool except he had died the week before.
You're just jealous that I saw a ghost and you didn't.
Mike Noble wrote:We cannot understand these things unless we understand what consciousness is. Some scientists argue that it is preserved after death in quantum particles (or something like that), which if it was true, would give a good explanation for a lot of things, like ghosts. Not a supernatural one, but a scientific reason why ghosts could, in fact, exist. Of course, there is little evidence to support this, but I think it is plausible, if scientists think so too.
Which scientists?
Some. Like I said, this is just something that has been suggested. I doubt it has any research done yet. I really cannot remember where I read this though, if I do I'll link it. It may be easier to just Google it though.
Slarg232 wrote:See, you clearly didn't see it; go back and look again.
Did you see that amazing documentary where humanity went to this planet with giant blue natives and they all started fighting? I didn't even know we had gone further than the moon! What an eye opener!
Mike Noble wrote:We cannot understand these things unless we understand what consciousness is. Some scientists argue that it is preserved after death in quantum particles (or something like that), which if it was true, would give a good explanation for a lot of things, like ghosts. Not a supernatural one, but a scientific reason why ghosts could, in fact, exist. Of course, there is little evidence to support this, but I think it is plausible, if scientists think so too.
Which scientists?
Some. Like I said, this is just something that has been suggested. I doubt it has any research done yet. I really cannot remember where I read this though, if I do I'll link it. It may be easier to just Google it though.
Without any kind of reference it is rather an ectoplasmic claim.
"I think I read somewhere that some scientists said blah blah blah" doesn't really support your hypothesis.
The onus is on you to produce references in support of your claim, so that people who disagree will be able to do the appropriate research.
Ahtman wrote:I have to admit I am enjoying the argument that souls have exist because ghosts might exist.
Ghosts do exist!
...and you have proof?
That face to the left is disconcerting as in, OHCRAPEMPTYTHECLIPNOWSTABWITHTHESWISSARMYKNIFESTABSTABSTABYEATHATSHOWWEDOITINTTEXASGHOSTFREAKHEYWHYYOUCRYIN?
I've already stated my views on the matter, but just as a little side note on the "do ghosts exist" side of the argument:
-While I'm not trying to prove whether or not you've seen something paranormal, many of the purported "hauntings" of older houses are actually caused by a little bit of caveman left in your brain. Basically, when you hear infrasound (sound with a lower frequency than you can normally hear), caused usually by old pipes or areas of resonance, your body goes into "alert" mode, as if a saber toothed tiger was hunting you. This leads to your body being "paranoid", in a sense, as it will detect threats and anomalies even when there are none, as this little bit of caveman left says "predator nearby. Be on the lookout".
micahaphone wrote:I've already stated my views on the matter, but just as a little side note on the "do ghosts exist" side of the argument:
-While I'm not trying to prove whether or not you've seen something paranormal, many of the purported "hauntings" of older houses are actually caused by a little bit of caveman left in your brain. Basically, when you hear infrasound (sound with a lower frequency than you can normally hear), caused usually by old pipes or areas of resonance, your body goes into "alert" mode, as if a saber toothed tiger was hunting you. This leads to your body being "paranoid", in a sense, as it will detect threats and anomalies even when there are none, as this little bit of caveman left says "predator nearby. Be on the lookout".
To expand on this: certain frequencies can also vibrate the retina, causing minor visual hallucinations as one tries to interpret junk data indicating movement in the corner of one's eye. Here's a Cracked article for further elaboration.
Melissia wrote:What, because a famous old dude said he doesn't believe in heaven it requires a dozen pages of debate?
A significant amount of it was due to people who couldn't understand that it wasn't his opinion that was objected to, it was the insult he tagged on to the end.
micahaphone wrote:I've already stated my views on the matter, but just as a little side note on the "do ghosts exist" side of the argument:
-While I'm not trying to prove whether or not you've seen something paranormal, many of the purported "hauntings" of older houses are actually caused by a little bit of caveman left in your brain. Basically, when you hear infrasound (sound with a lower frequency than you can normally hear), caused usually by old pipes or areas of resonance, your body goes into "alert" mode, as if a saber toothed tiger was hunting you. This leads to your body being "paranoid", in a sense, as it will detect threats and anomalies even when there are none, as this little bit of caveman left says "predator nearby. Be on the lookout".
To expand on this: certain frequencies can also vibrate the retina, causing minor visual hallucinations as one tries to interpret junk data indicating movement in the corner of one's eye. Here's a Cracked article for further elaboration.
What about the 'full-body apparitions' that some people see? I wouldn't call seeing an entire person who wasn't actually there a minor hallucination. Things happen and sometimes they can't be explained. Now the spots that people think are ghosts are usually dust or some kind of hallucination and maybe full blown bodies are as well, but little kids saying names that they've never heard before has no bit of survival instinct behind it.
Avatar- A lot people understood what people were objecting to. However If that is his opinion he should be able to say it. His ability to voice his opinion his views is more important than hurting peoples feelings. If you don't like what he says that's fine but stopping people from saying things because you dislike them is wrong.
4M2A wrote:However If that is his opinion he should be able to say it.
And he did.
4M2A wrote:If you don't like what he says that's fine but stopping people from saying things because you dislike them is wrong.
So people should be free to say what they want, unless what they want to say is in disagreement with what someone else already said? Doesn't seem very consistent. That doesn't seem very consistent at all.
4M2A wrote:However If that is his opinion he should be able to say it.
And he did.
4M2A wrote:If you don't like what he says that's fine but stopping people from saying things because you dislike them is wrong.
So people should be free to say what they want, unless what they want to say is in disagreement with what someone else already said? Doesn't seem very consistent. That doesn't seem very consistent at all.
That phrase is inconsistent. Inconsistent that is unless its said from inside the CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT!
If his opinion is that religious people are afraid of the dark then my belief is that he should be able to say it.
I may not have been very clear but my second sentence was saying that not being able to say what you think because other people don't like isn't right- exactly the opposite of how ahtman took it. If you don't like someones opinion your free to judge them on it but they aren't wrong for voicing it.
4M2A wrote:If his opinion is that religious people are afraid of the dark then my belief is that he should be able to say it.
I may not have been very clear but my second sentence was saying that not being able to say what you think because other people don't like isn't right- exactly the opposite of how ahtman took it. If you don't like someones opinion your free to judge them on it but they aren't wrong for voicing it.
Thats fine and I am able to tell him to feth off. He's just jealous of people who can talk.
Yeah you can, none of these comments were aimed at you frazzled, you seem to understand freedom of speech better than many. However everyone saying he shouldn't be able to say that needs to remeber it's just his opinion, it only has as much importance as you give it.
So I should be able to say that he's a crazy old windbag who hasn't had the common decency to die, if that was my opinion?
He didn't state it as his opinion, it was stated as fact. He didn't say "I think it's a fairy story...", he said "that is a fairy story...".
If it was just 1 person that he insulted, it's likely that nobody would care, but he went and called the followers of several large religions (who will in turn make up a significant amount of the Earth's population) believers of fairy stories who are afraid of the dark.
How can it simply be laughed off when you've gone and poked fun at such a large amount of people? People make regular jokes about a single faith that they can class as their opinion, and even that causes discontent; what did Hawking expect to happen when he chose to say this? Everyone would laugh it off and be all "Ah Hawking, you so cray-zee!"?
I'm disallowed by law to voice any bad opinions about gay couples because of discrimination, why is it wrong if it's about a race or a sexual preference, but absolutely fine if it's a religion?
Avatar 720 wrote:He didn't state it as his opinion, it was stated as fact. He didn't say "I think it's a fairy story...", he said "that is a fairy story...".
How it's worded makes no difference. Without proof it's an opinion. Making everyone say " In my opinion..." before every sentence is going to get tiring very fast.
Avatar 720 wrote:And what about the rest of the post?
I believe the rest of it has also been covered. I personally don't really want to get into it as I am at work and also don't have the time or inclination to discuss it
So I should be able to say that he's a crazy old windbag who hasn't had the common decency to die, if that was my opinion?
***Yes. But you have to say with the patented Clint Eastwood smirk.
He didn't state it as his opinion, it was stated as fact. He didn't say "I think it's a fairy story...", he said "that is a fairy story...".
***Its still his opinion. He's still free to "say" it.
If it was just 1 person that he insulted, it's likely that nobody would care, but he went and called the followers of several large religions (who will in turn make up a significant amount of the Earth's population) believers of fairy stories who are afraid of the dark.
***Again thats why we have the First Amendment. We are equally free to comment back.
How can it simply be laughed off when you've gone and poked fun at such a large amount of people? People make regular jokes about a single faith that they can class as their opinion, and even that causes discontent; what did Hawking expect to happen when he chose to say this? Everyone would laugh it off and be all "Ah Hawking, you so cray-zee!"?
***Its not laughed off. Use the First A to fire right back and call them the verminous dogs and wastes of skin that they are. In the words of the immortal bard: "What? Me?"
I'm disallowed by law to voice any bad opinions about gay couples because of discrimination, why is it wrong if it's about a race or a sexual preference, but absolutely fine if it's a religion?
***Actually thats not correct. Religion is protected just like color and creed under employment discrimination. All else is fair game. If people call you a drooling fatboy, thats their right too.
Avatar 720 wrote:So I should be able to say that he's a crazy old windbag who hasn't had the common decency to die, if that was my opinion?
He didn't state it as his opinion, it was stated as fact. He didn't say "I think it's a fairy story...", he said "that is a fairy story...".
If it was just 1 person that he insulted, it's likely that nobody would care, but he went and called the followers of several large religions (who will in turn make up a significant amount of the Earth's population) believers of fairy stories who are afraid of the dark.
How can it simply be laughed off when you've gone and poked fun at such a large amount of people? People make regular jokes about a single faith that they can class as their opinion, and even that causes discontent; what did Hawking expect to happen when he chose to say this? Everyone would laugh it off and be all "Ah Hawking, you so cray-zee!"?
I'm disallowed by law to voice any bad opinions about gay couples because of discrimination, why is it wrong if it's about a race or a sexual preference, but absolutely fine if it's a religion?
There are laws against discrimination and hate speech about religion, so you put the case of Professor Hawking in the hands of the relevant authorities.
Avatar 720 wrote:So I should be able to say that he's a crazy old windbag who hasn't had the common decency to die, if that was my opinion?
He didn't state it as his opinion, it was stated as fact. He didn't say "I think it's a fairy story...", he said "that is a fairy story...".
If it was just 1 person that he insulted, it's likely that nobody would care, but he went and called the followers of several large religions (who will in turn make up a significant amount of the Earth's population) believers of fairy stories who are afraid of the dark.
How can it simply be laughed off when you've gone and poked fun at such a large amount of people? People make regular jokes about a single faith that they can class as their opinion, and even that causes discontent; what did Hawking expect to happen when he chose to say this? Everyone would laugh it off and be all "Ah Hawking, you so cray-zee!"?
I'm disallowed by law to voice any bad opinions about gay couples because of discrimination, why is it wrong if it's about a race or a sexual preference, but absolutely fine if it's a religion?
There are laws against discrimination and hate speech about religion, so you put the case of Professor Hawking in the hands of the relevant authorities.
Actually, outside of employment law and of course the free speech free zones that are college campuses, there aren't. Thats a good thing.
Avatar 720 wrote:So I should be able to say that he's a crazy old windbag who hasn't had the common decency to die, if that was my opinion?
He didn't state it as his opinion, it was stated as fact. He didn't say "I think it's a fairy story...", he said "that is a fairy story...".
If it was just 1 person that he insulted, it's likely that nobody would care, but he went and called the followers of several large religions (who will in turn make up a significant amount of the Earth's population) believers of fairy stories who are afraid of the dark.
How can it simply be laughed off when you've gone and poked fun at such a large amount of people? People make regular jokes about a single faith that they can class as their opinion, and even that causes discontent; what did Hawking expect to happen when he chose to say this? Everyone would laugh it off and be all "Ah Hawking, you so cray-zee!"?
I'm disallowed by law to voice any bad opinions about gay couples because of discrimination, why is it wrong if it's about a race or a sexual preference, but absolutely fine if it's a religion?
There are laws against discrimination and hate speech about religion, so you put the case of Professor Hawking in the hands of the relevant authorities.
Actually, outside of employment law and of course the free speech free zones that are college campuses, there aren't. Thats a good thing.
Avatar 720 wrote:So I should be able to say that he's a crazy old windbag who hasn't had the common decency to die, if that was my opinion?
He didn't state it as his opinion, it was stated as fact. He didn't say "I think it's a fairy story...", he said "that is a fairy story...".
If it was just 1 person that he insulted, it's likely that nobody would care, but he went and called the followers of several large religions (who will in turn make up a significant amount of the Earth's population) believers of fairy stories who are afraid of the dark.
How can it simply be laughed off when you've gone and poked fun at such a large amount of people? People make regular jokes about a single faith that they can class as their opinion, and even that causes discontent; what did Hawking expect to happen when he chose to say this? Everyone would laugh it off and be all "Ah Hawking, you so cray-zee!"?
I'm disallowed by law to voice any bad opinions about gay couples because of discrimination, why is it wrong if it's about a race or a sexual preference, but absolutely fine if it's a religion?
There are laws against discrimination and hate speech about religion, so you put the case of Professor Hawking in the hands of the relevant authorities.
Actually, outside of employment law and of course the free speech free zones that are college campuses, there aren't. Thats a good thing.
Avatar 720 wrote:
I'm disallowed by law to voice any bad opinions about gay couples because of discrimination, why is it wrong if it's about a race or a sexual preference, but absolutely fine if it's a religion?
Well, the obvious answer is that religion is dumb, and homosexuality is awesome.
The serious answer is that homosexuality has more political influence than religion, because lots of people in Europe really dislike religious folk due to that whole 500 year period in which Christians ran roughshod over the continent; especially homosexuals.
Frazzled wrote:Its not laughed off. Use the First A to fire right back and call them the verminous dogs and wastes of skin that they are. In the words of the immortal bard: "What? Me?"
I laughed it off.
Maybe if people were less possessive of their abstract concepts, as Fraz has often suggested others should be, there would be less violence in the world.
Wow...
We've got:
1. Atheists/Agnostic people displaying anger towards religion and the defense of it,.
2. Religious people getting angry for "being insulted",
And the other guys.
Basically, it's turned into a slug fest of words.
Kasrkai wrote:Wow...
We've got:
1. Atheists/Agnostic people displaying anger towards religion and the defense of it,.
2. Religious people getting angry for "being insulted",
And the other guys.
Basically, it's turned into a slug fest of words.
Wat do?
I assume you're new here, if you look on the Off-Topic forum's previous threads discussing the topic of religion this is the norm rather than the exception.
Kasrkai wrote:Wow...
We've got:
1. Atheists/Agnostic people displaying anger towards religion and the defense of it,.
2. Religious people getting angry for "being insulted",
And the other guys.
Basically, it's turned into a slug fest of words.
Wat do?
I assume you're new here, if you look on the Off-Topic forum's previous threads discussing the topic of religion this is the norm rather than the exception.
Most religions (Islam, Hindu, Christian) tend to preach tolerance.
Smells ironic in here.
And It's my first Dakka religion thing, but I debate Religion all the time. People around me say "spiritualist? You need moar Jezus.
Kasrkai wrote:
Most religions (Islam, Hindu, Christian) tend to preach tolerance.
[QUOTE=Leviticus 18:21 -22
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
[QUOTE=Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57 wrote:Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.
You reference Christian but then only quote the Old Testament, and from the same book no less.
The other argument being that you found 3 sentences from fairly decent sized tomes. For each quote there are also ones that call for love, peace, and other hippie crap.
Fafnir wrote:Well, there are plenty of goodies, but they tend to be too long for general forum reading.
Again, on both sides of the argument. It is almost as if it is a complicated issue and certainly not one where quoting three sentences would actually prove anything. To do such a thing would almost require a person to be purposefully antagonistic or to be myopic on the issue.
micahaphone wrote:I've already stated my views on the matter, but just as a little side note on the "do ghosts exist" side of the argument:
-While I'm not trying to prove whether or not you've seen something paranormal, many of the purported "hauntings" of older houses are actually caused by a little bit of caveman left in your brain. Basically, when you hear infrasound (sound with a lower frequency than you can normally hear), caused usually by old pipes or areas of resonance, your body goes into "alert" mode, as if a saber toothed tiger was hunting you. This leads to your body being "paranoid", in a sense, as it will detect threats and anomalies even when there are none, as this little bit of caveman left says "predator nearby. Be on the lookout".
To expand on this: certain frequencies can also vibrate the retina, causing minor visual hallucinations as one tries to interpret junk data indicating movement in the corner of one's eye. Here's a Cracked article for further elaboration.
What about the 'full-body apparitions' that some people see? I wouldn't call seeing an entire person who wasn't actually there a minor hallucination. Things happen and sometimes they can't be explained. Now the spots that people think are ghosts are usually dust or some kind of hallucination and maybe full blown bodies are as well, but little kids saying names that they've never heard before has no bit of survival instinct behind it.
I'd certainly like to see more research into the matter, but unfortunately, right now the only people concerned (as in devoting time and resources for research) with it are weirdos who get their own TV show for using odd filters on their cameras and shooting footage of "was that something? Who knows? Let's look at a blurry rewind!", or the type who you suspect own a few tin foil hats. Damn you, LHC. We don't need to know about the origin of the universe, or what exactly is in an atom, or what happens when you smash stuff together, we need to learn why sometimes some people hear bumps in the night!
micahaphone wrote:I've already stated my views on the matter, but just as a little side note on the "do ghosts exist" side of the argument:
-While I'm not trying to prove whether or not you've seen something paranormal, many of the purported "hauntings" of older houses are actually caused by a little bit of caveman left in your brain. Basically, when you hear infrasound (sound with a lower frequency than you can normally hear), caused usually by old pipes or areas of resonance, your body goes into "alert" mode, as if a saber toothed tiger was hunting you. This leads to your body being "paranoid", in a sense, as it will detect threats and anomalies even when there are none, as this little bit of caveman left says "predator nearby. Be on the lookout".
To expand on this: certain frequencies can also vibrate the retina, causing minor visual hallucinations as one tries to interpret junk data indicating movement in the corner of one's eye. Here's a Cracked article for further elaboration.
What about the 'full-body apparitions' that some people see? I wouldn't call seeing an entire person who wasn't actually there a minor hallucination. Things happen and sometimes they can't be explained. Now the spots that people think are ghosts are usually dust or some kind of hallucination and maybe full blown bodies are as well, but little kids saying names that they've never heard before has no bit of survival instinct behind it.
I'd certainly like to see more research into the matter, but unfortunately, right now the only people concerned (as in devoting time and resources for research) with it are weirdos who get their own TV show for using odd filters on their cameras and shooting footage of "was that something? Who knows? Let's look at a blurry rewind!", or the type who you suspect own a few tin foil hats. Damn you, LHC. We don't need to know about the origin of the universe, or what exactly is in an atom, or what happens when you smash stuff together, we need to learn why sometimes some people hear bumps in the night!
There's another Cracked article that talks about a study involving stimulation of certain parts of the brain causing the subject to see and sense the presence of another person in the room, including creating a sensation that said person was behind them, while laying on the floor. I started looking for it when I read his reply, but then got sidetracked and just started reading random Cracked articles when I couldn't find it...
So there is neurological research being done into explaining ghost sightings, they just mostly boil down to "yeah, people hallucinate things like figures or voices sometimes, even if they're neurologically healthy," which isn't nearly interesting/surprising enough to really get mainstream propagation.
Yeah, my Psychology professor pretty much says that since there's a wide spectrum between "crazy" and "sane"(using laymens' terms of course) and he thinks that people that say they've seen ghosts are a little closer to "crazy" than those who haven't.
That said, I prefer to live in a world where ghosts could possibly exist, or at least where there's some sort of phenomena that we perceive as ghosts.
So there is neurological research being done into explaining ghost sightings, they just mostly boil down to "yeah, people hallucinate things like figures or voices sometimes, even if they're neurologically healthy," which isn't nearly interesting/surprising enough to really get mainstream propagation.
Yeah the mind is a funny thing. I mean one of its functions is taking abstract data and forming something that is coherent and relatable. Have you ever caught a glimpse of something and while there was no doubt what you saw (or heard) you find out upon closer inspection that you were totally wrong? (maybe like that huge bug you saw walk across the porch that turned out to be a leaf?)It's a pretty odd feeling. It would not surprise me at all if a large portion of ghosts sitings for example were cases of the mind taking something it only glimpsed and 'jumping' to a relatable conclusion.
Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I prefer to live in a world where ghosts could possibly exist, or at least where there's some sort of phenomena that we perceive as ghosts.
And if said ghosts are real, I imagine they are friendly, and have their own cartoon series.
Kasrkai wrote:
Most religions (Islam, Hindu, Christian) tend to preach tolerance.
[QUOTE=Leviticus 18:21 -22
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
[QUOTE=Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57 wrote:Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.
Tolerance!
Fair points.
But then again, "Everything in this book is truly stated, but not everything is a true statement."
I don't think Stephen hawking's comments were intolerant nor do I think he lacks social skills. He is just speaking his mind about a subject which is difficult to disprove to religious people because their argument is you can't disprove it and it has been used as an established explanation for the afterlife for thousands of years. He simply means that for many people the concept of an afterlife for some people is much more comforting then to face the possibility that there could very well be nothing out there at all. Im personally agnostic in which I don't believe in any religion but I don't count out the possibility of a greater force, no matter how unlikely I think that is. Personally I think the idea of a creator simply devalues the wonders our universe has to offer and the achievements of our species.
Leviticus 18:21 -22[/QUOTE wrote:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
The fire of Molech was a pagan sacrifical fire where they'd throw unwanted babies. It's one scriptural basis for Christians to be pro-life / anti-abortion
Leviticus 18:21 -22[/QUOTE wrote:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
The fire of Molech was a pagan sacrifical fire where they'd throw unwanted babies. It's one scriptural basis for Christians to be pro-life / anti-abortion
Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.
Leviticus 18:21 -22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.
What I am getting from that is if you are male sleeping with another man you can't let the other man steal all the covers like a woman would... And if you are a woman you can't spend all night gossiping with a man.
The previous bit sounds like you can't pleasure yourself into some blokes fire, which is sensible advice really.
Leviticus 18:21 -22[/QUOTE wrote:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
The fire of Molech was a pagan sacrifical fire where they'd throw unwanted babies. It's one scriptural basis for Christians to be pro-life / anti-abortion
Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.
he's referencing Eissfeldt's theory... (basically he has no idea what he is talking about and is talking out of his butt...)
Leviticus 18:21 -22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.
What I am getting from that is if you are male sleeping with another man you can't let the other man steal all the covers like a woman would... And if you are a woman you can't spend all night gossiping with a man.
The previous bit sounds like you can't pleasure yourself into some blokes fire, which is sensible advice really.
Leviticus 18:21 -22[/QUOTE wrote:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
The fire of Molech was a pagan sacrifical fire where they'd throw unwanted babies. It's one scriptural basis for Christians to be pro-life / anti-abortion
Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.
If one assumes that "seed" refers to descendants in a broader sense, rather than literally semen, it makes sense.
However it isn't necessarily a prohibition against abortion, it can be read as a prohibition against sacrificing to rival gods.
halonachos wrote:Don't read Leviticus, its not like other Bible passages. It's some guy making stuff up so I would rather stick with the plain gospel.
Well, what most people saying "Christians suck!" are really saying is that "Christians who believe in Biblical literalism suck!" so it isn't quite that easy.
halonachos wrote:Don't read Leviticus, its not like other Bible passages. It's some guy making stuff up so I would rather stick with the plain gospel.
This is my problem with interpreting holy texts... Without actually consulting the author how can we determine which parts of the book are supposed to be taken literally, which are allegorical, etc, with any kind of authority? Or even which bits to apply and which to ignore? All the bits that have been taken out over the years (from the very start in some cases) have been removed to further someones earthly agenda. King James Bible for example...
I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.
I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....
Its possible that its just a result of some sort of cultural norm. In essence people believe that said loved one went to a happy place, and dream about it because they have strong emotions at the time of passing.
Slarg232 wrote:I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.
I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....
I've never heard of everyone having the same dream after another human died. Are you referring to near death experience? Non-believer's is a pretty broad term as not all religions have the same idea of an afterlife, or necessarily believe in one.
dogma wrote:And if said ghosts are real, I imagine they are friendly, and have their own cartoon series.
With an insectoid co-host and extra special guest interviews?
Seriously though, I'm not even talking about the spirits of the departed as "ghosts" maybe just light reflected off of something back in 1876 going around a really weird curve in space and bouncing into somebody's retina.
Monster Rain wrote:
With an insectoid co-host and extra special guest interviews?
I was thinking Casper, though the Space variety is absolutely superior.
I miss Blip.
Monster Rain wrote:
Seriously though, I'm not even talking about the spirits of the departed as "ghosts" maybe just light reflected off of something back in 1876 going around a really weird curve in space and bouncing into somebody's retina.
Don't even get me started on my pet theory of "If particles are actually waves, maybe all of our brain particle-waves comingling are the basis for Jung's Collective Unconscious what with my neurons firing into yours and whatnot."
Slarg232 wrote:I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.
I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....
Blackskullandy wrote:Or even which bits to apply and which to ignore?
Which ones do you like?
I don't trust any of them as far as i could throw them
I'm more likely to follow Ancient Astronaut theory than any religion or specific gospel... The book of enoch has some interesting stuff in it though.
As a preparation for my oral exam, I asked three students (a muslim, a christians, and a hindu) how they read their respective religious texts. All their answers basically boiled down to this: Through metaphors, the
texts establish various moral and ethical laws on how to treat other people, and how to become a better person. Although the study only included three guys, it was still interesting
Slarg232 wrote:I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.
I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....
I had a dream I was having sex with Marilyn Monroe and I woke up all of a pother.
No but it does prove the existence of Hell if the wife hears about it. remember, just because its a dream doersn't mean the Wife won't drop a provolone beatdown on you!
Frazzled wrote:No but it does prove the existence of Hell if the wife hears about it. remember, just because its a dream doersn't mean the Wife won't drop a provolone beatdown on you!
I don't see why we have to bring delicious cheeses into this.
Monster Rain wrote:Belinda Carlisle says that Heaven is a Place on Earth.
Well Janis Joplin said freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose and she'd kcik Belinda Carlisle's ass (or more properly puke all over her).
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
Everybody!
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
Terje-Tubby wrote:As a preparation for my oral exam, I asked three students (a muslim, a christians, and a hindu) how they read their respective religious texts. All their answers basically boiled down to this: Through metaphors, the
texts establish various moral and ethical laws on how to treat other people, and how to become a better person. Although the study only included three guys, it was still interesting
Morals like animal sacrafice? please show me morals that exist in the book that aren't directly contradicted on a different page in the same book....
Terje-Tubby wrote:As a preparation for my oral exam, I asked three students (a muslim, a christians, and a hindu) how they read their respective religious texts. All their answers basically boiled down to this: Through metaphors, the
texts establish various moral and ethical laws on how to treat other people, and how to become a better person. Although the study only included three guys, it was still interesting
Morals like animal sacrafice? please show me morals that exist in the book that aren't directly contradicted on a different page in the same book....
Yeah, because only religious things, and not things law laws, would have contradictions in them. Contradiction means immoral and proof of no religious truth!
Slarg232 wrote:I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.
I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....
I had a dream I was having sex with Marilyn Monroe and I woke up all of a pother.
Does that show that heaven exists?
No, but that's totally different.
If a family member dies, and everyone in the family has the exact same dream of that person, as happy as can be, how does that not at least give heaven the potential of existing?
Slarg232 wrote:I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.
I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....
I had a dream I was having sex with Marilyn Monroe and I woke up all of a pother.
Does that show that heaven exists?
No, but that's totally different.
If a family member dies, and everyone in the family has the exact same dream of that person, as happy as can be, how does that not at least give heaven the potential of existing?
I am so flabbergasted at this that I don't know how to respond. It is such an amazing statement to make that I can't tell if we are being toyed with or if it is genuine.
Slarg232 wrote:
If a family member dies, and everyone in the family has the exact same dream of that person, as happy as can be, how does that not at least give heaven the potential of existing?
Guinea pigs, the world's most ridiculously unsurvivable animal, exist therefore heaven has the potential to exist. You can claim that any single thing X exists therefore any other single thing Y, unless it can be shown that Y cannot or does not exist, has the potential to exist because you have established the existence of existence.
That bit of logic aside, I'm interested in how you prove every relevant person had exactly the same dream. Certainly not by their word, so this must be some impressive neuroscience.
If you were having a go at us why would I believe this?
I have to admit that using group think as proof of heaven is certainly a new approach. Since we can't see what people visualize in there dreams their is no way to know that people have the 'exact same' dream.
Slarg232 wrote:
If a family member dies, and everyone in the family has the exact same dream of that person, as happy as can be, how does that not at least give heaven the potential of existing?
Guinea pigs, the world's most ridiculously unsurvivable animal, exist therefore heaven has the potential to exist. You can claim that any single thing X exists therefore any other single thing Y, unless it can be shown that Y cannot or does not exist, has the potential to exist because you have established the existence of existence.
That bit of logic aside, I'm interested in how you prove every relevant person had exactly the same dream.
You can not claim that any single thing X exists therefore Y exists, but how do you explain this happening if not some form of afterlife?
Ahtman wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:Genuine, to tell the truth.
If you were having a go at us why would I believe this?
I have to admit that using group think as proof of heaven is certainly a new approach. Since we can't see what people visualize in there dreams their is no way to know that people have the 'exact same' dream.
The first part is up to you to decide. Though I admit that the second part is true.
I for one have never even heard of people dying and the entire family (how does this work by the way? I mean going on a biblical sense everyone is descended from adam and eve thus surely when anyone dies everyone must have a dream about it) having a dream about that person being happy, I for one have had many deaths in the family and have never dreamt about them...
Slarg232 wrote:
You can not claim that any single thing X exists therefore Y exists,
I didn't say therefore Y exists I said therefore Y has the potential to exist, its an important difference.
Slarg232 wrote:
but how do you explain this happening if not some form of afterlife?
I gave you an answer above, but an easier answer is simply that people lie, all the time. The canon example is how people lie regarding voting behavior. In America we get about 50-60% voter turnout in Presidential elections, but about 80% of any given survey response group will claim to have voted. This indicates one, or both, of two things, people lie about things they believe they should have done or experienced, and that people who voted may be more likely to take a survey.
Slarg232 wrote:I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.
I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....
I had a dream I was having sex with Marilyn Monroe and I woke up all of a pother.
Does that show that heaven exists?
No, but that's totally different.
If a family member dies, and everyone in the family has the exact same dream of that person, as happy as can be, how does that not at least give heaven the potential of existing?
dogma wrote:I gave you an answer above, but an easier answer is simply that people lie, all the time. The canon example is how people lie regarding voting behavior. In America we get about 50-60% voter turnout in Presidential elections, but about 80% of any given survey response group will claim to have voted. This indicates one, or both, of two things, people lie about things they believe they should have done or experienced, and that people who voted may be more likely to take a survey.
Reminds of a recent study that showed people lie about what movies they seen. Roughly 30% of the people asked said they had seen The Godfather when they hadn't.
Monster Rain wrote:Were they lying on purpose or did they actually think they had seen it just through all the pop-culture references to it and whatnot?
Terje-Tubby wrote:As a preparation for my oral exam, I asked three students (a muslim, a christians, and a hindu) how they read their respective religious texts. All their answers basically boiled down to this: Through metaphors, the
texts establish various moral and ethical laws on how to treat other people, and how to become a better person. Although the study only included three guys, it was still interesting
Morals like animal sacrafice? please show me morals that exist in the book that aren't directly contradicted on a different page in the same book....
Probably moral stories within the same chapter. The thing with the Bible that a lot of people don't think about is that Jesus wasn't always the Jesus we think of, he used to be angry and spiteful but became more peaceful and like what we should try to be. It wasn't till the end that he was the really chill guy that most churches focus on. There's also a lot of interpretation in the Bible, like any religious text. The there's the fact that Old Testament and New Testament are mixed into the Bible.
Well new job keeps me away from wonderful threads like this...
I made it 6 pages through before dejavu set in.
To the OP. Hawkings comment was offensive, because he compared religious belief to childrens fantasy. "fairy tales". I.E.. he marginalized peoples beliefs when he has his own beliefs.
This whole question of "Why is it wrong to be disrespectful to Christians?" I mean really...is this question being asked with a straight face? There is nothing wrong with questioning or having doubts or even really, really, really, believing that the Bible is a myth. And I would say that there is nothing wrong with expressing this unbelief to a believer. The problem arises when the expression of unbelief crosses a line from respectful debate/exchange of of ideas, to mockery.
The problem with mockery, is that mockery is based on a system of beliefs itself and therefore in and of itself is hypocritical.
Generalgrog-You believe that being respectful of people beliefs comes above peoples right to say what they think- Not everyone agrees.
I find it insulting when i'm told i'm going to hell but they have the right to thing and say that. I'll just ignore them and think less of them- people should do the same here
I'm sorry but people don't have to be nice to you, if they are thats good but it won't always happen. It's just life.
I don't really have a personal issue with religion. I'm an aethist but I don't care if people are religious. I disagree but without proof either way there isn't any point to arguing. I only get defensive when people start having double standards.
Yes I completely agree that he could have. However a lot of religious people do exactly the same. They don't have to talk about how others are going to be treated worse but they do it anyway. If you want to stop people from saying things "religions is fairytales" then you have to do the same to religions- which would involve cutting out a lot of many religious books.
4M2A wrote: If you want to stop people from saying things "religions is fairytales" then you have to do the same to religions- which would involve cutting out a lot of many religious books.
No one wants to stop him from saying whatever he wants to say.
It's just not out of bounds to call someone a dick if they say something, well, dickish.
Yeah, call him what ever you like. What I was objecting to was that people seemed to be saying "oh look the aethists doing it again" when religious people do the same thing.
As I posted earlier the way the freedom of speech works for you is ok. Over here he would not have been able to say that as he was targeting religion while religions can say whatever they want back. I was arguing with that idea.
4M2A wrote:As I posted earlier the way the freedom of speech works for you is ok. Over here he would not have been able to say that as he was targeting religion while religions can say whatever they want back. I was arguing with that idea.
Really? We have laws that mean openly targeting religions can get you in a bit of trouble. From what I've heard from Americans on Dakka you have true freedom of speech. granted critising religion may not go down well but I didn't think you had laws against it.
I'm not sure if Hawking would have got away with that over here.
Monster Rain wrote:One can state one's beliefs without being an donkey-cave.
Sometimes, but not all the time. The weight falls on the listener just as much to gauge their reaction. There are people that no matter how nicely you put something will just act like an donkey-cave. You could say "Well, X doesn't really appeal to me" and they will respond "OMG WHAT ARE YOU STUPID WHY MUST YOU BE SO FULL OF HATE GRBLBLBLBLBL".
Monster Rain wrote:One can state one's beliefs without being an donkey-cave.
Sometimes, but not all the time. The weight falls on the listener just as much to gauge their reaction. There are people that no matter how nicely you put something will just act like an donkey-cave. You could say "Well, X doesn't really appeal to me" and they will respond "OMG WHAT ARE YOU STUPID WHY MUST YOU BE SO FULL OF HATE GRBLBLBLBLBL".
Its also worth noting that "I don't believe that heaven exists." is a belief which is distinct from "I believe that heaven cannot exist." If Hawking believes the latter, and not the former, saying otherwise would have been pandering. The same goes for "I believe that those who do believe in the existence of God do so out of childish fear." and "I believe that those who do believe in the existence of God do so out of sincere consideration."
Of course, Hawking is a theoretical physicist and mathematics professor, not a philosopher, theologian, or even logician. So, while he is a very smart man, it should be remembered that being smart doesn't mean being knowledgeable, and no matter how smart you are, knowledge is still a prerequisite for saying sensible things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
...or there's an underreported amount of fraud.
just sayin'.
There's also a pattern which suggests that people become more likely to claim a vote for the victor as time passes, which seems to indicate that if large amounts of fraud exists, it isn't very effective.
Monster Rain wrote:One can state one's beliefs without being an donkey-cave.
Sometimes, but not all the time. The weight falls on the listener just as much to gauge their reaction. There are people that no matter how nicely you put something will just act like an donkey-cave. You could say "Well, X doesn't really appeal to me" and they will respond "OMG WHAT ARE YOU STUPID WHY MUST YOU BE SO FULL OF HATE GRBLBLBLBLBL".
Well, yeah. People are always looking to be offended. I think more people read or heard what Hawking said and didn't really care than got all upset about it, though. It's usually just a few wingnuts who get really bent out of shape about stuff like this.
dogma wrote:Its also worth noting that "I don't believe that heaven exists." is a belief which is distinct from "I believe that heaven cannot exist." If Hawking believes the latter, and not the former, saying otherwise would have been pandering. The same goes for "I believe that those who do believe in the existence of God do so out of childish fear." and "I believe that those who do believe in the existence of God do so out of sincere consideration.".
Right, I'm not saying he shouldn't say whatever he wants. I'm just saying that if you call a significant percentage of the world's population childish you can reasonably expect backlash. I'm religious, and I'm not mad at Hawking.
dogma wrote:Of course, Hawking is a theoretical physicist and mathematics professor, not a philosopher, theologian, or even logician. So, while he is a very smart man, it should be remembered that being smart doesn't mean being knowledgeable, and no matter how smart you are, knowledge is still a prerequisite for saying sensible things.
Terje-Tubby wrote:As a preparation for my oral exam, I asked three students (a muslim, a christians, and a hindu) how they read their respective religious texts. All their answers basically boiled down to this: Through metaphors, the
texts establish various moral and ethical laws on how to treat other people, and how to become a better person. Although the study only included three guys, it was still interesting
Morals like animal sacrafice? please show me morals that exist in the book that aren't directly contradicted on a different page in the same book....
Woah, cool down boy. I´m not religious, all I said was how my religious friends interpret their religious texts.
Besides, religion isn´t as static as you seem to believe. If I read the Bible, and decide that helping poor people is real swell, then where´s the problem?
Don´t take my word for it though, Iv´e only read the few first pages of Genesis
4M2A wrote:Really? We have laws that mean openly targeting religions can get you in a bit of trouble. From what I've heard from Americans on Dakka you have true freedom of speech. granted critising religion may not go down well but I didn't think you had laws against it.
I'm not sure if Hawking would have got away with that over here.
Then you also have the MAC who love to protest by saying things like "kill the pope" and the EDL who decide to fight back.
Hawking would've gotten away with it anywhere, its just that he was a jerk about it. You can say that God and Jesus don't exist all you want, but once you call me a moron for believing in them that's where I draw the line.
If you would like a Christians opinion, first and foremost i believe every religion/religious stance has their "crazies" and we should not judge a religion/religious stance based on the crazy peoples actions.
I do believe there is a heaven and there is a hell, i believe both exist do to a combination of faith, reason (please don't state my reasoning is flawed, thats not the point), and earthly experiences. There Have been plenty of books, most with agreeing stories, that report supernatural experiences. I think to myself, Are there that many liars lying about the same thing? or is there something else to this? of course i havent seen heaven or hell (im just not that special). I do believe i have had experiences with God though, because some situations just work out too nicely to be chance, fate, luck, or whatever you wanna call it. How does life, the universe, and everything exist? chance? a few smashing atoms and gasses? it makes more sense to believe in someone with a higher understanding, than you when you are always question the world around us. lastly if you believe in God, and there is none, what do you lose? but if you dont believe in God, and there is one, you lose everything.
ed. 
