"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he told the newspaper.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven of afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark."
It's just not possible to prove there's no heaven, just like it's not possible to prove there is. Well there's several ways, like throwing yourself off the empire state building, but it's not like you'll be able to tell anyone what came next...
Science is one thing, but Human mind is something very different. I don't think that everything ends with the dark, then how the hell did we become us in the beginning?
We start with something, and we end with something for sure. That's my philosophy...
I believe that when we die and go trough tunnel ( we all know the tunnel exist ), we just reaper in another body and start all over against ( witch is kind of boring in the first 20 years with school and everything... ).
I am suprised that Hawking would write something like that. After his years of struggling to exist through force of will it seems odd that he would discount spirituality.
As intellectual as SH is, he apparently hasn't got tolerance figured out, and obviously can't take the fact that people (a very large number at that, albeit in different forms) have different opinions than he does.
He's managed to make a blanket statement about almost every major religion (those that believe in some form of afterlife) that labels them as people who tell fairy tales and are afraid of the dark; congratulations Hawking, you've managed to insult a large percentage of the Earth's population with one dickish statement.
He's not the first, and won't be the last, but for someone who is supposed to be 'smart', he really lacks tact and tolerance of the beliefs of others.
Avatar 720 wrote:As intellectual as SH is, he apparently hasn't got tolerance figured out, and obviously can't take the fact that people (a very large number at that, albeit in different forms) have different opinions than he does.
I dont think thats quite fair. He has been silent on this issue for a long time, unlike others. This is not the first atheistic comment he has made, he considers the non existence of God to be plausible and likely from within his own paradigm and he clearly he states it as such. No absolutes or in his commentaries, or the veiled absolutes masked as maybes as we get from Dawkins. I am comfortable with Hawking's opinion, it is no in-the-face challenge or message of intolerance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
snurl wrote:I am suprised that Hawking would write something like that. After his years of struggling to exist through force of will it seems odd that he would discount spirituality.
Actually Hawking has had to deal with skewed dice rolls for a long time, someone gave him Int:18 Con:3, if it was God and it happened to me, I would be pissed off too.
I think it's pretty safe to saw Hawking understands the natural world in a far deeper way than any of us.
But that doesn't give him any greater insight into the supernatural world, you know, with the supernatural world being beyond the natural world, pretty much by definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avatar 720 wrote:As intellectual as SH is, he apparently hasn't got tolerance figured out, and obviously can't take the fact that people (a very large number at that, albeit in different forms) have different opinions than he does.
He's managed to make a blanket statement about almost every major religion (those that believe in some form of afterlife) that labels them as people who tell fairy tales and are afraid of the dark; congratulations Hawking, you've managed to insult a large percentage of the Earth's population with one dickish statement.
He's not the first, and won't be the last, but for someone who is supposed to be 'smart', he really lacks tact and tolerance of the beliefs of others.
Exactly what are atheists allowed to say about their beliefs, that won't come across as intolerant?
Ill rank that up there with alot of what Bill Maher (sp?) says. Hes a smart guy, but a total donkey-cave if you disagree with him. Nothing annoys me more then people that insult others beliefs. Believe in what you want, worship what you want, thats fine with me, because it really doesnt effect me in the least. But, people that bash on others beliefs just piss me off.
He was asked about his stance on religion. He gave it. That doesn't mean he necessarily believes that anyone who has faith is an idiot or "afraid of the dark".
sebster wrote:I think it's pretty safe to saw Hawking understands the natural world in a far deeper way than any of us.
But that doesn't give him any greater insight into the supernatural world, you know, with the supernatural world being beyond the natural world, pretty much by definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avatar 720 wrote:As intellectual as SH is, he apparently hasn't got tolerance figured out, and obviously can't take the fact that people (a very large number at that, albeit in different forms) have different opinions than he does.
He's managed to make a blanket statement about almost every major religion (those that believe in some form of afterlife) that labels them as people who tell fairy tales and are afraid of the dark; congratulations Hawking, you've managed to insult a large percentage of the Earth's population with one dickish statement.
He's not the first, and won't be the last, but for someone who is supposed to be 'smart', he really lacks tact and tolerance of the beliefs of others.
Exactly what are atheists allowed to say about their beliefs, that won't come across as intolerant?
I was wondering the same thing myself Sebs, There does seem to be a bit of a double standard concerning religious discusion in that many see any statement casting "doubt" at religion as somehow "intolerant"...
Yet,in many cases religion itself is not held to these same standards of "tolerance".
Meh, for the record I don't see how Hawkins ( or anyone else) can prove or disprove the existance of "heaven".
Whatever. I'm more inclined to believe that people are just looking for an excuse to be offended because a famous person said something they don't agree with.
It's almost like *gasp* people have different opinions!
Opinions are fine, and Im not one to jump on the bandwagon of being offended. He could of easily said, IMO there is nothing after we die. No heaven, no pearly gates, nothing. That isnt insulting in the least. What he did say was a jab in the ribs
KingCracker wrote:Opinions are fine, and Im not one to jump on the bandwagon of being offended. He could of easily said, IMO there is nothing after we die. No heaven, no pearly gates, nothing. That isnt insulting in the least. What he did say was a jab in the ribs
But that's just it KC..it's ALL just opinion...and outside of common courtesy..neither side deserves prefferential treatment.
He's managed to make a blanket statement about almost every major religion (those that believe in some form of afterlife) that labels them as people who tell fairy tales and are afraid of the dark; congratulations Hawking, you've managed to insult a large percentage of the Earth's population with one dickish statement.
KingCracker wrote:Opinions are fine, and Im not one to jump on the bandwagon of being offended. He could of easily said, IMO there is nothing after we die. No heaven, no pearly gates, nothing. That isnt insulting in the least. What he did say was a jab in the ribs
But that's just it KC..it's ALL just opinion...and outside of common courtesy..neither side deserves prefferential treatment.
I guess you make a valid point. I was always raised to be respectful of other peoples beliefs, but thats me being courteous. And I forget it does go both ways
KingCracker wrote:Opinions are fine, and Im not one to jump on the bandwagon of being offended. He could of easily said, IMO there is nothing after we die. No heaven, no pearly gates, nothing. That isnt insulting in the least. What he did say was a jab in the ribs
But that really is what most atheists believe.
He might have used more neutral language, and said something like "I believe that most religious people believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of the thought of nothingness after death". Is that any less "offensive", at the end of the day?
I agree with him... it's nothing groundbreaking there.
Think: What was it like before you were born? Nothing. After you die, probably the same thing. There is no evidence to support the existance of an afterlife, and thus, no reason to believe in one.
"You can't disprove Heaven/Hell/God" is not a good enough argument. It's just like saying "you can't disprove Santa Claus." The burden of proof lies on the person raising the argument.
He's managed to make a blanket statement about almost every major religion (those that believe in some form of afterlife) that labels them as people who tell fairy tales and are afraid of the dark; congratulations Hawking, you've managed to insult a large percentage of the Earth's population with one dickish statement.
He's managed to make a blanket statement about almost every major religion (those that believe in some form of afterlife) that labels them as people who tell fairy tales and are afraid of the dark; congratulations Hawking, you've managed to insult a large percentage of the Earth's population with one dickish statement.
Avatar 720 wrote:As intellectual as SH is, he apparently hasn't got tolerance figured out, and obviously can't take the fact that people (a very large number at that, albeit in different forms) have different opinions than he does.
He's managed to make a blanket statement about almost every major religion (those that believe in some form of afterlife) that labels them as people who tell fairy tales and are afraid of the dark; congratulations Hawking, you've managed to insult a large percentage of the Earth's population with one dickish statement.
He's not the first, and won't be the last, but for someone who is supposed to be 'smart', he really lacks tact and tolerance of the beliefs of others.
Some really really smart people have god awful social skills. It's true!
Fafnir wrote:Think: What was it like before you were born? Nothing. After you die, probably the same thing. There is no evidence to support the existance of an afterlife, and thus, no reason to believe in one.
How could there be evidence? Asking for material proof of the existance of the supernatural is to misunderstand both the natural and supernatural worlds.
"You can't disprove Heaven/Hell/God" is not a good enough argument. It's just like saying "you can't disprove Santa Claus." The burden of proof lies on the person raising the argument.
The default state for what lies beyond the natural world is 'unknown/unknowable'. "There is nothing" is just as much of a claim for what lies beyond it as "there is the Creator, and we go to Him when we die".
There is no burden of proof, because it isn't law court. It's a point of spirituality. You believe what you believe.
Ill rank that up there with alot of what Bill Maher (sp?) says. Hes a smart guy, but a total donkey-cave if you disagree with him. Nothing annoys me more then people that insult others beliefs. Believe in what you want, worship what you want, thats fine with me, because it really doesnt effect me in the least. But, people that bash on others beliefs just piss me off.
I don't believe you and you are full of gak! You are stupid for having that opinion!
Seen it, some very interesting points. But while half the time his interviews demonstrated a valid argument, the other half struck me as a bully's use of editing.
I think that's why I got into 40K. It provided a more plausible belief system then anything humanity has come up with so far!
'The Daemons made me do it!'
God obviously doesn't exist in the grimdark future. (just the emperor)
If those techno-anachronists can work it out (bearing in mind most of them don't even know about Chaos) why can't we?
People have been arguing about the existence of Heaven/God for thousands of years, People like Hawking (and on the other side) come along and say something as if its a fact. Its not!
There are arguments on both sides that are pretty solid, but not actually brining any factual evidence.
Its all about faith.
rodgers37 wrote:People have been arguing about the existence of Heaven/God for thousands of years...
Unless by saying "People have been arguing" you really mean that being an atheist was punishable by death until a few centuries ago then no, you're quite wrong. No such public forum for the debate on the existence of God has existed for anywhere near thousands of years.
I love it. The arrogance of religious people is brilliant.
"We've got a book that is thousand's of years old and you have to believe in what it says, you can't question it or my beliefs... unless you want to create another faction of said religion based on the fact you think you understand this book better than the other religious believers and you know what it really means."
However no matter what faction you follow you all still believe that people shouldn't question the existence of your God and take offence if not given respect.
Whereas a scientist makes a statement, and expects his peers to review it and the evidence. They will then agree with them or point out where they think the evidence is weak, wrong or can't be proved. That scientist doesn't then have a fit over this.
The fact the scientific community does this puts it way ahead of the opinions of any religious person as far as I'm concerned.
Aristotle didn't believe in God... He was around more than a few centuries ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:I love it. The arrogance of religious people is brilliant.
"We've got a book that is thousand's of years old and you have to believe in what it says, you can't question it or my beliefs... unless you want to create another faction of said religion based on the fact you think you understand this book better than the other religious believers and you know what it really means."
However no matter what faction you follow you all still believe that people shouldn't question the existence of your God and take offence if not given respect.
Whereas a scientist makes a statement, and expects his peers to review it and the evidence. They will then agree with them or point out where they think the evidence is weak, wrong or can't be proved. That scientist doesn't then have a fit over this.
The fact the scientific community does this puts it way ahead of the opinions of any religious person as far as I'm concerned.
Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.
And do you not think Atheists don't have the same view, but the other way around?
Someone i knew/know was very focal in making his point known, (this is in A Level philosophy classes), saying how stupid and idiotic religion and religious people are... The only reason there is debate is because there are two sides. And saying that one side is worse than the other..... (Ok religion used to be worse, because in certain periods you were forced to go to church etc)
rodgers37 wrote:Aristotle didn't believe in God... He was around more than a few centuries ago.
He was also viewed as a heretic for that by the Catholic Church (even though St. Thomas Aquinas apparently loved him to bits).
There's been no sort of discussion on the existence of God in the past couple of thousands of years where any potential atheists weren't at risk of execution. That kind of skews the conclusion of any such discussion when one side under that kind of threat.
Well he lived, expressing his views for other 60 years, and i believe he died naturally (unlike his teacher Plato, who did believe in God).
He may have been viewed as a heretic, but a lot of his work is still used today.
They may have been 'under threat' but that doesn't mean they didn't have a 'side'. And christians haven't ruled the entire earth forever. I'm agreeing with you to an extent, but from how i'm reading what your saying, it just seems like your implying that any atheist was immediately killed as soon as they spoke...
Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.
I know it's a blunt and generic way of pointing it out, but what a kop out. On the one hand we are supposed to believe in God due to the bible and the words written it, but on the other hand you get to say things like "Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct". How do know which writings to believe and which to discard. If you can dispute whether the bible actually says that drinking alcohol is a sin, how can you take it as fact that there was a garden of Eden and a talking snake?
rodgers37 wrote:Well he lived, expressing his views for other 60 years, and i believe he died naturally (unlike his teacher Plato, who did believe in God).
He may have been viewed as a heretic, but a lot of his work is still used today.
They may have been 'under threat' but that doesn't mean they didn't have a 'side'. And christians haven't ruled the entire earth forever. I'm agreeing with you to an extent, but from how i'm reading what your saying, it just seems like your implying that any atheist was immediately killed as soon as they spoke...
Aristotle was around before Monotheism became the new thing.
Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.
I know it's a blunt and generic way of pointing it out, but what a kop out. On the one hand we are supposed to believe in God due to the bible and the words written it, but on the other hand you get to say things like "Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct". How do know which writings to believe and which to discard. If you can dispute whether the bible actually says that drinking alcohol is a sin, how can you take it as fact that there was a garden of Eden and a talking snake?
There not literal. (thats the word i was looking for)
Were no t supposed to believe in every word of the bible. I'm religious, and haven't even read much of the bible (and don't even go to church very often). Its not about believing and discarding writings. Its about interpreting them, and although the church can tell you what they want, and how they interpret it (some extreme sides will take it all literally, word for word as the word of God, which is what i believe the Qur'an is supposed to be).
The talking snake for example, wasn't real. Its a analogy representing sin.
Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.
I think you meant most christians who fit your view of christianity don't believe in the whole bible. The bible being the holy book of christianity it makes sense that christians beleive it or surely it's not a very good book. Most christians who follow one part but not the other do it because parts of the bible are unacceptable in todays society. Thats just bending a religion to be something it isn't to make it look more appealing.
There seems to be a lot of one sided in defence of religion. Religious people regularly attack atheist's (and other religion's) views and no one sees a problem as they are just expressing their views but an atheist does it back and everyone starts shouting. His religious view (atheism is a much of a religious view as any religion) is as valid as anyone elses.
Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.
I think you meant most christians who fit your view of christianity don't believe in the whole bible. The bible being the holy book of christianity it makes sense that christians beleive it or surely it's not a very good book. Most christians who follow one part but not the other do it because parts of the bible are unacceptable in todays society. Thats just bending a religion to be something it isn't to make it look more appealing.
There seems to be a lot of one sided in defence of religion. Religious people regularly attack atheist's (and other religion's) views and no one sees a problem as they are just expressing their views but an atheist does it back and everyone starts shouting. His religious view (atheism is a much of a religious view as any religion) is as valid as anyone elses.
There is a lot of one sided defence in both sides. And every side is as valid as the other of course, there are some sides that are really fought against (like the Westborough baptist church, is that there name? No one seems (rightfully so in my opinion) agree with them). Both sides attack each other. I'm perfectly happy for people to not believe in God/Heaven, and i'm happy for people to take the Bible literally.
But i thought it was almost a fact that most Christians do not take the Bible literally? Its not the word of God, i didn't word it properly in my first post. But its the 'extremists' who take it word for word (or almost word for word). But most Christians take it as something to find meaning, and make moral rules. This again is something that has been argued over, amongst Christians. You can't tell a person that what they believe is wrong, because they believe it. The only fair way to do it, is to either ignore them and think to your self your right, or 'politely' put your point across. If i'm not doing that here, please tell me and i will stop. I don't want to be seen as some ignorant religious person, i'm not even very Christian
The joys of being agnostic is that I don't have an opinion on such matters.
My view* is that we live on the most amazing planet in the galaxy (probably). What more could you possibly want than the opportunity to spend 70-80 years existing on it?
(*Actually, this is Richard Dawkin's view, but I appropriated it for my own, because I rather like this particular comment of his).
Flashman wrote:The joys of being agnostic is that I don't have an opinion on such matters.
My view* is that we live on the most amazing planet in the galaxy (probably). What more could you possibly want than the opportunity to spend 70-80 years existing on it?
(*Actually, this is Richard Dawkin's view, but I appropriated it for my own, because I rather like this particular comment of his).
Besides confusing me by saying you don't have an opinion then immediately offering one, I am also confused by using atheism to prove agnosticism. Could you clear this up a bit?
Can't I have it both ways? I mean if my stance is with the Ancient Alien Theorists, then the bible is a document that details encounters with aliens. Somebody cue Monkey Wrench by the Foo Fighters.
But i thought it was almost a fact that most Christians do not take the Bible literally? Its not the word of God, i didn't word it properly in my first post. But its the 'extremists' who take it word for word (or almost word for word). But most Christians take it as something to find meaning, and make moral rules. This again is something that has been argued over, amongst Christians. You can't tell a person that what they believe is wrong, because they believe it. The only fair way to do it, is to either ignore them and think to your self your right, or 'politely' put your point across. If i'm not doing that here, please tell me and i will stop. I don't want to be seen as some ignorant religious person, i'm not even very Christian
The majority don't take it literaly, but the ones who do have a strong argument that they are right. For a long time the bible has been seen as the true word of god, and only recently have people started to move away from that view. How do you choose which parts are important and which aren't. If everyone is free to choose, does that mean you can be a christian without believing in god?- e.g. you think the morals ae right but don't take the god part literaly.
4M2A wrote: For a long time the bible has been seen as the true word of god, and only recently have people started to move away from that view.
hmm.. not really. For most of Christianity's existence the Bible has never been seen as a literal, absolutist document. Huge parts of it have always been seen as metaphorical, poetical even by most of the established churches.
And whilst I am aware of sects and people who view the Bible as being 100% divinely inspired I am unaware of any group or person who says it's the word of God in the way you seem to be implying. Hence the titles of so many of the books in said tome for example.
4M2A wrote: For a long time the bible has been seen as the true word of god, and only recently have people started to move away from that view.
hmm.. not really. For most of Christianity's existence the Bible has never been seen as a literal, absolutist document. Huge parts of it have always been seen as metaphorical, poetical even by most of the established churches.
And whilst I am aware of sects and people who view the Bible as being 100% divinely inspired I am unaware of any group or person who says it's the word of God in the way you seem to be implying. Hence the titles of so many of the books in said tome for example.
Like the book of Ezekiel? Yeah nobody takes him seriously.
I suppose perhaps if people were to elaborate on what they mean by 'literal word of God' that might help clear things up. There are a few different ways that could be taken.
4M2A wrote: How do you choose which parts are important and which aren't. If everyone is free to choose, does that mean you can be a christian without believing in god?- e.g. you think the morals ae right but don't take the god part literaly.
Never really thought of it like that, i'm not sure. You could say yes or no really. (Yes, if you really want to take the interpreting the Bible to an extreme. And no, because you could say God=Christianity....). As for chosing important and not important, i don't really know, we need someone who has read the Bible and/or goes to church every week. I go to church sometimes (when i'm in Norwich, despite being at university in the holy city of England, i haven't actually gone to church ) to really give an idea of how much 'rubbish' is in there, i've seen a few bits that are out dated. I would say that for me, i'm still not sure. I believe in God and Heaven etc, not 100% sure why, no one told me too, in fact i've probably heard more against Gods existence, but still. I might not be a 'proper' Christian at all, i probably follow some of the teachings in the Bible, as will atheists, without even really knowing. You could just use it as a slight guide of how religious people think you should live your life. (i'm really not sure what to say at the moment, might have a better answer later)
And Ahtman, how i mean't it, is the Qur'an is 'the word of God' I think it was Mohammed who wrote it down, although i may be incorrect. The Qur'an is treated with much more respect in general (for example, as school there was one copy, and the Teachers only had it to show students, know one else could touch it, out of respect). While the Bible is formed by gospels and other things (Really not remember any words i need today...) which were not claimed (i don't think) to be the word of God, but the New Testament for example has lots of Jesus' teachings, and technically Jesus is God/part of God. But these were not explicitly written down straight from Jesus' or Gods 'mouth'.
Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.
I know it's a blunt and generic way of pointing it out, but what a kop out. On the one hand we are supposed to believe in God due to the bible and the words written it, but on the other hand you get to say things like "Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct". How do know which writings to believe and which to discard. If you can dispute whether the bible actually says that drinking alcohol is a sin, how can you take it as fact that there was a garden of Eden and a talking snake?
There not literal. (thats the word i was looking for) Were no t supposed to believe in every word of the bible. I'm religious, and haven't even read much of the bible (and don't even go to church very often). Its not about believing and discarding writings. Its about interpreting them, and although the church can tell you what they want, and how they interpret it (some extreme sides will take it all literally, word for word as the word of God, which is what i believe the Qur'an is supposed to be). The talking snake for example, wasn't real. Its a analogy representing sin.
Well then isn't it possible that Jesus is a metaphor as well? Why should the part about Jesus be taken literally?
Jesus existed... Wether or not he was actually the Son of God is another thing..
I never said he was anyway, i was stating that is what a lot of the New Testament is based on. So if Jesus isn't God/Son of, then the New Testament is a lie
Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.
I know it's a blunt and generic way of pointing it out, but what a kop out. On the one hand we are supposed to believe in God due to the bible and the words written it, but on the other hand you get to say things like "Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct". How do know which writings to believe and which to discard. If you can dispute whether the bible actually says that drinking alcohol is a sin, how can you take it as fact that there was a garden of Eden and a talking snake?
There not literal. (thats the word i was looking for)
Were no t supposed to believe in every word of the bible. I'm religious, and haven't even read much of the bible (and don't even go to church very often). Its not about believing and discarding writings. Its about interpreting them, and although the church can tell you what they want, and how they interpret it (some extreme sides will take it all literally, word for word as the word of God, which is what i believe the Qur'an is supposed to be).
The talking snake for example, wasn't real. Its a analogy representing sin.
Well then isn't it possible that Jesus is a metaphor as well? Why should the part about Jesus be taken literally?
That's my point if holy books are made up of winks, nudges, suggestions & metaphors how can you take it seriously? In fairness you could probably say that a big chunk of it makes sense in the message that it's trying to get across, but if this stuff can be interpreted in many different ways, how can the stuff that is supposed to prove there is a God be trusted?
Did he? Isn't it possible that the Bible is simply a collection of metaphorical tales?
Yes a Jesus was born and living in that area in that time. If you read the rest of my post...... I didn't say THE JESUS of the bible existed, but JESUS, existed, there were probably many Jesus' around at the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:
rodgers37 wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:
Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.
I know it's a blunt and generic way of pointing it out, but what a kop out. On the one hand we are supposed to believe in God due to the bible and the words written it, but on the other hand you get to say things like "Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct". How do know which writings to believe and which to discard. If you can dispute whether the bible actually says that drinking alcohol is a sin, how can you take it as fact that there was a garden of Eden and a talking snake?
There not literal. (thats the word i was looking for)
Were no t supposed to believe in every word of the bible. I'm religious, and haven't even read much of the bible (and don't even go to church very often). Its not about believing and discarding writings. Its about interpreting them, and although the church can tell you what they want, and how they interpret it (some extreme sides will take it all literally, word for word as the word of God, which is what i believe the Qur'an is supposed to be).
The talking snake for example, wasn't real. Its a analogy representing sin.
Well then isn't it possible that Jesus is a metaphor as well? Why should the part about Jesus be taken literally?
That's my point if holy books are made up of winks, nudges, suggestions & metaphors how can you take it seriously? In fairness you could probably say that a big chunk of it makes sense in the message that it's trying to get across, but if this stuff can be interpreted in many different ways, how can the stuff that is supposed to prove there is a God be trusted?
And also, i would quite like a question of mine answer, since i'm the only one defending God's corner
As i said earlier, i'm fine with you not believing, we can have a discussion/argument about that, that fine.
But i've seen a couple of comments now, saying how bad Christians are at saying 'God definatly exists, look the Bible says so, your all crazy if you think he doesn't exist' Which some people are probably like.
But why don't you believe? I can guess some possible answers. But i'm just getting a little (only a little) bit fed up with everyone trying to say how rubbish the Bible etc is, with reasons yes, and i agree to an extent, i'm obviously not answering as well as i thought i was, as i'm sure i've said the same thing a few times.
But why is it so hard to believe, and why (if you do) question other people's beliefs?
(I don't expect people to not question the huge holes in the Bible and in faith, but still....)
Flashman wrote:The joys of being agnostic is that I don't have an opinion on such matters.
My view* is that we live on the most amazing planet in the galaxy (probably). What more could you possibly want than the opportunity to spend 70-80 years existing on it?
(*Actually, this is Richard Dawkin's view, but I appropriated it for my own, because I rather like this particular comment of his).
Besides confusing me by saying you don't have an opinion then immediately offering one, I am also confused by using atheism to prove agnosticism. Could you clear this up a bit?
Lol, well apologies for offering my view when I said I wouldn't. The fact that it was appropriated from an atheist, was not intended to prove or disprove anything. It merely encapsulates my view point of not really caring one way or other.
rodgers37 wrote:And also, i would quite like a question of mine answer, since i'm the only one defending God's corner
As i said earlier, i'm fine with you not believing, we can have a discussion/argument about that, that fine.
But i've seen a couple of comments now, saying how bad Christians are at saying 'God definatly exists, look the Bible says so, your all crazy if you think he doesn't exist' Which some people are probably like.
But why don't you believe? I can guess some possible answers. But i'm just getting a little (only a little) bit fed up with everyone trying to say how rubbish the Bible etc is, with reasons yes, and i agree to an extent, i'm obviously not answering as well as i thought i was, as i'm sure i've said the same thing a few times.
But why is it so hard to believe, and why (if you do) question other people's beliefs?
(I don't expect people to not question the huge holes in the Bible and in faith, but still....)
I don't believe because I feel the evidence against there being a God is stronger than the evidence for there being a God. I don't believe in Faith as I think Faith is a kop out. You can sit there all smug without having to prove anything. Everything else in life you have to prove.
Frazzled wrote:I see the usual lets attack Christians thread with the usual suspects has reared its ugly head.
I see the usual "let's overreact to any perceived criticism of my faith while we criticise others than stand looking aghast that it would be pointed out brigade" has arrived as well.
May must be Dakka recycle month because we are relieving some threads here almost verbatim.
Frazzled wrote:I see the usual lets attack Christians thread with the usual suspects has reared its ugly head.
We really should keep this open forever. It keeps them occupied and frees other threads from their...input.
That's a bit unfair. The OP was about the fact that SH didn't believe in an after life and the "Christian's" on the board pass comments such "what does he know" and "I don't believe in SH".
Fine you have your Faith, he, and others on this forum don't share that Faith. Expressing an opinion as to why we don't believe is no different to the believers saying why they do. As long as people as saying "your stupid" or "your an idiot" then I can't see an attack.
rodgers37 wrote:And also, i would quite like a question of mine answer, since i'm the only one defending God's corner
As i said earlier, i'm fine with you not believing, we can have a discussion/argument about that, that fine.
But i've seen a couple of comments now, saying how bad Christians are at saying 'God definatly exists, look the Bible says so, your all crazy if you think he doesn't exist' Which some people are probably like.
But why don't you believe? I can guess some possible answers. But i'm just getting a little (only a little) bit fed up with everyone trying to say how rubbish the Bible etc is, with reasons yes, and i agree to an extent, i'm obviously not answering as well as i thought i was, as i'm sure i've said the same thing a few times.
But why is it so hard to believe, and why (if you do) question other people's beliefs?
(I don't expect people to not question the huge holes in the Bible and in faith, but still....)
I don't believe because I feel the evidence against there being a God is stronger than the evidence for there being a God. I don't believe in Faith as I think Faith is a kop out. You can sit there all smug without having to prove anything. Everything else in life you have to prove.
I don't feel smug at all. Neither side can prove anything.
And out of interest, why is faith a cop out? Its the best way to describe how I (not anyone else, just me) believe in God. I 'm not going to bring up any other argument/theory like the Teleological or ontological argument, even if i think they are correct. As i said earlier i don't know why i believe in God, know one told me too, i just do, but i'm also happy for you to think the 'evidence' is stacked against Gods existence.
"let's overreact to any perceived criticism of my faith while we criticise others than stand looking aghast that it would be pointed out brigade"
Its that second bit that puzzles me... Has anyone in this thread done that? Examples keep being thrown out about how Christians over defend themselves, and throw there view upon everyone else, but none of that has been happening here unless i've missed it?
rodgers37 wrote:And also, i would quite like a question of mine answer, since i'm the only one defending God's corner
As i said earlier, i'm fine with you not believing, we can have a discussion/argument about that, that fine.
But i've seen a couple of comments now, saying how bad Christians are at saying 'God definatly exists, look the Bible says so, your all crazy if you think he doesn't exist' Which some people are probably like.
But why don't you believe? I can guess some possible answers. But i'm just getting a little (only a little) bit fed up with everyone trying to say how rubbish the Bible etc is, with reasons yes, and i agree to an extent, i'm obviously not answering as well as i thought i was, as i'm sure i've said the same thing a few times.
But why is it so hard to believe, and why (if you do) question other people's beliefs?
(I don't expect people to not question the huge holes in the Bible and in faith, but still....)
I don't believe because I feel the evidence against there being a God is stronger than the evidence for there being a God. I don't believe in Faith as I think Faith is a kop out. You can sit there all smug without having to prove anything. Everything else in life you have to prove.
I don't feel smug at all. Neither side can prove anything.
And out of interest, why is faith a cop out? Its the best way to describe how I (not anyone else, just me) believe in God. I 'm not going to bring up any other argument/theory like the Teleological or ontological argument, even if i think they are correct. As i said earlier i don't know why i believe in God, know one told me too, i just do, but i'm also happy for you to think the 'evidence' is stacked against Gods existence.
"let's overreact to any perceived criticism of my faith while we criticise others than stand looking aghast that it would be pointed out brigade"
Its that second bit that puzzles me... Has anyone in this thread done that? Examples keep being thrown out about how Christians over defend themselves, and throw there view upon everyone else, but none of that has been happening here unless i've missed it?
Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. I meant in general that there are a lot of self righteous believers who are happy to use "Faith" as conclusive proof in any discussion on the subject.
Frazzled wrote:I see the usual lets attack Christians thread with the usual suspects has reared its ugly head.
I see the usual "let's overreact to any perceived criticism of my faith while we criticise others than stand looking aghast that it would be pointed out brigade" has arrived as well.
May must be Dakka recycle month because we are relieving some threads here almost verbatim.
Exactly. In the words of the immortal bard; Everything has happened before and will happen again
except Adama.
# When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Bill Adama.
# Bill Adama doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
# There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Bill Adama has allowed to live.
# Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Bill Adama.
# Bill Adama does not sleep. He waits.
# Bill Adama is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right fists.
# Bill Adama is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
# Bill Adama counted to infinity - twice.
# When Bill Adama does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Galactica down. In space.
# Bill Adama is so fast, he can run around the galactica and punch himself in the back of the head.
# Bill Adama’s hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
# There is no such thing as global warming. Bill Adama was cold, so he turned the sun up.
# Bill Adama can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
# Bill Adama doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
# Bill Adama gave Mona Lisa that smile.
# Bill Adama can slam a revolving door.
# Bill Adama does not get frostbite. Bill Adama bites frost
# Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a Battlestar Galactica marathon on Satellite TV.
# Contrary to popular belief, Caprica is not a democracy, it is an Adamatorship.
Frazzled wrote:I see the usual lets attack Christians thread with the usual suspects has reared its ugly head.
We really should keep this open forever. It keeps them occupied and frees other threads from their...input.
That's a bit unfair. The OP was about the fact that SH didn't believe in an after life and the "Christian's" on the board pass comments such "what does he know" and "I don't believe in SH".
Fine you have your Faith, he, and others on this forum don't share that Faith. Expressing an opinion as to why we don't believe is no different to the believers saying why they do. As long as people as saying "your stupid" or "your an idiot" then I can't see an attack.
He did not simply state his opinion, he went and insulted every religious group with people who believe in some form of afterlife; that is why I am angry, not because he doesn't think there is one (a simple "I don't think there is a heaven because XYZ" would be fine, i'm all for people having their own views) but because he said that people who do believe in fairy tales and are afraid of the dark, which implies that we're all mental or have some form of intellectual deficiency.
I don't force my opinions on to people, nor do I insult them if they don't believe what I believe; I will, however, defend myself when other people choose to do this to me (contrary to popular belief, even athiests like to force their views onto people); what i cannot fathom is how people are defending Hawking's choice to forgo the usual way of stating opinions and instead decided it was better to state his opinions as fact and include a nice little jab at anyone who thinks otherwise.
For the last time, I do not care, nor do I wish to care, that he does not believe in Heaven; I care that he said people that do (myself included) are believers of fairytales and are scared of the dark.
rodgers37 wrote:And also, i would quite like a question of mine answer, since i'm the only one defending God's corner
As i said earlier, i'm fine with you not believing, we can have a discussion/argument about that, that fine.
But i've seen a couple of comments now, saying how bad Christians are at saying 'God definatly exists, look the Bible says so, your all crazy if you think he doesn't exist' Which some people are probably like.
But why don't you believe? I can guess some possible answers. But i'm just getting a little (only a little) bit fed up with everyone trying to say how rubbish the Bible etc is, with reasons yes, and i agree to an extent, i'm obviously not answering as well as i thought i was, as i'm sure i've said the same thing a few times.
But why is it so hard to believe, and why (if you do) question other people's beliefs?
(I don't expect people to not question the huge holes in the Bible and in faith, but still....)
I don't believe because I feel the evidence against there being a God is stronger than the evidence for there being a God. I don't believe in Faith as I think Faith is a kop out. You can sit there all smug without having to prove anything. Everything else in life you have to prove.
I don't feel smug at all. Neither side can prove anything.
And out of interest, why is faith a cop out? Its the best way to describe how I (not anyone else, just me) believe in God. I 'm not going to bring up any other argument/theory like the Teleological or ontological argument, even if i think they are correct. As i said earlier i don't know why i believe in God, know one told me too, i just do, but i'm also happy for you to think the 'evidence' is stacked against Gods existence.
"let's overreact to any perceived criticism of my faith while we criticise others than stand looking aghast that it would be pointed out brigade"
Its that second bit that puzzles me... Has anyone in this thread done that? Examples keep being thrown out about how Christians over defend themselves, and throw there view upon everyone else, but none of that has been happening here unless i've missed it?
Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. I meant in general that there are a lot of self righteous believers who are happy to use "Faith" as conclusive proof in any discussion on the subject.
I think we can both agree to disagree here can't we
And Avatar i think your probably right, i havn't actually read everything he said, just the quote on the OP (if there is any more..) But he does seem to be a but blunt and insulting with his statement...
Well there is a difference here (unless you can find some examples of 'famous' or 'important' or even just highly intelligent Christians saying that Atheist are going to hell, there probably are some examples, but are they all crazy?) Hawking is a very respectable and intelligent man.
Hmm,let's see if I understand ...
Hawkins says "Those who believe in heaven believe in fairy tales",and this is "blunt and insulting."
Christians (by and large) say-" Follow our (gods) rules,or burn for all eternity in hell"...and that's perfectly reasonable.
...Right,ok,got it.
I really do not see any difference in someone saying Hawking will go to hell for not believing in Heaven vs. Hawking saying Heaven is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark. They are simply points of view.
FITZZ wrote: Hmm,let's see if I understand ...
Hawkins says "Those who believe in heaven believe in fairy tales",and this is "blunt and insulting."
Christians (by and large) say-" Follow our (gods) rules,or burn for all eternity in hell"...and that's perfectly reasonable.
...Right,ok,got it.
WHAT CHRISTIANS!!!!
I have never said that, nor have any Christians i know. Why do people keep coming out with these generic comments branding all people in the same boat?
And i don't even follow all the Christian 'rules'. I have been trying to keep this friendly and calm, but i'm getting really fed up at these generic comments.
Have i said, 'All atheists are ignorant and should believe in God'? or even 'All atheists are the same'? no i haven't. Yet there are numerous examples of 'Christians' saying this or that.
FITZZ wrote: Christians (by and large) say-" Follow our (gods) rules,or burn for all eternity in hell"...and that's perfectly reasonable.
...Right,ok,got it.
That is not perfectly reasonable; it is far from perfectly reasonable, which is why I don't say it nor do I agree with it, and I have yet to see anyone on here who agrees with it either; I don't remember seeing anyone saying that it's in any way reasonable.
I must also ask why Christians are being singled out here, they are not the only religion to believe in some form of afterlife; Hawking is poking fun at EVERY RELIGION WHICH FEATURES AN AFTERLIFE, not just Christians.
I also disagree with the 'by and large' bit; i've never heard any Christian say this.
FITZZ wrote: Hmm,let's see if I understand ...
Hawkins says "Those who believe in heaven believe in fairy tales",and this is "blunt and insulting."
Christians (by and large) say-" Follow our (gods) rules,or burn for all eternity in hell"...and that's perfectly reasonable.
...Right,ok,got it.
The second isn't a personal attack against the beliefs or intelligence of the target. The first obviously is. The Christian expression of belief doesn't require insulting people, and the Atheist expression of disbelief need not do so either.
On another note, just remembered something that is relevant to the whole interpreting the Bible debate we had earlier.
Your taught/told/whatever else you want to call it 'Christian Teachings' These teachings aren't just read the Bible and follow it or you go to Hell.....
These teachings are different (slightly) in different divisions of Christianity.
It might be a bit hypocritical to be able to interpret the Bible and its teachings anyway you want, but thats how its done (or to the best of my knowledge it is anyway).
What if I believe in Reincarnation? Am I just a stupid fool who "fears the dark" as well?
Also, if he had just said "I don't believe in Heaven" that would be fine. If he gave a good reason why, that would be fine. But no, he said that the belief in Heaven is a "fairy tail" and effectively insulted pretty much every religion. I don't care if that's his opinion or not, it's still offensive to me. I really don't care what others believe, and trust me I'm the first to believe science over anything, but when you feel the need to insult everyone who doesn't follow your belief, I have a problem with that.
I lean towards Buddhism more than Christianity, but trust me, if a Christian or any other Religious person is being intolerant, I'll be the first to point this out, so there are no double standards here.
Also, Buddhists don't tend to go around telling others that they are going to hell, but are still being insulted since there is an Afterlife in that religion.
Avatar and Rodger I think people keep coming back to the whole "if you dont believe in our god, then you are going to hell" thing because that is kind of a focal point in what we have come to know as the bible and what many sects under the general christian faith believe, whether they say it or not or however they phrase it.
In other words, if you believe in heaven, do you believe that the aeithist will be sitting beside you there in 100 years?
I think SH is just being honest with his opinion here, could he have done it a little more gently, well sure but we all stand on some sort of belief and to some extent feel that we are right and those that disagree with us are wrong. I mean would you really feel that much better about the comment if he instead simply said those that believe in heaven are wrong? His comment wasnt that inflamatory, IMO and I think those offended are using the tone of the comment to justify taking offense with the underlying message.
I was going to write something about him preaching to the choir, but I decided that I'd rather just agree with him.
Believe whatever you want. If it makes your miserable life any more bearable knowing that there's a place for you in the sky after you kick the bucket, then by all means, believe that.
I personally would hate to wonder around aimlessly for all eternity, surrounded by people I don't know or care about. I'd rather be in a hole.
I say "by and large" as it is (to my understanding) a fundimental tenant of the Christian faith that the refusal to accept Jesus and follow Christian doctrine leads to "damnation".
Now,while some profess that "they've never met a Christian that says/believes this",do they deny the existance of a "hell" to punish the "sinner" in their own belife system?
Also...If it seems I'm "singling Christianity out" it's not intentional..
thedude wrote:In other words, if you believe in heaven, do you believe that the aeithist will be sitting beside you there in 100 years?
Maybe, not really thought about it. I would personally think that you would only go to Hell if you did something to deserve going to hell for, and not believe in God shouldn't mean you go to hell. Its not unreasonable to not believe in something there is no proof for, obviously i don't know if there is a Heaven or Hell, what there like or how its decided which one you go to.
Samus, i think you've missed the point. If Heaven is real, i don't think it would be just wondering around aimlessly for all eternity, it would be Heaven.....IF it exists, who knows what its like, but i really doubt it would be like that, otherwise you wouldn't want to go.
thedude wrote:In other words, if you believe in heaven, do you believe that the aeithist will be sitting beside you there in 100 years?
Why does it matter? Are you insulted or harmed in some other way by other people's beliefs?
But isn't this sort of what the other side of the coin is saying? Saying an atheist is going to hell for not believing in god is similar to saying heaven in a fairy tale for those scared of the dark. I am sure there is some one on both sides that would find one or the other insulting.
Frazzled wrote:Again, if you don't believe in it, so what?
"Sinner, you're a dirty cheating liar and going to Shangra La!"
Frazzled: "Shangra La doesn't exist. Now get out of my way meat bag. I have more sinning to do."
...It's not that it affects me (really)...
I'm simply saying that when a large organized religion makes broad sweeping comments concerning those who choose not to follow their doctrines they shouldn't be "offended" when some of those people respond with " Your belief is a fairy tale".
I do feel that what Hawkins said was meant as a jab at religious people. I also think any religious person telling someone they were going to hell for not believing in a certain religion is a D-bag. After all, every group has an A-hole or two that make the rest look bad.
Pretty much any religious person I know would usually avoid directly discussing non believers and hell. Put yourself in their shoes, if you truly believed someone would go to hell for not believing, how would you discuss it without coming across as judgmental or douchey?
Frazzled wrote:Again, if you don't believe in it, so what?
"Sinner, you're a dirty cheating liar and going to Shangra La!"
Frazzled: "Shangra La doesn't exist. Now get out of my way meat bag. I have more sinning to do."
...It's not that it affects me (really)...
I'm simply saying that when a large organized religion makes broad sweeping comments concerning those who choose not to follow their doctrines they shouldn't be "offended" when some of those people respond with " Your belief is a fairy tale".
FITZZ wrote: I say "by and large" as it is (to my understanding) a fundimental tenant of the Christian faith that the refusal to accept Jesus and follow Christian doctrine leads to "damnation".
Now,while some profess that "they've never met a Christian that says/believes this",do they deny the existance of a "hell" to punish the "sinner" in their own belife system?
Also...If it seems I'm "singling Christianity out" it's not intentional..
I did miss the 'by and large' when i first wrote my post, should probably read things twice before making rash statements myself But still, there are a lot of generic comments around, plenty are probably made by the religious side. And the more i think about what i'm typing, the more i think i'm trying to pass of my own views as all other Christians. As i said at some point, i'm probably a rubbish Christian, but the most important part for me, is that i believe in God, maybe i'm not even really Christian at all, i'm just religious, or a believer or something. Like i said in my last (think it was my last, i've posted too much on this thread) post in my eyes (not necessarily the eyes of any other Christians) not believing in God isn't a sin... In the past it was forced upon you to believe in some/most areas and periods of history, but now, in the age of science, God is one of the few things that can't be physically proved, so its not that hard to understand why people doubt God's existence, so in my eyes (and in my view of God) this shouldn't be a sin.
One view i remember reading or seeing/hearing (think it was on Radio once..) from a priest, was that Hell isn't actually a place as such, (he might have said Heaven isn't either) its purely being disconnected from God. I think he also said that atheists could still have the chance to avoid this, but essentially Hell is a state of mind. But then again, thats just a Christian view, i'm sure most Athiests don't wake up every morning thinking they are in Hell because they don't believe in God.
thedude wrote:In other words, if you believe in heaven, do you believe that the aeithist will be sitting beside you there in 100 years?
Why does it matter? Are you insulted or harmed in some other way by other people's beliefs?
But isn't this sort of what the other side of the coin is saying? Saying an atheist is going to hell for not believing in god is similar to saying heaven in a fairy tale for those scared of the dark. I am sure there is some one on both sides that would find one or the other insulting.
I honestly don't see the connection between the two. Saying someone is going to hell for not believing in god doesn't question the non-believer's intelligence or rationality. It doesn't associate their belief with a negative character trait.
But if you say heaven is a "fairy tale for those scared of the dark" you're attacking the intelligence and rationality of believers.
A better analogy would be "only fools refuse to believe in God".
Maybe, not really thought about it. I would personally think that you would only go to Hell if you did something to deserve going to hell for, and not believe in God shouldn't mean you go to hell. Its not unreasonable to not believe in something there is no proof for, obviously i don't know if there is a Heaven or Hell, what there like or how its decided which one you go to.
Well the bible is pretty clear that if you do not hold the tenants of God (old testement) or believe in Jesus (new testement) then you are going to hell.
You may be cherry picking a bit here to say you may only believe somone will go to hell if they do something really bad, as that is counter to the book and teachings you are basing your beliefs on.
@biccat, i think you missed my point...i am simply trying to illustrate that the christian faith (as I understand it) believes the same thing stated by SH in his comment, just on the other side of the coin.
Graveyman wrote:Pretty much any religious person I know would usually avoid directly discussing non believers and hell. Put yourself in their shoes, if you truly believed someone would go to hell for not believing, how would you discuss it without coming across as judgmental or douchey?
That's the basis for "evangelicals." They sincerely believe that those who don't believe in Christianity are going to hell, and therefore they should make every effort to convince you in order to save your soul.
As an Evil Conservative, I think people should be responsible for themselves, so I think these evangelicals are wrongheaded.
Maybe, not really thought about it. I would personally think that you would only go to Hell if you did something to deserve going to hell for, and not believe in God shouldn't mean you go to hell. Its not unreasonable to not believe in something there is no proof for, obviously i don't know if there is a Heaven or Hell, what there like or how its decided which one you go to.
Well the bible is pretty clear that if you do not hold the tenants of God (old testement) or believe in Jesus (new testement) then you are going to hell.
You may be cherry picking a bit here to say you may only believe somone will go to hell if they do something really bad, as that is counter to the book and teachings you are basing your beliefs on.
@biccat, i think you missed my point...i am simply trying to illustrate that the christian faith (as I understand it) believes the same thing stated by SH in his comment, just on the other side of the coin.
I have said i'm not really a proper Christian... I believe in God, and have gone (and probably will go when back in Norwich in summer) to Church (Catholic). And i may not follow all their teachings, and they could tell me i'm not a Christian. But the Bible is not the word of God, and i think although maybe contradictory to what it should be, is actually there to interpret, which really should be done yourself.
I don't agree with forcing any view upon anyone, wether that be on people who are in a different group (Religious people forcing their views on atheist) or even in the same group (Christians forcing Christians to believe and follow everything they say)
thedude wrote:@biccat, i think you missed my point...i am simply trying to illustrate that the christian faith (as I understand it) believes the same thing stated by SH in his comment, just on the other side of the coin.
That atheism is for those who believe in fairy tales or are afraid of the dark?
I don't see it.
If someone has a secret club and won't let me join, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Or if they have an imaginary friend and refuse to introduce me to him, I don't care.
Graveyman wrote:I do feel that what Hawkins said was meant as a jab at religious people. I also think any religious person telling someone they were going to hell for not believing in a certain religion is a D-bag. After all, every group has an A-hole or two that make the rest look bad.
Pretty much any religious person I know would usually avoid directly discussing non believers and hell. Put yourself in their shoes, if you truly believed someone would go to hell for not believing, how would you discuss it without coming across as judgmental or douchey?
That is probably the best way to approach the situation. Maybe Hawking wasn't approached that way? People tend to offend when they have been offended.
I can only shake my head at the strangeness of it all. There is always a-holes on both sides like you said. The ones that want to live and let live always have their opinions clouded when they are eventually offended.
Here is one for you all. Like Graveyman said, most religious people try to avoid the unpleasant conversation of non-believers going to hell. It is a touchy subject especially for those who do not want to be judgmental. Heck I have talked to people before who stressed, if you are not a Christian you are going to Hell. I always counter with Mother Theresa. She wasn't a Christian, do you think she is going to hell?
I believe you can be a good person and not be Christian at the same time. I don't think this should automatically make the person go to hell, but a lot of people do. This tends to make someone who is not a Christian distance themselves even more from religion.
Honestly I hope the good people who are not necessary Christians and least get to go someplace nice in the afterlife. Religion is confusing and sometimes it feels like hit or miss. How am I able to say who is right or wrong? Can I just be a good person and believe in that?
Lord Scythican wrote:Heck I have talked to people before who stressed, if you are not a Christian you are going to Hell. I always counter with Mother Theresa. She wasn't a Christian, do you think she is going to hell?
Graveyman wrote:I do feel that what Hawkins said was meant as a jab at religious people. I also think any religious person telling someone they were going to hell for not believing in a certain religion is a D-bag. After all, every group has an A-hole or two that make the rest look bad.
Pretty much any religious person I know would usually avoid directly discussing non believers and hell. Put yourself in their shoes, if you truly believed someone would go to hell for not believing, how would you discuss it without coming across as judgmental or douchey?
That is probably the best way to approach the situation. Maybe Hawking wasn't approached that way? People tend to offend when they have been offended.
I can only shake my head at the strangeness of it all. There is always a-holes on both sides like you said. The ones that want to live and let live always have their opinions clouded when they are eventually offended.
Here is one for you all. Like Graveyman said, most religious people try to avoid the unpleasant conversation of non-believers going to hell. It is a touchy subject especially for those who do not want to be judgmental. Heck I have talked to people before who stressed, if you are not a Christian you are going to Hell. I always counter with Mother Theresa. She wasn't a Christian, do you think she is going to hell?
I believe you can be a good person and not be Christian at the same time. I don't think this should automatically make the person go to hell, but a lot of people do. This tends to make someone who is not a Christian distance themselves even more from religion.
Honestly I hope the good people who are not necessary Christians and least get to go someplace nice in the afterlife. Religion is confusing and sometimes it feels like hit or miss. How am I able to say who is right or wrong? Can I just be a good person and believe in that?
Yes, that is what i think as well as being religious and believing in God. There is no reason why you can't lead a good life without believing in God. On the same token, religious people can lead a bad life and there are examples of people 'killing in Gods name' (for a start, isn't that one of the terrorists reasons?) People who have claimed to have been told my God or an Angel etc to kill (I hope not successfully....)
I really should note that for the most part (so long as it doesn't affect politics/safety/my life) I have no real problem with religion.
If someone chooses to "Believe" and it helps them get through the day...power to them.
biccat wrote:
I honestly don't see the connection between the two. Saying someone is going to hell for not believing in god doesn't question the non-believer's intelligence or rationality. It doesn't associate their belief with a negative character trait.
But if you say heaven is a "fairy tale for those scared of the dark" you're attacking the intelligence and rationality of believers.
A better analogy would be "only fools refuse to believe in God".
Yeah it does. If say I was an Atheist and you said I was going to hell for being that way, I would like to think I would be just as offended as you would be if I said your God was a fairy tale. I admit, it is kind of hard though to see it from the other side if you are not standing over there.
If I believe that heaven doesn't exist and you say it does and I am going to hell, then you are attacking my intelligence and rationality as well whether you consider it that or not.
Of course please don't treat me as one or the other. I am sort of riding the fence on this one. I do believe, just not in the majority of man's interpretation. I kind of get offended when a Christian tells me the scientist in me is full of gak because I believe the earth is millions of years old.
Lord Scythican wrote:Heck I have talked to people before who stressed, if you are not a Christian you are going to Hell. I always counter with Mother Theresa. She wasn't a Christian, do you think she is going to hell?
I don't think this is a good argument.
Maybe not too you, but I am basing my judgement off of the opinions of others. The people I referred to got pissed off with me when they realized their beliefs damned Mother Teresa to hell. She was not a Christian. Of course she was Catholic and they can sometimes be considered part of the in crowd but not by all Christians.
FITZZ wrote: I really should note that for the most part (so long as it doesn't affect politics/safety/my life) I have no real problem with religion.
If someone chooses to "Believe" and it helps them get through the day...power to them.
Thats how everyone should be. Being able to accept other peoples view is important, and if you can't, well you can't really socially interact without appearing to be a total douche bag. (You need to be able to talk to people who don't share the same view as you, in a friendly or at least mutual way, if you go off on one about going to hell, or the other side saying that if you believe your deluded etc etc etc you can't really get along...)
Although believing in God, doesn't necessarily get me through the day...
Lord Scythican wrote:Heck I have talked to people before who stressed, if you are not a Christian you are going to Hell. I always counter with Mother Theresa. She wasn't a Christian, do you think she is going to hell?
I don't think this is a good argument.
It kind of it...
If i believed that anyone who didn't believe in God was going to hell, and was asked 'What about Mother Theresa, she's not a Christian, is she going to hell?' I would be pretty stumped. I don't believe that, and i do believe that if Heaven exists, Mother Theresa will be there.
You can't really logically say, that just because she didn't believe in God, she would go to hell, she did so much good in her life.
Mother Theresa was Catholic. She has been beatified and is on the fast track to be officially recognized for Sainthood.
Lord Scythican wrote:Heck I have talked to people before who stressed, if you are not a Christian you are going to Hell. I always counter with Mother Theresa. She wasn't a Christian, do you think she is going to hell?
I don't think this is a good argument.
It kind of it...
If i believed that anyone who didn't believe in God was going to hell, and was asked 'What about Mother Theresa, she's not a Christian, is she going to hell?' I would be pretty stumped. I don't believe that, and i do believe that if Heaven exists, Mother Theresa will be there.
You can't really logically say, that just because she didn't believe in God, she would go to hell, she did so much good in her life.
Exactly my point. I believe even though she was not a true Christian (the ones described as heaven goers by a lot of Christian people) she would still go to Heaven. I also believe that Native American named Tatanka Yotanka would go to the same place.
Lord Scythican wrote:Heck I have talked to people before who stressed, if you are not a Christian you are going to Hell. I always counter with Mother Theresa. She wasn't a Christian, do you think she is going to hell?
I don't think this is a good argument.
It kind of it...
If i believed that anyone who didn't believe in God was going to hell, and was asked 'What about Mother Theresa, she's not a Christian, is she going to hell?' I would be pretty stumped. I don't believe that, and i do believe that if Heaven exists, Mother Theresa will be there.
You can't really logically say, that just because she didn't believe in God, she would go to hell, she did so much good in her life.
Mother Theresa was Catholic. She has been beatified and is on the fast track to be officially recognized for Sainthood.
Yeah i'm just getting confused now...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:
rodgers37 wrote:
biccat wrote:
Lord Scythican wrote:Heck I have talked to people before who stressed, if you are not a Christian you are going to Hell. I always counter with Mother Theresa. She wasn't a Christian, do you think she is going to hell?
I don't think this is a good argument.
It kind of it...
If i believed that anyone who didn't believe in God was going to hell, and was asked 'What about Mother Theresa, she's not a Christian, is she going to hell?' I would be pretty stumped. I don't believe that, and i do believe that if Heaven exists, Mother Theresa will be there.
You can't really logically say, that just because she didn't believe in God, she would go to hell, she did so much good in her life.
Exactly my point. I believe even though she was not a true Christian (the ones described as heaven goers by a lot of Christian people) she would still go to Heaven. I also believe that Native American named Tatanka Yotanka would go to the same place.
Well i was wrong. I completely forgot that she was Catholic, which is Christian.... but still the point is valid, just not with Mother Theresa as the example
biccat wrote:Maybe you're talking about a different Mother Theresa. The one I recall was a Catholic Nun.
Now I could be getting my denominations mixed up, but I'm pretty sure Catholics fall under the general classification of "Christians."
Maybe "Ghandi" would be a better example.
Exactly. I even made the same point with my in crowd comment.
And you are right Ghandi is a better example.
But my point still stands. I know Christians who can't stand Catholics. They are very judgmental and consider non-Christians to be future tenants of hell.
I however do not believe all Christians are this way.
Regardless, if there is a Heaven, Ghandi should get a ticket.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rodgers37 wrote:
Well i was wrong. I completely forgot that she was Catholic, which is Christian.... but still the point is valid, just not with Mother Theresa as the example
Not a Christian. There are many key differences between the two. Heck Christians prefer it if you convert from Catholicism to Christianity.
The Catholic/Christian division baffles me. The Christian by definition believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. Catholics believe this, therefore they are Christians. They are very different from most Christian groups but they are still Christians.
Graveyman wrote:The Catholic/Christian division baffles me. The Christian by definition believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. Catholics believe this, therefore they are Christians. They are very different from most Christian groups but they are still Christians.
Avatar 720 wrote:he said that people who do believe in fairy tales and are afraid of the dark, which implies that we're all mental or have some form of intellectual deficiency.
Being afraid of the dark is a rather normal human occurance, hard-wired on some level into humanity.
It (amoungst other reasons) is why we wanted fire and gathered together in caves, etc.
It is also why we gather together in mutual beliefs like religion. Because humans as a collective entity have a hard time believing that they don't have some importance or purpose in the universe: Surely becaue I think I am important, I must have been created by some powefrul entity who saw me as important as well...
So being afraid of the dark has nothign to do with mental illness, he is referring to the human tendency to want to believe that our existance has some pupose or value and isn't just a cosmic/biological "accident" (right planet combined with right components for life, mix and simmer until done...)
Catholicism is a division of Christianity. As far as i'm aware, there is no such thing as a 'Christian' Church. Although that seems to contradict it.
What i thought, is there are many divisions of Christianity (And this is on Wiki, which although 'unreliable' isn't always wrong) There isn't even one type of Catholicism. The 'state' religion of the UK for example is Protestant (which Henry 8th started i believe). I could be wrong, but i thought Christian was just the term used to catch all 'Christians' (people who read the 'Christian' Bible) groups. Which include Catholics, Protestants, Jehovers etc. I could have it all wrong and 'Christian' is actually a proper religion in itself (it seems likely i am wrong). But in that case, it makes no sense calling all the other denominations 'Christian' as well.
And the only reason Christians and Catholics will argue, is because they don't have the same reading of the Bible....
Graveyman wrote:The Catholic/Christian division baffles me. The Christian by definition believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. Catholics believe this, therefore they are Christians. They are very different from most Christian groups but they are still Christians.
My family (Grandmother/Mother) were Catholic...and I recall some pretty heated "debate" taking place between them and our next door neighbors (who were Baptist) over some statues of Jesus (and others) that my Grandmother had outside the house.
This always amused me a bit as I thought they were all on the "same side".
Lord Scythican wrote:Regardless, if there is a Heaven, Ghandi should get a ticket.
If Heaven is based on good deeds, then there's no reason to deny Gandhi (at least the sanitized historical Gandhi) a place there. But a lot of Christians believe that the only way to receive entry into heaven is through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of god. Gandhi, not believing in the gospels, wouldn't be entitled to a place in heaven.
I don't think this is an intolerant or insulting opinion, it's their own belief, and they shouldn't be attacked for it.
I suppose if you really wanted to debate the issue I could make an argument as to why Gandhi should be denied a seat in Heaven.
Wow, how are we discussing whether a mild dig by Stephen Hawking is offensive, when we have the horrendous example of atheistic thinking that is Richard Dawkins to lambast? I mean, this is a man who describes religious faith not just as weakness, but as mental illness.
And seriously, if you are offended by Stephen Hawking, you probably need to get out a bit more. In Stephen Hawking's defense, and as a fellow atheist, people who believe in God do indeed come across to some of us as seemingly believing they have an invisible friend, just like in Fairy Stories. Plus, isn't God meant to be invisible? And your friend? And isn't it an invisible friend's job to help them stop being scared? Anyway, if you are scared of something as a Christian, aren't you supposed to ask God to help you find the strength to confront your fears?
He may have been a teensy bit tactless, but to start going on about it being offensive strikes me as more about oversensitivity on the part of the religious than him doing anything truly bad.
While we are on the subject of picking on the wrong party, why are we having a go at Christians, even of the Catholic variety? Go out look for vicious diatribes against non-believers and you'll find richer picking amongst the writings and speeches of Muslims than Christians, generally. I mean, both groups have their unpleasant side, but why pick on just the Cathlolics?
Lord Scythican wrote:Regardless, if there is a Heaven, Ghandi should get a ticket.
If Heaven is based on good deeds, then there's no reason to deny Gandhi (at least the sanitized historical Gandhi) a place there. But a lot of Christians believe that the only way to receive entry into heaven is through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of god. Gandhi, not believing in the gospels, wouldn't be entitled to a place in heaven.
I don't think this is an intolerant or insulting opinion, it's their own belief, and they shouldn't be attacked for it.
I suppose if you really wanted to debate the issue I could make an argument as to why Gandhi should be denied a seat in Heaven.
And that's my problem with it all
I don't think they should be attacked for it either. However saying someone like Gandhi is going to Hell is an attack on their beliefs as well. How do you reconcile such a thing? I have no idea. Naturally the Christian says you should just be a Christian, but the world doesn't work that way.
To the Catholic/Christian thing:
Many protestants believe that it does not matter what Jesus told the Apostles or how one lives their life. You can just believe and be saved no matter how much you sin and live like you don't really believe. These protestants will sometimes attack Catholics by calling them un-Christianlike since Catholics believe FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. It is a simple statement that means you actually have to act on your belief. You cannot be Osama Bin Laden, but say you believe in Jesus, and expect God to just open his arms and say all your murdering and torturing and hating will be looked beyond. Catholics believe God is all merciful, but we need to at least attempt to live like we really believe what is in the scriptures.
My in-laws are catholic and one lived for years in preparation to be a nun. That link is funny because I’ve asked many of these questions before and that link gives a lot of similar answers-but they are all twisted to appear more heretical. I do have issues with what they believe, but no one I know believes what that link says they believe.
Fifty wrote:Wow, how are we discussing whether a mild dig by Stephen Hawking is offensive, when we have the horrendous example of atheistic thinking that is Richard Dawkins to lambast? I mean, this is a man who describes religious faith not just as weakness, but as mental illness.
And seriously, if you are offended by Stephen Hawking, you probably need to get out a bit more. In Stephen Hawking's defense, and as a fellow atheist, people who believe in God do indeed come across to some of us as seemingly believing they have an invisible friend, just like in Fairy Stories. Plus, isn't God meant to be invisible? And your friend? And isn't it an invisible friend's job to help them stop being scared? Anyway, if you are scared of something as a Christian, aren't you supposed to ask God to help you find the strength to confront your fears?
He may have been a teensy bit tactless, but to start going on about it being offensive strikes me as more about oversensitivity on the part of the religious than him doing anything truly bad.
While we are on the subject of picking on the wrong party, why are we having a go at Christians, even of the Catholic variety? Go out look for vicious diatribes against non-believers and you'll find richer picking amongst the writings and speeches of Muslims than Christians, generally. I mean, both groups have their unpleasant side, but why pick on just the Cathlolics?
I don't think anyone is getting overly offended. I seem to be the main 'Christian defender' here, and i'm not particularly offended by Hawkins statement, hes entitled to his view, i think someone in his position should be a bit more careful with what he says.
While Dawkins, well, did he do anything particularly interesting before his extremely anti-religious books came out? He's (afaik) made himself known because of these views, so what he says, while offending people is the only reason he is known, Hawkins statement although a lot less blunt, is still more vocal or important because of his position in society
And God, isn't invisible, or your friend.... I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I can list some of the Christian attributes of God if you would like, none of them are 'invisible' or 'friend' just to clear that up....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whats very ironic, is how Jesus, this main pin in the Christian faith, was in fact not Christian.
In the past Hawking was pretty mild in his statements(thinking back to a brief history of time) on the matter of God at least accepting that he could not discount the possiblity a God like figure was needed to set the universe in motion. It seems with his work on M Theory and multiverse he has become more vocal and less tolarant. But I suppose if I had a working theory in quantam mathmatics that I felt was the next evolution in human understanding of the universe in which we lived and it happened to show there was no need for a God like figure or force to exist then perhaps I would get a little annoyed at the religous 'fairy tales' as well.
thedude wrote:In the past Hawking was pretty mild in his statements(thinking back to a brief history of time) on the matter of God at least accepting that he could not discount the possiblity a God like figure was needed to set the universe in motion. It seems with his work on M Theory and multiverse he has become more vocal and less tolarant. But I suppose if I had a working theory in quantam mathmatics that I felt was the next evolution in human understanding of the universe in which we lived and it happened to show there was no need for a God like figure or force to exist then perhaps I would get a little annoyed at the religous 'fairy tales' as well.
Maybe he's just a bitter bitter man. Didn't he get a divorce and got pwoned by Einstein in the rap off?
My blunt logic makes me unable to post in this thread without the Religious crying about offensive, even though they are permitted to flagrantly take the piss, and offend me every single day of my life.
Ill merely say that I agree with the good doctor, and it is a statistically proven fact, that the higher your level of educational attainment, the less interested you will be in our creation mythos, our first and worst attempt at an explanation for existence, created when we still thought the earth was flat.
Maybe he's just a bitter bitter man. Didn't he get a divorce and got pwoned by Einstein in the rap off?
Lol you may be right. I for one believe it is easier for bitterness to creep in the older you get, i mean how could it not??? with these kids and their mtvs, and their MC hammers and their boom boxes, with there da da das and the wa wa waas
mattyrm wrote:My blunt logic makes me unable to post in this thread without the Religious crying about offensive, even though they are permitted to flagrantly take the piss, and offend me every single day of my life.
Ill merely say that I agree with the good doctor, and it is a statistically proven fact, that the higher your level of educational attainment, the less interested you will be in our creation mythos, our first and worst attempt at an explanation for existence, created when we still thought the earth was flat.
Oh.. except for that bit. I said that too.
Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.
Really, statistically proven? You can bend 'stats' anyway you like
Your worried about the religious crying out offensive? Well, i'm not going to say your offensive, but your post (unless a wind up for no good reason) is a bit pathetic. (i don't want to insult you, i don't know you, and you might not mean what i'm reading into your post, but seriously...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:What was Stalin's excuse?
Didn't want to bow down to the Humans, haven't you watched Supernatural
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graveyman wrote:I guess it's just me, but the majority of offensive things I hear seem to be coming from the non religious.
rodgers37 wrote:
Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.
What does this mean by the way?
What do you mean, what does this mean? mattyrm said that religious people are allowed to 'flagrantly take the piss,' Who gave them permission? Know one has permission to take the piss. He doesn't seem to understand that atheists also take the piss, its not a one sided thing.
I'm religious but not by much any more. I know everyone will say my view point is biased but I honestly don't think that is the case. I get just as annoyed when I hear religious people run their mouth and get offensive because as I see it that just make us look bad. I was brought up to spread the faith through actions not preaching.
rodgers37 wrote:
Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.
What does this mean by the way?
What do you mean, what does this mean? mattyrm said that religious people are allowed to 'flagrantly take the piss,' Who gave them permission? Know one has permission to take the piss. He doesn't seem to understand that atheists also take the piss, its not a one sided thing.
No more elementary.
WHAT THE HELL DOES TAKE THE PISS MEAN? I've never heard that phrase outside this board.
You've never heard 'that takes the piss' before?
Sorry thats not my fault, its probably just a term used in UK. Taking the piss is taking the mickey, insulting what ever you want to call it. Sorry didn't know thats what you meant.... Its quite hard to remember what terms are British and what terms are American, when most of out TV and Films are American...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graveyman wrote:I'm religious but not by much any more. I know everyone will say my view point is biased but I honestly don't think that is the case. I get just as annoyed when I hear religious people run their mouth and get offensive because as I see it that just make us look bad. I was brought up to spread the faith through actions not preaching.
Yeah, i would actually rather have an argument with a religious person who felt the need to act like that. I have no idea who started this whole debate in the first place (not today, i mean in the wider world) but both sides weigh in, both sides have idiots, and both sides should get respect from the other. Its not fair to say no one can talk about it at all, its not even fair to exclude the people with, lets say more blunt views, everyone has an opinion, and some people don't like others opinion.
To throw another log on the fire I ask the posters to consider this...
Why should anybody respect someones religious beliefs? What makes your religious beliefs special that I have to respect them? You choose to believe in a deity (this covers the worship of any deity), that's your choice. It's not like you're a cripple, suffer from a facial disfigurment, are gay, stutter etc.
If I go out and choose to get rat-arsed and then play up, I can expect to be considered an idiot (at best), the same if I shoot myself full of drugs, run down the middle of the road naked or top myself in some stupid (Darwin awards) way. However if I choose to believe in something that there is no real tangible evidence exists then people have to watch what they say and be respectful.
On a personal level I wouldn't wish to be disrespectable to any of the believers on the board, but that's down to fact i try to be polite to people. Not because I'm concerned over hurting your feelings because I think the human race is crazy, for believing in something that there is no solid evidence exists.
You should just have a general respect for fellow human beings, and there beliefs. I'm not saying bow down to anyone, but unless they do something to deserve a lack of respect (like religious 'extremists' Even less extreme, like jamming their views down your throat, or atheists doing the same..) there is no reason why you should have any aggressive feelings towards others just because you don't believe in what they do.
You don't have to have respect, I just though it was a general trait of human beings. Obviously there are people who don't deserve that as much, and its up to you who you respect and don't respect...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Because we'll burn you at the stake?
People believe in all kinds of things there's no proof of. I have no proof of the existence of Europe, yet I believe there is a chance it exists.
Frazzled wrote:Because we'll burn you at the stake?
People believe in all kinds of things there's no proof of. I have no proof of the existence of Europe, yet I believe there is a chance it exists.
Brilliant!!!! Because that big old deity in the sky, who created the universe can't wipe me off the planet in an instant, he leaves it to his earth bound followers to make that decision ) Followers I would like to point out, who interpret the teachings from the same book in different ways.
Right we've finished converting or burning the non-believers in Europe what do we do now? .... Hold on a mo I know. I think God's favourite colour is Blue! You HEATHEN bastich!!! It's Yellow!!!. No it's not it's Magnolia. No you're all wrong he told me in my dreams it's Purple!!! Sheesh! )
Frazzled wrote:Because we'll burn you at the stake?
People believe in all kinds of things there's no proof of. I have no proof of the existence of Europe, yet I believe there is a chance it exists.
Brilliant!!!! Because that big old deity in the sky, who created the universe can't wipe me off the planet in an instant, he leaves it to his earth bound followers to make that decision ) Followers I would like to point out, who interpret the teachings from the same book in different ways.
Right we've finished converting or burning the non-believers in Europe what do we do now? .... Hold on a mo I know. I think God's favourite colour is Blue! You HEATHEN bastich!!! It's Yellow!!!. No it's not it's Magnolia. No you're all wrong he told me in my dreams it's Purple!!! Sheesh! )
WE're not burning you at the stake because we made the decision, we're just following orders.
And for the record only infidels and blasphemers commit the heresy of discussing any color other than Blue or a hue of Red. Because God's colors are red, white, and blue, which is why he gave them to his favorite country-America FETH YEA!
I'm sorry but I've just never been able to force myself to believe in God. I really tried, particularly when I was younger, but I could never get past the feeling that I was acting. Like how a waitress smiles at your jokes because there's a tip (heaven) in it for her. Now I don't begrudge people who do believe. In fact I'm a little jealous of them. But I suppose what scares me the most are elected officials (not just Joe the plumber) who use their belief as an excuse to slow science, or deny birthcontrol, or wage war. It scares me that there are people in actual power that believe that the Ark literally some how managed to get 2 of every animal on the planet on board.
if you dont respect their belief system I guess thats up to you. But do respect their right to believe
I believe that people have the right to choose how they want to live and what they believe in. What I don't believe in, is protecting your feelings when it's discussed.
Damnit I did it again! I must remember to treat Frazz's post's as forum candy
if you dont respect their belief system I guess thats up to you. But do respect their right to believe
I believe that people have the right to choose how they want to live and what they believe in. What I don't believe in, is protecting your feelings when it's discussed.
Damnit I did it again! I must remember to treat Frazz's post's as forum candy
Repent unbeliever! The end of Human time is nigh! Dachshundgeddon approaches! All your ankles are belong to us!
Wolfstan wrote:To throw another log on the fire I ask the posters to consider this...
Why should anybody respect someones religious beliefs? What makes your religious beliefs special that I have to respect them? You choose to believe in a deity (this covers the worship of any deity), that's your choice. It's not like you're a cripple, suffer from a facial disfigurment, are gay, stutter etc.
I think you are going for the argument that gay is not a choice but i thought it odd and maybe a little funny you chose to put it somewhere between facial disfigurment and stuttering
Wolfstan wrote:To throw another log on the fire I ask the posters to consider this...
Why should anybody respect someones religious beliefs? What makes your religious beliefs special that I have to respect them? You choose to believe in a deity (this covers the worship of any deity), that's your choice. It's not like you're a cripple, suffer from a facial disfigurment, are gay, stutter etc.
I think you are going for the argument that gay is not a choice but i thought it odd and maybe a little funny you chose to put it somewhere between facial disfigurment and stuttering
Some people (have no idea if its true...) say it is genetic....But thats another discussion.
Wolfstan wrote:
To throw another log on the fire I ask the posters to consider this...
Why should anybody respect someones religious beliefs? What makes your religious beliefs special that I have to respect them? You choose to believe in a deity (this covers the worship of any deity), that's your choice. It's not like you're a cripple, suffer from a facial disfigurment, are gay, stutter etc.
Yeah I agree with this. I'll stand up for your right to have a belief, whatever it is, even if I hate it. But I have just as much right to disagree with your opinion and judge you for it. If you're allowed to state your view I should be able to say mine.
Respect is up to the individual not the topic of discussion.
Wolfstan wrote:To throw another log on the fire I ask the posters to consider this...
Why should anybody respect someones religious beliefs? What makes your religious beliefs special that I have to respect them? You choose to believe in a deity (this covers the worship of any deity), that's your choice. It's not like you're a cripple, suffer from a facial disfigurment, are gay, stutter etc.
I think you are going for the argument that gay is not a choice but i thought it odd and maybe a little funny you chose to put it somewhere between facial disfigurment and stuttering
Yeah I know, just typed words as they popped in my head You are right though, it was about not chosing.
The mind is what the brain does. I think that the more we understand our physiological condition the more we will understand our 'human' condition.
Arguments for an afterlife are all ultimately predicated on faith. For hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of years we have, in fits and starts, been whittling away at the supernatural. The 'God is in the Gaps' may have worked then, but those gaps are shrinking, and again, lead back to blind faith.
I probably shouldn't use Supernatural references, i think the TV show thread, kind of pointed out that your not allowed to like it
It's ok some of us have good tastes in TV
Going to watch the last 3 episodes of series 4 in a bit (Again )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yad wrote:The mind is what the brain does. I think that the more we understand our physiological condition the more we will understand our 'human' condition.
Arguments for an afterlife are all ultimately predicated on faith. For hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of years we have, in fits and starts, been whittling away at the supernatural. The 'God is in the Gaps' may have worked then, but those gaps are shrinking, and again, lead back to blind faith.
-Yad
Whats wrong with faith?
There aren't any factual arguments to prove either way.....
The problem with faith is that it can justify anything. I can believe in unicorns and think it's ok because I have faith. Terrorists do what they do because they have faith. True faith in something entirely impossible to prove is dangerous.
Frazzled wrote: I have no proof of the existence of Europe, yet I believe there is a chance it exists.
That's nonsense, there is a massive difference between believing in the existence of a thing which you can empirically verify, and believing in the existence of a thing which is necessarily empirically unverifiable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avatar 720 wrote:As intellectual as SH is, he apparently hasn't got tolerance figured out, and obviously can't take the fact that people (a very large number at that, albeit in different forms) have different opinions than he does.
He's managed to make a blanket statement about almost every major religion (those that believe in some form of afterlife) that labels them as people who tell fairy tales and are afraid of the dark; congratulations Hawking, you've managed to insult a large percentage of the Earth's population with one dickish statement.
He's not the first, and won't be the last, but for someone who is supposed to be 'smart', he really lacks tact and tolerance of the beliefs of others.
I don't see why anything Hawking said is insulting. There are wholly rational reasons to be afraid of the dark, not the least of which is out dependence on vision, and the difficulty we have seeing in it. Similarly, there are wholly rational reasons to believe in an afterlife, chiefly the alleviation of the fear of death. Noting that the two are similar isn't insulting so much as descriptive.
If people would simply admit to the truth of what they are, and what they believe, rather than pretending to something that they want to be there would be far less tension in the world.
if you dont respect their belief system I guess thats up to you. But do respect their right to believe
I believe that people have the right to choose how they want to live and what they believe in. What I don't believe in, is protecting your feelings when it's discussed.
Damnit I did it again! I must remember to treat Frazz's post's as forum candy
yeah i get what you're saying here but what I want to know tho is why you feel that some people expect protection from what you say?
is it because its offensive?
then its not really respecting at all is it?
often when people get offended by what we said...its just because what we said WAS offensive.
When you say that someone's belief is "silly" or "doesnt make sense" then it is reasonable for people who have devoted a portion of their life to it, or for some who view it as their life to feel that you are calling them "silly" or "senseless"
dogma wrote:
If people would simply admit to the truth of what they are, and what they believe, rather than pretending to something that they want to be there would be far less tension in the world.
Right, i could be reading this wrong. But are you saying that some/most/all people who believe in God/afterlife, do so out of hope, or needing something after they die, something to live for etc. Before i say anything else, can you clarify exactly what you mean...
No that isn't what wolfstan is saying. He believe people should be able to choose what they think but also that someone else can judge their view.
Allowing people to choose their view isn't the same as everyone having the right to have there view respected.
Telling someone bluntly you think their view is stupid isn't stopping them believeing it.
Rodgers- A lot of the arguments for religion are that it doesn't make sense for there not be a bigger purpose. A lot of people think an after life exists because they strugle to comprehend that death is the end- they just don't want to accept that it will be oblivion. People are desperate to believe there is a purpose- something making us special and not just some other animal.
4M2A wrote:No that isn't what wolfstan is saying. He believe people should be able to choose what they think but also that someone else can judge their view.
Allowing people to choose their view isn't the same as everyone having the right to have there view respected.
Telling someone bluntly you think their view is stupid isn't stopping them believeing it.
rodgers37 wrote:I know what will make this all go away...
Lets all watch Inception
Oh God no. Lets go watch from Dusk Til Dawn.
Yeah, thats fun as well. I've always wondered though, why Tarantino played that character... He probably wrote it with himself in mind, he's a disturbing character.
rodgers37 wrote:I know what will make this all go away...
Lets all watch Inception
Oh God no. Lets go watch from Dusk Til Dawn.
Yeah, thats fun as well. I've always wondered though, why Tarantino played that character... He probably wrote it with himself in mind, he's a disturbing character.
Probably so he could have Hayak's foot in his face. He has a female foot fetish.
Sure if you want to say stuff like that you can. Without any proof no one worth listening too is going to pay you any attention.
It's not really the same either. Thats just radomly coming up with comments. If someone has a view point and they tell people it, people are able to respond. If their view opposes yours tough. They have as much right to say it as you do.
rodgers37 wrote:I know what will make this all go away...
Lets all watch Inception
Oh God no. Lets go watch from Dusk Til Dawn.
Yeah, thats fun as well. I've always wondered though, why Tarantino played that character... He probably wrote it with himself in mind, he's a disturbing character.
Probably so he could have Hayak's foot in his face. He has a female foot fetish.
That makes sense.
Has anyone watched the sequels? I only know they exist because Wikipedia told me....
No the right to not get offended is stupid. What is offensive is entirely different between people. All that happens is that people with common views can say what they like as lots of people back them up and otehr people have to take it.
rodgers37 wrote:I know what will make this all go away...
Lets all watch Inception
Oh God no. Lets go watch from Dusk Til Dawn.
Yeah, thats fun as well. I've always wondered though, why Tarantino played that character... He probably wrote it with himself in mind, he's a disturbing character.
Probably so he could have Hayak's foot in his face. He has a female foot fetish.
That makes sense.
Has anyone watched the sequels? I only know they exist because Wikipedia told me....
4M2A wrote:No the right to not get offended is stupid. What is offensive is entirely different between people. All that happens is that people with common views can say what they like as lots of people back them up and otehr people have to take it.
youre right. whats offensive is subjective so its just good sense to be respectful eh?
besides its not as if atheists dont push back and throw their weight around. I mean "One nation under God" right?
If I were to say that privacy was a fairytale? Free will? Equality? Suddenly it's not so offensive. But you add in the word 'heaven' and folks are up in arms about it.
Look: you're likely not truly offended, but rather looking for a reason to be offended in the first place. Stephen Hawking didn't go out and proclaim on a street corner his perception of the afterlife, he responded to a question of how he viewed it. Woe is him to have a varying view point on spirituality because he understands the natural world better than all of us combined.
Look: you're likely not truly offended, but rather looking for a reason to be offended in the first place.
I apologise most profusely; you obviously have better knowledge of my thoughts and feelings than I do and you've managed to see what I really mean without actually having met me or even heard of me before.
/sarcasm
I AM offended, and it would be great if you refrained from trying to imply otherwise in the future, mmmkay?
I do think saying Hawkins was offensive is being a little strong. He made a poke at religion- was anyone surprised he felt that way? I’m torn on this because it bugs me when people lack common courtesy or respect for others, but I’m also extremely tired of this politically correct world where I have to worry that anything I say might be offensive to someone. I know, it’s pretty contradictory…
And Christians offend non-Christians (atheists and other religions) all the time as well. Welcome to the world where your way of thinking isn't the only one, even within your own group.
And Christians offend non-Christians (atheists and other religions) all the time as well. Welcome to the world where your way of thinking isn't the only one, even within your own group.
Excuse me, but I don't believe I said it was the only one; in fact, i'm pretty sure I said i'm all for people having their own views. I don't honestly see your point here; am I not allowed to be offended because some spankers who call themselves Christians or members of other religions have gone and given everyone else a bad name?
No one seemed to respond to my question of Reincarnation as an afterlife, but I suppose it was partly rhetorical. Anyway, I personally believe in such an afterlife, because that is what I actually think will happen, not what I wish would happen. When someone says I only believe in such things because of my fear of death, I get annoyed because they seem to be implying that they are better than me because they don't need that belief to cope with death. But honestly, if it isn't true, if there really is no afterlife, then I don't really care, because there is nothing I can do. By the time I find out, it won't really matter now will it?
I think most Religious argument stem from people's need to be right. They want to feel smarter or better than others. That's why everyone tries to find ways to make the other side look bad, so they can feel like they are better people. No seriously every argument is like that. People keep on insisting that people from a certain belief did bad things therefore others from that belief are bad etc.
Avatar 720 wrote:I don't honestly see your point here
Well color me shocked.
Answer this: why should we care that you are offended? Do you think it is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr. Hawking? Do you think anyone is going to think you are in a better position to judge Mr. Hawking's personal views? What do you get out of getting all teary eyed about this? It changes nothing and makes you appear intolerant of other peoples ideas. The reasonable reaction is to just realize you don't agree with him and move on instead of getting all bent out of shape for someone having a different line of thinking than your own. So again, why should we give a damn that you are offended?
While I'm not really offended by the comment, there is a difference between "I have foung nothign to support the concept of life after death or heaven" and "People who believe in God are silly fools". I realize that's not how he put it but that was the implication.
Avatar 720 wrote:I don't honestly see your point here
Well color me shocked.
Answer this: why should we care that you are offended? Do you think it is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr. Hawking? Do you think anyone is going to think you are in a better position to judge Mr. Hawking's personal views? What do you get out of getting all teary eyed about this? It changes nothing and makes you appear intolerant of other peoples ideas. The reasonable reaction is to just realize you don't agree with him and move on instead of getting all bent out of shape for someone having a different line of thinking than your own. So again, why should we give a damn that you are offended?
Simple answer: You shouldn't. I don't expect you to be.
As for the rest of your post, how is it making me appear intolerant? He was the one that made the jab, not me, if anything he is being intolerant of my beliefs. I'm not saying that athiests are dumb or what have you; where exactly do I start to appear intolerant? Before or after I decided to defend my beliefs?
The reasonable reaction for me is to defend what I believe. I have previously stated that if he had simply stated his beliefs sans the insult, i'd have no qualm with it.
What part of what I am saying is fueling your hatred here?
Avatar 720 wrote:I don't honestly see your point here
Well color me shocked.
Answer this: why should we care that you are offended? Do you think it is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr. Hawking? Do you think anyone is going to think you are in a better position to judge Mr. Hawking's personal views? What do you get out of getting all teary eyed about this? It changes nothing and makes you appear intolerant of other peoples ideas. The reasonable reaction is to just realize you don't agree with him and move on instead of getting all bent out of shape for someone having a different line of thinking than your own. So again, why should we give a damn that you are offended?
Simple answer: You shouldn't. I don't expect you to be.
As for the rest of your post, how is it making me appear intolerant? He was the one that made the jab, not me, if anything he is being intolerant of my beliefs. I'm not saying that athiests are dumb or what have you; where exactly do I start to appear intolerant? Before or after I decided to defend my beliefs?
The reasonable reaction for me is to defend what I believe. I have previously stated that if he had simply stated his beliefs sans the insult, i'd have no qualm with it.
What part of what I am saying is fueling your hatred here?
Well...if were going to discuss intolerance..
What,by and large ,is the Chistian view concerning Homosexuals ?...What about those who engage in pre-marital sex?
Avatar 720 wrote:The reasonable reaction for me is to defend what I believe.
But you aren't defending what you believe so much as attacking what someone else does. A guy you don't know and probably have never met has an opinion different from you so lash out. If tolerance was your goal you'd think "se la vie" and move on, because the very act of someone with a differing viewpoint wouldn't require you to barge onto the internet to express your outrage over someone not agreeing with you. You act as if he came to your house and told you you were wrong. I mean, with all the real things in the world that are offensive, like children starving to death, you choose this to complain about. A guy just doesn't feel the same way about religion you do and when asked about it was honest. If you want to get offended, there are much better things and much more overtly anti-Christian people you could go after.
No one seemed to respond to my question of Reincarnation as an afterlife, but I suppose it was partly rhetorical. Anyway, I personally believe in such an afterlife, because that is what I actually think will happen, not what I wish would happen. When someone says I only believe in such things because of my fear of death, I get annoyed because they seem to be implying that they are better than me because they don't need that belief to cope with death. But honestly, if it isn't true, if there really is no afterlife, then I don't really care, because there is nothing I can do. By the time I find out, it won't really matter now will it?
I think most Religious argument stem from people's need to be right. They want to feel smarter or better than others. That's why everyone tries to find ways to make the other side look bad, so they can feel like they are better people. No seriously every argument is like that. People keep on insisting that people from a certain belief did bad things therefore others from that belief are bad etc.
My only input would be is there is any evidence to support the idea of reincarnation? This is is isn't barring the fact that the number of living things on this earth is rapidly increasing making the concept a bit of a stretch to begin with. But you're right: by the time we reach the end, the debate itself will be pointless as we're no longer here to argue back and forth. I'll repeat my statement in my post once again to address the afterlife: is these any proof to begin with?
Ahtman responded to the overly-aggressive Avatar better than I could have. Avatar is all for individuals having their own opinions, but is outraged when they don't match his own. This falls in line with a common fault in America (and possibly other places in the world): "You can believe what you want, but I don't want to see it, hear it or find it expressed in any fashion while I ignore things that I happen to agree with due to bias and/or cognitive dissonance".
There's nothing inflammatory about what Hawking has said until you make it more than it actually is. If I said that privacy and equality were a myth, would people then be offended? Surely these are things people hold dear.
Well...if were going to discuss intolerance..
What,by and large ,is the Chistian view concerning Homosexuals ?...What about those who engage in pre-marital sex?
From what I can tell, the main teaching is intolerance, but I cannot (and I must stress this) speak for everyone. I personally find nothing wrong with either of them, in fact, i'm bisexual myself, so it'd be pretty strange for me to believe homosexuality was wrong.
Pre-marital sex doesn't bother me; you can do what you want with your body and your partner(s).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Avatar 720 wrote:The reasonable reaction for me is to defend what I believe.
But you aren't defending what you believe so much as attacking what someone else does. A guy you don't know and probably have never met has an opinion different from you so lash out.
Are you missing the fact that he insulted me to start it, or simply ignoring it? For the umpteenth time I don't care if he has a different opinion, I care that he insulted a lot of people (myself included) by mouthing off at everyone who believes otherwise.
If tolerance was your goal you'd think "se la vie" and move on, because the very act of someone with a differing viewpoint wouldn't require you to barge onto the internet to express your outrage over someone not agreeing with you. You act as if he came to your house and told you you were wrong. I mean, with all the real things in the world that are offensive, like children starving to death, you choose this to complain about. A guy just doesn't feel the same way about religion you do and when asked about it was honest. If you want to get offended, there are much better things and much more overtly anti-Christian people you could go after.
This is simply flame-bait, so i'm going to choose not to throw a spark on it.
Well...if were going to discuss intolerance..
What,by and large ,is the Chistian view concerning Homosexuals ?...What about those who engage in pre-marital sex?
From what I can tell, the main teaching is intolerance, but I cannot (and I must stress this) speak for everyone. I personally find nothing wrong with either of them, in fact, i'm bisexual myself, so it'd be pretty strange for me to believe homosexuality was wrong.
Pre-marital sex doesn't bother me; you can do what you want with your body and your partner(s).
Ok,so admittedly there is a tendency towards intolerance in the teachings within organized relegion...so surely it can't be much of a surprise when some "backlash" occures...chickens will come home to roost..so to speak.
Now,on a more personal level,you yourself seem to have a more tolerant outlook,which is a good thing.
I know I'm probably going to get lambasted for this but I’m just trying to explain what I was taught through religion... Again from my experience in religion- yes homosexuality and premarital sex is considered bad, but one should treat everyone with love and respect. You can disagree with someone’s actions and still be kind, respectful, etc. People now seem to think if you disagree with them you must be intolerant.
Graveyman wrote:I know I'm probably going to get lambasted for this but I’m just trying to explain what I was taught through religion... Again from my experience in religion- yes homosexuality and premarital sex is considered bad, but one should treat everyone with love and respect. You can disagree with someone’s actions and still be kind, respectful, etc. People now seem to think if you disagree with them you must be intolerant.
I would think it's a bit difficult to treat people with "love and respect" if you believe them (or at least their lifestyle) to be "bad"...but I get the point your trying to convey.
I openly admit to disliking organized religion and to disagreeing with many of it's "teachings"...but I do attempt to remain civil when discussing the subject.
Avatar 720 wrote:This is simply flame-bait, so i'm going to choose not to throw a spark on it.
I take it you don't really know what that means, or you meant to say "I have no real response to this so I'm not going to try". It isn't flame-bait in any way, it is a serious set of questions. Just because you have trouble answering in an honest and reasonable manner doesn't mean they aren't part of a valid line of inquiry.
Hawking didn't insult you, you were insulted, there is a difference. You are taking something that isn't about you (Mr. Hawking's personal beliefs) and making it all about you and somehow personal.
Avatar 720 wrote:This is simply flame-bait, so i'm going to choose not to throw a spark on it.
I take it you don't really know what that means, or you meant to say "I have no real response to this so I'm not going to try". It isn't flame-bait in any way, it is a serious set of questions. Just because you have trouble answering in an honest and reasonable manner doesn't mean they aren't part of a valid line of inquiry.
Take it however you want, I know what it means and I know how answering the questions will end, so I will choose not to answer. Call me Mr Unadventurous, but I don't see how being engaged in a protracted argument that will ultimately end in you trying to provoke me into saying something stupid would benefit the discussion in any way.
Hawking didn't insult you, you were insulted, there is a difference. You are taking something that isn't about you (Mr. Hawking's personal beliefs) and making it all about you and somehow personal.
He did insult me? According to him, I believe in fairy tales and i'm afraid of the dark because I believe in an afterlife. If that's not an insult then I don't know what exactly is.
It is also not his personal beliefs, he stated it as fact. Saying "I don't believe in the existance of heaven" is stating your personal beliefs; saying "Everyone who believes in a heaven believes in fairytales and is afraid of the dark" is not stating your beliefs, it is an insult aimed at those who believe in heaven. There is a difference, and i'm wondering how you cannot see it, because several members of this thread can.
How would you even go about proving/disproving the existance of Heaven, anyway?
I dont. I gave my opinion, not a stated fact.
Sorry, that wasn't directed at you, more of just a general thought.
Off Topic: You know what I don't understand about the whole Pre-Marital Sex is a no-no? We, Human Beings, were made (according to the Adam and Eve story) to be little more than animals right off the bat. Animals have sex whenever they want.....
Also, I don't understand Preists not being able to marry; God gave man woman to love and cherish, it just seems odd to me that his high priests would cut themselves off from one of his gifts (According to Catholic Beleif and the Bible.)
On topic; I won't honestly pretend to know what is waiting for us after we die. Maybe our soul just stays in our body, buried underground forever. Maybe theres Heaven/Hell. Maybe theres reincarnation. I don't know. Unlike most people I have met, I won't pretend to. But there has to be something, right? Too much random stuff that nobody can explain happens for there to NOT be some sort of spiritual existance.
Why does there have to be a spiritual existance. Why not, when you die, your brain goes click, off, gone? And you're dead. That's it. Nothing. There's certainly nothing that points towards a supernatural occurance other than our own inclinations to believe in one, largely based on our own fears of our mortality.
It's not like your computer has any thoughts floating around once you take out its power supply.
Fafnir wrote:Why does there have to be a spiritual existance. Why not, when you die, your brain goes click, off, gone? And you're dead. That's it. Nothing. There's certainly nothing that points towards a supernatural occurance other than our own inclinations to believe in one, largely based on our own fears of our mortality.
It's not like your computer has any thoughts floating around once you take out its power supply.
But does the Data stored in the computer disappear, or is it there, you just cant access it?
The data is there, but with nothing to power it, it is useless.
Likewise, once the brain no longer recieves the resources it needs to 'power' it (blood and junk), it starts to degrade (organic stuff tends to do that...). Once that's gone, there's nothing left. There's nothing to suggest some sort of supernatural presence. It's meat.
Fafnir wrote:The data is there, but with nothing to power it, it is useless.
Likewise, once the brain no longer recieves the resources it needs to 'power' it (blood and junk), it starts to degrade (organic stuff tends to do that...). Once that's gone, there's nothing left. There's nothing to suggest some sort of supernatural presence. It's meat.
Fafnir wrote:The data is there, but with nothing to power it, it is useless.
Likewise, once the brain no longer recieves the resources it needs to 'power' it (blood and junk), it starts to degrade (organic stuff tends to do that...). Once that's gone, there's nothing left. There's nothing to suggest some sort of supernatural presence. It's meat.
So then, what happens to the Data? Does it simply disappear alongside the brain?
Sorry, I am running on about 3 hours of sleep and a whole lot of Caffeine, so I'm very thick/philosophical, take that as you will.
That's all fine and dandy fafnir, but the biggest thing would have to be an argument for the soul being different than a computer's data.
While a computer's data becomes unnecessary once the computer is no more, the human soul is supposed to transcend the organic system of life.
Now in order to argue that you need to argue whether or not a human soul exists. As a Catholic I believe in ghosts, souls, God, Baby Jesus and the whole nine yards so for me the existance of a human soul is very possible.
A person's own perspective is truly unique, yes but it can be recorded and duplicated from that. If all the memories in a person's brain are but electrical impulses and chemicals then in due time we may be able to duplicate a person's perspective a la something akin to the Sixth Day and the evil guy who lived forever because they could transfer these things.
Now if you argue from a soul standpoint then a soul is non-transferable. A single soul exists for a single being and even if that being is duplicated and perspective is transferred another soul is in that being despite the fact that it thinks its the previous being.
Souls however exist only in theology and not in science so I can't prove nor disprove the existance of human souls. However, if souls do exist then they exist outside of the realm of science and cannot be duplicated.
The best argument for souls would have to be a jar of peanut butter that can grow bacteria with souls despite the fact that its in a soul-proof container.
halonachos wrote:
A person's own perspective is truly unique, yes but it can be recorded and duplicated from that. If all the memories in a person's brain are but electrical impulses and chemicals then in due time we may be able to duplicate a person's perspective a la something akin to the Sixth Day and the evil guy who lived forever because they could transfer these things.
The clone may have the same memories, thoughts and nuances, but the perspective is still different. It's a separate entity living at a seperate point in time and space.
The best argument for souls would have to be a jar of peanut butter that can grow bacteria with souls despite the fact that its in a soul-proof container.
That analogy is recursive an horrible. You say that the best argument we have for souls is by simply assuming that they're there, essentially.
The peanut butter thing was a joke first of all, another dakkaite can help you with that.
Otherwise I can't prove that souls do or don't exist. Although as soon as someone claims to see a ghost and says they don't believe in souls my hand becomes possessed like Ash Williams. Again, souls exist outside of science and can't be explained through science similar to how we exist just because we exist, you know, the whole "I think therefor I am." kind of deal. Science can't readily prove that we exist as an actual living species or if we're just some computer program thinking we exist as actual living species, we just have to trust that we are or aren't.
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.
I can believe in the concept of reincarnation because of science. When we die our bodies break down in to atoms/molocules? These get used to build something else. It wouldn't come as a suprise if science proves that clumps of these atoms/molocules can actually stay togetehr and end up in a new human, thus causing these memories of another life. As much as it's way out there, I believe in that possibility more than a God. No matter how you look at if there is a God, then the old argument is, who made him? If believers in God disimiss the idea of the big bang, the whole idea of something from nothing, how do you explain his existance?
rodgers37 wrote:
Right, i could be reading this wrong. But are you saying that some/most/all people who believe in God/afterlife, do so out of hope, or needing something after they die, something to live for etc. Before i say anything else, can you clarify exactly what you mean...
No, I said those are among the most significant, rational reasons to believe in God.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avatar 720 wrote:
It is also not his personal beliefs, he stated it as fact. Saying "I don't believe in the existance of heaven" is stating your personal beliefs; saying "Everyone who believes in a heaven believes in fairytales and is afraid of the dark" is not stating your beliefs, it is an insult aimed at those who believe in heaven. There is a difference, and i'm wondering how you cannot see it, because several members of this thread can.
You do realize that every sentence one utters does not have to be prefaced by "I believe" in order to be a statement of belief, correct?
When I point at a table, and say "This is a table." what I'm really doing is making a propositional statement indicating that I believe the object in question is called a table. I could place the words "I believe" ahead of "this" but it isn't necessary to do so, and only changes tone.
The issue here is entirely in your mind, Hawking made an authoritative statement regarding his own beliefs, that is all.
rodgers37 wrote:
Right, i could be reading this wrong. But are you saying that some/most/all people who believe in God/afterlife, do so out of hope, or needing something after they die, something to live for etc. Before i say anything else, can you clarify exactly what you mean...
No, I said those are among the most significant, rational reasons to believe in God.
Ok thanks.
Couple things i've picked up on while reading all the posts i missed last night.
The whole pre-marital sex thing, as far as i'm aware, that may be suggested, but i don't think the Church really minds anymore, probably because people do anyway, and they can't be saying that all their followers are going to hell because they had sex before marriage.... there are some people who follow this rule, and some divisions will expect it.
There was something else, but i've forgotten. Better go pray now
Many churches care very much about pre marital sex and homosexuality. Just because you don't doesn't mean it is the most common view. We see a lot of the westernised christianity which suprisingly is in line with our society.
Many religious people say that they respect everyone's views and that they are all balanced, but in the next sentence say that there religion is the right one. You can't have both at once.
Religion is about believing you're superior to others. If you didn't think your view was better you wouldn't believe it. You might not agree with shoving down people throats but that is still your view.
You can't stop someone saying something you find offensive without limiting their right to say their opinion.
I don't know why people believe they religious views are sacred. To you they are but I couldn't care less. You would laught if I took offense at you saying you didn't like a type of food, but that could be a belief I value. Reality check- people will disagree with your view and can judge you for them. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can't say it. I don't like people saying i'm inferior because I'm not part of their religion but I don't claim they are being offensive.
About Fafnir's view- This is how I see it. Our brains are just exceptionalaly complex computers. The "data" is just the structure, like computers store data in many thousands of switches. The Data is just how that structure translates. Once we die our the structure of our brains stops changing and deteriorates. It's hard to comprehend because of the way it feels to us but all the feeling and emotions we feel are just chainges in chemicals in the brain nothing more.
4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.
4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.
I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.
4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.
I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.
Given the comments in this thread, I would suggest Atheism.
4M2A wrote:Many churches care very much about pre marital sex and homosexuality. Just because you don't doesn't mean it is the most common view. We see a lot of the westernised christianity which suprisingly is in line with our society.
Many religious people say that they respect everyone's views and that they are all balanced, but in the next sentence say that there religion is the right one. You can't have both at once.
Religion is about believing you're superior to others. If you didn't think your view was better you wouldn't believe it. You might not agree with shoving down people throats but that is still your view.
You can't stop someone saying something you find offensive without limiting their right to say their opinion.
I don't know why people believe they religious views are sacred. To you they are but I couldn't care less. You would laught if I took offense at you saying you didn't like a type of food, but that could be a belief I value. Reality check- people will disagree with your view and can judge you for them. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can't say it. I don't like people saying i'm inferior because I'm not part of their religion but I don't claim they are being offensive.
About Fafnir's view- This is how I see it. Our brains are just exceptionalaly complex computers. The "data" is just the structure, like computers store data in many thousands of switches. The Data is just how that structure translates. Once we die our the structure of our brains stops changing and deteriorates. It's hard to comprehend because of the way it feels to us but all the feeling and emotions we feel are just chainges in chemicals in the brain nothing more.
I didn't say it was the most common view, i'm not actually using very many facts here, because i can't speak for every member of every Christian faith, i can only really speak for myself, and to a lesser extent Catholics.
And the respect thing, well you can quite easily respect/allow what ever you want to call it other peoples beliefs without any argument. For example, i'm Vegetarian, but i'm happy to allow others to eat Meat, i can respect your decision if you do so, i can still think its wrong, but i'm not going to jump around shouting about it, i can just get on with my life.
Religion is not about believing you are superior... In fact, i would say calling a religion a 'fairy tale for people afraid of the dark' is someone trying to appear superior. And there was another comment in this thread, saying that intelligent/well educated people are less likely to be religious...
And sacred views... Well i don't know what to say to that, that hasn't already been said.
For a start, who is calling you inferior?
And it doesn't matter if you couldn't care less about someone's religious view, doesn't mean that you can't accept that its their view, and as long as they aren't unreasonable (like trying to force you to believe, or calling you inferior etc), there is no problem.
I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...
rodgers37 wrote:I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...
Because Hawking is more likely to be right?
Surely faith isn't based on evidence so people of faith should ignore what he says.
^ Yes but I doubt Hawkings (or anyone else really) is really qualified to say whether heaven exists or not. No matter how well you are educated in science, things like this that have little to do with science.
I think people need to stop thinking of the Supernatural as something that we could understand with our current science, that is if it exists.
rodgers37 wrote:I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...
Because Hawking is more likely to be right?
Surely faith isn't based on evidence so people of faith should ignore what he says.
No, because he's an important person. He is obviously entitled to his view, and his work to him, makes him believe there is no God.
People with faith on the whole will ignore it, but if comments like that were ignored, there would never have been a debate in the first place?
Mike Noble wrote:^ Yes but I doubt Hawkings (or anyone else really) is really qualified to say whether heaven exists or not. No matter how well you are educated in science, things like this that have little to do with science.
Unless your field of science deals with the nature of reality and the universe. Wait...
Actually, science has, and can have, a great deal to offer to metaphysical and existential questions. No one is saying that science is the final authority on the nature of a god being or afterlife, but that isn't to say the only thing we learn from science is why leaves are green.
rodgers37 wrote:I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...
Because Hawking is more likely to be right?
Surely faith isn't based on evidence so people of faith should ignore what he says.
No, because he's an important person. He is obviously entitled to his view, and his work to him, makes him believe there is no God.
People with faith on the whole will ignore it, but if comments like that were ignored, there would never have been a debate in the first place?
I'm not sure it is possible to have a debate on the subject.
Atheists deny the existence of gods, based on the lack of evidence.
Theists believe in the existence of gods, despite the lack of evidence. Or rather, they are convinced by evidence which atheists would say does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
One side holds up a picture of a goose wearing cricketing pads. The other side holds up a picture of a melon with helicopter rotor blades. "Your argument is invalid".
The best thing to do is to say that science does not deal with the supernatural.
4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.
I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.
Very few religions would overtly make such a claim, but any faith which turns primarily on salvation only for true believers pretty well fits the mold.
rodgers37 wrote:I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...
Because Hawking is more likely to be right?
Surely faith isn't based on evidence so people of faith should ignore what he says.
No, because he's an important person. He is obviously entitled to his view, and his work to him, makes him believe there is no God.
People with faith on the whole will ignore it, but if comments like that were ignored, there would never have been a debate in the first place?
I'm not sure it is possible to have a debate on the subject.
Atheists deny the existence of gods, based on the lack of evidence.
Theists believe in the existence of gods, despite the lack of evidence. Or rather, they are convinced by evidence which atheists would say does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
One side holds up a picture of a goose wearing cricketing pads. The other side holds up a picture of a melon with helicopter rotor blades. "Your argument is invalid".
The best thing to do is to say that science does not deal with the supernatural.
A debate doesn't need to be backed up with facts, you can do it on pure opinion alone. This 8 page thread has been a debate, there are many examples of 'famous' (or what ever word you deem suitable) philosophers who's whole life work is based around wether or not God is real (or a large chunk of it) And people making counter arguments.
You can have a debate about anything, you could have a debate about something that can easily be proven (like is it raining outside...), or something that can't be proven.
4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.
I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.
Very few religions would overtly make such a claim, but any faith which turns primarily on salvation only for true believers pretty well fits the mold.
4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.
I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.
Very few religions would overtly make such a claim, but any faith which turns primarily on salvation only for true believers pretty well fits the mold.
+1 to this...
Its wrong on its face. But I would, again, expect no less from those criticizing religion. Some people may act superior, but thats not "what religion is about." In the words of the immortal bard: "You just don't understand."
4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.
I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.
Very few religions would overtly make such a claim, but any faith which turns primarily on salvation only for true believers pretty well fits the mold.
Saying "my belief is superior to yours" is a different claim than saying "I am superior to you."
Who has said their belief is superior? Or that they are superior?
All these religious people apparently all the say the same thing, but its the atheists here that are making generic comments.
Why do some people not understand that 'Religion' or 'religious people' are not all the same, and do not all have the same opinion.
rodgers37 wrote:Who has said their belief is superior? Or that they are superior?
All these religious people apparently all the say the same thing, but its the atheists here that are making generic comments.
Why do some people not understand that 'Religion' or 'religious people' are not all the same, and do not all have the same opinion.
I'll break the ice. I, of course, am superior. All followers of the mighty Dachshund Legions are superior. After all, what do you think the D in Dachshund stands for? France? They are freaking BADGER dogs! Of course we are superior.
rodgers37 wrote:A debate doesn't need to be backed up with facts, you can do it on pure opinion alone. This 8 page thread has been a debate, there are many examples of 'famous' (or what ever word you deem suitable) philosophers who's whole life work is based around wether or not God is real (or a large chunk of it) And people making counter arguments.
You can have a debate about anything, you could have a debate about something that can easily be proven (like is it raining outside...), or something that can't be proven.
An argument doesn't require evidence, a debate does. One can't come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife fashioned as the commonly-perceived heaven without evidence supporting such a wonderful eventuality. (I'd also like to point out that extreme skepticism is often laughed out of the room. Much like, for example, Frazzled (jokingly) stating that he can't prove Europe exists due to insufficient evidence that it does. This can go a variety of ways, but it's still an example nonetheless.)
And that's where many forum goers fall short in this thread: this is a point they can't adequately address. We can toss around blanket statements all we want, but we're not getting to what SH is saying; rather some are outraged that he did say it and they can't rebut it without expressing their disapproval. Well, can proof be supplied that heaven, as major religions know, does exist? I don't mean to be obtuse in asking this, if that means anything.
rodgers37 wrote:Who has said their belief is superior? Or that they are superior?
All these religious people apparently all the say the same thing, but its the atheists here that are making generic comments.
Why do some people not understand that 'Religion' or 'religious people' are not all the same, and do not all have the same opinion.
I'll break the ice. I, of course, am superior. All followers of the mighty Dachshund Legions are superior. After all, what do you think the D in Dachshund stands for? France? They are freaking BADGER dogs! Of course we are superior.
Well we all knew that, i'm just counting down the days until the Wiener dogs come for me
The Airman wrote: Well, can proof be supplied that heaven, as major religions know, does exist? I don't mean to be obtuse in asking this, if that means anything.
No, but the same questions applies the other way as well doesn't it?
So its up to you personally wether you believe it or not.
And its up to you personally to decided wether to go into an argument/debate where factual evidence doesn't come into play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Airman wrote:
biccat wrote:
The Airman wrote:An argument doesn't require evidence, a debate does.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
I'll admit defeat in this aspect, Biccat. I used the incorrect verbiage.
Still, the rest of the post remains -- as well as my previous ones. Mostly untouched. And ignored. Even though the points are valid.
Sorry, what else would you like answering? I've tried to answer as much as possible in this thread, i have plenty of my own points ignored though. I just seem to be the most consistent religious defender
The Airman wrote: Well, can proof be supplied that heaven, as major religions know, does exist? I don't mean to be obtuse in asking this, if that means anything.
No, but the same questions applies the other way as well doesn't it?
So its up to you personally wether you believe it or not.
And its up to you personally to decided wether to go into an argument/debate where factual evidence doesn't come into play.
It applies to the other way how, if you don't mind me asking? I may be regurgitating what was said earlier in this thread, but the standard position on any idea and/or concept is the rejection of said idea if it is without solid evidence. (I'm rusty when it comes to this exact point, but I'm stating the main idea) If you can't prove that X, Y and/or Z exist, then how is it valid?
The Airman wrote: Well, can proof be supplied that heaven, as major religions know, does exist? I don't mean to be obtuse in asking this, if that means anything.
No, but the same questions applies the other way as well doesn't it?
So its up to you personally wether you believe it or not.
And its up to you personally to decided wether to go into an argument/debate where factual evidence doesn't come into play.
It applies to the other way how, if you don't mind me asking? I may be regurgitating what was said earlier in this thread, but the standard position on any idea and/or concept is the rejection of said idea if it is without solid evidence. (I'm rusty when it comes to this exact point, but I'm stating the main idea) If you can't prove that X, Y and/or Z exist, then how is it valid?
But you can't prove it doesn't exist.
Yes there is no factual/scientific way to prove it does exist, but how can you prove it doesn't? (You can go a long way to suggesting it doesn't though)
Go to a simple argument, is it raining outside..... Its easy to get a factual answer, it is either raining (or snowing, hailing etc) or it isn't.
With Heaven/God, you can't go outside and check. Its not the best argument ever, and it doesn't prove anything, or really help at all, but its still valid (or at least i thought it was).
Basically, although most people will say its a cop out, its about faith. I don't feel the need to try and prove God or Heaven's existence, i just believe they exist. You can doubt me, you can bring any evidence you want to the table, if i wanted to counter argue, all i could really bring are previous arguments like the Teleological argument, which aren't factual, and require the leap of faith, which isn't acceptable to a lot of people who don't believe in God.
Unfortunately, Rodgers, by that logic, I could say I have an invisible pink T-rex in my backyards and you'd be inclined to believe it (based upon what you're telling me, this is in no way and insult to your intelligence personally).
biccat wrote:
Saying "my belief is superior to yours" is a different claim than saying "I am superior to you."
Considering that beliefs are constitutive of personhood, and that these particular beliefs are claimed to determine what happens to the whole of the person in question (eg. Gandhi is going to hell because he didn't accept Jesus as his savior), the distinction (in this case) is splitting hairs at the best.
Put differently, there are certain Christian sects which would only consider a person good if he accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, thus explicitly tying the quality of the person to the quality of his beliefs. Its bad theology, but its still what certain people who identify themselves as Christian, and exhibit religious behavior, believe.
The Airman wrote:Unfortunately, Rodgers, by that logic, I could say I have an invisible pink T-rex in my backyards and you'd be inclined to believe it (based upon what you're telling me, this is in no way and insult to your intelligence personally).
I think he's saying, whether you believe it or not is both not provable and your issue/blessing. Push off.
The Airman wrote:Unfortunately, Rodgers, by that logic, I could say I have an invisible pink T-rex in my backyards and you'd be inclined to believe it (based upon what you're telling me, this is in no way and insult to your intelligence personally).
Technically yes, and to a lot of atheists a invisible pink T-rex in your back garden is more likely than God existing.... But a lot of people believe in God, or in some form of God, many different religions and Gods have disappeared (like Greek Gods, does anyone believe they exist anymore?) I'm not trying to say, just because for 2000 years, people have believed in the Christian God, it means he/she is real... But i think it makes it more justifiable to believe in than your invisible T-rex...
The Airman wrote:Unfortunately, Rodgers, by that logic, I could say I have an invisible pink T-rex in my backyards and you'd be inclined to believe it (based upon what you're telling me, this is in no way and insult to your intelligence personally).
The statement that a thing cannot be proven to not exist has no bearing on the willingness of any given person to believe that it does exist.
I can say both that there is no empirical evidence of God's existence, and that there is no empirical evidence demonstrating the absence of his existence. Well, unless you're a materialist and a positivist, in which case you might argue that all evidence which does not demonstrate the existence of God is evidence suggesting that God does not exist as his influence would be necessarily perceptible due to its material scope.
The Airman wrote:Unfortunately, Rodgers, by that logic, I could say I have an invisible pink T-rex in my backyards and you'd be inclined to believe it (based upon what you're telling me, this is in no way and insult to your intelligence personally).
The statement that a thing cannot be proven to not exist has no bearing on the willingness of any given person to believe that it does exist.
I can say both that there is no empirical evidence of God's existence, and that there is no empirical evidence demonstrating the absence of his existence. Well, unless you're a materialist and a positivist, in which case you might argue that all evidence which does not demonstrate the existence of God is evidence suggesting that God does not exist as his influence would be necessarily perceptible due to its material scope.
I think my brian might have stopped functioning, i have read that three times and can't quite work out exactly what you mean..
(And this is going to sound even more stupid, I know what you mean but am struggling to process it at the moment...)
Kasrkai wrote:Hawking can believe what he so chooses, but:
Heaven can't exist?
Well from what he's seen, he thinks it can't. I don't personally understand how he's come to that very definite conclusion, especially since he's so intelligent. I can see why he would think its improbable, but impossible leaves no room for manoeuvre.
Kasrkai wrote:Hawking can believe what he so chooses, but:
Heaven can't exist?
Well from what he's seen, he thinks it can't. I don't personally understand how he's come to that very definite conclusion, especially since he's so intelligent. I can see why he would think its improbable, but impossible leaves no room for manoeuvre.
To look at it from another angle: the probability of a single belief from a single culture out of millions, practiced by a single species out of trillions, on a single spinning rock out of a number of such that is indefinably large being correct is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
His reasoning is just as sound, if different: we are machines that exist as a conglomeration of our thoughts and perceptions, which are created by parts of the machine; the machine stops working or is otherwise destroyed, the things which we are cease to be, and so thus do our perceptions and thoughts. The only thing which separates us from machines of our own creation is scale. The idea that there is some undetectable, intangible entity which controls these organic machines and persists outside of them has no basis in observable phenomena, nor does it logically follow from any known phenomenon, and, to further cast doubt upon it, the belief in such does originate from understood psychological phenomena, as does the perpetuation of such a belief.
With such evidence against it, definitively saying it's impossible is not only not unreasonable, but in fact the only reasonable conclusion to reach.
4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.
I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.
Given the comments in this thread, I would suggest Atheism.
rodgers37 wrote:
Well from what he's seen, he thinks it can't. I don't personally understand how he's come to that very definite conclusion, especially since he's so intelligent. I can see why he would think its improbable, but impossible leaves no room for manoeuvre.
I think its fair to say that Hawking is a materialist. If we accept canonical, Catholic idea of Heaven as something which is not physically real, then it stands to reason that Hawking would reject the possibility of its existence. We could further parse this idea and go into whether or not existence can really be thought to apply to things which are not material, which would mean that Hawking was not denying that Heaven might exist outside any observable reality (which would basically just make it a fairy tale that people take very seriously), but I suspect that's a little bit too fine a comb in this instance.
I heaven does exist than I would assume if would be on a different plane of existence, thus, outside of our universe.
Although, it is not very scientific to say something is absolutely true without evidence, so I would say the best answer to this question is "I don't know."
Kasrkai wrote:Hawking can believe what he so chooses, but:
Heaven can't exist?
Well from what he's seen, he thinks it can't. I don't personally understand how he's come to that very definite conclusion, especially since he's so intelligent. I can see why he would think its improbable, but impossible leaves no room for manoeuvre.
To look at it from another angle: the probability of a single belief from a single culture out of millions, practiced by a single species out of trillions, on a single spinning rock out of a number of such that is indefinably large being correct is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
His reasoning is just as sound, if different: we are machines that exist as a conglomeration of our thoughts and perceptions, which are created by parts of the machine; the machine stops working or is otherwise destroyed, the things which we are cease to be, and so thus do our perceptions and thoughts. The only thing which separates us from machines of our own creation is scale. The idea that there is some undetectable, intangible entity which controls these organic machines and persists outside of them has no basis in observable phenomena, nor does it logically follow from any known phenomenon, and, to further cast doubt upon it, the belief in such does originate from understood psychological phenomena, as does the perpetuation of such a belief.
With such evidence against it, definitively saying it's impossible is not only not unreasonable, but in fact the only reasonable conclusion to reach.
So I have a question; what if, hypothetically, everyone goes with what they beleive in when they die?
So the Catholics go to Heaven/Hell, the Extremist Muslims get 72 Virgins, Whoever (Buddhists?) acheive Nirvana, whatever have you. Fluffy Bunny People get surrounded by Bunnies, if they truely beleive that's what happens to them.
What would happen to Aethiests?
I think there is enough evidence in the world where we can support some form of spiritual/meta-physical world/powers, just by looking at Twins who have such a connection to each other in which they just know when something happens to the other, and other things along such lines. What if, the Afterlife is solely based on what you beleive in life?
Maybe heaven isn't a place, but rather, a state of mind your consciousness enters when you die, a state where you feel as if you are in a place. This is similar to Nirvana in many ways.
Mike Noble wrote:Maybe heaven isn't a place, but rather, a state of mind your consciousness enters when you die, a state where you feel as if you are in a place. This is similar to Nirvana in many ways.
Oh, and for what it's worth, that 'light at the end of the tunnel' is actually your brain turning off. Considering how we percieve time, hallucinations caused by being at near death and slowly shutting down could end up feeling like forever, effectively acting like an afterlife. Now wouldn't that be interesting?
So let me get this straight. A guy who's made his living pounding out equations for "what if" physics can't come up with a "what if" when it comes to the topic of an afterlife? He DOES believe in E.T.s though which really seems odd given this position.
I wonder if he's ever told anyone to go to hell. Where did he really want them to go? Jersey maybe?
He was married. Do you think during intercourse he cried out "oh my great non existent being!?"
Oh well, one less person takin' up my air in heaven.
sarcastro01 wrote:So let me get this straight. A guy who's made his living pounding out equations for "what if" physics can't come up with a "what if" when it comes to the topic of an afterlife? He DOES believe in E.T.s though which really seems odd given this position.
The existence of life on earth sets precedence, and the vastness of the Universe aids the probability. Estra-terrestrial life makes sense when you consider probability of it all. Unlikely to be anything like what you see in the movies, but the likelihood of there actually being life is fairly high when you consider the many billions of planets in the Universe.
As for God... there's really nothing to directly imply its existence. Religious texts aren't proof, they were written by men, and men are fallible. Many religious people will attest to the lack of accuracy in their own texts. There's no known precedence for God either. So until the evidence is presented and analyzed, there's no reason to come to 'God' as part of any sort of logical conclusion.
I wonder if he's ever told anyone to go to hell. Where did he really want them to go? Jersey maybe?
He was married. Do you think during intercourse he cried out "oh my great non existent being!?"
Statements like "oh my God" and "go to Hell" aren't religious statements. They have religious history, but they've become engrained into our modern communication and are largely secular in meaning.
As to the after-life, im skeptical. Hopeful, but skeptical. The only thing that kinda irks me is when he says, "Heaven is a place for those who are afraid of the dark." Who isn't afraid? It's an absolutely terrifying prospect; the end of conciousness. I just don't think you should chide people about that. You're crazy if that doesn't scare you.
Fafnir wrote:
The existence of life on earth sets precedence, and the vastness of the Universe aids the probability. Estra-terrestrial life makes sense when you consider probability of it all. Unlikely to be anything like what you see in the movies, but the likelihood of there actually being life is fairly high when you consider the many billions of planets in the Universe.
As for God... there's really nothing to directly imply its existence. Religious texts aren't proof, they were written by men, and men are fallible. Many religious people will attest to the lack of accuracy in their own texts. There's no known precedence for God either. So until the evidence is presented and analyzed, there's no reason to come to 'God' as part of any sort of logical conclusion.
So its so much more logical (I really don't like those comments, suggesting that all religious people aren't educated, or lack logical thought etc) to believe other life forms exist, even though out wonderful technology that has found no sign of God or Heaven, hasn't found any E.T life....
One thing i want to bring up is, if the idea of God is so ridiculous, then why have so many people believed it for 1000s of years?
There might be less religious people around today, but that in part is because there are more options, but there are still a lot (I read Catholicism is the largest Christian community, with over 1 Billion followers...). Is their really that many insane people who are afraid of the dark? Or is the maybe something built inside our being that urges people towards the notion of God?
rodgers37 wrote:
So its so much more logical (I really don't like those comments, suggesting that all religious people aren't educated, or lack logical thought etc) to believe other life forms exist, even though out wonderful technology that has found no sign of God or Heaven, hasn't found any E.T life....
There is a difference between believing that X exists, and acting as though its possible existence might affect your life.
rodgers37 wrote:
One thing i want to bring up is, if the idea of God is so ridiculous, then why have so many people believed it for 1000s of years?
The obvious answer is that lots of people are stupid. Of course, I'm not saying that the fact that lots of people are not of high intelligence means that those people must believe in God, or even that the belief in God indicates low intelligence, I'm merely saying that there are reasons that the Ad Populum fallacy exists.
I did back up my claims that religions encourage people to feel superior.
They aren't going to say it outright as it's not really going to earn them much suport but almost all religions have some kind of "live your life in a certain way because thats what god wants". They are claiming their way is better, and that it can be proved because god said so. Why do religions try to convert people if they don't believe their beliefs are superior. How is saying to someone "you're going to hell" not seeing them as inferior? The bible has lots of cases of suporting christians over non christians yet you say it doesn't see them as superior.
Rodgers- we have actual proof that life can exist. If that conditions were right for life here and there are billions of other planets, the chance of other life isn't that low. It gets higher when you consider that live adapts to its surroundings. It might be nothing like anything on earth but probabillity supports the existance of other life.
We have no reason to believe that god exists. Human faith and 2000 year old opinions aren't evidence. Doesn't mean you can't believe them but saying there is equal evidence isn't really true.
There are not just billions of planets, but billions of galaxies in the universe.
You also have to remember that conditions on Earth have changed drastically over the course of the history of life. We would not be able to exist at many points in Earth's development, but there was still life.
As an athiest I would say that religion is at best a misguided attempt by people to try and make people feel better and treat each other well (well, some of them are... there are a number of much more voilent religions around which have thankfully not survived well into more recent times) and at worst they are cynical tools of manipulation and power gathering.
One only has to look at the endless recycling of stories between different religions, the changes made to religions over time, the political and social pressures changing religion etc and the various "splinter" factions splitting off, fighting with, overtaking, dwindling and so on to see how far from the "perfect god given faith" that religion tries to tell you it is.
4M2A wrote:I did back up my claims that religions encourage people to feel superior.
No you didn't actually, but if it helps you to think you did, go for it. It would be easier to sleep better in a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT but heh, to each theitr own.
4M2A wrote:I did back up my claims that religions encourage people to feel superior.
No you didn't actually, but if it helps you to think you did, go for it. It would be easier to sleep better in a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT but heh, to each theitr own.
Trying to derail another thread that makes you uncomfortable?
4M2A wrote:I did back up my claims that religions encourage people to feel superior.
No you didn't actually, but if it helps you to think you did, go for it. It would be easier to sleep better in a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT but heh, to each theitr own.
Trying to derail another thread that makes you uncomfortable?
And for the record, i agree with silverMK2
Not at all. I would just like to hear about the religion who's central core belief is to be superior to others.
4M2A wrote:I did back up my claims that religions encourage people to feel superior.
No you didn't actually, but if it helps you to think you did, go for it. It would be easier to sleep better in a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT but heh, to each theitr own.
Trying to derail another thread that makes you uncomfortable?
And for the record, i agree with silverMK2
Not at all. I would just like to hear about the religion who's central core belief is to be superior to others.
that is not what he said...
he said
4M2A wrote:
religions encourage people to feel superior.
No metion of any specific religion with a core doctrine of superiority anywhere in his arguement.
Frazzled wrote:Its always helpful when you pull the full, real quite:
4M2A wrote on page 8:
Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
again, there is no specific group with a core doctrine of superiority. that wasn't his arguement.
Fun because THATS WHAT HE FREAKING POSTED. I'll restate. "Religion is about believing you're superior to others."
Really, which religion is about believing you're superior to others? I must have missed that in my comparative religions class. It always seemed to have something to do with that life/death and how to act thing. I missed where Muhammad said "remember guys, its about believing you're superior to others."
Frazzled wrote:Its always helpful when you pull the full, real quite:
4M2A wrote on page 8:
Religion is about believing you're superior to others.
again, there is no specific group with a core doctrine of superiority. that wasn't his arguement.
Fun because THATS WHAT HE FREAKING POSTED. I'll restate. "Religion is about believing you're superior to others."
Really, which religion is about believing you're superior to others? I must have missed that in my comparative religions class. It always seemed to have something to do with that life/death and how to act thing. I missed where Muhammad said "remember guys, its about believing you're superior to others."
Nuts.
he readdresses it here. I understood what he was saying before.
4M2A wrote:I did back up my claims that religions encourage people to feel superior.
They aren't going to say it outright as it's not really going to earn them much suport but almost all religions have some kind of "live your life in a certain way because thats what god wants". They are claiming their way is better, and that it can be proved because god said so. Why do religions try to convert people if they don't believe their beliefs are superior. How is saying to someone "you're going to hell" not seeing them as inferior? The bible has lots of cases of suporting christians over non christians yet you say it doesn't see them as superior.
Rodgers- we have actual proof that life can exist. If that conditions were right for life here and there are billions of other planets, the chance of other life isn't that low. It gets higher when you consider that live adapts to its surroundings. It might be nothing like anything on earth but probabillity supports the existance of other life.
We have no reason to believe that god exists. Human faith and 2000 year old opinions aren't evidence. Doesn't mean you can't believe them but saying there is equal evidence isn't really true.
How is telling people they're going to hell and you aren't because you are the chosen few not acting superior?
Because again he's wrong. You're mistakjng cause for effect. Most religions teach to follow their way and better things will happen tfor the believers or that believers should act that way. If believers don't follow that way then things may happen.
If you're not a believer you're not even fething part of the conversation.
If you think that makes followers of the Book superior, hey thats your problem not mine. Sort your own issues out.
Preferably in a shiny new CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT!
Throughly shut down. Then again, Frazzled WAS tap dancing around several points made by Fafnir and Dogma.
At least, this is the impression I got when he purposely picked the argument he did. "If you're not a believer you're not even fething part of the conversation. If you think that makes followers of the Book superior, hey thats your problem not mine. Sort your own issues out."
So critics shouldn't be given voice? I also don't see how correlating a believer's sense of inherent salvation and a feeling of moral superiority is somehow a personal issue with the person makign such a correlation.
The Airman wrote:Throughly shut down. Then again, Frazzled WAS tap dancing around several points made by Fafnir and Dogma.
At least, this is the impression I got when he purposely picked the argument he did. "If you're not a believer you're not even fething part of the conversation. If you think that makes followers of the Book superior, hey thats your problem not mine. Sort your own issues out."
So critics shouldn't be given voice? I also don't see how correlating a believer's sense of inherent salvation and a feeling of moral superiority is somehow a personal issue with the person makign such a correlation.
1. Dogma is a blocked user for me.
2. No, you shouldn't. Its their conversation. To be part of their conversation you have to be a member of their club.
Frazzled- why would you get benefits if god didn't like you more for being good. Christianity whether it admits it or not views people who follow its rules as better.
How can you say saying "god supports the way I live my life but not the way you live yours" isn't believing yourself superior.
4M2A wrote:Frazzled- why would you get benefits if god didn't like you more for being good. Christianity whether it admits it or not views people who follow its rules as better.
How can you say saying "god supports the way I live my life but not the way you live yours" isn't believing yourself superior.
Jeez you can't even get that right. Christianity views Christians as saved. Thats like at least X2 better than merely better.
What we're saying is following God is like breathing. Its not that we're better, we're just going to make it longer than the people who hold their breath.
Agnd again. If you're an atheist it shouldn't mean squat to you. You're just worm food anyway.
We are discussing what religious people think which is completely unrelated to whether I am affected.
Two things I am sure are true about christianity.
1- God is all powerful and knows the truth about everything.
2. People who follow the morals of the bible go to heaven.
So God has the power to save everybody but he is choosing you not us because of the way you act. Now being god that means he knows the truth- What we are doing must be wrong.
There are lots of comments in the bible that make it clear "sinners" are inferior.
4M2A wrote:We are discussing what religious people think which is completely unrelated to whether I am affected.
Two things I am sure are true about christianity.
1- God is all powerful and knows the truth about everything.
2. People who follow the morals of the bible go to heaven.
So God has the power to save everybody but he is choosing you not us because of the way you act. Now being god that means he knows the truth- What we are doing must be wrong.
There are lots of comments in the bible that make it clear "sinners" are inferior.
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?"
4M2A wrote:Two things I am sure are true about christianity.
1- God is all powerful and knows the truth about everything.
2. People who follow the morals of the bible go to heaven.
#2 is wrong. Or, at best, a misstatement of the basic tenets of Christianity.
4M2A wrote:So God has the power to save everybody but he is choosing you not us because of the way you act. Now being god that means he knows the truth- What we are doing must be wrong.
There are lots of comments in the bible that make it clear "sinners" are inferior.
Can you provide a reference for this? The Christian Bible tends to indicate exactly the opposite.
Frazzled wrote:
Not at all. I would just like to hear about the religion who's central core belief is to be superior to others.
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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Because again he's wrong. You're mistakjng cause for effect. Most religions teach to follow their way and better things will happen tfor the believers or that believers should act that way. If believers don't follow that way then things may happen.
If you're not a believer you're not even fething part of the conversation.
That is utter nonsense. If the statement is "better thing will happen for believers" then the word "better" must be stated in reference to something else, which is obviously nonbelievers.
Stating that nonbelievers are not part of the conversation, if the conversation is phrased as presented by Frazzled, is absolutely wrong.
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.
) Followers I would like to point out, who interpret the teachings from the same book in different ways.
ed. 