Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

I agree with Hawking in general. Although accusing people of being skeered of the dark is serious business.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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: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.

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.

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.

Oh my are we now having an argument about...arguments? Awesome!

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.

The response I was looking for was "No it doesn't"

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

rodgers37 wrote:

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:

rodgers37 wrote:

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.

Besides we all know Trex's are magenta, infidel.

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...

Whats he called by the way?

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.

dogma wrote:

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...)

I respect what Hawkins is saying. I just don't approve of his manner of saying it.

Hawking can believe what he so chooses, but:

Heaven can't exist?

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.

I just find odd that he is so quick to ignore the other side of the coin.

rodgers37 wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

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.

(dons flame-proof suit)

Since when is atheism even a religion?

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."

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:

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?

Then I'll finally get a chance to catch up on all that sleep I've been missing.

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?