Stephen Hawking is an Idiot [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Stephen Hawking is an Idiot


Smacktard
07-14-2012, 14:40
Stephen Hawking is an Idiot - YouTube


:rofl:


...

Guss
07-14-2012, 15:51
Three minutes of talk and no evidence for God. Was she just having a PMS day?

High-Gear
07-14-2012, 16:20
"I believe, because I believe...you bonehead Atheists!".

Who is the idiot?

Can I have my three minutes back?

Japle
07-14-2012, 17:31
She has a perfect right to believe in all the gods, goddesses, fairies, sprits and elves the human mind can invent. Her claim that such things exist would carry a lot more weight if she could back up her beliefs with just one piece of verifiable evidence.

We all know that won’t happen. :tongueout:

Guss
07-14-2012, 18:21
When she's contributed as much to the world as Stephen Hawking, I will listen to her again.

Lone Wolf8634
07-14-2012, 19:57
You have a right to believe anything you'd like to believe, no matter how fantastical. I won't say "Boo" to you even if you shout from the rooftops " I believe in pink pegacorns". As long as you admit that there is no evidence and that your belief is based on nothing more than faith and your feelings, knock yourself out.

When you say "I know there are pink pegacorns " I'm gonna ask you for your evidence.

In either case I'm gonna privately believe your a few cans short of a six pack.

Geko45
07-14-2012, 21:56
Same flawed premise that the position that there is a god is equally valid to the position that there is no god. While neither is conclusive, one is supported by all available evidence and the other is supported by no evidence at all.

janice6
07-14-2012, 22:08
Musing:


Odd that since the brain functions on an electrical principle, that a Physicist thinks the electrical energy simply ceases to exist because we die.

Yet he subscribes to a law that "energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. Therefore it's out there somewhere in some form. Not simply dead.

Geko45
07-14-2012, 22:24
Yet he subscribes to a law that "energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. Therefore it's out there somewhere in some form. Not simply dead.

Yeah, people who have no understanding of physics like to cling to that one. Life is mass and energy combined into a specific form. Both are conserved after death, but the pattern of organization that represents life is lost.

Woofie
07-14-2012, 22:32
Same flawed premise that the position that there is a god is equally valid to the position that there is no god. While neither is conclusive, one is supported by all available evidence and the other is supported by no evidence at all.

Curious. What evidence supports the assertion "there is no god" or are you referring to the total lack of evidence supporting the converse?

Geko45
07-14-2012, 23:06
Curious. What evidence supports the assertion "there is no god" or are you referring to the total lack of evidence supporting the converse?

Omnipotence, omniscience and an eternal nature are all in violation of known physical laws (conservation of mass/energy, Heisenberg uncertainty and entropy respectively). Believers claim transcedence of these laws, but there is no proof for this. Therefore, there is a strong inductive (non-conclusive) case that god is not possible, but no evidence for any case (inductive or deductive) that god is.

concretefuzzynuts
07-15-2012, 00:04
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/18.gif

muscogee
07-15-2012, 08:14
1 Corinthians 14:34

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Women can't speak in church but they can hold forth on the nature of the universe? That's not very Christian of her.

TheExplorer
07-15-2012, 08:16
Ever since I saw him on a Family Guy episode my views on him have changed.

steveksux
07-15-2012, 09:07
Yeah the world would be a lot better if everyone respected others beliefs, including the beliefs of the religious fanatics that are complete idiots that she mentioned. :rofl:

Having the right to your beliefs and being immune from mockery for your beliefs are two completely different things. Independent evidence is often more compelling than mere belief contained in a vacuum devoid of evidence.

Randy

snowbird
07-15-2012, 09:08
"Stephen Hawking is an idiot"



From an interesting argument that I saw elsewhere today:

Atheists claim they reject the supernatural and "just focus on science and rationality". Yet their worldview relies on the supernatural, so their worldview must be illogical and false. If the worldview, "there is nothing supernatural", is taken back far enough in time, you arrive at either:
1...Nothing. Therefore you have Nothing created Something, until we wind up with Everything. This seems to be Hawking's view. This is supernatural. If this worldview is denied, then by default, you get...

2...Something (along with the mathematically precise laws of nature, mind you) had no initial cause and just happened to exist for eternity. This too is supernatural, so...

The atheistic rejection of the supernatural is illogical and false.

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 09:16
"Stephen Hawking is an idiot"



From an interesting argument that I saw elsewhere today:

Atheists claim they reject the supernatural and "just focus on science and rationality". Yet their worldview relies on the supernatural, so their worldview must be illogical and false. If the worldview, "there is nothing supernatural", is taken back far enough in time, you arrive at either:
1...Nothing. Therefore you have Nothing created Something, until we wind up with Everything. This seems to be Hawking's view. This is supernatural. If this worldview is denied, then by default, you get...

2...Something (along with the mathematically precise laws of nature, mind you) had no initial cause and just happened to exist for eternity. This too is supernatural, so...

The atheistic rejection of the supernatural is illogical and false.

No, that is the Theistic point of view.

In the beginning there was nothing except for god who created everything. What created god? If there was nothing besides god, then god sprang out of nothing, to create everything.

Makes perfect sense.

snowbird
07-15-2012, 09:42
What created god?

Well, in the Bible, God said, "I am that I am". I believe that means that God had no initial cause and just existed for eternity. Supernatural? Certainly. It's not really possible for humans to fathom the Almighty.

You failed to provide any Atheist's "scientific and rational" and non-supernatural answer for where did everything come from, including the mathematically precise laws of nature, the intricate complexity of human DNA, and the immensely complicated universe. Then there are many other questions, including, but not limited to: what is the meaning of life? And how about right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe? And how can we cope with suffering and death?

I'm looking forward to hearing how logical your "scientific, rational, and non-supernatural" atheistic explanations will be.

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 09:56
Well, in the Bible, God said, "I am that I am". I believe that means that God had no initial cause and just existed for eternity. Supernatural? Certainly. It's not really possible for humans to fathom the Almighty.

You failed to provide any Atheist's "scientific and rational" and non-supernatural answer for where did everything come from, including the mathematically precise laws of nature, the intricate complexity of human DNA, and the immensely complicated universe. Then there are many other questions, including, but not limited to: what is the meaning of life? And how about right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe? And how can we cope with suffering and death?

I'm looking forward to hearing how logical your "scientific, rational, and non-supernatural" atheistic explanations will be.

Neither one of us can answer those questions. I am humble enough to say I don't know, you claim revealed knowledge. "God did it." is not an answer. You falsely claim that science says there was nothing that "bang" became everything. That is not true. Science has no comment on what was before the currently accepted theory of the big bang. Scientists do not know. That is not the same as saying it was something that came from nothing. It is not supernatural.

Science does not know all the answers, but is explaining more and more every day, expanding our knowledge of the grand universe and the interactions of the smallest particles. Religion rests on "God did it!". Which benifits the human race?

Woofie
07-15-2012, 10:24
Well, in the Bible, God said, "I am that I am". I believe that means that God had no initial cause and just existed for eternity. Supernatural? Certainly. It's not really possible for humans to fathom the Almighty.

You failed to provide any Atheist's "scientific and rational" and non-supernatural answer for where did everything come from, including the mathematically precise laws of nature, the intricate complexity of human DNA, and the immensely complicated universe. Then there are many other questions, including, but not limited to: what is the meaning of life? And how about right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe? And how can we cope with suffering and death?

I'm looking forward to hearing how logical your "scientific, rational, and non-supernatural" atheistic explanations will be.

"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, and is preferable over unsupported assertions. As I and others have pointed out multiple times, the Big Bang Theory does not explain the origins of the universe or how matter initially came to be. It only describes how the universe developed 10 ^-43 seconds after expansion started into what we see today.

I Don't Know =! God Did It

Science doesn't set out to answer philosophical and moral questions, and if you are having trouble coping with death I suggest you speak to a counselor or your pastor.

Woofie
07-15-2012, 10:26
Omnipotence, omniscience and an eternal nature are all in violation of known physical laws (conservation of mass/energy, Heisenberg uncertainty and entropy respectively). Believers claim transcedence of these laws, but there is no proof for this. Therefore, there is a strong inductive (non-conclusive) case that god is not possible, but no evidence for any case (inductive or deductive) that god is.

If the Congress isn't bound by the laws it creates, why should God be?

Geko45
07-15-2012, 10:48
If the Congress isn't bound by the laws it creates, why should God be?

So goes the arguments of the believers, but in the entirety of empirical evidence ever collected nothing, anywhere has ever been observed violating any of these three basic physical laws. Could there be something we have not yet observed that does violate one or more? Yes, therefore the position is not conclusive. But on one side we have the sum total of all observed experimental results and on the other we have a concept that has never, not once, been observed actually happening (transcedence). This is why the positions are not equally valid even though neither can be definitely proven or disproven. One is supported by all evidence that has been collected to date, the other is supported by no evidence at all.

Woofie
07-15-2012, 11:45
So goes the arguments of the believers, but in the entirety of empirical evidence ever collected nothing, anywhere has ever been observed violating any of these three basic physical laws. Could there be something we have not yet observed that does violate one or more? Yes, therefore the position is not conclusive. But on one side we have the sum total of all observed experimental results and on the other we have a concept that has never, not once, been observed actually happening (transcedence). This is why the positions are not equally valid even though neither can be definitely proven or disproven. One is supported by all evidence that has been collected to date, the other is supported by no evidence at all.

I understand where you're coming from and agree that the two arguments are not equally valid. I'm just very uncomfortable claiming that as evidence of absence, given that we're trying to use natural laws to describe a supernatural phenomenon. On the other hand, I can comfortably reject the assertion "God exists" due to a total lack of supporting evidence.

I know on a personal level that there is no God, however I see that as an untestable null hypothesis unworthy of being tossed into the debate, because the objective truth isn't concerned with my emotions. So until science develops the tools to test for the presence of God (of course this will never happen because the creationists' goalposts have attained perpetual motion) I content myself with knowing that each passing day our knowledge of the universe reduces the area of God's control arbitrarily close to zero.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 12:27
I understand where you're coming from and agree that the two arguments are not equally valid. I'm just very uncomfortable claiming that as evidence of absence, given that we're trying to use natural laws to describe a supernatural phenomenon. On the other hand, I can comfortably reject the assertion "God exists" due to a total lack of supporting evidence.

I understand where you are coming from as well, I just think we give believers to much of a "pass" on this point. If violating these laws are necessary attributes for god and my hypothesis is that nothing can violate these laws (thus arguing against the existence of god) then how do I test that hypothesis?

I test it by looking for anything, anywhere that can violate one or more of them in any fashion. If something, anything can be witnessed doing so then it is at least plausible that there could be a being that possesses these attributes and thus the existence of god could at least be theoritically possible.

But these laws have been tested ad nauseum through literally thousands of empirical studies and not once has anything ever been observed violating any of them. If even so much as an elementary particle had been witnessed doing so then I would concede the point, but that (and nothing like it) has ever happened.

To be thorough, let's explore the alternate hypothesis. Let's suppose that your position is that these laws don't apply to god since he transcends the natural universe as its creator. How do you test that? Well, you don't. It's untestable. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. You reach an immediate dead-end where further study is impossible.

And because their hypothesis is perpetually safe from being definitely disproven you have silly videos like this where undereducated girls who like the sound of their own voices claim their position is as equally valid as that held by one of the foremost thinkers of our time.

janice6
07-15-2012, 12:29
Yeah, people who have no understanding of physics like to cling to that one. Life is mass and energy combined into a specific form. Both are conserved after death, but the pattern of organization that represents life is lost.


So you have the final and total understanding of Physics.

I don't know why science doesn't just crown you god and accept you for what you think you are.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 12:44
So you have the final and total understanding of Physics.

I don't know why science doesn't just crown you god and accept you for what you think you are.

Like most believers, you have poor reading comprehension. Or perhaps you just don't understand the definition of inductive reasoning (versus deductive). What I said was that everything we've learned so far is consistent with the proposition that there is no god, but that it could never be conclusive because we don't know what we don't know.

My point is that everything we do know is consistent with there not being a god and that nothing has been found to support the proposition that there is. Therefore, while neither position is conclusive, one has much more empirical support (validity) than the other. Yeah, you can believe against all odds that everything we've learned so far is wrong if you want, but it's not an equally valid position to hold (which was the claim of the original video).

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2012, 13:47
"Stephen Hawking is an idiot"



From an interesting argument that I saw elsewhere today:

Atheists claim they reject the supernatural and "just focus on science and rationality". Yet their worldview relies on the supernatural, so their worldview must be illogical and false. If the worldview, "there is nothing supernatural", is taken back far enough in time, you arrive at either:
1...Nothing. Therefore you have Nothing created Something, until we wind up with Everything. This seems to be Hawking's view. This is supernatural. If this worldview is denied, then by default, you get...

2...Something (along with the mathematically precise laws of nature, mind you) had no initial cause and just happened to exist for eternity. This too is supernatural, so...

The atheistic rejection of the supernatural is illogical and false.

If you would bother to educate yourself, even just a little, on TBB, you would understand why it is that you are completely mistaken about what it does, and does not attempt to explain.

Well, in the Bible, God said, "I am that I am". I believe that means that God had no initial cause and just existed for eternity. Supernatural? Certainly. It's not really possible for humans to fathom the Almighty.

You failed to provide any Atheist's "scientific and rational" and non-supernatural answer for where did everything come from, including the mathematically precise laws of nature, the intricate complexity of human DNA, and the immensely complicated universe. Then there are many other questions, including, but not limited to: what is the meaning of life? And how about right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe? And how can we cope with suffering and death?

I'm looking forward to hearing how logical your "scientific, rational, and non-supernatural" atheistic explanations will be.

Heres a nice complex answer for you. We dunno. We dunno why the laws of nature exist the way they do. We dunno why or how human DNA came to be, for that matter we couldn't tell you how the first amoeba formed. And yes, the universe is immensely complicated. You wanna blow your mind? Go start looking into quantum mechanics. Add a little M theory and 11 dimensions. And no, we dont know what caused it all, or why its here.

But there are scientists all over the world attempting to find out. Yet here you are with all the answers.

Better hurry and call all those bozo's at the Hadron collider in Switzerland and tell 'em they can knock it off.

" Then there are many other questions, including, but not limited to: what is the meaning of life? And how about right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe? And how can we cope with suffering and death?

I dont need a deity, or science, for any of this.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 14:18
You failed to provide any Atheist's "scientific and rational" and non-supernatural answer for where did everything come from.

We don't have to know what the actual cause of something was in order to discount a supernatural explanation. Science is a process not a set of beliefs. There are competing theories on what came before the Big Bang. As Lone Wolf mentioned, there are those working on ways to test the validity of the competing theories to determine which one is correct. In science, we follow the evidence to a conclusion, not the other way around.

Woofie
07-15-2012, 14:21
I understand where you are coming from as well, I just think we give believers to much of a "pass" on this point. If violating these laws are necessary attributes for god and my hypothesis is that nothing can violate these laws (thus arguing against the existence of god) then how do I test that hypothesis?

I test it by looking for anything, anywhere that can violate one or more of them in any fashion. If something, anything can be witnessed doing so then it is at least plausible that there could be a being that possesses these attributes and thus the existence of god could at least be theoritically possible.

But these laws have been tested ad nauseum through literally thousands of empirical studies and not once has anything ever been observed violating any of them. If even so much as an elementary particle had been witnessed doing so then I would concede the point, but that (and nothing like it) has ever happened.

To be thorough, let's explore the alternate hypothesis. Let's suppose that your position is that these laws don't apply to god since he transcends the natural universe as its creator. How do you test that? Well, you don't. It's untestable. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. You reach an immediate dead-end where further study is impossible.

And because their hypothesis is perpetually safe from being definitely disproven you have silly videos like this where undereducated girls who like the sound of their own voices claim their position is as equally valid as that held by one of the foremost thinkers of our time.

I tend to give the intentionally ignorant a pass precisely for the reason that they are intentionally ignorant. I can't make someone understand something he doesn't want to. It often isn't worth the effort to debate.

How many times have we made corrections about creationists' ideas about evolution and cosmology only to be ignored and have to make the same correction again three posts later, or in the next thread? If you want to disagree with the theories that's fine by me, but actually learn about them and try to find fault in them. Try to participate in the science. You don't have to be a PhD to study the world around you.

I very easily get to the point when someone tells me that TBB says "everything came from nothing" or "evolution is wrong; I ain't no monkey" I just want to concede defeat, because those battles can't be won when the audience is as willfully ignorant as your opponent. The only time I step up now is when one guy's misinformation can influence someone else who is looking for actual knowledge, or when their particular brand of religious oppression affects my life.

Mr. Garrison was right: some people are actually the retarded offspring of three monkeys having buttsex with a fishsquirrel.

Anyway, rant mode deactivated.

janice6
07-15-2012, 14:29
Like most believers, you have poor reading comprehension. Or perhaps you just don't understand the definition of inductive reasoning (versus deductive). What I said was that everything we've learned so far is consistent with the proposition that there is no god, but that it could never be conclusive because we don't know what we don't know.

My point is that everything we do know is consistent with there not being a god and that nothing has been found to support the proposition that there is. Therefore, while neither position is conclusive, one has much more empirical support (validity) than the other. Yeah, you can believe against all odds that everything we've learned so far is wrong if you want, but it's not an equally valid position to hold (which was the claim of the original video).

Other than to flatter you, I was not making any statement about a God.

That was you lack of comprehension the lead you to think so.

I speculated on an alternative possibility. go for it, you're 0 for 1.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 14:34
go for it, you're 0 for 1.

Ah yes, the indisputable arbitrary score argument. I yield to your obviously superior debate skills.

:upeyes:

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2012, 14:41
I tend to give the intentionally ignorant a pass precisely for the reason that they are intentionally ignorant. I can't make someone understand something he doesn't want to. It often isn't worth the effort to debate.

How many times have we made corrections about creationists' ideas about evolution and cosmology only to be ignored and have to make the same correction again three posts later, or in the next thread? If you want to disagree with the theories that's fine by me, but actually learn about them and try to find fault in them. Try to participate in the science. You don't have to be a PhD to study the world around you.

I very easily get to the point when someone tells me that TBB says "everything came from nothing" or "evolution is wrong; I ain't no monkey" I just want to concede defeat, because those battles can't be won when the audience is as willfully ignorant as your opponent. The only time I step up now is when one guy's misinformation can influence someone else who is looking for actual knowledge, or when their particular brand of religious oppression affects my life.

Mr. Garrison was right: some people are actually the retarded offspring of three monkeys having buttsex with a fishsquirrel.

Anyway, rant mode deactivated.


:rofl::rofl:

I never thought of it quite that way.

Still wont make me stop trying to correct them.:supergrin:

Woofie
07-15-2012, 14:57
:rofl::rofl:

I never thought of it quite that way.

Still wont make me stop trying to correct them.:supergrin:

I know. That's the part that sucks the most. I don't usually catch myself until it's too late, and that makes me feel really dumb.:rofl:

Geko45
07-15-2012, 15:15
I tend to give the intentionally ignorant a pass precisely for the reason that they are intentionally ignorant. I can't make someone understand something he doesn't want to. It often isn't worth the effort to debate.

Certainly there are those that can't be swayed, but I like to believe that occasionally a fence sitter comes along and reads the exchange and hopefully sees that one side continually mischarecterizes the other's argument while the other endeavors to explain better.

If just one mind can be saved...

Mr. Garrison was right: some people are actually the retarded offspring of three monkeys having buttsex with a fishsquirrel.

:animlol:

janice6
07-15-2012, 15:28
Why are you arguing with me that there is no God? I never claimed there was or was not?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

"Yeah, people who have no understanding of physics like to cling tothat one. Life is mass and energy combined into a specific form. Both arec onserved after death, but the pattern of organization that represents life is lost."

And how do you know this to be true? You have some “Divine knowledge”?

You also have no idea about my understanding of Physics. Or experience in this field. That's a fact.

Thought:
TheLast Question by Isaac Asimov © 1956<o:p></o:p>

You can’t be right all the time.

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2012, 15:32
I know. That's the part that sucks the most. I don't usually catch myself until it's too late, and that makes me feel really dumb.:rofl:

Back in my trucking days, my dispatcher had a sign in his office.

"Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling a pig in the mud, all you accomplish is getting really dirty, and after a while you realize the pig is enjoying himself."

:supergrin:

Geko45
07-15-2012, 16:04
And how do you know this to be true? You have some “Divine knowledge”?

Umm, no, but I have a basic understanding of how entropy works. You clearly don't.

You also have no idea about my understanding of Physics. Or experience in this field. That's a fact.

Maybe not experience, but your lack of understanding is made clear through your repeated failures to grasp even the most basic of concepts.

Thought:
TheLast Question by Isaac Asimov © 1956<o:p></o:p>

For one thing, quoting science fiction in a debate about factual matters as if it were profound is just silly. I like Asimov too, but it's not really applicable here.

You can’t be right all the time.

No, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong now or that you are right. Of course, you haven't really presented a coherent thought yet, so I don't really have any idea what your position is, only that you seem to disagree with mine in some way.

Woofie
07-15-2012, 16:31
Back in my trucking days, my dispatcher had a sign in his office.

"Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling a pig in the mud, all you accomplish is getting really dirty, and after a while you realize the pig is enjoying himself."

:supergrin:

:rofl:

steveksux
07-15-2012, 16:55
Musing:


Odd that since the brain functions on an electrical principle, that a Physicist thinks the electrical energy simply ceases to exist because we die.

Yet he subscribes to a law that "energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. Therefore it's out there somewhere in some form. Not simply dead.:rofl::rofl:

Well, of course you understand physics better than a physicist, why wouldn't we take your word for it. :rofl: Of course the physicists never thought of that! :rofl:

So where does the electrical energy go? You have a theory I suppose? You have some evidence?


Thought not.

Randy

Gunhaver
07-15-2012, 18:54
Couple of F words in here for those that give a F about that...
http://i.imgur.com/24ZV5.jpg

I especially remember that, "Holy F, evolution is real!" moment. It was awesome, a major awakening like aliens landing on my front lawn or something. Some of you guys are really missing out.

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 19:13
Great link gunhaver.

The bit explaining why primitive man created god, made me think of this video.

The Center of all Things - YouTube

Woofie
07-15-2012, 19:34
Couple of F words in here for those that give a F about that...
http://i.imgur.com/24ZV5.jpg

I especially remember that, "Holy F, evolution is real!" moment. It was awesome, a major awakening like aliens landing on my front lawn or something. Some of you guys are really missing out.

I never had that revelation. I thank God everyday I wasn't pushed to church when I was a kid.:whistling:

Geko45
07-15-2012, 19:44
I never had that revelation. I thank God everyday I wasn't pushed to church when I was a kid.:whistling:

If you only fully understood the truth in that statement. What's even more horrifying is that only a fraction of those forced fed that nonsense are ever able to reason their way out of it and throw it off like the bag of rocks it is.

Woofie
07-15-2012, 20:22
If you only fully understood the truth in that statement. What's even more horrifying is that only a fraction of those forced fed that nonsense are ever able to reason their way out of it and throw it off like the bag of rocks it is.

I remember when was very young going to church with my grandparents a couple times. I don't remember much other than being terrified by the preacher's "stories."

Geko45
07-15-2012, 20:25
I remember when was very young going to church with my grandparents a couple times. I don't remember much other than being terrified by the preacher's "stories."

I know I'll catch flake for saying it, but exposing a child to mainstream religion really is a form of softcore mental/emotional abuse.

berniew
07-15-2012, 20:42
I know I'll catch flake for saying it, but exposing a child to mainstream religion really is a form of softcore mental/emotional abuse.

I won't speak for whatever you may conceive of as 'mainstream religion' - but what do you consider as mental abuse?


Giving a definition of right and wrong?
Asking children to obey their parents?

Woofie
07-15-2012, 21:05
I won't speak for whatever you may conceive of as 'mainstream religion' - but what do you consider as mental abuse?


Giving a definition of right and wrong?
Asking children to obey their parents?

Or telling a kid his soul will burn forever in lake of fire if you don't love God.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 21:19
I won't speak for whatever you may conceive of as 'mainstream religion' - but what do you consider as mental abuse?

I think High Gear's post in another thread summed it up nicely.

Welcome To This World - YouTube

Tilley
07-16-2012, 01:40
Or telling a kid his soul will burn forever in lake of fire if you don't love God.

Or even worse...tell a kid he can be the biggest dirtbag in the world because it doesn't matter...there is no god cuz we came from apes who came from lizards who came from chickens who crossed the road but got caught by Colonal Sanders who came from Mars cuz women are from Venus. And Barach Obama is the greatest atheist cuz he's smart like Animal Mother. Come to think of it...has anyone ever seen Animal Morher and Barach Obama in the same room at the same time?



Spooky...:shocked:

Mister_Beefy
07-16-2012, 02:29
hawking is not an idiot, but he is a pervert.

Animal Mother
07-16-2012, 02:58
Or even worse...tell a kid he can be the biggest dirtbag in the world because it doesn't matter...there is no god cuz we came from apes who came from lizards who came from chickens who crossed the road but got caught by Colonal Sanders who came from Mars cuz women are from Venus. And Barach Obama is the greatest atheist cuz he's smart like Animal Mother. Come to think of it...has anyone ever seen Animal Morher and Barach Obama in the same room at the same time?



Spooky...:shocked:Evidence and knowledge don't matter, only that you properly perform the rituals of <s>symbolic</s> (sorry, you're catholic) actual cannibalism to insure God will love you and accept you into his magically clouds rather than consigning you to an eternal lake of fire? Got it.

Bren
07-16-2012, 04:50
You have a right to believe anything you'd like to believe, no matter how fantastical. I won't say "Boo" to you even if you shout from the rooftops " I believe in pink pegacorns". As long as you admit that there is no evidence and that your belief is based on nothing more than faith and your feelings, knock yourself out.

When you say "I know there are pink pegacorns " I'm gonna ask you for your evidence.

In either case I'm gonna privately believe your a few cans short of a six pack.

I don't even request proof - believe what you want and I'll never say a word...as long as you leave me out of it.

Did I mention that here in Kentucky, if we're a few cans short of a six pack it's probably because it was illegal to buy a six pack yesterday because the church doesn't want alcohol sold on Sunday, for our own good (one example of many). If the church ever gets out of my business, I'll stop talking about theirs.

Bren
07-16-2012, 05:00
1...Nothing. Therefore you have Nothing created Something, until we wind up with Everything. This seems to be Hawking's view. This is supernatural. If this worldview is denied, then by default, you get...

2 problems I see with that - first, atheists don't believe something came from nothing - they believe we are still trying to figure out where everything came from and when we get back to the point where we don't have a logic and evidence-based answer, we say "I don't know" rather than making up a fictional "god" so we don't have to look for an answer. Second - if your objection to atheism is believing something came from nothing, where did your god come from?


2...Something (along with the mathematically precise laws of nature, mind you) had no initial cause and just happened to exist for eternity. This too is supernatural, so...


That's great, but atheists don't believe that. Because you are religious, you seem to think everything has an answer. In your world, if you need an answer you just make up a fake one (or somebody does it for you). Atheists don't believe in something from nothing, they just don't claim to have the answer to everything, unlike you. That isn't a good anti-atheist argument. In fact, it's one of the weakest I have ever seen.

Just to make this point clear: You say the problem with atheism is that they believe "Something (along with the mathematically precise laws of nature, mind you) had no initial cause and just happened to exist for eternity." However, atheists/scientists/etc. do not believe that and never have. On the other hand Christians believe their own god "had no initial cause and just happened to exist for eternity."

So giving your argument the weight you think it deserves, it proves christians wrong and atheists right. Lucky for you, it's actually just a bad argument based on entirely false premises.

Gunhaver
07-16-2012, 05:32
Or even worse...tell a kid he can be the biggest dirtbag in the world because it doesn't matter...there is no god cuz we came from apes who came from lizards who came from chickens who crossed the road but got caught by Colonal Sanders who came from Mars cuz women are from Venus. And Barach Obama is the greatest atheist cuz he's smart like Animal Mother. Come to think of it...has anyone ever seen Animal Morher and Barach Obama in the same room at the same time?



Spooky...:shocked:

Wow! Somebody's got a little kryptonite in his vag this morning.

I tell my kids that they're the most advanced and intelligent animal on this planet and they better act like it. That there isn't any afterlife and they get this one shot so they better take a close look at the world around them and figure out how it works. That most of the 7,000,000,000 chumps on this planet take a cheap shortcut to feeling special by shuffling into a church and telling themselves that some invisible imaginary friend in the sky has chosen them because of some arbitrary rule list they follow or don't follow but ask forgiveness for not following. They know all about religion and someday they'll be on the internet showing up guys like you that have had their heads buried in one book all their lives. Is your 4th grader reading at a 12th grade level?

Oh, and I also tell them that the chickens came from the lizards because that's how it went down. Seriously, have you not heard about this?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-trex-mastodon.html

Bren
07-16-2012, 05:46
Or even worse...tell a kid he can be the biggest dirtbag in the world because it doesn't matter...there is no god cuz we came from apes who came from lizards who . . . .

The difference between you and an atheist is that any atheist is likely able to see that it does matter if you act like a dirtbag, right here in this life, so there is no need for fictional reference to magical beings and an "afterlife" to tell a person of normal intelligence how they need to act.

If your child has an IQ below 70-80, teaching him religion as morality might be a good idea, since he'll never see through the myth, and fear will help him behave a lot more than reason. That brings us back to how and why the people in charge have used religion since we lived in tribes in caves.

Woofie
07-16-2012, 06:04
hawking is not an idiot, but he is a pervert.

Appreciating the sight of a pretty women doesn't make you a pervert.

eracer
07-16-2012, 06:32
Yeah, people who have no understanding of physics like to cling to that one. Life is mass and energy combined into a specific form. Both are conserved after death, but the pattern of organization that represents life is lost.Or perhaps it is simply integrated into a new pattern - one based on a different set of probabilities.

Geko45
07-16-2012, 11:53
Or perhaps it is simply integrated into a new pattern - one based on a different set of probabilities.

Why don't you figure out a way to test that hypothesis and get back with us when you've collected some data. Until then, that is philosophy, not science.

Tilley
07-17-2012, 00:59
Appreciating the sight of a pretty women doesn't make you a pervert.

Didn't Hawkins go to Penn State?

High-Gear
07-17-2012, 04:00
Didn't Hawkins go to Penn State?

Oxford I believe, what are you trying to imply?

Stop trying to be a comedian and go try to find those mounds of evidence you were going to mentally destroy us with!

Gunhaver
07-18-2012, 11:23
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/556978_496581067033992_1313347615_n.jpg

void *
07-18-2012, 12:56
The difference between you and an atheist is that any atheist is likely able to see that it does matter if you act like a dirtbag, right here in this life, so there is no need for fictional reference to magical beings and an "afterlife" to tell a person of normal intelligence how they need to act.

To add to what Bren is saying - I would argue that without an afterlife, how you act in the one life you have actually matters *more* that with an afterlife. You kill somebody? They're dead. You didn't change the state of their existence - they no longer exist. Ask yourself - what's more wrong? Changing the state of someone's existence, or destroying that existence?