Stephen Hawking finally comes out: I'm an Atheist (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?

ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

He probably thinks that the universe is really complicated -- more complicated than our finite minds can ever hope to understand. But that it's very unlikely or logically impossible for the theistic god to exist.

I don't agree, but it's not a hard argument to grasp.

 

[Christo]

What I'm trying to say is that on some level doesn't every atheist say, "I don't know about the existence of any higher beings, have not seen any evidence, therefore I don't believe one does exist." Which is basically what Hawking is saying just on a grander scale....that if we cannot comprehend it, it does not exist.

Link?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What I'm trying to say is that on some level doesn't every atheist say, "I don't know about the existence of any higher beings, have not seen any evidence, therefore I don't believe one does exist." Which is basically what Hawking is saying just on a grander scale....that if we cannot comprehend it, it does not exist.

No, some atheists think that there is an affirmative reason to disbelieve in God besides just lack of evidence. Usually the "problem of evil" or something similar.

 

[Jayrod]

What I'm trying to say is that on some level doesn't every atheist say, "I don't know about the existence of any higher beings, have not seen any evidence, therefore I don't believe one does exist." Which is basically what Hawking is saying just on a grander scale....that if we cannot comprehend it, it does not exist.

Link?

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

 

[matuski]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?

ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

I have never been given a reason to do so. That is all there is to it.

 

[Jayrod]

What I'm trying to say is that on some level doesn't every atheist say, "I don't know about the existence of any higher beings, have not seen any evidence, therefore I don't believe one does exist." Which is basically what Hawking is saying just on a grander scale....that if we cannot comprehend it, it does not exist.

No, some atheists think that there is an affirmative reason to disbelieve in God besides just lack of evidence. Usually the "problem of evil" or something similar.

The problem of evil argument is really the same argument.

To believe that no loving God would allow suffering or evil is to expect an understanding of why bad things happen. They cannot comprehend a God that doesn't make sense to them, so therefore it doesn't exist. The existence of God is limited to their ability to understand him and his reasons for the way he created things the way they are and does or does not intervene.

 

[Christo]

What I'm trying to say is that on some level doesn't every atheist say, "I don't know about the existence of any higher beings, have not seen any evidence, therefore I don't believe one does exist." Which is basically what Hawking is saying just on a grander scale....that if we cannot comprehend it, it does not exist.

Link?

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Read that again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[[icon]]

Big surprise... Jayrod coming off as a condescending presumptuous crazy person again

GB religion

 

[matuski]

What I'm trying to say is that on some level doesn't every atheist say, "I don't know about the existence of any higher beings, have not seen any evidence, therefore I don't believe one does exist." Which is basically what Hawking is saying just on a grander scale....that if we cannot comprehend it, it does not exist.

No, some atheists think that there is an affirmative reason to disbelieve in God besides just lack of evidence. Usually the "problem of evil" or something similar.

Those arguments to me are just the simple exercise of poking holes in the logic of believing in any man made god, it doesn't have anything to do with why I don't believe in one.

It really is that simple.

 

[mr roboto]

What I'm trying to say is that on some level doesn't every atheist say, "I don't know about the existence of any higher beings, have not seen any evidence, therefore I don't believe one does exist." Which is basically what Hawking is saying just on a grander scale....that if we cannot comprehend it, it does not exist.

No, some atheists think that there is an affirmative reason to disbelieve in God besides just lack of evidence. Usually the "problem of evil" or something similar.

Those arguments to me are just the simple exercise of poking holes in the logic of believing in any man made god, it doesn't have anything to do with why I don't believe in one.

It really is that simple.

OK. To you. But there are affirmative atheists.

 

[Jayrod]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?

ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

I have never been given a reason to do so. That is all there is to it.

Sure you have. You have just rejected them.

Here are some of the stronger arguments, IMO:

1) the fine tuned complexity of the world points to something greater than just a random collision of molecules. My personal favorite is the exact equality of size between the sun and moon as they appear to us. What are the odds of such perfection considering all of the possible variations of distance/size/mass that they sun and moon could have existed in. If this world is truly random, what are the chances that on the same planet that life forms, that unique set of circumstances also happens?

2) many otherwise sane and well-reasoned individuals believe firmly in the existence of a God

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

4) there is still no decent theory on how living organisms came out of non-living matter. There are theories, but they are pretty shoddy at this point.

At some point in time, you have rejected all of those reasons. Why do you reject those reasons?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

There is more to the world than our five senses can comprehend and our communication can convey.

There is more to our senses than five.

 

[Jayrod]

Big surprise... Jayrod coming off as a condescending presumptuous crazy person again

GB religion

I'm really making an effort to be respectful.

What makes me come off as condescending and presumptuous? I have confidence in what I believe because I have pondered it a great deal. I apologize if that is condescending, but make no mistake, I know no one else has lived my life so I don't expect them to believe as I believe.

However, as this is the most important thing in my life and I believe it to be true, I would be a selfish ##### to not try and argue that God does exist and that he loves us all.

I guess I did get defensive with Bottomfeeder Sports, and for that I apologize.

It is a tough line to walk here, because the human side of me gets pretty frustrated with a lot of the jabs taken at me from the get go of any conversation. Try reading through the thread from my point of view and see who sounds condescending.

 

[Jayrod]

There is more to the world than our five senses can comprehend and our communication can convey.

There is more to our senses than five.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[matuski]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?

ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

I have never been given a reason to do so. That is all there is to it.

Sure you have. You have just rejected them.

Here are some of the stronger arguments, IMO:

1) the fine tuned complexity of the world points to something greater than just a random collision of molecules. My personal favorite is the exact equality of size between the sun and moon as they appear to us. What are the odds of such perfection considering all of the possible variations of distance/size/mass that they sun and moon could have existed in. If this world is truly random, what are the chances that on the same planet that life forms, that unique set of circumstances also happens?

2) many otherwise sane and well-reasoned individuals believe firmly in the existence of a God

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

4) there is still no decent theory on how living organisms came out of non-living matter. There are theories, but they are pretty shoddy at this point.

At some point in time, you have rejected all of those reasons. Why do you reject those reasons?

The simplest retort to all of the above would be to remind you that you fully understand my position as you have reached the same conclusion as me about every other man made god out there aside from your own. There is no difference.

Someone else put it best - I only believe in one less god than you.

You don't actively walk around pondering what would Thor do. Neither do I yours.

 

[Jayrod]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

I have never been given a reason to do so. That is all there is to it.

Sure you have. You have just rejected them.Here are some of the stronger arguments, IMO:

1) the fine tuned complexity of the world points to something greater than just a random collision of molecules. My personal favorite is the exact equality of size between the sun and moon as they appear to us. What are the odds of such perfection considering all of the possible variations of distance/size/mass that they sun and moon could have existed in. If this world is truly random, what are the chances that on the same planet that life forms, that unique set of circumstances also happens?

2) many otherwise sane and well-reasoned individuals believe firmly in the existence of a God

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

4) there is still no decent theory on how living organisms came out of non-living matter. There are theories, but they are pretty shoddy at this point.

At some point in time, you have rejected all of those reasons. Why do you reject those reasons?

The simplest retort to all of the above would be to remind you that you fully understand my position as you have reached the same conclusion as me about every other man made god out there aside from your own. There is no difference.

Someone else put it best - I only believe in one less god than you.

You don't actively walk around pondering what would Thor do. Neither do I yours.

All of my arguments are relating to believing in a God versus no god. I understand what you're trying to say and I think it's a very common explanation but it does not address any of the reasons I just posted.ETA on second thought it doesn't dress number two.

 

[Jayrod]

Big surprise... Jayrod coming off as a condescending presumptuous crazy person again

GB religion

I'm really making an effort to be respectful.What makes me come off as condescending and presumptuous? I have confidence in what I believe because I have pondered it a great deal. I apologize if that is condescending, but make no mistake, I know no one else has lived my life so I don't expect them to believe as I believe.

However, as this is the most important thing in my life and I believe it to be true, I would be a selfish ##### to not try and argue that God does exist and that he loves us all.

I guess I did get defensive with Bottomfeeder Sports, and for that I apologize.

It is a tough line to walk here, because the human side of me gets pretty frustrated with a lot of the jabs taken at me from the get go of any conversation. Try reading through the thread from my point of view and see who sounds condescending.

Why is p r ick filtered?

 

[matuski]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

I have never been given a reason to do so. That is all there is to it.

Sure you have. You have just rejected them.Here are some of the stronger arguments, IMO:

1) the fine tuned complexity of the world points to something greater than just a random collision of molecules. My personal favorite is the exact equality of size between the sun and moon as they appear to us. What are the odds of such perfection considering all of the possible variations of distance/size/mass that they sun and moon could have existed in. If this world is truly random, what are the chances that on the same planet that life forms, that unique set of circumstances also happens?

2) many otherwise sane and well-reasoned individuals believe firmly in the existence of a God

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

4) there is still no decent theory on how living organisms came out of non-living matter. There are theories, but they are pretty shoddy at this point.

At some point in time, you have rejected all of those reasons. Why do you reject those reasons?

The simplest retort to all of the above would be to remind you that you fully understand my position as you have reached the same conclusion as me about every other man made god out there aside from your own. There is no difference.

Someone else put it best - I only believe in one less god than you.

You don't actively walk around pondering what would Thor do. Neither do I yours.

All of my arguments are relating to believing in a God versus no god. I understand what you're trying to say and I think it's a very common explanation but it does not address any of the reasons I just posted.

You haven't given a single reason for me to even contemplate the existence of a god.

Complexity/emotions/genesis/etc? I'm good with "I don't know".

None of the above questions make any more sense by adding an invisible cloud god to the equation.

 

[matuski]

What I'm trying to say is that on some level doesn't every atheist say, "I don't know about the existence of any higher beings, have not seen any evidence, therefore I don't believe one does exist." Which is basically what Hawking is saying just on a grander scale....that if we cannot comprehend it, it does not exist.

No, some atheists think that there is an affirmative reason to disbelieve in God besides just lack of evidence. Usually the "problem of evil" or something similar.

Those arguments to me are just the simple exercise of poking holes in the logic of believing in any man made god, it doesn't have anything to do with why I don't believe in one.

It really is that simple.

OK. To you. But there are affirmative atheists.

Certainly.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

4) there is still no decent theory on how living organisms came out of non-living matter. There are theories, but they are pretty shoddy at this point.

Belief in evolution <> Belief in God

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The simplest retort to all of the above would be to remind you that you fully understand my position as you have reached the same conclusion as me about every other man made god out there aside from your own. There is no difference.

Someone else put it best - I only believe in one less god than you.

You don't actively walk around pondering what would Thor do. Neither do I yours.

1) Lots of folks like me see other gods as shadowy inklings of the One True God. (And of course some folks who follow other religions view the Christian God the same way). So no, we actually don't share your conclusion about all other gods besides our own.

2) The belief in any god is qualitatively different than the belief in no gods.

 

[matuski]

The simplest retort to all of the above would be to remind you that you fully understand my position as you have reached the same conclusion as me about every other man made god out there aside from your own. There is no difference.

Someone else put it best - I only believe in one less god than you.

You don't actively walk around pondering what would Thor do. Neither do I yours.

1) Lots of folks like me see other gods as shadowy inklings of the One True God. (And of course some folks who follow other religions view the Christian God the same way). So no, we actually don't share your conclusion about all other gods besides our own.

2) The belief in any god is qualitatively different than the belief in no gods.

I will backtrack to my original statement.

I have not at any point been given a reason to believe in a supernatural power.

If you have contemplated the role of Thor in the greater makeup of some uber amoeba god, then you are correct.. we have arrived at very different conclusions regarding the Norse gods..

 

[joffer]

The apparent size of the sun and the moon?

REALLY?

 

[matuski]

2) The belief in any god is qualitatively different than the belief in no gods.

Of course.. I don't think I said anything to the contrary?

 

[Josie Maran]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

I have never been given a reason to do so. That is all there is to it.

Sure you have. You have just rejected them.Here are some of the stronger arguments, IMO:

1) the fine tuned complexity of the world points to something greater than just a random collision of molecules. My personal favorite is the exact equality of size between the sun and moon as they appear to us. What are the odds of such perfection considering all of the possible variations of distance/size/mass that they sun and moon could have existed in. If this world is truly random, what are the chances that on the same planet that life forms, that unique set of circumstances also happens?

2) many otherwise sane and well-reasoned individuals believe firmly in the existence of a God

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

4) there is still no decent theory on how living organisms came out of non-living matter. There are theories, but they are pretty shoddy at this point.

At some point in time, you have rejected all of those reasons. Why do you reject those reasons?

FYI the moon hasn't always been in that position and will not remain there. It's moving away from the earth a few inches per year.

And regarding the other "fine tuned complexities" of our planet, you see it as God setting up a perfect system because of us, but from a logical viewpoint we're only here because those conditions were already in place. You're putting the effect before the cause.

 

[Spartans Rule]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?

ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

I have never been given a reason to do so. That is all there is to it.

Sure you have. You have just rejected them.

Here are some of the stronger arguments, IMO:

1) the fine tuned complexity of the world points to something greater than just a random collision of molecules. My personal favorite is the exact equality of size between the sun and moon as they appear to us. What are the odds of such perfection considering all of the possible variations of distance/size/mass that they sun and moon could have existed in. If this world is truly random, what are the chances that on the same planet that life forms, that unique set of circumstances also happens?

2) many otherwise sane and well-reasoned individuals believe firmly in the existence of a God

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

4) there is still no decent theory on how living organisms came out of non-living matter. There are theories, but they are pretty shoddy at this point.

At some point in time, you have rejected all of those reasons. Why do you reject those reasons?

1. I see the opposite. All the horrible random things on Earth. Natural disasters, awful diseases, etc.

2. Many don't. Somebody's wrong.

3. Like what? I disagree.

4. "God did it" is an even shoddier theory than anything we've got now.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I guess I did get defensive with Bottomfeeder Sports, and for that I apologize.

No need, but what was there to be defensive about?

Using that passage ...

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part"

Job could never understand why God was doing what he was doing to him because either

• God's thought process is unreasonable
• God had more (as in "complete") information and Job gad much less
• Or some combination of both

I have to assume that you don't believe that "God works in mysterious ways" because he acts unreasonably. So if God is reasonable then we can know the why. Of course we also need to know everything else that God knows about the universe, about "reality". I would think Hawkins would agree that we will likely be extinct before achieving that goal, but he (and I) believe that there is nothing in nature that is not knowable. So unless there is "reality" that beyond our reality (nature plus God) we are capable of understanding it. If humans have enough time.

ETA: Ops, forgot to tie it back in with the passage. Job knew very little so he had to fill in the blanks with prophesy. As time has moved forward we have learned to know more (with some abrupt losses of knowledge along the way) and prophesied less to fill in those blanks, and prophesied more to contemplate what we could never imagine before. And while maybe Job had a special relationship with God, for most of us that communicate with God in a little more indirectly that knowledge includes a greater knowledge of God through several millenniums of revelation including the emergence of Jesus and Paul, and also through the revelations of science.

Now if God exist and is unreasonable then all bets are off.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

2) The belief in any god is qualitatively different than the belief in no gods.

Of course.. I don't think I said anything to the contrary?

"I only believe in one less god than you" is contrary to Ivan's statement.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

Doesn't weigh into it for a second for me

Then why don't you believe in the existence of a higher power?ETA: As in I genuinely want to know what is your reasoning...not if you don't agree then you SHOULD believe.

I have never been given a reason to do so. That is all there is to it.

Sure you have. You have just rejected them.Here are some of the stronger arguments, IMO:

1) the fine tuned complexity of the world points to something greater than just a random collision of molecules. My personal favorite is the exact equality of size between the sun and moon as they appear to us. What are the odds of such perfection considering all of the possible variations of distance/size/mass that they sun and moon could have existed in. If this world is truly random, what are the chances that on the same planet that life forms, that unique set of circumstances also happens?

2) many otherwise sane and well-reasoned individuals believe firmly in the existence of a God

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

4) there is still no decent theory on how living organisms came out of non-living matter. There are theories, but they are pretty shoddy at this point.

At some point in time, you have rejected all of those reasons. Why do you reject those reasons?

oof.

 

[matuski]

2) The belief in any god is qualitatively different than the belief in no gods.

Of course.. I don't think I said anything to the contrary?

"I only believe in one less god than you" is contrary to Ivan's statement.

I don't believe in Thor's existence for the same reasons as you. I don't believe in the existence of your god for the same reasons I don't believe in Thor. Thus you understand. Apply this to every god and we only differ by the quantity of one.

I don't see how this could be construed as 1 = 0? You obviously believe (qualitatively) in one god, and I (qualitatively) none.

IK's swiss army knife shadowy inkling uber god complicates things a bit. I admit this is a new twist for me.

ETA - I need to read a little slower so that I catch the difference between qualitative and quantitative. to be continued tomorrow!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

2) The belief in any god is qualitatively different than the belief in no gods.

Of course.. I don't think I said anything to the contrary?

"I only believe in one less god than you" is contrary to Ivan's statement.

I don't believe in Thor's existence for the same reasons as you. I don't believe in the existence of your god for the same reasons I don't believe in Thor. Thus you understand. Apply this to every god and we only differ by the quantity of one.

I don't see how this could be construed as 1 = 0? You obviously believe (qualitatively) in one god, and I (qualitatively) none.

IK's swiss army knife shadowy inkling uber god complicates things a bit. I admit this is a new twist for me.

Wouldn't that be quantitatively?

I don't get Ivan's statement. If I had to explain from a position of ignorance I'd suggest that the belief in no god(s) has a chance of being totally correct. While the belief in a specific god(s) with specific attributes has pretty much no chance of being totally correct even if one gets correct that god(s) actually exist. And that many of specific god(s) with specific attributes that are offered up can be logically proved to be impossible because the human attributed characteristics of such a god(s) are logically impossible contradictions. But I doubt that this is what Ivan meant.

 

[AAABatteries]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmwfkw3fIaM

 

[Apple Jack]

You skip the magnetosphere, but are awed by the relative size of the Moon and Sun to the naked eye? Why did we get stuck with that weak-### ashen looking rock for a moon? Why couldn't we get something wicked awesome like Titan or Io?

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

2) The belief in any god is qualitatively different than the belief in no gods.

Of course.. I don't think I said anything to the contrary?

"I only believe in one less god than you" is contrary to Ivan's statement.

I don't believe in Thor's existence for the same reasons as you. I don't believe in the existence of your god for the same reasons I don't believe in Thor. Thus you understand. Apply this to every god and we only differ by the quantity of one.

I don't see how this could be construed as 1 = 0? You obviously believe (qualitatively) in one god, and I (qualitatively) none.

IK's swiss army knife shadowy inkling uber god complicates things a bit. I admit this is a new twist for me.

ETA - I need to read a little slower so that I catch the difference between qualitative and quantitative. to be continued tomorrow!

And while you're at it, brush up on the difference between "less" and "fewer".

 

[timschochet]

Just want to state that I think Jayrod has been completely respectful in this discussion, and has offered interesting points, and doesn't deserve to be treated with contempt.

 

[timschochet]

Also, Matuski, I hate this comparison of the Judeo-Christian god to Thor. I hate it when you use it, or when Richard Dawkins uses it. It's cheap and rather insulting. More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not. Whether or not Yahweh is true or fictional (and as an atheist, I obviously believe the latter) He has immense importance to human society whereas Thor doesn't.

 

[joffer]

More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not.

Sure there's a reason. Just not a good one.

 

[Steve Tasker]

1) the fine tuned complexity of the world points to something greater than just a random collision of molecules. My personal favorite is the exact equality of size between the sun and moon as they appear to us. What are the odds of such perfection considering all of the possible variations of distance/size/mass that they sun and moon could have existed in. If this world is truly random, what are the chances that on the same planet that life forms, that unique set of circumstances also happens?

3) there are feelings, emotions and instincts that we have that run counter to a strict belief in evolution

What do you mean by these....?

 

[matuski]

Also, Matuski, I hate this comparison of the Judeo-Christian god to Thor. I hate it when you use it, or when Richard Dawkins uses it. It's cheap and rather insulting. More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not. Whether or not Yahweh is true or fictional (and as an atheist, I obviously believe the latter) He has immense importance to human society whereas Thor doesn't.

I can't help it if you take insult. They are equal (regarding their existence) in my eyes.

If I used a Roman, Egyptian, Hawaiian god.. all the same for this exercise.

 

[timschochet]

More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not.

Sure there's a reason. Just not a good one.

I disagree with this. Yahweh, for all his faults, is a positive for the advancement of western civilization and culture.

 

[timschochet]

Also, Matuski, I hate this comparison of the Judeo-Christian god to Thor. I hate it when you use it, or when Richard Dawkins uses it. It's cheap and rather insulting. More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not. Whether or not Yahweh is true or fictional (and as an atheist, I obviously believe the latter) He has immense importance to human society whereas Thor doesn't.

I can't help it if you take insult. They are equal (regarding their existence) in my eyes.

If I used a Roman, Egyptian, Hawaiian god.. all the same for this exercise.

I don't personally take insult. Religious people do. I just think it's silly that we can't have these conversations without atheists insulting the religious and vice-versa.

 

[joffer]

More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not.

Sure there's a reason. Just not a good one.

I disagree with this. Yahweh, for all his faults, is a positive for the advancement of western civilization and culture.

Disagree. However it's irrelevant to whether there's a good(rational) reason to believe in its existence.

 

[matuski]

Also, Matuski, I hate this comparison of the Judeo-Christian god to Thor. I hate it when you use it, or when Richard Dawkins uses it. It's cheap and rather insulting. More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not. Whether or not Yahweh is true or fictional (and as an atheist, I obviously believe the latter) He has immense importance to human society whereas Thor doesn't.

I can't help it if you take insult. They are equal (regarding their existence) in my eyes.

If I used a Roman, Egyptian, Hawaiian god.. all the same for this exercise.

I don't personally take insult. Religious people do. I just think it's silly that we can't have these conversations without atheists insulting the religious and vice-versa.

There is absolutely no insult meant. Thor and Jesus have the same merits regarding the likely-hood of existing in my eyes. I can only say it the way it is.

 

[matuski]

More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not.

Sure there's a reason. Just not a good one.

I disagree with this. Yahweh, for all his faults, is a positive for the advancement of western civilization and culture.

What does this have to do with Yahweh existing or not?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

If you can truly separate from the mythology that has been hammered into you by whatever society / culture you were raised in, the question of whether or not your God exists is not even close. From a rational, empirical standpoint, you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support it. Not one. Think about that...

For example, if you happen to have been born in the United states (like me), you were more likely than not raised as a Christian (like me). The only "pseudo-evidence" you have is the ancient writings of Bronze Age shepherds.

On the other hand, you have a vast amount of scientific evidence that explains a whole lot about where everything we see around us has come from. Does science have all the answers? No, but we know a whole heck of a lot more than we did 2,000 years ago, and I'm sure we'll know a whole heck of a lot more 2,000 years from now. I think that's basically what Hawking is saying. Eventually, we'll figure it all out. At least we're way more likely to get new evidence from science than we are from religion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclusive-deity-hasnt-written-a-new-book-in-2000-y,36936/

 

[AAABatteries]

Also, Matuski, I hate this comparison of the Judeo-Christian god to Thor. I hate it when you use it, or when Richard Dawkins uses it. It's cheap and rather insulting. More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not. Whether or not Yahweh is true or fictional (and as an atheist, I obviously believe the latter) He has immense importance to human society whereas Thor doesn't.

I can't help it if you take insult. They are equal (regarding their existence) in my eyes.

If I used a Roman, Egyptian, Hawaiian god.. all the same for this exercise.

I don't personally take insult. Religious people do. I just think it's silly that we can't have these conversations without atheists insulting the religious and vice-versa.

There is absolutely no insult meant. Thor and Jesus have the same merits regarding the likely-hood of existing in my eyes. I can only say it the way it is.

You don't believe Jesus existed?

 

[timschochet]

More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not.

Sure there's a reason. Just not a good one.

I disagree with this. Yahweh, for all his faults, is a positive for the advancement of western civilization and culture.

What does this have to do with Yahweh existing or not?

Nothing. But it has a lot to do with why people believe that Yahweh exists, whereas they don't believe that Thor and Zeus exist, which is why your analogy fails.

 

[17seconds]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

This is a pretty key basic assumption which I find very flawed. Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

What would your argument against it be?

How can we know what is unknowable? To limit the universe to our ability to understand it puts things in a pretty small box. There is more to the world than our five senses can comprehend and our communication can convey. Just seems really arrogant to even believe nothing is beyond our reach. It sounds like a person who has been praised for how smart he is for so long that he believes he can figure out anything. I think it sounds like a great athlete who thinks he's invincible...until he blows out a knee and learns how weak his body really is.

I think it's humble to say there's no reality beyond what we know, and it is incredibly arrogant to say you have some idea of what is unknowable which is the whole message of religion.

 

[cstu]

Also, Matuski, I hate this comparison of the Judeo-Christian god to Thor. I hate it when you use it, or when Richard Dawkins uses it. It's cheap and rather insulting. More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not. Whether or not Yahweh is true or fictional (and as an atheist, I obviously believe the latter) He has immense importance to human society whereas Thor doesn't.

Gods have held immense importance to people throughout history. Are you making the point that because Yahweh is an improvement (hence the longevity) over other gods that it's somehow fundamentally different?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Do some of you actually think that god(s) are real? Lol! Is it 2014 or what?? Smh.