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

[skol asylum]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

 

[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.

In my opinion, reality is limitless and the human brain is limited, thus Hawking's statement is certainly untrue.

I'd suggest that it IS the limit of our minds that is the primary cause for us to "need" to believe in a higher being rather than face the objective reality that there likely is none. Certainly not in the nice, tidy, storybook way that our human religions have created god... Often in our own image.

That probably is the most logical explanation of why the majority will need religion. And many people realize that. However, even just the hope that the unlikely is true is comforting to many. So why knock it? I never understood why there seems to be a large number of atheist who are hellbent, so to speak, on having people accept their beliefs.

Atheists are frustrated that politics, laws, and wars are so heavily influenced by unprovable beliefs.

Religions that don't take it on themselves to influence these areas are less frustrating. You don't see atheists up in arms about Buddhists.

 

[matuski]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

 

[joffer]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Hi. I'm earth. Have we met?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

I don't get it. You do know how babies are made, right?

 

[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?

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.

There is no analogy. I have the same reasons to believe in Jesus' existence as I have in Thor's (none). Not sure why you are struggling with this.

 

[skol asylum]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

 

[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.

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.

i defend you quite a bit here, and even I have no idea what your point is. You're saying the why for Yahweh is more (insert your adjective here) than the why for any other deity throughout history?

 

[joffer]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

 

[skol asylum]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Hi. I'm earth. Have we met?

Hi Earth. I liked you better when you went by Black Sabbath.

 

[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.

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?

No, but they ARE fundamentally different, which is why Yahweh has the longevity.

 

[matuski]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Wow.

 

[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.

i defend you quite a bit here, and even I have no idea what your point is. You're saying the why for Yahweh is more (insert your adjective here) than the why for any other deity throughout history?

In a sense, yes. There is a reason why this particular God has lasted: actually several reasons.

 

[skol asylum]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

NoAtheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

 

[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.

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.

i defend you quite a bit here, and even I have no idea what your point is. You're saying the why for Yahweh is more (insert your adjective here) than the why for any other deity throughout history?

In a sense, yes. There is a reason why this particular God has lasted: actually several reasons.

Any reasons that in any way increase the likelihood of it's existence?

 

[joffer]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

No

Yikes

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

"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.

Is his statement unfalsifiable? In other words, he's using his mind to conclude that no aspect of reality is beyond human understanding. But it's truly impossible to prove that. (Because the only aspects of reality we can understand are so understood by human minds) I guess though the theist has a hard time speaking to things that 'transcend human understanding.'

Not necessarily. We know there are things that can never be known yet they exist. For example, knowing both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle is impossible, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. A particle will have momentum, and it will have position, we just are unable to know both at the same time. They're forever beyond the limits of human understanding due to the nature of the universe.

Perhaps once we understand that there is no "we", "understanding", or "time".

 

[skol asylum]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

No

Yikes

Please unpack this.

 

[17seconds]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Your physiology causes you to believe your children are amazing and beautiful, and it can be demonstrated. If that response didn't happen, none of us would be here.

You want to make a leap beyond that and tell us it must have been given to us by a god and you have no proof. Somehow you think the intensity of the response makes it more likely there is a god?

 

[skol asylum]

I give up. Vulcan logic wins.

 

[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.

i defend you quite a bit here, and even I have no idea what your point is. You're saying the why for Yahweh is more (insert your adjective here) than the why for any other deity throughout history?

In a sense, yes. There is a reason why this particular God has lasted: actually several reasons.

Any reasons that in any way increase the likelihood of it's existence?

Of course not.

 

[17seconds]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

No

Yikes

Please unpack this.

Atheist means without theism. Doesn't believe in a theistic view of the world where there is an omnipotent god who knows you and judges you, cares about how you live and is typically defined in a holy book.You can be that and still think it is possible there is some controlling force in the universe we aren't aware of yet.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Oh isn't it nice when you're heart is made out of ice?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

God is man made. Sorry to shatter your lives! How can you be so obtuse?

 

[skol asylum]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

No

Yikes

Please unpack this.

Atheist means without theism. Doesn't believe in a theistic view of the world where there is an omnipotent god who knows you and judges you, and is typically defined in a holy book.You can be that and still think it is possible there is some controlling force in the universe we aren't aware of yet.

I specifically said "no god". That is exactly the textbook definition of an atheist. No god (deity).

Im curious by what you mean by controlling force? Midi-chlorians or something?

 

[skol asylum]

God is man made. Sorry to shatter your lives! How can you be so obtuse?

Religion may be man-made. God, not so much.

 

[17seconds]

I give up. Vulcan logic wins.

I'm sure you make a lot of decisions in your life based on reason and information.

Apparently you have a line where something is so wonderous that you don't care to look at it that way anymore.

I don't. And if I can't explain it, then I'm fine not knowing. I don't fill in the gaps with superstition.

 

[timschochet]

And now, as an atheist, I'm going to give a reasonable, rational, polite argument for the non-existence of God:

Hey, you religious guys! You're all ####### nuts! You waste your time worshipping a fantasy, and that makes you REALLY STUPID. All of your rationale is TOTALLY DUMB!! You're a frigging FOOL to believe this ####, and everyone who thinks like you is a ####### DIMWIT. There's no difference between your God and Loki!

Thank you. I'm eager now to hear your rebuttal, and then we can have a debate if you'd like. But only so long as you stay civil. I can't stand how atheists are always attacked and mistreated in this forum.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

God is man made. Sorry to shatter your lives! How can you be so obtuse?

Religion may be man-made. God, not so much.

Right. You've had a personal experience with "god" just like the thousands before you. You are truly brainwashed.

 

[skol asylum]

I give up. Vulcan logic wins.

I'm sure you make a lot of decisions in your life based on reason and information.Apparently you have a line where something is so wonderous that you don't care to look at it that way anymore.

I don't. And if I can't explain it, then I'm fine not knowing. I don't fill in the gaps with superstition.

That sounds like agnosticism, not atheism. Seems alot more logical than just claiming to know beyond a shadow of doubt that there is nothing in the vast universe larger than us.

 

[Sebowski]

"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.

Obviously the problem is that you can't give an example of anything that is beyond the reach of the human mind- by providing the example, you negate your premise. God, for example, is not beyond the reach of the human mind, otherwise you couldn't believe in Him, because you wouldn't know anything about Him.

I can ask questions I don't think we have the ability to answer. Is understanding a part of something the same thing as understanding everything? Of course not. So while we can know something about God, it doesn't mean there isn't something about him we don't have the ability to know. We can know how gravity effects things and calculate its force, but we don't even understand the mechanism that actually attracts other objects. We can believe that life came from non-life, but science cannot actually figure out how.

The Bible basically says there is much about God we cannot figure out/know. What we see/know is partial and incomplete. Likely due to either limitations on our current abilities or by God deliberately hiding it from us.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." I Corinthians 13:9-12

You can't be serious. Or worse, you are completely serious. ####.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Sucks to think when you die, that it's over. Dirt nap. Thast's reality. You won't know that you're dead.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Accept reality, and live your life to the fullest!! It's short!

 

[skol asylum]

God is man made. Sorry to shatter your lives! How can you be so obtuse?

Religion may be man-made. God, not so much.

Right. You've had a personal experience with "god" just like the thousands before you. You are truly brainwashed.

Far from it. I just choose to be thankful for the gift of life and reject the arrogance of thinking i have all the answers myself.

 

[17seconds]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

No

Yikes

Please unpack this.

Atheist means without theism. Doesn't believe in a theistic view of the world where there is an omnipotent god who knows you and judges you, and is typically defined in a holy book.You can be that and still think it is possible there is some controlling force in the universe we aren't aware of yet.

I specifically said "no god". That is exactly the textbook definition of an atheist. No god (deity).Im curious by what you mean by controlling force? Midi-chlorians or something?

Yeah we're done. I'm doing my best to give you honest explanations here.

Just leave the watchtower at my door

 

[timschochet]

Sucks to think when you die, that it's over. Dirt nap. Thast's reality. You won't know that you're dead.

This in itself does not negate the existence of God.

But it leads to an interesting question: would Christianity be so popular if there was no afterlife? Suppose everything else was the same: Jesus comes, tells of the way to live, forgives men for their sins, rises from the grave, etc. But there is no promise of afterlife for anyone else. Would this religion have spread?

 

[skol asylum]

Accept reality, and live your life to the fullest!! It's short!

This should be done regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.

 

[joffer]

Nothing like trying to knock down an argument that absolutely no one is making

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Sucks to think when you die, that it's over. Dirt nap. Thast's reality. You won't know that you're dead.

This in itself does not negate the existence of God.

But it leads to an interesting question: would Christianity be so popular if there was no afterlife? Suppose everything else was the same: Jesus comes, tells of the way to live, forgives men for their sins, rises from the grave, etc. But there is no promise of afterlife for anyone else. Would this religion have spread?

The answer is no. You know this Tim. You are spot on here.

 

[skol asylum]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

No

Yikes

Please unpack this.

Atheist means without theism. Doesn't believe in a theistic view of the world where there is an omnipotent god who knows you and judges you, and is typically defined in a holy book.You can be that and still think it is possible there is some controlling force in the universe we aren't aware of yet.

I specifically said "no god". That is exactly the textbook definition of an atheist. No god (deity).Im curious by what you mean by controlling force? Midi-chlorians or something?

Yeah we're done. I'm doing my best to give you honest explanations here.Just leave the watchtower at my door

LOL

If you knew me then you'd know i'm FAR from a thumper. Im a pretty poorly practicing Lutheran. I dont believe that everything in the bible should be taken literally. I believe it is largely a book written by man to try understand god. It is far from perfect but the overall message is a good one. I think man has used god for selfish reasons and am leary about organized religion in general. I still choose to believe in something bigger than myself. If that makes me gullible and an idiot so be it.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I know most of you hate Tim. He's a smart guy. He gets in your crawl. he's right most of the time. #realtalk

 

[skol asylum]

Nothing like trying to knock down an argument that absolutely no one is making

Are you drunk?

 

[joffer]

Nothing like trying to knock down an argument that absolutely no one is making

Are you drunk?

Not yet.. though reading your posts is getting me closer

 

[Spartans Rule]

Accept reality, and live your life to the fullest!! It's short!

This should be done regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Not necessarily. A lot of religions strictly forbid living life to the fullest.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Accept reality, and live your life to the fullest!! It's short!

This should be done regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Not necessarily. A lot of religions strictly forbid living life to the fullest.

 

[AAABatteries]

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.

There is no analogy. I have the same reasons to believe in Jesus' existence as I have in Thor's (none). Not sure why you are struggling with this.

I asked earlier and you didn't reply - you don't believe that Jesus existed?

I realize this is a minor point in the overall discussion but I need to know whether to take you serious or not.

 

[Slapdash]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

No

Yikes

Please unpack this.

Atheist means without theism. Doesn't believe in a theistic view of the world where there is an omnipotent god who knows you and judges you, and is typically defined in a holy book.You can be that and still think it is possible there is some controlling force in the universe we aren't aware of yet.

I specifically said "no god". That is exactly the textbook definition of an atheist. No god (deity).

Im curious by what you mean by controlling force? Midi-chlorians or something?

My bet is on Crab People. Hopefully I can smuggle butter into the afterlife.

 

[jon_mx]

"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.

In my opinion, reality is limitless and the human brain is limited, thus Hawking's statement is certainly untrue.

I'd suggest that it IS the limit of our minds that is the primary cause for us to "need" to believe in a higher being rather than face the objective reality that there likely is none. Certainly not in the nice, tidy, storybook way that our human religions have created god... Often in our own image.

That probably is the most logical explanation of why the majority will need religion. And many people realize that. However, even just the hope that the unlikely is true is comforting to many. So why knock it? I never understood why there seems to be a large number of atheist who are hellbent, so to speak, on having people accept their beliefs.

Atheists are frustrated that politics, laws, and wars are so heavily influenced by unprovable beliefs.

Religions that don't take it on themselves to influence these areas are less frustrating. You don't see atheists up in arms about Buddhists.

China down? Tibet down? North Korea.....Vietnam....former Soviet Union.....Many secular governments have imprisioned and killed Buddhists. There are not enough Buddhists in the US for it to be a concern. Athiest on this forum are by far the worst proselytizers here. It makes no sense from a logical viewpoint, it seems based on emotional hatred. It is a sad thread where Tim is the voice of reason and logic. Athiests should be ashamed.

 

[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?

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.

There is no analogy. I have the same reasons to believe in Jesus' existence as I have in Thor's (none). Not sure why you are struggling with this.

I asked earlier and you didn't reply - you don't believe that Jesus existed?

I realize this is a minor point in the overall discussion but I need to know whether to take you serious or not.

Jesus the god? I have seen no reason to consider it at all. Jesus the man? Seems possible, maybe even probable although I doubt he resembled the Jesus in your head, and completely an aside to the discussion of the existence of a god.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Sucks to think when you die, that it's over. Dirt nap. Thast's reality. You won't know that you're dead.

This in itself does not negate the existence of God.

But it leads to an interesting question: would Christianity be so popular if there was no afterlife? Suppose everything else was the same: Jesus comes, tells of the way to live, forgives men for their sins, rises from the grave, etc. But there is no promise of afterlife for anyone else. Would this religion have spread?

Christianity was constructed with the central idea of Jesus being Christ, of Jesus; divinity. The followers of Jesus that were more interested in the message were first shouted down and then driven into submission. Most historians seem to believe that unifying the faith despite the sad reality of how it was accomplished was a necessary component for the spread of Christianity. Which, I for one believes muddied and still muddies the "real message".

Oh, and are there really all that many atheists that would really want to be doomed to the either of the Christian "afterlife"s?