Stephen Hawking "There is no heaven, it's a fairy story"

SuperInfinity

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I don't think it would be hypocritical at all. I would prefer if this forum was just for atheists. If I go on a forum about the Atkins diet criticizing Atkins and saying meat is murder and saying that heavy meat eaters die earlier, I would be told to **** off and go to whatever forum I want. This is not hypocritical whatsoever, even if these people often shared their views on the downsides of veganism and high carb.

Mark Hamill, I acknowledge your post without comment, I think any reply to it on my part would be just repeating my earlier posts.

A forum to allow us to pat ourselves and one another on the back, without giving anybody the chance to interfere?

An atheist forum for just atheists would soon get very boring, I think...

I know, for me at least, it's people like Donatello posting in here that makes the forum a lot better than it otherwise would be.

Zombrex

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

A forum to allow us to pat ourselves and one another on the back, without giving anybody the chance to interfere?

There are plenty of other forums like that on Board.ie. I hope to GOD that this forum never turns into one of those forums, praise ALLAH. :eek::P

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

I hope to GOD that this forum never turns into one of those forums, praise ALLAH. :eek::P

Ah, bless you.

kylith

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I don't think it would be hypocritical at all. I would prefer if this forum was just for atheists. If I go on a forum about the Atkins diet criticizing Atkins and saying meat is murder and saying that heavy meat eaters die earlier, I would be told to **** off and go to whatever forum I want. This is not hypocritical whatsoever, even if these people often shared their views on the downsides of veganism and high carb.

I disagree with you there. Theists are the fuel which keeps this forum going. Without them it'd just be a bunch of us saying "I don't believe in gods" and "I agree, there are no gods", then the forum would die.

There's nothing more boring than a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other.

Dades

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I would prefer if this forum was just for atheists.

This is the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, not the Atheists & Agnostics forum. And it would be boring as hell otherwise.

Mark Hamill

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I don't think it would be hypocritical at all. I would prefer if this forum was just for atheists. If I go on a forum about the Atkins diet criticizing Atkins and saying meat is murder and saying that heavy meat eaters die earlier, I would be told to **** off and go to whatever forum I want. This is not hypocritical whatsoever, even if these people often shared their views on the downsides of veganism and high carb.

Assuming the forum is well moderated, then it would depend on how you criticize the diet. People question vegetarianism and veganism on the veggie forum every now and then, as long as the person is willing to engage in conversation and not just sprout propaganda, then there is usually no issue. Not many forums are so afraid of discussing different opinions that they discourage them out of hand.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Mark Hamill, I acknowledge your post without comment, I think any reply to it on my part would be just repeating my earlier posts.

ok.

Zombrex

We should also not rule out the possiblity that a theist will actually say something seriously thought provoking or profound about the nature of faith and belief.

Hasn't happened yet, but you never know .... :pac:

zenno

xflyer wrote: »

There is no evidence for heaven, not least because it is a made up story. Like so much of religion.

In many languages, the word for "heaven" is the same as the word for "sky". heaven = sky, space imo.

Zombrex

zenno wrote: »

In many languages, the word for "heaven" is the same as the word for "sky". heaven = sky, space imo.

Not in English though

SuperInfinity

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

A forum to allow us to pat ourselves and one another on the back, without giving anybody the chance to interfere?

An atheist forum for just atheists would soon get very boring, I think...

I know, for me at least, it's people like Donatello posting in here that makes the forum a lot better than it otherwise would be.

Not pat ourselves on the back, just discussing the world with it being taken for granted that there is no god. On forums for Jews talking about the Holocaust they take it for granted that the Holocaust occurred. On Physics forums they take it for granted Newtons laws are correct on a macroscopic level. If some crazy guy came on claiming the opposite, the moderator could politely tell him that he could investigate his claims elsewhere, but that on this forum we were going to assume Newtonian laws are right on a macroscopic level.

As for congratulating ourselves/patting ourselves on the back.... if anything it's the people who want the theists posting here who like to congratulate themselves, by looking at their arguments and saying "oh well that's obviously a silly argument, I know much better". So you can say that is patting ourselves on the back just as much.

It's just off topic, that's all. We could just say that the discussion on whether or not god exists is another topic for another forum. And indeed maybe some of us would be interested in such a discussion, and we haven't pledged "allegiance" to atheism... maybe some of us will some day "swing the other way". However, I just think it might be a good idea for this one forum.

It's at least a valid idea. I don't mind if this forum chooses not to be like this, but save me this "we pride ourselves on allowing dissent" or considering this way to be the correct or superior way. It's just that some of us get tired of these arguments and would like to talk about something within OUR world instead of being drowned out by such discussions on whether we are even right. You wouldn't go on a muslim forum and except to see discussions on whether or not muslim is valid.

kylith wrote: »

I disagree with you there. Theists are the fuel which keeps this forum going. Without them it'd just be a bunch of us saying "I don't believe in gods" and "I agree, there are no gods", then the forum would die.

There's nothing more boring than a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other.

Hmmm.... that's sort of what kept me off this forum for a while. But you know I do think there are things to discuss, such as the whole phenomenon of religion and what it means for us and humanity. Also, I think atheists are usually much more insightful people.

Dades wrote: »

This is the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, not the Atheists & Agnostics forum. And it would be boring as hell otherwise.

I know it's called that, I suppose I didn't really realize this at first. However there's no harm in asking for this anyway. I don't agree that it necessarily needs to be that boring as explained above.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Assuming the forum is well moderated, then it would depend on how you criticize the diet. People question vegetarianism and veganism on the veggie forum every now and then, as long as the person is willing to engage in conversation and not just sprout propaganda, then there is usually no issue. Not many forums are so afraid of discussing different opinions that they discourage them out of hand.

That is true enough, but I just think it's a little out of control here. There are so many other places religious people can take their issues and argue about it until the day they die.

robindch

zenno wrote: »

In many languages, the word for "heaven" is the same as the word for "sky". heaven = sky, space imo.

Reminds me of a gag in one of Iain Banks' scifi books. The scene is two aliens talking about a human in their local lingo:

Iain Banks wrote:

Alien 1: So what's the name of the planet that this guy comes from?
Alien 2: Uh, I think it's called "Dirt".
Alien 1: Really?
Alien 2: I think it loses something in the translation.

I can see the point you're making, SuperInfinity, but, I just don't think it's a valid one. There have been plenty of threads here where theists don't get involved. Your point would be valid if every thread started by an atheist was overrun by theists spouting nonsense and proselytising, but that simply isn't the case. I'd hazard a guess that this only happens in a minority of threads. If you'd like to discuss something without the viewpoint of theists, then there's nothing stopping you from including, in the OP, the caveat that you'd only like atheistic responses.

MrPudding

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If you'd like to discuss something without the viewpoint of theists, then there's nothing stopping you from including, in the OP, the caveat that you'd only like atheistic responses.

Yes there is something to stop you... Same as there is something to stop "christian only threads" on the other forum. Did you miss the memo?

MrP

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes there is something to stop you... Same as there is something to stop "christian only threads" on the other forum. Did you miss the memo?

MrP

I think I must have! That's news to me. I took a break from Boards for a good few months, but the last time I was around Christianity allowed Christian-only reponses. That memo must have passed me by, I guess.

Mistress 69

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I don't think it would be hypocritical at all. I would prefer if this forum was just for atheists. If I go on a forum about the Atkins diet criticizing Atkins and saying meat is murder and saying that heavy meat eaters die earlier, I would be told to **** off and go to whatever forum I want. This is not hypocritical whatsoever, even if these people often shared their views on the downsides of veganism and high carb.


Gosh, cant imagine anyone telling you to **** off. Glad you got veganism right!

IRWolfie-

SuperInfinity wrote: »

There is a lot of dissent about string theory and superstring theory, many serious scientists neither believe nor respect much of the "fundamentals" in it.

For me a lot of science is going this way unfortunately and just like religion there is a LOT of money on it (more than religion). Anything that can't be instantly proven or disproven is open to abuse.

The problem is that String theory is as of yet not truly a theory since it is untested. Time will tell whether it still holds. String theory has yet to be shown conclusively to hold and many scientists are still skeptical. Theories aren't about belief, they are about gathering overwhelming evidence so that the conclusions can not be denied. I don't see how this makes it like a religion though.

Edit: I should say, belief isn't what makes a theory a theory, it's evidence

IRWolfie-

seamus wrote: »

No.

There's an argument put forth by many that atheism is an intellectual convenience that's abandoned on one's death bed, hence the quote that "There are no atheists in foxholes".

Stephen Hawking, as a very public figure with a terminal illness has no doubt spent more time musing over his impending demise than most people ever will, yet in the face of it he has not only maintained an atheist viewpoint, but continually declared it in public. He's a nobel prize winning, (nearly) septugenarian public figure unafraid to say that he has no belief. He wrecks the popular myth of the "angry loner teenager" atheist in so many ways, and he should be applauded for it.

He has never publically declared himself to be an atheist.

Turtwig

IRWolfie- wrote: »

He has never publically declared himself to be an atheist.

He doesn't believe in God.

IRWolfie-

Malty_T wrote: »

He doesn't believe in God.

He doesn't believe in a personal god for sure. But it's possible that he could be some form of deist (or agnostic about deism).

liamw

IRWolfie- wrote: »

He doesn't believe in a personal god for sure. But it's possible that he could be some form of deist (or agnostic about deism).

Clutching at straws there Wolfie

IRWolfie-

liamw wrote: »

Clutching at straws there Wolfie

Show me one quote from Stephen Hawking where he explicitly declares himself to be an atheist.

edit: the reason I ask is because I tried to look for one before and was unable to find it

Galvasean

If he doesn't believe in the afterlife it would be highly strange / hypocritical for him to believe in God no?

opinion guy

IRWolfie- wrote: »

The problem is that String theory is as of yet not truly a theory since it is untested. Time will tell whether it still holds. String theory has yet to be shown conclusively to hold and many scientists are still skeptical. Theories aren't about belief, they are about gathering overwhelming evidence so that the conclusions can not be denied. I don't see how this makes it like a religion though.

Edit: I should say, belief isn't what makes a theory a theory, it's evidence

But each individual will have a self appointed arbitrary threshold at which point they believe the theory. There is no such thing as absolute evidence. At some point people just there is enough evidence that they can then believe and have faith in the theory. So it is like a religion. A very strict and methodical religion, but a religion none the less.

Galvasean

Hmm his ex wife apparently said he is an atheist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_hawking#Religious_views

Galvasean

opinion guy wrote: »

But each individual will have a self appointed arbitrary threshold at which point they believe the theory. There is no such thing as absolute evidence. At some point people just there is enough evidence that they can then believe and have faith in the theory. So it is like a religion. A very strict and methodical religion, but a religion none the less.

If you apply that logic EVERYTHING is a religion.

What's that, you believe the sky is blue based on your observations? Religion!

IRWolfie-

IRWolfie- wrote: »

Show me one quote from Stephen Hawking where he explicitly declares himself to be an atheist.

edit: the reason I ask is because I tried to look for one before and was unable to find it

Well, it's clear he doesn't believe in a personal god, so he's not a theist.

This quote:

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second."

Would suggest that he isn't a deist, either.

If he's not a theist, nor a deist, then it's fairly logical to conclude he's an atheist. Besides, isn't atheism relevant to just theism, not deism? It's atheism, afterall.

IRWolfie-

Galvasean wrote: »

Hmm his ex wife apparently said he is an atheist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_hawking#Religious_views

Yes, and that's about as close as you will get. My point is, he never publically declared himself to be an atheist and his ex-wife's view may be inaccurate; he doesn't believe in a personal god which she may have interpreted as atheism.

Turtwig

opinion guy wrote: »

But each individual will have a self appointed arbitrary threshold at which point they believe the theory. There is no such thing as absolute evidence. At some point people just there is enough evidence that they can then believe and have faith in the theory. So it is like a religion. A very strict and methodical religion, but a religion none the less.

You are ignoring the key "doctrine" of science : skepticism. Religion always assume everything it teaches to be correct and factual, science assumes the exact opposite. Everything from the size of the sun, to the colour of the sky, is meant to be questioned and always will be. No amount of experimentation can ever prove a single idea to be 100% true and it is that reveling in the virtue of doubt which ultimately separates science from religion.

IRWolfie-

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, it's clear he doesn't believe in a personal god, so he's not a theist.

This quote:

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second."

Would suggest that he isn't a deist, either.

If he's not a theist, nor a deist, then it's fairly logical to conclude he's an atheist. Besides, isn't atheism relevant to just theism, not deism? It's atheism, afterall.

I don't agree that this means he is not a deist.

Turtwig

IRWolfie- wrote: »

I don't agree that this means he is not a deist.

Mr Hawkings wrote:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

Seems to be ruling out a deist there.:)

IRWolfie-

opinion guy wrote: »

But each individual will have a self appointed arbitrary threshold at which point they believe the theory. There is no such thing as absolute evidence. At some point people just there is enough evidence that they can then believe and have faith in the theory. So it is like a religion. A very strict and methodical religion, but a religion none the less.

definition of faith:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

This is never the case in science, theories are continually improved, refined and re-looked at.

IRWolfie-

Malty_T wrote: »

Seems to be ruling out a deist there.:)

unless he has ideas on what makes the laws.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

You are ignoring the key "doctrine" of science : skepticism. Religion always assume everything it teaches to be correct and factual, science assumes the exact opposite. Everything from the size of the sun, to the colour of the sky, is meant to be questioned and always will be. No amount of experimentation can ever prove a single idea to be 100% true and it is that reveling in the virtue of doubt which ultimately separates science from religion.

Indeed, great quote from Sagan at 1:20 here in reference to Keppler...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgYpCHIickU

IRWolfie-

IRWolfie- wrote: »

I don't agree that this means he is not a deist.

OK, how about:

"It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going."

Or, to get even more explicit:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own,"

I don't think he could get much more specific, to be honest.

Turtwig

IRWolfie- wrote: »

unless he has ideas on what makes the laws.

I haven't read the book, but I'll assume if he's describing Gravity from M Theory it doesn't require a lawmaker and I'd guess he explains that explicitly in his book.

IRWolfie-

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't think he could get much more specific, to be honest.

How about: "I am an atheist"?

opinion guy

IRWolfie- wrote: »

definition of faith:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

This is never the case in science, theories are continually improved, refined and re-looked at.

Thats whats supposed to happen. Often it doens't happen. Objectivity is a myth.

IRWolfie-

IRWolfie- wrote: »

How about: "I am an atheist"?

OK, let me get this straight.

He's said he doesn't believe in a personal god, so he's not a theist.

He has clearly said numerous times that he believes the universe didn't need a god to bring it into creation; that the universe was capable of coming into existence spontaneously.

It's clear he's not a theist. If he's a deist he's a rather strange one: I don't know many deists who don't believe a god brought the universe into existence; that's rather a contradictory position, no?

So, if he's not a theist, and he's not a deist... Isn't it clear he's an atheist? You should be quite capable of inferring that from the above quotations.

IRWolfie-

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

OK, let me get this straight.

He's said he doesn't believe in a personal god, so he's not a theist.

He has clearly said numerous times that he believes the universe didn't need a god to bring it into creation; that the universe was capable of coming into existence spontaneously.

It's clear he's not a theist. If he's a deist he's a rather strange one: I don't know many deists who don't believe a god brought the universe into existence; that's rather a contradictory position, no?

So, if he's not a theist, and he's not a deist... Isn't it clear he's an atheist? You should be quite capable of inferring that from the above quotations.

What you are inferring may still not be the case though, his views may be more confused though which is why it seems best not to claim him as an atheist, but as a non-theist until he fully clarifies it.

IRWolfie-

IRWolfie- wrote: »

What you are inferring may still not be the case though, his views may be more confused though which is why it seems best not to claim him as an atheist, but as a non-theist until he fully clarifies it.

That's a rather strange position to take, though. His views are evidently not the views of a deist. So, if he's not a theist, and evidently not a deist, yet he's not an atheist, then I don't know what he is.

Turtwig

IRWolfie- wrote: »

What you are inferring may still not be the case though, his views may be more confused though which is why it seems best not to claim him as an atheist, but as a non-theist until he fully clarifies it.

It's easy as pie, he lacks belief in a God therefore he is an atheist. If he doesn't lack belief in a God then he's not an atheist, but I can't find any statement by him saying he's got a belief in a deity. There are plenty showing that he lacks the belief though.

pH

IRWolfie- wrote: »

Edit: I should say, belief isn't what makes a theory a theory, it's evidence

No, being a theory is what makes it a theory, evidence is what makes it a correct theory.

IRWolfie-

Malty_T wrote: »

It's easy as pie, he lacks belief in a God therefore he is an atheist. If he doesn't lack belief in a God then he's not an atheist, but I can't find any statement by him saying he's got a belief in a deity. There are plenty showing that he lacks the belief though.

he has also stated he is "not religious in the normal sense" which suggests another sense.

Turtwig

IRWolfie- wrote: »

he has also stated he is "not religious in the normal sense" which suggests another sense.

Oh sweet jesus, if he lacks believe in a deity he's an atheist. The definition is really that simple. Useless term "atheism" is, but hey, we're not discussing that. As long as the person lacks belief in a God they are an atheist. They can believe in Hairy Toe headed dragons for all I care.

IRWolfie-

IRWolfie- wrote: »

he has also stated he is "not religious in the normal sense" which suggests another sense.

Perhaps he's religious in a similar sense to Einstein. That is, to say, a pantheistic-type belief. Either way, it's evident he's not a theist nor a deist, so in all respects he's an atheist. One can be a pantheist and an atheist simultaneously.

IRWolfie-

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Perhaps he's religious in a similar sense to Einstein. That is, to say, a pantheistic-type belief. Either way, it's evident he's not a theist nor a deist, so in all respects he's an atheist. One can be a pantheist and an atheist simultaneously.

are you sure?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#Ath

IRWolfie-

IRWolfie- wrote: »

are you sure?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#Ath

It depends on which definition you use. It's a term that has many.

Here's the definition that I (and most others here, I'd imagine) would be more familiar with: http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

It explicitly mentions Hawkings too, surprisingly.

opinion guy

IRWolfie- wrote: »

are you sure?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#Ath

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It depends on which definition you use. It's a term that has many.

Here's the definition that I (and most others here, I'd imagine) would be more familiar with: http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

It explicitly mentions Hawkings too, surprisingly.

As someone who considers himself loosely pantheistic I don't really agree with either view. Thou I find Dawkin's view on the subject just insulting. But then thats in keeping with the general arrogance and obnoxiousness of the man.

Dades

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It's just that some of us get tired of these arguments and would like to talk about something within OUR world instead of being drowned out by such discussions on whether we are even right.

Just a last word on this. There is nothing stopping you from starting such a thread here, and ignoring any threads started by believers. In the light of your concerns, we the moderators will try to ensure it doesn't get dragged off topic - but without resorting to "atheist only" response tactics.

You might also find in the 6 or so years this forum has existed most or all of the topics you might find interesting from "our" perspective have already been discussed at length. But don't let this dissuade you from seeking a fresh perspective.

mikhail

IRWolfie- wrote: »

The problem is that String theory is as of yet not truly a theory since it is untested. Time will tell whether it still holds. String theory has yet to be shown conclusively to hold and many scientists are still skeptical. Theories aren't about belief, they are about gathering overwhelming evidence so that the conclusions can not be denied. I don't see how this makes it like a religion though.

Edit: I should say, belief isn't what makes a theory a theory, it's evidence

String theory is consistent with all of the known evidence. It's not been accepted because the things it predicts differently from mainstream theory occur at extremely high energies, and so are hard to test. It's mathematically elegant, which is why it's been so explored, but people are conservative, so they'll not switch to that model until it is shown to be more accurate than the current model.