"God did not create Universe!", says Hawking.

[Kaylia]

double post

[Ashmada]

Keep tossing insults

The hell?

your argument doesnt worth shit mathematically or scientifically.

What is this I don't even.

It's not even good philosophy since you're misusing concept like many people do. Occam's razor should be applied whenever you can, but it only works if you can determine the validity of the model, or show the equivalence within the model, and sadly for you, it's not something that can be done here. As a mathematics principle, it works fine, but as a rules of thumbs in philosophy, it's subject to every fucking bias.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean I (or Russell long before me) am misusing the razor.

Anyway, I havent seen you propose any reasonable solution here that solve that "causeless cause" issue. If you have one, then please, do post it.

You could at least read my words.
I keep trying to explain that in absence of an answer it's better not to posit an arbitrary one, and you ask me to... posit an arbitrary answer ? How about no ?

The only rational way to deal with the topic is agnosticism. Anything else require beliefs, idiocy or hypocrisy.

...and I give up.
You're so infatuated with your half-baked teenage conclusion that atheism requires belief (it doesn't, that's absurd on many levels) that you won't ever read my replies, so yeah, pat yourself on the back and have a wank.

[Khajit]

Are you guys really still arguing about this dumbshit?

[Acturus]

FUCK YEAH, ODIN!

Personally, I can't believe in a god with no depth perception.

[Mizango]

Are you guys really still arguing about this dumbshit?

SOP.

[Maxwell]

This just in:

Atheism is a belief and "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

Good to know.

[Max™]

Personally, I can't believe in a god with no depth perception.

Odin has a 4 Dimensional eye with a 3 Dimensional spherical retina, the type of depth perception that he lost is related to viewing all moments along all worldlines simultaneously.

In his own words "I got tired of that bullshit anyways", he's too metal.


Hard atheism, wherein one expresses certainty of something as thought it were a fact without justification is by definition a belief.

Claiming knowledge which is not justifiably true.

[Maxwell]

Odin has a 4 Dimensional eye with a 3 Dimensional spherical retina, the type of depth perception that he lost is related to viewing all moments along all worldlines simultaneously.

In his own words "I got tired of that bullshit anyways", he's too metal.


Hard atheism, wherein one expresses certainty of something as thought it were a fact without justification is by definition a belief.

Claiming knowledge which is not justifiably true.

I see you do this a lot and it is very confusing, since you attempt to portray yourself as an intellectual. You mis-represent ideas/redefine things to suite your argument, then go "wala, see I'm right".

"Hard Atheists".. This is a term you made up to somehow redefine an atheist into a "believer", to satisfy your own ignorant beliefs about people. A person that doesn't accept unjustified theological premises is an atheist, whether they also find those ideas silly, laughable, or even offensive, doesn't change for one moment the fact that there is no "belief" or "faith" required to reject a bad idea.

It isn't a leap of faith to understand that a statement can have a Boolean answer. More specifically there IS a right and wrong answer to many questions. A statement can be true or false. It isn't "belief" to point out that a statement is illogical or false. A "hard atheist" is just someone that understands that the very definition of god is self-contradicting, and thus impossible.

You should go stand in a corner and feel bad about yourself for implying atheism (even this fabled "strong atheism") requires belief, I'd use a rolled up newspaper on you if I knew you, simply for saying something so stupid while wearing the mantle of an aspiring physicist. We are all dumber for reading that statement. I award you no points, and may lolgod have mercy on your imaginary soul.

[Eliseos]

simply for saying something so stupid while wearing the mantle of an aspiring physicist.

He isn't even that.

[Jefe]

ITT: Miz jumpin' the gun as usual like the rabid sodomite he is; and fags quoting scientists in their sigs.

[Maxwell]

Apparently everyone is gay.

[Max™]

I see you do this a lot and it is very confusing, since you attempt to portray yourself as an intellectual. You mis-represent ideas/redefine things to suite your argument, then go "wala, see I'm right".

I see this happen a lot, where people read this version of things where I'm trying to appear smart.
If I wanted people to think of me in any particular way, I'd pick funny over smart any day. If I wanted someone to tell me I'm smart, it wouldn't be dorks on a message board, no offense.

"Hard Atheists".. This is a term you made up to somehow redefine an atheist into a "believer", to satisfy your own ignorant beliefs about people. A person that doesn't accept unjustified theological premises is an atheist, whether they also find those ideas silly, laughable, or even offensive, doesn't change for one moment the fact that there is no "belief" or "faith" required to reject a bad idea.

A person that doesn't accept unjustified theological premises can be classified as an atheist, certainly, they also have more accurate terms for those mindsets. Theological noncognitivists will tell you that the question itself is flawed because it is like asking how many four sided triangles a flying pink elephant has in its pocket. I tend to connect the term "atheist" with those who claim certainty of something which is by definition impossible to know, whether it is absurd or not, it still strikes me as dishonest.

It isn't a leap of faith to understand that a statement can have a Boolean answer. More specifically there IS a right and wrong answer to many questions. A statement can be true or false. It isn't "belief" to point out that a statement is illogical or false. A "hard atheist" is just someone that understands that the very definition of god is self-contradicting, and thus impossible.

I'd call that a theological noncognitivist, "this idea is broken" says something different to me than "the idea is fine, but I know it is wrong" does.

You should go stand in a corner and feel bad about yourself for implying atheism (even this fabled "strong atheism") requires belief, I'd use a rolled up newspaper on you if I knew you, simply for saying something so stupid while wearing the mantle of an aspiring physicist. We are all dumber for reading that statement. I award you no points, and may lolgod have mercy on your imaginary soul.

I'm pretty sure I said amateur physicist, it is something I love studying, but haven't gone to school for, after all.

As for the rest, what would you be wearing while you spanked me with this hypothetical newspaper, which section of which paper also? I'm getting turned on just thinking about it.

[Maxwell]

Wait, dorks on a message board (a board you're posting on)?

You redefining atheism is the misrepresentation I was dinging you on, continuing to do it isn't helping your cause. If I "tended to call a triangle 4 sided", it doesn't mean "that's just my definition", it means I'm wrong. Atheism is the rejection of theological premises (based on no facts). You can't redefine it so you can call it a belief.

You're wrong. You don't even have to admit your wrong (as I realize people are often incapable of that), just stop repeating it over and over.

[Max™]

I am a dork as well, hell, I even used the name Dork Vader after a long running joke about awarding geek points to other posters, and my attempt to lure geeks to the dork side of the farce.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/Agnostic.gif
http://www.atheistguidebook.org/images/ag-chart.png

Theological Noncognitivistm/Ignostic is the "this question is broken, so my answer is: taco" type, which doesn't automatically encompass the entire span of belief types.

This popped up, repost from a RIT thread, but still amusing.

http://montaraventures.com/blog/wp-c...-flowchart.jpg

[Mateuns7]

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ompatible.html
Not saying I'm a strong atheist or nuthin', just thought this was interesting.

btw did someone say IGNOSTIC?

[Ashmada]

I am a dork as well, hell, I even used the name Dork Vader after a long running joke about awarding geek points to other posters, and my attempt to lure geeks to the dork side of the farce.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/Agnostic.gif

http://www.atheistguidebook.org/images/ag-chart.png

That's not so much wrong as it is starting from an incorrect position. It's basically defining oneself in regards to a specific religion (from the capitalization of "god", the christian one here) ; whereas atheism as I've tried to describe in this thread is the attitude that :
1. Proof of existence nor non-existence of a deity* is impossible.
2. Logically, it makes the most sense to not assume existence of an arbitrary postulate that doesn't actually answer anything.
In other words, "god doesn't exist until proven otherwise because, as many have argued before, the burden of proof lies on the religious."

It's neither theological noncognitivistm because although you claim the postulate (god) doesn't make sense, you don't negate the question nor true agnosticism (true agnosticism stops after 1.) nor gnostic atheism because you never claim proof of non-existence.


*Once again, a generic deist/theist one, not the christian god. As I've said on page 2 or so, the christian one is riddled with easily demonstrated incompatibilities.

[Max™]

I am generally an "it-doesn't-matter-ist", and only discuss such things to learn more about why people create such ideas.

I don't have a problem with the way theo-noncog/ignostic is described either.

http://www.control-z.com/czp/pgs/ignostic.html

"God" is a literary notion. "God" is only a word defined into existence by engaging attributes that either (1) do not exist beyond the interior realm of language, or (2) are cognitively unsound, incompatible, inconsistent, and contradictory, thereby creating cognitive dissonance and the conjuring of denial. What does this mean exactly? Simply put, "God"—like "Heaven" and "Hell" and "Soul" and "Spirit"—is constructed entirely of definitions without interactive or measureable counterparts in the 'real world' making such definitions inherently meaningless. Religion, you see, needs language to exist, and in the absence of language all religious notions have no basis for belief. Would you have any reason to believe in the Christian "God" or the Hindu "Gods" or the Greek or Viking or Navaho "Gods," et al, if you never heard or read about them? The same question applies to "Heaven" and "Hell." Outside the narrow interior realm of religious language, would you have any reason to believe in the existence of Heaven or Hell, the Soul or Spirit, Life-After-Death, or anything claimed by any religious person no matter how wise or learned? Supernatural ideas are the products of words, and it is only through words that they can be discovered. Would you have a reason to believe in anything supernatural if you were never told about it first? Reality, then, is what exists in the absence of language, words in books, exhortations from the pulpit. Reality does not need words in order to exist.

[Pirian]

Maybe not a "god", but there is a part of the brain that when activated gives you a sense of an other-wordly being(s). It's been tested in labs on people of all persuasions, and the conclusion was that humans evolved this sense because with a sense of self-awareness comes a realization of death. It is conceivable that it was advantageous for early humans to develop this sense of a greater being and an afterlife, because it helped take away the anxiety of death.

When tested in the lab settings, people would understand (after the data was collected) what was going on, but the types of experiences they had is very similar to that which "prophets" claims in which a "god" or "greater being" spoke to them, or even came to them in visuals. In lab settings, the participants understand that they were suppose to have this experience, but what do you think the person would think if this just randomly happened to them? Religion may just be our curse, and natural selections last laugh.

[Shazaam]

Well... back to the OP and the origin of the thread...

Shit, if I was Dr. Hawking, I wouldn't believe in a god either...

All that brilliance... wrapped up into a glorified 'Speak-N-Spell'...

No wonder he has his doubts.... The most fame his voice will ever have is the phrase 'ET Phone Home', despite his breakthroughs in physics.

If there IS a hell... then it would be Steven Hawking's life experience. It's like a Faustian experiment... brilliance mediated by the physical capabilities of a retarded ground sloth.

[Knightmare]

Maybe not a "god", but there is a part of the brain that when activated gives you a sense of an other-wordly being(s). It's been tested in labs on people of all persuasions, and the conclusion was that humans evolved this sense because with a sense of self-awareness comes a realization of death. It is conceivable that it was advantageous for early humans to develop this sense of a greater being and an afterlife, because it helped take away the anxiety of death.

When tested in the lab settings, people would understand (after the data was collected) what was going on, but the types of experiences they had is very similar to that which "prophets" claims in which a "god" or "greater being" spoke to them, or even came to them in visuals. In lab settings, the participants understand that they were suppose to have this experience, but what do you think the person would think if this just randomly happened to them? Religion may just be our curse, and natural selections last laugh.

this is what we call the placebo effect