Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[TransmutingSoul]

No, atheists aren't known for preaching, that would be the Abrahamics.
Atheists have no theology, no political agenda, no common beliefs. We have nothing in common but our lack of belief. What would we promote with propaganda? What would we preach about?

Let's see, lack of belief but posting in a place called Religious Forums.

The primary meaning of religious.

"relating to or believing in a religion"

What else does one expect to hear about, do people not really see the irony?

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

As I predicted earlier, you have entirely missed the point.

Well I am not responsible if your point is unclear.

Hawking was no two dimensional thinker; he wrestled with philosophical concepts. Whatever he concluded about the existence or non existence of God, is secondary to the fact that he was not hidebound by prejudice or wilful ignorance, in the process by which he reached his conclusions.

No idea what you're trying to say here sorry. How does my atheism justify your accusation "I'm shutting ideas down" exactly? Then maybe you can explain why professor Hawking's atheism differs somehow?

That is why his observations have weight, and yours do not.

That's hilarious, firstly his "observations" as I already explained carry no more weight than anyone else's unless they are verified by the scientific method, but you would have to understand what an appeal to authority fallacy is, apparently you don't.

What lends weight to one's "observations" is how much objective evidence supports them. Are you seriously claiming you'd care what professor hawking's thinks if he worked in Burger King all his life?

Shift a little to the left of right, and I suspect your worldview will look exactly the same.

You've a canny knack for sizing up strangers on the internet you know nothing about, but I suspect my profile showing I am an atheist was sufficient for these hilarious assertions. Maybe you should focus your energies on demonstrating a shred of objective evidence for any deity.

This is because your vision is without depth, and your prejudice keeps it that way.

PMLMAO, my prejudice, good one, priceless. So anyone who doesn't share your unevidenced belief in a deity using inexplicable magic is prejudiced, that I must say made me laugh out loud.

Can you demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence for any deity?

Start there, as it's tiresome to see people hold a belief they can't demsonrate any objective evidence for, and expend relentless energy avoiding the requests for it, while they attack those who don't share it, and then make risible accusation of prejudice, again hilarious.

 

[Sheldon]

Let's see, lack of belief but posting in a place called Religious Forums.

The primary meaning of religious.

"relating to or believing in a religion"

What else does one expect to hear about, do people not really see the irony?

Regards Tony

It's odd how theists vacillate from telling atheists they are closed minded, to professing bafflement as to why we care enough to inquire what they are basing their belief in a deity on.

Damned if we do, and damned if we don't...luckily not literally damned, as there is no evidence for that at all.

 

[firedragon]

No, atheists aren't known for preaching, that would be the Abrahamics.

You just preached.

Atheists have no theology, no political agenda, no common beliefs. We have nothing in common but our lack of belief. What would we promote with propaganda? What would we preach about?

What ever their agenda is.

Usually the only time you hear from us

So are you saying atheists are like a group? "us"? Thats a pretty cultish type of statement to make.

Atheists simply state facts

I cant speak for you, but everyone from any group can state arbitrary un-researched made up statements as facts. So, you are just being tribalistic like any religious sect who will like to defend each other tribalistically if there is such a word.

 

[KWED]

RS. To be dismissive of each other is not just the detriment. It is simple ignorance.

So a confused religionist on tinternet is calling Stephen Hawking "ignorant".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well I am not responsible if your point is unclear.



No idea what you're trying to say here sorry. How does my atheism justify your accusation "I'm shutting ideas down" exactly? Then maybe you can explain why professor Hawking's atheism differs somehow?


That's hilarious, firstly his "observations" as I already explained carry no more weight than anyone else's unless they are verified by the scientific method, but you would have to understand what an appeal to authority fallacy is, apparently you don't.

What lends weight to one's "observations" is how much objective evidence supports them. Are you seriously claiming you'd care what professor hawking's thinks if he worked in Burger King all his life?


You've a canny knack for sizing up strangers on the internet you know nothing about, but I suspect my profile showing I am an atheist was sufficient for these hilarious assertions. Maybe you should focus your energies on demonstrating a shred of objective evidence for any deity.



PMLMAO, my prejudice, good one, priceless. So anyone who doesn't share your unevidenced belief in a deity using inexplicable magic is prejudiced, that I must say made me laugh out loud.

Can you demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence for any deity?

Start there, as it's tiresome to see people hold a belief they can't demsonrate any objective evidence for, and expend relentless energy avoiding the requests for it, while they attack those who don't share it, and then make risible accusation of prejudice, again hilarious.

Mate. For the record, I quoted Stephen Hawking to illustrate a specific point, raised by another poster, about the seemingly miraculous nature of probability.

I can assure you that any opinion I may have formed of you has nothing to do with your professed atheism.

 

[KWED]

Unlike you, I wasn’t quite mining, I was illustrating a point using Hawking’s words in context, appropriately, and from a book I was reading this morning. We can all Google things, but that does not constitute intelligent discourse, something in which I perceive you to have no interest.

Clear quote mining. You tried to imply a position that Hawking did not hold., ie. that he considered the universe being created and fine-tuned by a god to be a real possibility that should be considered alongside natural explanations.

BTW, there is more to "intelligent discourse" than just finding people who agree with you. Another element is being able to construct cogent responses to claims and arguments.
Also, you might want to check on what the concept of "context" actually involves.

 

[Sheldon]

Mate. For the record, I quoted Stephen Hawking to illustrate a specific point, raised by another poster, about the seemingly miraculous nature of probability.

You do know Hawking's use of the word miraculous would have been metaphorical right?

I can assure you that any opinion I may have formed of you has nothing to do with your professed atheism.

I doubt it, now one more time, how does my atheism justify your claim I am shutting ideas down?

If professor Hawking's was not doing what you accuse me of, and yet we arrived at the same lack of belief, that seems to make your prejudiced accusation pretty dubious to me. Not that it wasn't already a ludicrous claim, that you have offered neither objective evidence nor logical argument in support of.

 

[KWED]

The point is that a subjective opinion is not made more credible because it comes from a genius, that is not professor Hawking's genius was established, through his opinions.

However since you invoked one of those here are some more from professor Hawking.

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,” he told the Guardian. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,” he said. “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

interview with El Mundo in 2014

I wonder how he shut those ideas down, as you put it?

Hawking was clearly ignorant and incapable of intelligent discourse, according to our learned colleagues here.

 

[KWED]

As I predicted earlier, you have entirely missed the point. Hawking was no two dimensional thinker; he wrestled with philosophical concepts. Whatever he concluded about the existence or non existence of God, is secondary to the fact that he was not hidebound by prejudice or wilful ignorance, in the process by which he reached his conclusions.

WTF are you on about?
Hawking didn't "wrestle with" the existence of gods or the supernatural. Like most rational thinkers, he rejected such notions because of a complete lack of evidence and rational argument to support them. He was scathing about philosophy.

he was not hidebound by prejudice or wilful ignorance

Nor are any whose position is determined by evidence and rational argument.
Unlike those who insist that the supernatural must exist, despite a complete lack of evidence and rational argument.
It never ceases to amaze me, the complete lack of self-awareness of religionists who accuse rationalists of blind adherence to unsupported dogma. And my local Irony-o-Meter emporium is running out of replacement springs.

That is why his observations have weight, and yours do not.

So you agree with him that belief in god is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark, and that philosophy is dead.
Well, we finally agree on something!

 

[KWED]

Let's see, lack of belief but posting in a place called Religious Forums.

So by your logic, if a doctor goes to a hospital they are sick? If a teacher goes to a school they are ignorant?

The primary meaning of religious.
"relating to or believing in a religion"
What else does one expect to hear about,

Do you really think "religious debate" can only take place between two religious people?

do people not really see the irony?

I can indeed!

 

[F1fan]

I prefer "Invisible Magic".

And how do we know it's magic? Because we can't see it. That way the doubters can't disprove it.

 

[KWED]

Mate. For the record, I quoted Stephen Hawking to illustrate a specific point, raised by another poster, about the seemingly miraculous nature of probability.

But you quote mined in order to imply something that is not true.
You then went farther and made more claims about Hawking "wrestling with philosophical concepts" and attempted to give the impression this included the existence of god, a created universe etc.
It is quite sad to see the desperate, disingenuous lengths religionists will go to.

You could learn something from him though. The use of evidence, reason and rational argument as a means of arriving at a position. However, your prejudice and wilful ignorance probably prevents you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's odd how theists vacillate from telling atheists they are closed minded, to professing bafflement as to why we care enough to inquire what they are basing their belief in a deity on.

Damned if we do, and damned if we don't...luckily not literally damned, as there is no evidence for that at all.

Then you do not.look at the evidence offered.

It has been offered the proof of God is the Messenger, their life and the Message, in that order, which makes them One in God.

So be honest, how deep have you looked into that evidence?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So by your logic, if a doctor goes to a hospital they are sick? If a teacher goes to a school they are ignorant?

Do you really think "religious debate" can only take place between two religious people?

I can indeed!

You lost the context of the reply, go back and look at the comment I replied to.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just preached.

Correcting people when they make false accusations about others is not preaching.

What ever their agenda is.

There is no one atheist agenda. There is no atheist dogma. Well, except for a lack of belief in god, if you can call a lack a dogma.

So are you saying atheists are like a group? "us"? Thats a pretty cultish type of statement to make.

No, he was not saying that. Why did you think that?

I cant speak for you, but everyone from any group can state arbitrary un-researched made up statements as facts. So, you are just being tribalistic like any religious sect who will like to defend each other tribalistically if there is such a word.

But now you are assuming that atheists have not studied religion again when on average they understand religions more than theists do. You almost surely understand some aspects of your religion than some atheists do (but probably not better than an ex-Muslim) but that does not mean that atheists are ignorant about religions and why they fail. The only tribalism here is from the theists.

 

[F1fan]

Let's see, lack of belief but posting in a place called Religious Forums.

The primary meaning of religious.

"relating to or believing in a religion"

Challenging the validity of religious beliefs is "relating to religion".

What else does one expect to hear about, do people not really see the irony?

Let's note it is a "forum" and not a fellowship site. Forums are notable for their debates.

But thanks for not agreeing with the majority who debate in good faith because we disagree about issues.

 

[Sheldon]

And how do we know it's magic? Because we can't see it. That way the doubters can't disprove it.

Since the claim goddidit has no explanatory powers, and magic is defined as the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces, I think it is a reasonable description. Perhaps a theists here can explain the objective difference?

 

[F1fan]

Then you do not.look at the evidence offered.

It has been offered the proof of God is the Messenger, their life and the Message, in that order, which makes them One in God.

No, it makes them some ordinary mortal who claims to be a messenger of a God that isn't known to exist.

So be honest, how deep have you looked into that evidence?

The core skeptics in this forum have been given many, many claims of evidence and they are exceptional in its weakness. How deep into weak evidence do we have to go?

 

[F1fan]

Since the claim goddidit has no explanatory powers, and magic is defined as the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces, I think it is reasonable description. Perhaps a theists here can explain the objective difference?

We can pray on it. But we know how reliable prayer is.