Stephen Hawking is an Idiot

[froggerlover]

lol this funny

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Heaven was not invented by humans for those who are afraid of the dark or death. It was invented to be the abode of the gods and none of us mere mortals ever went there.

 

[Reptillian]

Is she right in what she says about Hawking thinking that computers just die? If so, he should check this clip out.

[youtube]c4wqAJTu19o[/youtube]
The Metaphysics of a Service Droid - YouTube

 

[Valjean]

She certainly seems to have a bee in her bonnet. I think, though, that she protests too much...

"Hawking has as much evidence that there isn't a heaven as the Pope has that there is."

Hawking would agree, but the burden of proof is on the one asserting existence. Non-existence is assumed till evidence comes to light.

"We won't know until we're dead, and if you atheists are right we won't even know then..."

Essential atheism, so called "weak" atheism, makes no claims at all about the existence of an afterlife. In fact, we agree with her that we won't know till evidenc presents itself.

"You atheists go around saying you're smarter than people with spiritual beliefs"

What we say is that our beliefs regarding God and Heaven are contingent on evidence and that the default position, minus evidence, is non-belief. That's not being "smart" so much as logical.
A belief without evidence -- which the speaker concedes -- is not reasonable.
The speaker is equating logic with smartness and faith with stupidity. That's her assessment, not that of atheism.

 

[Nakosis]

She certainly seems to have a bee in her bonnet. I think, though, that she protests too much...

Hawking would agree, but the burden of proof is on the one asserting existence. Non-existence is assumed till evidence comes to light.

Essential atheism, so called "weak" atheism, makes no claims at all about the existence of an afterlife. In fact, we agree with her that we won't know till evidenc presents itself.

What we say is that our beliefs regarding God and Heaven are contingent on evidence and that the default position, minus evidence, is non-belief. That's not being "smart" so much as logical.
A belief without evidence -- which the speaker concedes -- is not reasonable.
The speaker is equating logic with smartness and faith with stupidity. That's her assessment, not that of atheism.

Christians believe they have evidence of God's existence. You just don't accept it as such. So what you consider a lack of evidence they consider a denial of it.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

If humans invented an afterlife for those who are afraid of the dark and death it has completely backfired because those who believe in an afterlife are far more likely to demand more intensive life prolonging care with no expense spared than those that don't.
Check out this article . I recently even experienced first hand just this month with two dying distant relatives. Both have been diagnosed with terminal cancer. The most religious one is totally devastated and cannot stop crying and is even prepared to sell her house to give her an extra few months, but the other one who is not religious at all is far more stoic and excepting about her condition. Even though she viewed death as the end

 

[Skwim]

Thought I'd share this. Only watched cos she looked nice!

[youtube]iTwAPEc_U20[/youtube]

I suppose it's nice for Lori Harfenist to have a podium from which to air her grievances, but I, for one, can't bring myself to care.

 

[Valjean]

Christians believe they have evidence of God's existence. You just don't accept it as such. So what you consider a lack of evidence they consider a denial of it.

What one believes and what qualifies as reasonable or empirical are two different things.

 

[Nakosis]

If humans invented an afterlife for those who are afraid of the dark and death it has completely backfired because those who believe in an afterlife are far more likely to demand more intensive life prolonging care with no expense spared than those that don't.
Check out this article . I recently even experienced first hand just this month with two dying distant relatives. Both have been diagnosed with terminal cancer. The most religious one is totally devastated and cannot stop crying and is even prepared to sell her house to give her an extra few months, but the other one who is not religious at all is far more stoic and excepting about her condition. Even though she viewed death as the end

No, see the point is to help those that are left to deal with the loss. They get to believe the person has moved on to a "better place". The intent here is not to benefit the terminal patient.

 

[Nakosis]

What one believes and what qualifies as reasonable or empirical are two different things.

The individual makes the determination as to what qualifies as evidence for themselves.

So while I can't dictate to you what you can and cannot accept as evidence. You can't dictate it for them either.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The individual makes the determination as to what qualifies as evidence for themselves.

So while I can't dictate to you what you can and cannot accept as evidence. You can't dictate it for them either.

I agree. Evidence is in the mind of the beholder. Still, I think some claims of (non)evidence don't pass the straight-face test very well.

A Creationist might stand well-rooted and repeat again and again that no evidence has ever been put forward for the theory of evolution -- no matter what material is presented to him. But a majority of folks might giggle at him. They're not giggling at the notion of Creationism/Evolution. They're giggling at his claim of no evidence.

So the trick is to proclaim or deny the existence of evidence without making too many people giggle, I think.

Claim#1: I've seen no compelling, reasonable, empirical evidence that any God exists as an actual being or creature. [silence from the crowd]

Claim#2: God comes to me in the night and reveals Himself in great physical detail. I know lots about God. [some giggling from the cheapseats.]

It's not much, but it's the only gauge I can come up with.

 

[Valjean]

The individual makes the determination as to what qualifies as evidence for themselves.

Indeed, they do -- often wrongly.

So while I can't dictate to you what you can and cannot accept as evidence. You can't dictate it for them either.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that some "evidence" is ridiculous. You can accept what you will, but logic is logic. Pi does not = 3.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

No, see the point is to help those that are left to deal with the loss. They get to believe the person has moved on to a "better place". The intent here is not to benefit the terminal patient.

What if they have a niggling suspicion they have gone to a "worse place" AKA hell or at the very least purgatory. When I went through a Roman Catholic education I was resigned to the view you would have to live a miserable life of such piety to get to heaven, because even the slightest impure fleeting thought would cause you to finish up in purgatory. I was taught only a select chosen few had any hope of a place in heaven. So any Catholic would almost have to be resigned to the fact they would have to suffer some time in purgatory.

 

[tytlyf]

No proof of a heaven or unicorns. Just because you make something up, doesn't mean sane people have to prove they exist.

 

[idav]

Is she right in what she says about Hawking thinking that computers just die? If so, he should check this clip out.

[youtube]c4wqAJTu19o[/youtube]
The Metaphysics of a Service Droid - YouTube

LOL that is funny. It's actually a better rebuttal than that chick gave.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You can accept what you will, but logic is logic

So fuzzy logic is no different from the logic of Aristotle, and the logic of Aristotle is no different from that of Frege-Russell-Whitehead? Many-values logic and boolean logic are the same? And as long as you are making such definitive statements about logic and reason, all of logical validity rests upon one proposition following from another. But what does "follow from" really mean?

An early and amusing investigation into the problem of validity

 

[shawn001]

Its Hawking's opinion, but not fuzzy logic.

Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe?

[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Its Hawking's opinion, but not fuzzy logic.

I wasn't responding to Hawking, but to another forum member. Specifically, the statement "logic is logic." The conception that logical deduction (or induction) is uncontroversial, that "logic is logic" is, I think, too optimistic. Additionally, the idea that "science" is some monolithic uncontested and singular approach to empirical analysis is simply incorrect. A good review of the issue may be found in A Nice Dereangement of Epistemes by Zammito (University of Chicago Press, 2004).

 

[Photonic]

I wasn't responding to Hawking, but to another forum member. Specifically, the statement "logic is logic." The conception that logical deduction (or induction) is uncontroversial, that "logic is logic" is, I think, too optimistic. Additionally, the idea that "science" is some monolithic uncontested and singular approach to empirical analysis is simply incorrect. A good review of the issue may be found in A Nice Dereangement of Epistemes by Zammito (University of Chicago Press, 2004).

I challenge you to produce another process that validates information with accuracy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I challenge you to produce another process that validates information with accuracy.

Actually the most critical post-positivists weren't saying that science was flawed because there was a better way, but that it was impossible to achieve the accuracy most people (myself included) would say is possible with science.