Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

I found this interesting today:

"Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain’s most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book.

In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is “not necessary”.

The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton’s belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: “M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find,” he theorises.

“The fact that we human beings â?? who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature â?? have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.”

Hawking says the first blow to Newton’s belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. “That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions â?? the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass â?? far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings,” he writes.

Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, he said: “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason â?? for then we should know the mind of God.”

Hawking resigned as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University last year after 30 years in the position."

Source: Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Stephen Hawking | The Guardian

The issue with this is that he doesn’t explain were gravity came from :frowning:

502

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I found this interesting today:

"Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain’s most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book.

In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is “not necessary”.

The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton’s belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: “M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find,” he theorises.

“The fact that we human beings Ã?¢?? who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature Ã?¢?? have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.”

Hawking says the first blow to Newton’s belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. “That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions Ã?¢?? the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass Ã?¢?? far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings,” he writes.

Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, he said: “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason Ã?¢?? for then we should know the mind of God.”

Hawking resigned as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University last year after 30 years in the position."

Source: Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Stephen Hawking | The Guardian

The issue with this is that he doesn’t explain were gravity came from :frowning:
[/quote]

That’s what you call “selective reporting”, that’s not exactly what he said. Of course they took it out of context. He had a series called “Master of the Universe” where he explains in better detail what he means. The very, very condensed version is basically that martial comes from “nothing” really means that it coming from non-physical “material” the core of which is called a ‘singularity’. We’ll call it cosmic shit. He’s arguing for M-Theory, but his take on it. You don’t “need” God for the universe to come from singularities and all the nonsensical shit in the quantum world. But still, vacuums are somethings, singularities are somethings, laws by which stuff behaves are somethings.
Keep in mind that a scientific “nothing” is different than a philosophical “nothing”. In philosophy “nothing” means a complete absence of existence. Science usually sees it as a void.
I like Hawking he’s very interesting and still, interestingly enough, a theist.

Personally, in my humble, uneducated on the matter opinion. I think this surfer dude and part time theoretical physicist beat everybody. Of all the theories, his is the simplest and most direct theory of everything I have ever heard. His name is Garret Lisi and he came up with this:

Apparently, though almost immediately dismissed, his ideas are starting to gain traction.
He’s basically a pot head, broke surfer who actually does have a Phd in physics, but he worked on it in between surfs.I guess it’s like the good book says, “He cast down the mighty from their thrones and exalts the lowly.” If Dr. Lisi turns out to be right, the mighty will be pissed, he’s not one of them.

503

Here’s is his latest thing…

504

Here’s a question: Do we have more to fear from atheists, or from people like this Senator from Arkansas?

505

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Here’s a question: Do we have more to fear from atheists[/quote]

Atheists.

506

[quote]kamui wrote:
I never used the “no empirical evidence for God”. so, i didn’t loose anything.

the “no empircal evidence for God” argument may be used by agnostics and ignostics. and quite ironically it is sometimes used by religious people to reject the God(s) of other religions.
but it’s not an atheistic argument.

again, atheism is not absolute scepticism, it’s not pyrrhonism, it’s not materialism, it’s not pure empiricism, it’s not the reject of all metaphysic, it’s not immoralism, it’s not amoralism, it’s not even moral relativism.

atheism is just that : an ontology without god.

and you can’t define atheism for your own convenience, to make it look “bad”.

Btw, the “soul” and “spirit” i evoked in this thread are neither uncorporeal nor unobservable/untestable. It’s a stoician soul, not an aristotelian / scholastic one.

[/quote]

Glad it’s not me against the world on this point! Well stated.

507

[quote]kamui wrote:
I never used the “no empirical evidence for God”. so, i didn’t loose anything.[/quote]

Nor are you the only atheist on this thread…

[quote]the “no empircal evidence for God” argument may be used by agnostics and ignostics. and quite ironically it is sometimes used by religious people to reject the God(s) of other religions.
but it’s not an atheistic argument.[/quote]

Perhaps you should let atheists know it isn’t one of their arguments. It is, in fact, the most common argument. I don’t believe I’ve EVER talked to an atheist without it coming up.

[quote]
and you can’t define atheism…[/quote]

Didn’t offer a definition. I made a very specific point.

There’s a reason I reposted a conversation to you, involving another member.

508

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Here’s a question: Do we have more to fear from atheists[/quote]

Atheists.[/quote]

You fear those who reject superstition, but the guy who thinks that a talking snake was possible can run the country.

Those who consider themselves “non-religious,” which can include atheists, agnostics, or people who have just had enough of religious nonsense, now number about 20% of the population. It’s only a matter of time before reason and logic prevail.

That brings up another question: Why does everyone think religion is on the decline in the U.S.? Note that I don’t consider a rejection of religion to be a rejection of the belief in some type of supreme being. Even if I suddenly had a revelation that God truly existed, I doubt I would practice any particular religion, as I will always consider religion nothing more than organized nonsense.

509

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

You fear those who reject superstition, but the guy who thinks that a talking snake was possible can run the country.[/quote]

It was predominately protestant males who built the foundation of this country. Why would I fear one?

I’m absolutely confident atheism will hit a low ceiling and decline. You guys are terrible at producing children.

How can one screw around with multiple sexual partners, divorce, indulge in vanity and gluttony, kill one’s uwanted and unborn child, chase material goods on debt, and be a faithful Christian? How is a christian to reconcile getting off to Miley Cyrus in a whore’s outfit, playing up a lesbian kiss? You can’t. It’s just easier to be an atheist. When it all catches up with us, it’ll reverse. Some religion will outbreed the gray and barren atheism. And the atheistic welfare state (and it will be just that) will need those young breeders to fuel their social programs. Ship 'em in by the truckloads!

510

I share your values too. What’s different is why I believe in those values. Not all atheists are hedonistic.

511

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I share your values too. What’s different is why I believe in those values. Not all atheists are hedonistic.[/quote]

Not all. But their society would be. And, since they’ll lack large extended families (if they can even make it to replacement level fertility rates) and religious institutions/communities/associations, they’ll need a large welfare state to take care of them in their sickness and old age. Of course, they’ll also need a new tax base eventually. Enter mass immigration of very religious folks with higher fertility rates.

512

Religious folks with high fertility rate… aren’t they called Mexicans…?

513

By the way, just kidding… mostly.

514

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I share your values too. What’s different is why I believe in those values. Not all atheists are hedonistic.[/quote]

Not all. But their society would be. And, since they’ll lack large extended families (if they can even make it to replacement level fertility rates) and religious institutions/communities/associations, they’ll need a large welfare state to take care of them in their sickness and old age. Of course, they’ll also need a new tax base eventually. Enter mass immigration of very religious folks with higher fertility rates. [/quote]

This is just a bunch of stereotypes. There is no reason that private, secular institutions could not provide these services. And think of the money we’d save if we didn’t have to pay salaries to all of those priests and ministers who serve no purpose other than to spread myths.

And you obviously know very little about caring for the elderly. I worked in this area. First of all, this notion that we no longer take care of our elderly is bullshit. Sure, 60 years ago you could take care of granny because it was much easier. Granny may have needed help fixing her meals or other minor chores, but as soon as she had a heart attack, that was it. Most old folks were lucky to live to 70. People literally didn’t live long enough to get the diseases we see now. Today, when life expectancies are much higher, people will live long enough to get cancer, Alzheimer’s, and other conditions. Did you know that and Alzheimer’s patient who is otherwise physically healthy is the most dangerous? That’s because these folks can still walk, cook, even drive. The problem is if they forget to turn off the stove while cooking, or they go for a walk and suddenly can’t remember their way back. This is why there are now specialized facilities with a staff that provides professional care. I’d love to be able to care for my mom when she gets older, but I wouldn’t know how to do so properly. Moreover, I’ll still be in the workforce so I couldn’t take the time off to do so. I’m not worried though - she’s 74 and we still go skiing during the winter. Older people are also a lot healthier than they were 60 years ago, so many don’t even need care until their last few days.

As for requiring a welfare state for the cost of caring for the elderly, here again, the free market will come in and fill the need in the form of long-term care insurance, the so-called reverse mortgages, and the like.

This is the problem with social conservatives: you still like to think it’s the year 2010. You really need to educate yourself about what’s going on in the year 2010.

515

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

This is just a bunch of stereotypes. There is no reason that private, secular institutions could not provide these services.[/quote]

Talk about blind faith…

I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall.

516

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall. [/quote](Holds head in hands.) God I wish you and I got along better theologically. This is dead on BRILLIANT as usual. You have here stated in a few sentences THEE rock bottom explanation for every single last significant problem facing this nation. Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE is a symptom.

517

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall. [/quote](Holds head in hands.) God I wish you and I got along better theologically. This is dead on BRILLIANT as usual. You have here stated in a few sentences THEE rock bottom explanation for every single last significant problem facing this nation. Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE is a symptom.
[/quote]

Not really-

Either he confuses cause with symptom or he tries to break a negative feedback loop at the one point that is out of his reach.

518

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall. [/quote](Holds head in hands.) God I wish you and I got along better theologically. This is dead on BRILLIANT as usual. You have here stated in a few sentences THEE rock bottom explanation for every single last significant problem facing this nation. Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE is a symptom.
[/quote]

Not really-

Either he confuses cause with symptom or he tries to break a negative feedback loop at the one point that is out of his reach.[/quote]That’s magnificently analytical and majestically erudite of you, but the English language is ill equipped to better convey EXACTLY what went wrong in this nation with potent cogency than what Sloth has here put forth. As far as I’ve seen only he, I and Thunderbolt have been willing (or maybe even able) to state this. Except Thunderbolt is very careful to avoid being lumped in with the religious fanatics, especially me =]

519

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

This is just a bunch of stereotypes. There is no reason that private, secular institutions could not provide these services.[/quote]

Talk about blind faith…

I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall. [/quote]

And religion will solve all of this? Yeah, right. Don’t get me started on Catholics getting divorced - I’ve known plenty. The fantasy is that some sort of theocracy will make things better - now that’s a dream.

Here’s the thing - I’m a cynic and a skeptic. I don’t believe one bit that things were better in the 1950s than they are today. Women still got pregnant outside of marriage, it was just hidden and not talked about. I’d bet there were still plenty of bad marriages, but women couldn’t get divorced because many didn’t work so they depended on their spouses for support. So women would put on lot’s of make-up to hide the bruises after they got their weekly beating from their husbands, put a smile on their face, and pretended like nothing was wrong. And it was never talked about.

I suppose you get all of your negative information from the news. Either that or you live in the 'hood where all of these bad things happen. Yes, bad news makes it on the air. People like myself and my friends are too boring to make the news. I invite you to follow me one day, and see how involved I am in my daughter’s life. I’m lucky in that I work from home, so I’m sort of a quasi-stay-at-home dad. I could be making way more money in some other job, but I chose to stay where I am because I see how it benefits my daughter, and I am very proud of the fact that I may such an impact in her life. That’s right - I traded money for the satisfaction of being a better parent. The parents I know are either stay at home parents, work from home parents, or they work part-time. This is the world I live in. And I didn’t need some pedophile priest telling me that I had to do this. Sorry if it conflicts with your view that our society is going to hell and only religion or some sort of nanny state can save it.

So much for being a hedonistic agnostic.

520

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall. [/quote](Holds head in hands.) God I wish you and I got along better theologically. This is dead on BRILLIANT as usual. You have here stated in a few sentences THEE rock bottom explanation for every single last significant problem facing this nation. Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE is a symptom.
[/quote]

Not really-

Either he confuses cause with symptom or he tries to break a negative feedback loop at the one point that is out of his reach.[/quote]That’s magnificently analytical and majestically erudite of you, but the English language is ill equipped to better convey EXACTLY what went wrong in this nation with potent cogency than what Sloth has here put forth. As far as I’ve seen only he, I and Thunderbolt have been willing (or maybe even able) to state this. Except Thunderbolt is very careful to avoid being lumped in with the religious fanatics, especially me =]
[/quote]

He thinks that theh welfare state came to be because traditional families and religious communities lost cohesion and auithority.

Not so, girst came the welfare state and then they became partly obsolete because of it and then they lost most of their meaning, which in turn leads to a bigger welfare state, which in turn saps even more strenght from those institutions and so further and so on.

He simply cannot force other people to be more religious or to live in traditional families, to end the welfare state might be far fetched but still more realistic than to promote faith and family values through, of all things, government.