Stephen Hawkins Says Idea of Afterlife a "fairy tale"

I didn't say it was. I said you exercise faith that they do their jobs right.
People that get in planes that crash because someone didn't do their job, and there was a mechanical failure, had faith that those people had done their jobs, or they wouldn't have gotten on the plane.

Don't lump me in with all others. There are all types of Christians, and yes, there are some that want everything to reflect Christianity. Either you weren't paying attention or are just ignoring what I say. I wouldn't have a problem if they removed "In God We Trust" - just like I mentioned before, I don't have to have the 10 Commandments in government buildings to remind me that I am a Christian.

You call it common sense, but it may be no sense at all. But, we all make our choices based on what we think is the smartest thing.

No, I don't represent anyone but myself. You are the one assuming and lumping me with all others.

That's your opinion because you don't believe in God, and God doesn't force anyone. He just tells it the way it is.

But, I don't fear new information or challenges to my preferences. I just have never been convinced otherwise, just like apparently you haven't either.

But not in regards to God or spirituality.

That's true, and there are many things regarding science that are not contradictory with there being a God.

But, who said I was worried? I'm just stating a fact, doesn't mean I'm worrying. In fact, that is one of the things that Jesus teaches us - not to worry about "anything" - so to say I am worried is utterly off base.

You can disagree all you want, facts are facts.

Yeah, right, and they just happened to be in the different regions of the earth - why we have Chinese in one area, blacks in another and whites in another!

Africa is not a "nonforested region". And, the people that live in Australian desert "outback" are white.

It is retarded to think that our complicated bodies just happened to come together. And, there are parts of our bodies that go against evolution - because all the necessary parts had to be there at the same time - thus rendering Darwin's theory ineffective.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.

Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840



The DNA - Enzyme System is Irreducibly Complex

Consider the following explanation from evolutionist biologist Frank B. Salisbury from American Biology Teacher, Sept. 1971, pg. 338:
"Surely our ideas about the origin of life will have to change radically with the passage of time. Not only is the gene itself a problem: think of the system that would have to come into being to produce a living cell! It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. Furthermore, DNA by itself accomplishes nothing. Its only reason for existence is the information that it carries and that is used in the production of a protein enzyme. At the moment, the link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enayzmes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. Yet selection only acts upon phenotypes and not upon the genes. At this level, the phenotype is the enzyme itself. How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment."


http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/845

Unfortunately, we cannot all be right - that's true, and that includes those that believe as you do.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn7-fVtT16k"]YouTube - ‪Einstein vs Stephen Hawking -Epic Rap Battles of History #7‬‏[/ame]

 

No, you are denying what "faith" means.

So, I guess that makes you part of the group that is offensive toward Christians, calls them names and says they are stupid, as part of the collective group of atheists, right?

No, actually the discussion is based on the topic of the thread, which is about SH claiming that the idea of afterlife is fantasy. I'm just telling you what I believe and that scientists haven't been able to disprove it. You are the one that is trying to make it into a political issue about what "some Christians" try to do.

Well, that applies to all beliefs, even yours, many that believe like you do probably have not given it much thought either, they just think is sounds ok.

There are many different "religious groups" within Christianity itself. To claim that I am part of the religious group (collective you) you would have to specify exactly which one. Now, there probably is a group of Christians that agree with my way of thinking, and you may consider me part of that group - but other than that, I have no connection to the ones that are trying to make everything in the country about "Christianity".

You are entitled to your opinion, however, most people understand what "sin" is and many of our laws are based on what is sinful and what isn't.

Why can't you? You don't accept it, and you want me, who has already told you I believe in something totally different? That is comical. You have your beliefs (that there is no God), so why can't you accept what Islam teaches, or what Christianity teaches? It works both ways.

I believe the truth is that you will never find any interest in Christianity, at least from your posts, and for you to give an ultimatum, that I have to believe Islam equal to Christianity in order for you to do so is insulting. From the perspective of Christianity, I am concerned about people that don't believe in God, but I will not have to answer for them, so, no, I will not consider Islam equal to Christianity just so you can develop some interest in Christianity.

And, that you find it disturbing is interesting - given the fact that you don't believe in either one. What difference does it make to you which one is right, you believe you are right in your non-belief, don't you?

God created man out of mud. It wasn't a primordial soup - just plain mud. And, God could have used any method he so desired, to create the universe. He could have done it with a Big Bang, or it might have been rather peaceful, who knows.

But, I don't. I know where I am going - and it ain't hell. Are you worrying?

There are many facts. That you don't accept them is a different thing, but they are still facts.
It is a fact that Christianity was founded circa 33 A.D.
It is a fact that it was in Palestine.
It is a fact that the founder was Jesus.
It is a fact that Jesus was prophesied long before he came to earth.
It is a fact that Christianity is the largest religion in the world, with around 2 billion followers.
And, so on and so on.

Cultural differences, yes - I can see that people in Texas can sometimes have an accent different than that in Boston, but I'm talking about physical. It isn't until recently that the different cultures are coming together to create an entirely different type of person - a mixture of white/black/brown/yellow/red. But, the fact remains that there were differences from the get-go -

So, you think at first everyone looked alike?

So, you think people were evolving from mud/soup in different parts of the world, and that they looked different because of their environment? Which is it, did they all look alike to begin with, or were they different to begin with?

Something to think about.

They have been for many centuries. There hasn't been much evolution in my lifetime, the same birds are still around when I was a kid, and no new animals have become able to fly since I've been around. People will always look the same - two eyes, one nose, two legs, two arms. Yeah, the color may change, but physically, anyone that doesn't look like the rest is considered abnormal.

Obviously you don't know the difference between Christianity and Islam.
Anyone in their right mind would know that the two will never be one - we believe totally different. For you to demand that Christians give Islam equal footing is ridiculous. Now, as far as the laws of the land, yes, Muslims have the same rights as Christians do, to assemble, to worship in their custom, but if you are wanting Christians to claim that Islam teaches the truth, you've got to be kidding.

 

I'm stupid for being in this discussion and I am wasting your time!

 

Nobody wastes my time, I reserve that right for myself and myself only.

That we are not going to agree on much is pretty evident - so, have a good day!

 

Well, I cannot understand Hawkins Math, but at least he is right about heaven, hell, gods and religious superstition.

 

He is out, I'll start here.

It is a fact that what you know as Christianity was circa 323 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea.

Bithynia.

I will give you a 2fer.

It is a fact that there was no such name Jesus, indeed the letter J didn't exist until the 14th century. It was a concatination of Yeshuah and Zeus. Sort of the Jew Zeus as an explanation. The "founder's" name was NOT Jesus.

It is a fact that nobody who ever put pen to any book of the bible ever saw this person... who you call Jesus, who was named Yeshua Ben Yoseph.

Yes... only his name was Horus.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIMFz5ZKDVo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIMFz5ZKDVo[/ame]

It is a fact that most people are not of above average intelligence.

 

Hawkins is not 'right' about anything except of his own opinions and thoughts, which is the same for you, and me, and everyone. All of us can share our ideals and opinions, and this is a grand gesture, but my problem with any form of religion, or politics, or other special interests, is when these groups force their personal beliefs on others.

From my perspective, 300 world religions, some greatly opposed to others, cannot all be correct...

 

Religions are okay and are just like country clubs or other hobbies or personal interests...they are personal choices to be enjoyed by the individual to whatever level they wish to allow them in their lives...

 

Because if you look at it, it is. There is no other way to see it.

Should you then not tell that?

Disproving is BS, if you believe in it, you ca prove it?. You cant so its BS until you can.

Nope doesnt matter

Some, most : nope

No it doesnt you either believe in fact or you dont. You dont (as there is no fact concerning religion) so islam and christianity all it differs is just what religion your parents or surrounding had.

M%ost of these are either wrong , not fact or estimates.

Mostly history NOT religion.

 

And what does he say of Jesus? Another fairy tale that never walked the Earth??

 

If he said that he would be correct.

 

Nope there is historical evidence he once excisted around that period. Yet about the miracles tere is none. Besides some tales often written decades or centuries later and continualy changed for centurys more.

 

That's a very common tactic among argument-free people. Switch out one definition of a word for a different one. It is a fallacy of equivocation.

Suddenly, the very distinct nature of religious faith (based on no evidence at all) evaporates, and it can be compared to such pedestrian forms of faith as the notion that air travel is likely to be survived given that exactly none of the tens of millions of people who flew in an airliner last year died while doing so.

This form of argument is completely dishonest, and the frequency with which the tactic is resorted to by religious apologists says a great deal about the degree to which they themselves recognize the essential weakness of their case.

 

No, it's precisely the other way around. All religions steal their moral codes from precepts already well-developed and established within prevailing secular societies. Never forget that religion is a business (it is in fact the most heavily subsidized industry in this country), and that to succeed, it must draw members and income. It does so by reflecting the mores and ethos of the society it is surrounded by, providing supposed higher-order blessing and approbation for local undertakings in exchange for lots and lots of money. Consider for example that the Christianity you profess today was founded as a class-warfare rebellion by impoverished lower-class street people against the perfidy and excess of the wealthy and powerful. Occupy Wall Street would have more in common with original Christianity than does your local parish today, an entity that has done a 180-turn in order to embrace wealth and high-living instead of excoriating it. Had Christianity stuck to its original principles, it would have gone out of business by now. Religion has to know when to compromise or it doesn't survive.

 

Your sin of hubris in presuming to judge for the Father has just condemned you. Are you worrying?

 

On the other hand, numbers can be slippery things. If you had a sizable enough and dumb enough minority (as the result of FOX News, for example), it could well be that most people would be of above average intelligence. And look at the numbers who have more than the average number of arms and legs. As soon as one guy has less than four, everybody who does have four is above average.

 

They don't. He was being interviewed which involves answering questions.

Why do Christians equate not accepting their dogma as "attacking"?

 

he did walk, but his life was recorded 50 years after his death and it was decided 300 years after his death to add the "son of god and resurrection" part Xl.

Also, who dredged up this ancient arse thread?

 

I agree with this. The Jesus the bible speaks of is based of a real Jesus Christ that once walked the Earth, just like Santa Claus is based of Saint Nicholas. While both are based off real people, both are more myth than fact however.

 

Haven't run across you 17th in quite a while...nice to run into you.

My position is I personally have no use for religion or any form of dogma or heard mentality. But I also don't give a rip what other people choose to do in THEIR lives. My anger appears when religion, or others, force THEIR beliefs into society and others. This is nothing but righteousness and I've never known 'righteousness' to be a positive influence.

Regarding the weakness of THEIR case, I suspect most have a blind and strong sense of THEIR beliefs. Where they fail in my opinion is they are closed-minded, afraid of external challenges, so they respond angrily as if being attacked, when most of the time it's just a dialogue of differing opinions. This behavior leads to digging in, closing the mind, and being even more protective of facing external challenges.

Again, whatever people wish to do in the confines of THEIR personal zones is up to them...THEIR choice, but keep it to themselves and stop forcing stuff on others...