Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[RoadRunner79]

There is nothing wrong with that.  I don't deny that he said he was an atheist, nor does he have to give some exposition as to why. However if someone is pointing to his atheism as to some grander indication of what is the objective truth of the matter, then I think it is fair to ask why.  Don't you?

I don't think anybody claimed that his atheism was some grander indication of what is objective truth of the matter, and I've just gone through the entire thread.

Would you mind quoting where anyone said as much? Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit.

If that is your position...good! I agree. If everyone agrees, then very good. If you need to declare some kind of victory and call bullshit... so be it. I’m not going to fight with you about something meaningless.

As I said before to bring up his atheism.... if he or another is making a claim, the the question is why. If they are not making some kind of claim, then the question is why is that important.

[AFTT47]

Amazingly, Hawking was born on the 300th anniversary of the death of Galileo and died on the 139th anniversary of the birth of Einstein. And it was PI day. Talk about poetry! I wouldn't be surprised to see a cult arise around that, lol.

[Alexmahone]

I saw this meme on a sheet of paper at my university just 3 days after Hawking died. How insensitive is that!

[vorlon13]

We have infinitely more actual evidence there was a Stephen Hawking than any of the thousands of god variants the Christians have come up with.

[Edwardo Piet]

Massive loss to the scientific community.

Massive loss to the world

---

Massive loss to the scientific community.

Perhaps.

But I've also heard It said, include by notable Nobel prize winning physicists, that Hawking's actual contribution to advancing the state of physics nowhere near justify his outsized fame as physicist amongst general public, and he would be remembered more as a personality than as a physicist.

Hmmm. Truth or jealousy?

---

Because there exists not a shred of evidence to the contrary.

That sounds like a textbook example of the argument from ignorance.

You don't actually understand the argument from ignorance do you?

"Not a shred of evidence... therefore improbable" is not the argument from ignorance. That is being reasonable.

"Not a shred of evidence... therefore impossible" is the argument from ignorance.

No one said it was impossible or that absence of evidence was evidence of absence, we're just saying that making up some magical shit out of thin air and expecting it to still be probable without any evidence is about as irrational as it gets.

---

If he had been a theist, his surviving ALS for almost 50 years would be considered a sign of divine favor by many.

Because theism and stupidity correlate.

---

That sounds like a textbook example of the argument from ignorance.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rationally dismissed without evidence.

Yeah... and that's not the argument from ignorance. I can only conclude that RR doesn't actually understand the argument from ignorance so he just goes by his own shitty misreading of it and shouts it randomly at non-silly people whenever they say something clever.

[Aegon]

I saw this meme on a sheet of paper at my university just 3 days after Hawking died. How insensitive is that!

Made me laugh.

[RoadRunner79]

That sounds like a textbook example of the argument from ignorance.

You don't actually understand the argument from ignorance do you?

"Not a shred of evidence... therefore improbable" is not the argument from ignorance. That is being reasonable.

"Not a shred of evidence... therefore impossible" is the argument from ignorance.

No one said it was impossible or that absence of evidence was evidence of absence, we're just saying that making up some magical shit out of thin air and expecting it to still be probable without any evidence is about as irrational as it gets.

Argument from Ignorance  Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Now I don't think that your inclusion of "probably" really makes all that much difference.  It still seems like the conclusion is assumed, until there is evidence otherwise, which would be the argument from ignorance.  There wasn't any evidence or reason given to the claim, but was stated, that it wasn't proven otherwise.   What is it that you think that I am not understanding here?

[Jehanne]

You can't give reasons for belief in the existence of god that could not also be offered for the belief in the existence of fairies.

[Edwardo Piet]

You don't actually understand the argument from ignorance do you?

"Not a shred of evidence... therefore improbable" is not the argument from ignorance. That is being reasonable.

"Not a shred of evidence... therefore impossible" is the argument from ignorance.

No one said it was impossible or that absence of evidence was evidence of absence, we're just saying that making up some magical shit out of thin air and expecting it to still be probable without any evidence is about as irrational as it gets.

Argument from Ignorance  Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Now I don't think that your inclusion of "probably" really makes all that much difference.  It still seems like the conclusion is assumed, until there is evidence otherwise, which would be the argument from ignorance.  There wasn't any evidence or reason given to the claim, but was stated, that it wasn't proven otherwise.   What is it that you think that I am not understanding here?

You are not understanding the fact that there are a million things without evidence, that are improbable, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And it would only be the argument for ignorance to suggest that those things definitely don't exist. You're lacking nuance.

Do you have positive evidence that Zeus doesn't exist? That firebreathing dragons don't exist? Do you consider that firebreathing dragons probably don't exist because there's never been any evidence of them? Then by your own crappy understanding of the Argument from Ignorance, you're committing the fallacy purely by not believing in firebreathing dragons.

From the exact page you linked on the Argument from Ignorance:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist because I can't prove that he does.

---

It still seems like the conclusion is assumed, until there is evidence otherwise, which would be the argument from ignorance. 

Right. If I assumed that God doesn't exist until there was evidence of him, that would be the argument from ignorance. I'm not doing that. I'm not assuming anything. I'm rationally considering that God is improbable because there is no evidence of him, the same way you rationally consider the improbability of firebreathing dragons due to lack of evidence of firebreathing dragons.

[RoadRunner79]

Argument from Ignorance  Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Now I don't think that your inclusion of "probably" really makes all that much difference.  It still seems like the conclusion is assumed, until there is evidence otherwise, which would be the argument from ignorance.  There wasn't any evidence or reason given to the claim, but was stated, that it wasn't proven otherwise.   What is it that you think that I am not understanding here?

You are not understanding the fact that there are a million things without evidence, that are improbable, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And it would only be the argument for ignorance to suggest that those things definitely don't exist. You're lacking nuance.

Do you have positive evidence that Zeus doesn't exist? That firebreathing dragons don't exist? Do you consider that firebreathing dragons probably don't exist because there's never been any evidence of them? Then by your own crappy understanding of the Argument from Ignorance, you're committing the fallacy purely by not believing in firebreathing dragons.

From the exact page you linked on the Argument from Ignorance:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist because I can't prove that he does.

---

It still seems like the conclusion is assumed, until there is evidence otherwise, which would be the argument from ignorance. 

Right. If I assumed that God doesn't exist until there was evidence of him, that would be the argument from ignorance. I'm not doing that. I'm not assuming anything. I'm rationally considering that God is improbable because there is no evidence of him, the same way you rationally consider the improbability of firebreathing dragons due to lack of evidence of firebreathing dragons.

Seems like semantics to me, and I don’t see where you are not just playing the pseudo-skeptic game. If you are making a claim, then the burden is on you to support it.