Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[Brian37]

You seemed to imply that because Professor Hawking was not a "good philosopher", that his research in cosmology was not relevant to the atheist viewpoint.

In short, Hawking said that his research led him to conclude that it was not necessary to believe that a god (or gods) created the Universe any more than it was necessary to believe that planets and stars move because there are angels (or other invisible beings) who are pushing them.

Like I said, philosophy wasn’t his strong suit. I find this to be fairly common, among those who publically scoff at philosophy.  Quite the shock...I know!  And if that is representive of his view of religion, then I would dare say he had a poor and naive grounding in that area as well.

Oh knock it off.

Stupid arguments like yours are why I wish atheists would not fucking give "philosophy" one minute of attention.

LABS cannot be beat, method cannot be beat, testing and falsification cannot be beat. THAT is why he came to that conclusion.

Your religion is a "philosophy" his conclusion was based on a METHOD, you your bullshit mere mental masturbation. 

You cant prove your sky wizard in a lab, neither can Jews or Muslims, nor is Thor required to explain the cause of lightening.

YOU HAVE NOTHING. 

Believing in magic babies with super powers is not a evidence of jack shit.

[Succubus]

...Like I said, philosophy wasn’t his strong suit. I find this to be fairly common, among those who publically scoff at philosophy.  Quite the shock...I know!  And if that is representive of his view of religion, then I would dare say he had a poor and naive grounding in that area as well.

Without a background in pastafarian theology how can you comment on the existence or otherwise of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

This is getting excitingly close to 'you lack an understanding of sophisticated theology' but then I expect you're smart enough not to use that gambit.

[Brian37]

...Like I said, philosophy wasn’t his strong suit. I find this to be fairly common, among those who publically scoff at philosophy.  Quite the shock...I know!  And if that is representive of his view of religion, then I would dare say he had a poor and naive grounding in that area as well.

Without a background in pastafarian theology how can you comment on the existence or otherwise of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

This is getting excitingly close to 'you lack an understanding of sophisticated theology' but then I expect you're smart enough not to use that gambit.

His "Philosophy" is wishful thinking.

I'd love Angelina Jolie to give me a hummer, so by his logic she will give me one because I like the idea of it.

That's all he has.

[Jehanne]

I'm honestly curious, RR. In which part is the blowing of smoke occurring? The idea of angelology or the idea that Hawkins probably thought he had better thing to spend his time on?

I think that the rhetoric is the part that is blowing smoke. That Prof. Hawking was an atheist is an interesting anecdote.  But much like the philosophers, it begs the question of why.  If he doesn’t have some reason or evidence, but it is just opinion; then the question is why is it relevant.  Now it seems that people are shying away, appearing  to indicate that he may not have given it much thought. Which if it’s just an opinion, and a poorly formed one at that; does’nt help it much in the relevance factor.

I don't have to give a reason as to why I don't believe in invisible fairies or unicorns.  Ditto for someone great (unlike me), such as Professor Hawking.

[Fake Messiah]

[Angrboda]

I think that the rhetoric is the part that is blowing smoke. That Prof. Hawking was an atheist is an interesting anecdote.  But much like the philosophers, it begs the question of why.  If he doesn’t have some reason or evidence, but it is just opinion; then the question is why is it relevant.  Now it seems that people are shying away, appearing  to indicate that he may not have given it much thought. Which if it’s just an opinion, and a poorly formed one at that; does’nt help it much in the relevance factor.

Professor Hawking developed a cosmological model which eliminated the need for a creator or creation event. Your opinion is based on ignorance of his work.

[RoadRunner79]

...Like I said, philosophy wasn’t his strong suit. I find this to be fairly common, among those who publically scoff at philosophy.  Quite the shock...I know!  And if that is representive of his view of religion, then I would dare say he had a poor and naive grounding in that area as well.

Without a background in pastafarian theology how can you comment on the existence or otherwise of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

This is getting excitingly close to 'you lack an understanding of sophisticated theology' but then I expect you're smart enough not to use that gambit.

I think that you are trying to read between the lines too much, and are missing what I am actually saying.

But no, I don't think that you need to be an expert in something to form a belief on it.   Nor would I recommend just blindly accepting something, because of the argument of popularity, or because a famous person said it.  I do think that if you lack knowledge, or are ignorant on a subject, then it is wise to accept correction on something. 

Also;  I'm not the one putting forth, that Hawkings should be looked upon necessarily for these issues. It only becomes an issue, if one tries to use his brilliance in physics, in order to unjustly infer that his position as an atheists means something.

---

I think that the rhetoric is the part that is blowing smoke. That Prof. Hawking was an atheist is an interesting anecdote.  But much like the philosophers, it begs the question of why.  If he doesn’t have some reason or evidence, but it is just opinion; then the question is why is it relevant.  Now it seems that people are shying away, appearing  to indicate that he may not have given it much thought. Which if it’s just an opinion, and a poorly formed one at that; does’nt help it much in the relevance factor.

I don't have to give a reason as to why I don't believe in invisible fairies or unicorns.  Ditto for someone great (unlike me), such as Professor Hawking.

No you do not (nor does he).   And neither one would be making any claim as to the truth of the matter in that case either.   So if it is just a statement about one's personal metal state, and not based on objective facts and reason, then it's just an interesting tidbit.

---

I think that the rhetoric is the part that is blowing smoke. That Prof. Hawking was an atheist is an interesting anecdote.  But much like the philosophers, it begs the question of why.  If he doesn’t have some reason or evidence, but it is just opinion; then the question is why is it relevant.  Now it seems that people are shying away, appearing  to indicate that he may not have given it much thought. Which if it’s just an opinion, and a poorly formed one at that; does’nt help it much in the relevance factor.

Professor Hawking developed a cosmological model which eliminated the need for a creator or creation event.   Your opinion is based on ignorance of his work.

I don't think that what you said follows (at least about a creator).   But if he was or you would like to make a positive case for atheism; then present your reasons. 

In Sean Carol's debate with Craig however;  he mentioned a number of models,  none of which he thought was necessarily correct though.  I don't remember if Hawkings model was presented within these by Carol, but I don't' think that it is a slam dunk.   There is a lot of evidence which supports a hot big bang model, and many scientist still think that the universe is ~14 billion years old.

[Jehanne]

In his debate with Dr. Craig, Professor Carroll did mention Professors Hawking and Hartle's model of the Universe.

[Angrboda]

Professor Hawking developed a cosmological model which eliminated the need for a creator or creation event.   Your opinion is based on ignorance of his work.

I don't think that what you said follows (at least about a creator).   But if he was or you would like to make a positive case for atheism; then present your reasons. 

You could have abbreviated that to "I don't think," and you would have been entirely correct.  But by all means, continue to dig yourself deeper.   In the Hartle-Hawking model of cosmology, there is no beginning of the universe, and thus no need for any creator or creation event.  That's not a deep philosophical point.  Your complaint was essentially that Hawking didn't have reasons from within his field of expertise upon which to base his position on God, and you have been shown to be wrong on the point under consideration.  I do not need to present any positive case for atheism to demonstrate that your comments about Hawking's atheism were motivated by ignorance.  

In Sean Carol's debate with Craig however;  he mentioned a number of models,  none of which he thought was necessarily correct though.  I don't remember if Hawkings model was presented within these by Carol, but I don't' think that it is a slam dunk.   There is a lot of evidence which supports a hot big bang model, and many scientist still think that the universe is ~14 billion years old.

I never said nor implied that the Hartle-Hawking model of cosmology was a "slam dunk."  The truth or validity of his model was not the point under debate here.  Your attempt to substitute it for the point under contention is at best an irrelevant obfuscation, and at worst an example of you moving the goalposts  (and given that above you've made the correctness of my prior point contingent upon me providing a "positive case for atheism," then I think I am fully justified in accusing you of the latter).

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think that what you said follows (at least about a creator).   But if he was or you would like to make a positive case for atheism; then present your reasons. 

You could have abbreviated that to "I don't think," and you would have been entirely correct.  But by all means, continue to dig yourself deeper.   In the Hartle-Hawking model of cosmology, there is no beginning of the universe, and thus no need for any creator or creation event.  That's not a deep philosophical point.  Your complaint was essentially that Hawking didn't have reasons from within his field of expertise upon which to base his position on God, and you have been shown to be wrong on the point under consideration.  I do not need to present any positive case for atheism to demonstrate that your comments about Hawking's atheism were motivated by ignorance.  

In Sean Carol's debate with Craig however;  he mentioned a number of models,  none of which he thought was necessarily correct though.  I don't remember if Hawkings model was presented within these by Carol, but I don't' think that it is a slam dunk.   There is a lot of evidence which supports a hot big bang model, and many scientist still think that the universe is ~14 billion years old.

I never said nor implied that the Hartle-Hawking model of cosmology was a "slam dunk."  The truth or validity of his model was not the point under debate here.  Your attempt to substitute it for the point under contention is at best an irrelevant obfuscation, and at worst an example of you moving the goalposts  (and given that above you've made the correctness of my prior point contingent upon me providing a "positive case for atheism," then I think I am fully justified in accusing you of the latter).

If you would like to show me where either you or Hawking was making a case of atheism I'm willing to listen.  I never seen him make a particularly strong case; and I don't think that you can just point to a possible theoretical model, and declare Victory!

You could have abbreviated that to "I don't think," and you would have been entirely correct.

I don't' think that such childish jabs start you off well for making an intellectual case for anything.  If you want to take quotes out of context and make childish insults, then you may be better off having a conversation with someone else.