Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Simon Moon]

It's clear from the amount of content-free snark on this forum: many people are here simply to show disrespect. It's what they like to do.

That's absolutely true. I thank God there is a day of judgement. I thank God that one day everyone will account for every sentence that came out of his mouth, especially any dismissal of good arguments by babble and noise. I thank God my efforts won't go in vain because these children decided it's time to shout.

So, you are actually looking forward to billions of your fellow humans being tortured for eternity for thought crimes?

Belacqua, please try to see why we are so vocal against religions. Klorophill has completely lost his moral compass, completely due to his religion.

It's understandable why people like Hawking proudly declare that "there is no god" and gladly woke up in the morning full of hope, even desire to spread their stupid ideas about religions, Hawking had a fulfilling academic life that somehow silenced his crying inherent tendency to belief, he also had the most stupid opinion about god ever, and this discrepancy is amazing : world class scientists are prepared to babble nonsensical shit when it comes to god and theology. They replace this innate sense towards awe/belief with their advocacy for its opposite, combined with some social status and a sense of "not needing god", it's a simple psychological trick that sadly works. But when it comes to some of these fools here, they obviously can't follow a train of thought without barking, or handle discussing historical figures completely outside of their local legal system, if there is any, yet face any theist with this mocking attitude, like they're in some kind of cleverness challenge or something. That's the kind of attitude that makes a human being deserve hell.

I recall when no one will even admit there are interesting definitions of God and uninteresting ones, they hate the fact that thinking unbiasedly about definitions leads to forced results like God absolutely not existing or having already revealed himself. For them, all theology is red herring, simply because their christianity turned out to be red herring, and they see no problem in generalizing their childhood trauma to all religions.

Hawking NEVER made the claim that "there is not god", What he said is, there was no need for a god to account for the origin of the universe.

[R00tKiT]

So, you are actually looking forward to billions of your fellow humans being tortured for eternity for thought crimes?

Belacqua, please try to see why we are so vocal against religions. Klorophill has completely lost his moral compass, completely due to his religion.

That's assuming you people have any moral compass whatsoever to begin with. Your fellow thought criminals had trouble elsewhere figuring out why senseless murder is immoral but killing millions of bacteria mercilessly when you shower is not. Go and read an argument or two against the existence of your morality.
And being vocal won't help you here.

[Belacqua]

Your definitions of a god are hollow and empty and meaningless because you can't give a definition until you demonstrate that the the thing you are defining actually exists in the first place.

No, this isn't true.

As Peebo pointed out yesterday, we can have clear definitions of things that don't exist. These definitions have meanings. 

Once we are given a clear definition, we can check against logic and evidence and think about whether the defined thing makes sense or not.

[R00tKiT]

Hawking NEVER made the claim that "there is not god", What he said is, there was no need for a god to account for the origin of the universe.

You're lying, dear friend.

https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephe...o-god.html

Quote :

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

He excluded any possibility of a god. It's exactly what "there is no god" means.

Repeat with me, atheists : Hawking said retarded, nonsensical shit about god.

[Simon Moon]

So, you are actually looking forward to billions of your fellow humans being tortured for eternity for thought crimes?

Belacqua, please try to see why we are so vocal against religions. Klorophill has completely lost his moral compass, completely due to his religion.

That's assuming you people have any moral compass whatsoever to begin with. Your fellow thought criminals had trouble elsewhere figuring out why senseless murder is immoral but killing millions of bacteria mercilessly when you shower is not. Go and read an argument or two against the existence of your morality.
And being vocal won't help you here.

I have a perfectly rational basis for my morality, based on the objective facts of the universe, and the goal of well being.

I can also explain why killing another human is immoral, yet killing millions of bacteria is not.

[Belacqua]

It's clear from the amount of content-free snark on this forum: many people are here simply to show disrespect. It's what they like to do.

That's absolutely true. I thank God there is a day of judgement. I thank God that one day everyone will account for every sentence that came out of his mouth, especially any dismissal of good arguments by babble and noise. I thank God my efforts won't go in vain because these children decided it's time to shout.

It's understandable why people like Hawking proudly declare that "there is no god" and gladly woke up in the morning full of hope, even desire to spread their stupid ideas about religions, Hawking had a fulfilling academic life that somehow silenced his crying inherent tendency to belief, he also had the most stupid opinion about god ever, and this discrepancy is amazing : world class scientists are prepared to babble nonsensical shit when it comes to god and theology. They replace this innate sense towards awe/belief with their advocacy for its opposite, combined with some social status and a sense of "not needing god", it's a simple psychological trick that sadly works. But when it comes to some of these fools here, they obviously can't follow a train of thought without barking, or handle discussing historical figures completely outside of their local legal system, if there is any, yet face any theist with this mocking attitude, like they're in some kind of cleverness challenge or something. That's the kind of attitude that makes a human being deserve hell.

I recall when no one will even admit there are interesting definitions of God and uninteresting ones, they hate the fact that thinking unbiasedly about definitions leads to forced results like God absolutely not existing or having already revealed himself. For them, all theology is red herring, simply because their christianity turned out to be red herring, and they see no problem in generalizing their childhood trauma to all religions.

The first ten years I lived in Japan I went everywhere by bicycle, because the city is compact and a good size. The city I'm in, however, is notorious for aggressive and inconsiderate drivers, and eventually I had to give up. It's dangerous, but more disturbing for my peace of mind was the fact that I was getting really angry at people. 

It seemed to me that it was easy to identify people who, in my personal judgment, deserved to be scolded. But once I picked out who I could get angry at I was in danger of going overboard. All the anger I had pent up about other things found an outlet in the inconsiderate drivers. 

My guess is that something similar is going on here. If people want to demonstrate the falseness of religion or persuade people to change their minds, they wouldn't type what they do. If they are in any way trying to make the world a better place, they would go about things differently. It seems more likely that they choose you and other people with differing metaphysical beliefs as targets for their negative feelings, just because they want targets. 

Part of the problem is the whole New Atheist thing. Dawkins and Hitchens and those guys began with the a priori belief that theology must be so stupid that you don't have to know anything about it to criticize it. They were not bothered by the fact that their books contain numerous factual errors, and neither were their fans. We're well into the second generation of such thinking by now. 

So there's a disconnect between people who want to exchange reasons and talk about things, and people who feel it's fine just to vent.

[Simon Moon]

Hawking NEVER made the claim that "there is not god", What he said is, there was no need for a god to account for the origin of the universe.

You're lying, dear friend.

https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephe...o-god.html

Quote :

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

He excluded any possibility of a god. It's exactly what "there is no god" means.

Repeat with me, atheists : Hawking said retarded, nonsensical shit about god.

While it is true, that this is a stronger statement than I have previously read by Hawking, he is not making a scientific claim. You do notice the phrase "for me", right? He is stating an opinion based on his scientific knowledge.

And no, he is not making "retarded, nonsensical shit about god", his position is based on the lack of: demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and, valid and sound logic to support the claim a god exists.

Your god claims are based on: ancient texts, indoctrination, flawed arguments.

[Belacqua]

Hawking NEVER made the claim that "there is not god", What he said is, there was no need for a god to account for the origin of the universe.

You're lying, dear friend.

https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephe...o-god.html

Quote :

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

He excluded any possibility of a god. It's exactly what "there is no god" means.

Repeat with me, atheists : Hawking said retarded, nonsensical shit about god.

Hawking says in the same book that philosophy has no more role in the world. When that book came out I was in the middle of a long and fascinating on-line discussion with a PhD philosophy student at the University of Chicago. I wish I had saved his impromptu rebuttal of Hawking's foolishness. People really shouldn't talk about things they have never studied.

---

his position is based on the lack of: demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and, valid and sound logic to support the claim a god exists.

Also a total ignorance of what philosophy does.

[The Architect Of Fate]

That's assuming you people have any moral compass whatsoever to begin with. Your fellow thought criminals had trouble elsewhere figuring out why senseless murder is immoral but killing millions of bacteria mercilessly when you shower is not. Go and read an argument or two against the existence of your morality.
And being vocal won't help you here.

I have a perfectly rational basis for my morality, based on the objective facts of the universe, and the goal of well being.

I can also explain why killing another human is immoral, yet killing millions of bacteria is not.

It's his morality that can't justify morality of any kind

---

Hawking says in the same book that philosophy has no more role in the world. When that book came out I was in the middle of a long and fascinating on-line discussion with a PhD philosophy student at the University of Chicago. I wish I had saved his impromptu rebuttal of Hawking's foolishness. People really shouldn't talk about things they have never studied.

And people who don't know what people have studied shouldn't talk about them  

Also a total ignorance of what philosophy does.

Nope a fine understanding simply a conclusion you don't like

---

You're lying, dear friend.

https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephe...o-god.html

Quote :

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

He excluded any possibility of a god. It's exactly what "there is no god" means.

Repeat with me, atheists : Hawking said retarded, nonsensical shit about god.

While it is true, that this is a stronger statement than I have previously read by Hawking, he is not making a scientific claim. You do notice the phrase "for me", right? He is stating an opinion based on his scientific knowledge.

And no, he is not making "retarded, nonsensical shit about god", his position is based on the lack of: demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and, valid and sound logic to support the claim a god exists.

Your god claims are based on: ancient texts, indoctrination, flawed arguments.

Apparently Belacqua he all knowing thinks your ignorant and one of he greatest minds of our age who accomplished more in one decade then both these apologist morons combined  is a fool

[Simon Moon]

I recall when no one will even admit there are interesting definitions of God and uninteresting ones, they hate the fact that thinking unbiasedly about definitions leads to forced results like God absolutely not existing or having already revealed himself. For them, all theology is red herring, simply because their christianity turned out to be red herring, and they see no problem in generalizing their childhood trauma to all religions.


The first ten years I lived in Japan I went everywhere by bicycle, because the city is compact and a good size. The city I'm in, however, is notorious for aggressive and inconsiderate drivers, and eventually I had to give up. It's dangerous, but more disturbing for my peace of mind was the fact that I was getting really angry at people. 

It seemed to me that it was easy to identify people who, in my personal judgment, deserved to be scolded. But once I picked out who I could get angry at I was in danger of going overboard. All the anger I had pent up about other things found an outlet in the inconsiderate drivers. 

My guess is that something similar is going on here. If people want to demonstrate the falseness of religion or persuade people to change their minds, they wouldn't type what they do. If they are in any way trying to make the world a better place, they would go about things differently. It seems more likely that they choose you and other people with differing metaphysical beliefs as targets for their negative feelings, just because they want targets. 

WOW!

Of all things, I really thought that you understood where the burden of proof lies.

Part of the problem is the whole New Atheist thing. Dawkins and Hitchens and those guys began with the a priori belief that theology must be so stupid that you don't have to know anything about it to criticize it. They were not bothered by the fact that their books contain numerous factual errors, and neither were their fans. We're well into the second generation of such thinking by now.

Dawkins was a theist until he was about 16. Hitchens, I'm not sure about.

But, even so, you are wrong on another level.

It doesn't matter if Dawkins' and Hitchens' books contained theological errors. There is no reason to worry about theological errors, until such a time when the existence of a god or gods has been demonstrate. Once that is done, then one can start to debate which theology best describes said god. Your criticism is sort of putting the cart before the horse.