Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[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.