D&ST - Science - BF2S Forums

2011-05-16 13:29:01

#776

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

Already posted by kim in EE chats:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ … -no-heaven

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"

Seems pretty explicit.

edit: as much as I hate to bring the religion debate into an otherwise good thread, this should shut up those that try to twist/misquote famous scientists to show they actually believe in god.

Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-05-16 13:30:52)

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-05-16 13:49:07

#777

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
Already posted by kim in EE chats:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ … -no-heaven

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"

Seems pretty explicit.

edit: as much as I hate to bring the religion debate into an otherwise good thread, this should shut up those that try to twist/misquote famous scientists to show they actually believe in god.

Who fucking cares?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-16 13:50:35

#778

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6795|Long Island, New York

Jay wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
Already posted by kim in EE chats:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ … -no-heaven

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"

Seems pretty explicit.

edit: as much as I hate to bring the religion debate into an otherwise good thread, this should shut up those that try to twist/misquote famous scientists to show they actually believe in god.
Who fucking cares?

I'm gonna agree here... it's pointless to try and convince the religious to be not religious and the not religious to be religious. The creation of religion was one of the most brilliant concoctions of the human mind in history.

2011-05-16 14:06:00

#779

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

Breaking news: famous scientists disagree on religion...just like the rest of us.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-17 10:40:05

#780

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

Poseidon wrote:
I'm gonna agree here... it's pointless to try and convince the religious to be not religious and the not religious to be religious. The creation of religion was one of the most brilliant concoctions of the human mind in history.

Yet you're not wanting to hear the opinion of one of the greatest minds today on the subject?

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-05-17 10:43:22

#781

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'm gonna agree here... it's pointless to try and convince the religious to be not religious and the not religious to be religious. The creation of religion was one of the most brilliant concoctions of the human mind in history.
Yet you're not wanting to hear the opinion of one of the greatest minds today on the subject?

On what subject? Astrophysics? How does that make him an expert on whether there's a god or not? Please.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-17 10:44:15

#782

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

Jay wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'm gonna agree here... it's pointless to try and convince the religious to be not religious and the not religious to be religious. The creation of religion was one of the most brilliant concoctions of the human mind in history.
Yet you're not wanting to hear the opinion of one of the greatest minds today on the subject?
On what subject? Astrophysics? How does that make him an expert on whether there's a god or not? Please.

Who is most qualified then?

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-05-17 10:48:38

#783

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
Jay wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:

Yet you're not wanting to hear the opinion of one of the greatest minds today on the subject?
On what subject? Astrophysics? How does that make him an expert on whether there's a god or not? Please.
Who is most qualified then?

Your mom.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-17 10:50:44

#784

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

Good contribution, whilst my mum is pretty knowledgeable as far as people go i'd say an expert in theoretical cosmology is perhaps more qualified to suggest ideas as to the nature of the universe.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-05-17 10:52:13

#785

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

That seems like a dumb answer but so is the question. It's a question of faith. You have faith that there is no god, others have faith that there is. Neither of you can prove the other wrong. Hawking is no more an authority on the subject than the Pope in Rome is, or your mom is. I don't know why you feel you need to argue this shit anyway. Who cares?

Last edited by Jay (2011-05-17 10:52:45)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-17 10:53:41

#786

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6726

Because I am right and I need everyone to know how right I am!

2011-05-17 10:53:54

#787

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

presidentsheep wrote:
Jay wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:

Yet you're not wanting to hear the opinion of one of the greatest minds today on the subject?
On what subject? Astrophysics? How does that make him an expert on whether there's a god or not? Please.
Who is most qualified then?

nobody. all these 'big name' atheists need to moderate their fucking hubris. sheer intellectual arrogance to presuppose that they have something better to say on the topic of god than someone like plato or leibniz, just because they're good at biology or astrophysics. fuck all of the professors that ruin their credibility by crossing over into 'current issues' and 'popular debate'. and fuck the gullible and impressionable little minds that swallow their shit wholesale because of these people's ivory-tower reputations.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-05-17 10:55:29

#788

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6795|Long Island, New York

presidentsheep wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'm gonna agree here... it's pointless to try and convince the religious to be not religious and the not religious to be religious. The creation of religion was one of the most brilliant concoctions of the human mind in history.
Yet you're not wanting to hear the opinion of one of the greatest minds today on the subject?

It's not even that I necessarily don't want to hear it. But nothing a scientist says is going to convince the religious that there's no God. So it's relatively pointless.

2011-05-17 11:01:57

#789

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

I have no "faith" either way. Faith is a stupid concept. I'm just interested in people's opinion on the subject. Hawking is, however, more qualified than others to comment on certain aspects. In fact no-one's really arguing anything, the article could well have raised some interesting questions, seeing as he's undoubtedly not referring to god in the biblical sense, more the metaphorical. Such as the one he finished "A brief history of time" off with maybe?
As you can see I only originally included the religion part as a throw-away edit, hoping someone would actually get I was making a vague reference to what I've just had to spell out to you.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-05-17 11:03:33

#790

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
I have no "faith" either way. Faith is a stupid concept. I'm just interested in people's opinion on the subject. Hawking is, however, more qualified than others to comment on certain aspects. In fact no-one's really arguing anything, the article could well have raised some interesting questions, seeing as he's undoubtedly not referring to god in the biblical sense, more the metaphorical. Such as the one he finished "A brief history of time" off with maybe?
As you can see I only originally included the religion part as a throw-away edit, hoping someone would actually get I was making a vague reference to what I've just had to spell out to you.

If you believe 100% that there is no god, then you are taking it on faith since you can't prove it.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-17 11:05:58

#791

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

Who said anything about believing 100% in anything?

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-05-17 11:06:27

#792

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

presidentsheep wrote:
I have no "faith" either way. Faith is a stupid concept. I'm just interested in people's opinion on the subject. Hawking is, however, more qualified than others to comment on certain aspects. In fact no-one's really arguing anything, the article could well have raised some interesting questions, seeing as he's undoubtedly not referring to god in the biblical sense, more the metaphorical. Such as the one he finished "A brief history of time" off with maybe?
As you can see I only originally included the religion part as a throw-away edit, hoping someone would actually get I was making a vague reference to what I've just had to spell out to you.

science is in the realm of understanding (the ontological 'reality' as received by us via sense-perceptions). understanding can only ever reach as far as a hypothesis - a hypothesis that can be logically proven, but that holds little metaphysical 'truth'. that is in the realm of dialectical reason to divine. the intellectual method of reason is a philosophical dead-end when it comes to god.

there's some platonic philosophy for you; thoughts from a person eminently more intelligent than stephen hawking.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-05-17 11:07:26

#793

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
Who said anything about believing 100% in anything?

You have in the past mentioned that you enjoy arguing with people about religion. You even felt the need to create a post here about Hawking proving once and for all to you that there is no god. I'm telling you that you're no different than the religious you like to think you're better than.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-17 11:11:33

#794

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

To think science can either prove or disprove the idea of a god is absurdity to the extreme. It can prove or disprove aspects of religion, yes, but it can't prove one way or the other the concept of god itself. Refuting creationism doesn't mean there is no god, it just means that Genesis is bunk. Same goes for proving evolution. So what?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-17 11:24:39

#795

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

Jay wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
Who said anything about believing 100% in anything?
You have in the past mentioned that you enjoy arguing with people about religion. You even felt the need to create a post here about Hawking proving once and for all to you that there is no god. I'm telling you that you're no different than the religious you like to think you're better than.

Sweet titty jesus. I posted something from the guardian's science section in the D&ST - Science thread? Heaven forbid!

Jay wrote:
To think science can either prove or disprove the idea of a god is absurdity to the extreme. It can prove or disprove aspects of religion, yes, but it can't prove one way or the other the concept of god itself. Refuting creationism doesn't mean there is no god, it just means that Genesis is bunk. Same goes for proving evolution. So what?

Hawking is referring to his use of god in a different sense. I outright said in my original post that I did not want to bring religion into this, the article is interesting and I hoped it would bring up some discussions about Physics. Please read it.
Rereading it, my original sentence is pretty badly worded, it was more a throwaway comment to how people believe than when he used the word "god" he actually meant a guy with a beard sitting on a cloud.

Uzique wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
I have no "faith" either way. Faith is a stupid concept. I'm just interested in people's opinion on the subject. Hawking is, however, more qualified than others to comment on certain aspects. In fact no-one's really arguing anything, the article could well have raised some interesting questions, seeing as he's undoubtedly not referring to god in the biblical sense, more the metaphorical. Such as the one he finished "A brief history of time" off with maybe?
As you can see I only originally included the religion part as a throw-away edit, hoping someone would actually get I was making a vague reference to what I've just had to spell out to you.
science is in the realm of understanding (the ontological 'reality' as received by us via sense-perceptions). understanding can only ever reach as far as a hypothesis - a hypothesis that can be logically proven, but that holds little metaphysical 'truth'. that is in the realm of dialectical reason to divine. the intellectual method of reason is a philosophical dead-end when it comes to god.

there's some platonic philosophy for you; thoughts from a person eminently more intelligent than stephen hawking.

I agree plato was a far greater mind than hawking is as far as philosophy goes, however the nature of the discussion is not about the "metaphysical truth" it is about the "hypothesis" as to how the universe was begun.

Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-05-17 11:26:41)

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-05-17 11:27:43

#796

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

keyword: hypothesis.

and of course science endeavours to find the universals and the higher truths behind material things - this is a metaphysical mission as much as an empirical one (empiricism had its hey-day and reached its apogee 150 years ago). hawking merely oversteps the mark by assuming that his hypothetical proof has any validity in attesting to a universal truth. the most frustrating thing is that tons of wholly unintelligent people just swallow the bullshit of dawkins and hawkings and all the rest of these 'public' professors because they cannot engage their own minds with the concept, at all.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-05-17 11:30:47

#797

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5959|College Park, MD

I admit I've never studied metaphysics or things like that, but what makes Plato any more of an authority on the existence of god than a scientist?

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-05-17 11:34:42

#798

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

True, I don't however think he oversteps the mark or assumes anything. As far as the science goes he's just talking about a unified field theory (in this case M theory). I'm sure Hawking is intelligent enough to realise he can't prove either way if a god exists or not. Dawkins on the other hand...

e: just to try and clear this up. There is no doubt in my mind Hawking is not referring to "god" in the literal sense, if he ever uses the metaphor it is normally in terms of a cause of the universe (as in this case) or as a name for the universal laws governing everything.

Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-05-17 11:36:44)

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-05-17 11:35:29

#799

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6728

plato realised the problems in his own ideas and basically dialectically answered the philosophical paradox of god (or any universal idea): it is unanswerable. hawkings and these scientists in the self-sure arrogance, and with the high pride placed in science so typical of the age seemingly lack plato's temerity. and i'd say that plato is a bigger intellectual figure and force than these academic specialists. nobody is an authority and the beauty of the work of plato (or any great philosophy on the subject, such as aquinas or leibniz or kierkegaard) is that their works are exercises in attempting to justify their ideas-- not to posit them as universal truths in themselves. justice in the original greek application of the word (pre roman law) is the operative word, here. it's trying to explain the multiplicit complexity of the universe.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-05-17 11:42:41

#800

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5959|College Park, MD

Uzique wrote:
plato realised the problems in his own ideas and basically dialectically answered the philosophical paradox of god (or any universal idea): it is unanswerable. hawkings and these scientists in the self-sure arrogance, and with the high pride placed in science so typical of the age seemingly lack plato's temerity. and i'd say that plato is a bigger intellectual figure and force than these academic specialists. nobody is an authority and the beauty of the work of plato (or any great philosophy on the subject, such as aquinas or leibniz or kierkegaard) is that their works are exercises in attempting to justify their ideas-- not to posit them as universal truths in themselves. justice in the original greek application of the word (pre roman law) is the operative word, here. it's trying to explain the multiplicit complexity of the universe.

fair enough

BF2S Forums D&ST - Science

presidentsheep wrote:

Jay wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Jay wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Jay wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Jay wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Jay wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer