Stephen Hawkins Says Idea of Afterlife a "fairy tale"

I'm not sure he thinks it's an empty cold place. Just a place of unconsiousnous. Even if an empty cold place, better that a crowded firey tormenting place that 90% of the population would end up.

 

It depends.

If we are wrong and the God that exists is the Islamo/Christian God, then we're screwed.

If the God that exists is Bacchus... not so much.

Hey... who's looking for "proof." All I've asked for in this thread is evidence.

 

So I guess you are willing to take your chances, least your honest.

Same thing still applies, lack of evidence still does not disprove the existence of God.

 

Why do you believe that 90% would go to Hell, if of course it existed?

 

Well, just emptiness... and if you live and treat others like you want to be treated instead of a bastard - you'd end up in "a" Heaven right?

So, if 90% of the planet are a bunch of bastages then they deserve to go to hell right?!?!

 

Well after all, Pascal's wager was always intended to be a joke in the first place.

Who needs to disprove something for which there is no evidence?

 

Apparently some who believe that there isn't a God. Many keep call those who do believe fools, or mocking what they believe, when they themselves can't provide evidence to back up their claims.

 

You appear to lack a certain, shall I say, historical perspective on the relative position of believers and non-believers across the millennia. The Richard Dawkinses of the world do not arise out of some vast community of evangelical atheists. And taking a stand as a "free thinker" is not something you find much in relationship with most religions.

The phenomenon is a reaction to the two exclusive Evangelical monotheisms; Christianity and Islam. Polytheistic faiths (and Judaism given its immediate proximity to its on polytheistic origin) tend to carry with them a certain inherent tolerance since they did not juxtapose divinity as a zero sum game. It was no skin off the Roman's religious noses that the Egyptians or the Parthians had completely different sets of gods and goddesses. The Greeks didn't need to be wrong for the Celts to be right.

Even the Jews understood Yahweh to be merely their national god; the "God of Israel" He was originally just one of the 70 sons of El (collectively the "elohim") and while they were to have "no other gods before" Him, the Jews had no commission to establish a world religion of the sort that both Christianity and Islam would develop and spread across the globe at spear point. Theirs was a national monotheism, not an exclusive one. Christianity has been he dominant religion on the globe for 16 centuries. It has been the dominant religion in this country since before its founding. How is it that you guys still suffer from the delusion that you are the same small persecuted sect you were in the first century? How is it that you can be so thin skinned about being called "fools" or being mocked?

I assure you, it pales in comparison with a good old fashioned auto-da-fé.

There is no symmetry here, CC. There is no parity between our positions either in terms of "evidence" or power. At a moment of time when there are more declared Scientologists in the US Congress then there are declared atheists, it is not difficult to figure out who are the folks that possess the coercive power here.

You should stop whining and be more magnanimous.

 

As another thread is started on PF to demean religion...and Liberal after "tolerant" Liberal lines up to add his/her criticism of believers...

President Barack Obama, who prays daily and has a spiritual advisor, hangs his head in shame at their display

 

I would hardly call Pascal's wager "a joke."
It charted new territory in probability theory,
was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity,
marked the first formal use of decision theory, and was a precursor to future philosophies such as Existentialism, pragmatism, and voluntarism.

Blaise Pascal was arguably one of the top 100 most brilliant minds to ever exist.

 

You know... cutting and pasting word-for-word from Wikipedia does not an argument make.



There is still a good reason (especially based on his associated notes in the Pensées) that he himself did not really consider it a serious argument.

 

Who know that atheism and liberalism were mutually inclusive?

http://www.theatheistconservative.com/

 

I see you're not defending your comment and instead using a
Fallacious argument.

Poisoning The Wells:
discrediting the sources used by your opponent

Oh really...

evidence please...

post the notes that specifically reference he didn't consider a serious argument...
considering the Wager was formulated as a conclusion to his pensees...

Here's a link to them...

I'm sure you've read them already given the premise you're an expert enough to claim
you know Pascals mindset...

I'll even help...
here's a link to them

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/pensees-contents.html

Tell me exactly where in his notes Pascal did not take his argument seriously...and further that it's intention
was a "joke".

 

Wow, you got all of that out of my last post, interesting. All I was trying to point out is that no one really knows and can say for sure one way or the other.

 

I'm not discrediting your source. I am discrediting you.

Cutting and pasting word for word is not argument, it is regurgitation. Sea cucumbers and songbirds are capable of the same thing without even pretending they are making an argument. And they don't even need to use google.

But rather than defend my assertion that Pascal intended his wager to be a joke, let's go one better. I will defend the assertion that it is an absurd argument even when taken seriously. I already telegraphed my position earlier. Pascal's wager is not (and never has been) an argument for the existence of God. It is instead an argument for belief of a particular sectarian version of god based on fear.

But you do not merely lose the wager by betting on no God, you lose it by betting on the wrong god. The argument is useless because it presumes for no good reason a binary option.

Yahweh is not Quetzalcoatl is not Wotan is not Tsukiyomi.

In this way, Pascal's wager is a joke, whether he was laughing himself or not.

 

You can argue that Pascal's wager is flawed...but to infer Pacal himself did not take the argument seriously...
is a fallacious attempt at dismissing the argument altogether.

Pascal had a genuine interest in gambling and probabilty and as a Christian
apologist he tried to use these ideas to rationalize faith. He took his
argument seriously at the time.

I've never read anywhere the idea was intended to be "joke"...
it's one of the most famous ontological arguments.

Many may point out it's flaws, but to argue it's intent was never serious
is simply ....False.

I may on occasion copy/paste from other sources...but they are legitimate sources and my intent
is certainly not to mislead.

"always intended to be a joke in the first place"

That's intentionally trying to mislead people.

Pascal took his Christian apologetics seriously.

 

So we can add
ad hominems to your standard method of argument.

Good to know for future reference.

 

Then perhaps you should have said that instead of playing victim.

But I must also challenge one part of what you said here in this furious backpedal. When the question is reduced to the essentially vacuous discussion of "god vs. no god," then it is fair to assert that "no on really knows."

On the other hand, when theists begin to put a stake in the ground regarding any particular sectarian version of god... the situation is often quite different. One may not be able to "disprove god." But one can certainly "disprove" certain versions.

One does not need to be an atheist to firmly conclude that the Judeo-Christ-Islamic God is internally contradictory and self refuting. And in this culture and at this time, that's usually quite enough.

 

If you want a higher regard, deliver a better caliber of argument.

 

Not if it actually was a joke and not if Pascal himself actually did not take the argument seriously.

I make no effort to account for the limits of what you have or have not read. I only add that to call it "one of the most famous ontological arguments" is d@mning with faint praise.

None of them are very strong.

Your opinion is noted. It is of no interest to me. Can you defend the argument itself?

 

I'll say again...
Your quote.

There's no indication in any of Pascal's notes that he intended his wager
as applied to Christian apologetics as "a joke".

In other words, that's your opinion...as you have yet to back up this claim
by any substantive evidence that Pascal himself thought of his proposed wager as
not to be taken seriously.

and just as you have no interest in my opinoin...

I have no interest in yours.

So I think we're done here.

Good day

 

Oh well if Hawking's says it, then that's that. It must be true.

Never mind that Mr. Hawking is no more and no less a qualified expert on the subject than any other human being to have ever existed.

 

That's odd, the fact that we could care less about Mr. Hawking's opinion, doesn't appear to have stopped some from running to share it with us all now does it.

 

I think many equate his intelligence to divine like properties.

I would easily argue Pascal's brilliance to any modern day equivalent.

So many dismiss Pascal as "a joke" yet accept Stephen Hawkings
as the final authority on theological debates?

That I take issue with.

There's no argument Hawkings is a brilliant man, but to assume that brilliance
must have a corollary with atheism is simply a false argument.

Pascal is just one example of this, wherein brilliance and faith were not
at odds.

 

Well done. Arguing for or against the existence of God is the pastime of fools or naturally contentious people.
But to assume that because Stephen Hawking says something about the nature of life then it is so, is the most foolish of all.

For that matter, Albert Einstein is well on record in his belief in a governing deity (think of God as you will) that gives order to the cosmos. So in a case of my genius is superior to your genius, I will take Einstein's view of things over Hawkings' any day.