Wrong again. Atheists don't think "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are"
There is no evidence of god. There is much evidence of no god. Therefore it is more likely there is no god.
‘There is NO GOD’ Stephen Hawking’s final revelation of the afterlife REVEALED
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Wrong again. Atheists don't think "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are"
There is no evidence of god. There is much evidence of no god. Therefore it is more likely there is no god.
Ol' Steve Hawking must be laughing his wheels off at all this quasi-metaphysical clap-trap.
That's the problem with the internet. Any OCD can google a list of logical fallacies that reads like brochure and think he is Socrates.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it would seem logical that if there is a god, he gets to define himself......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
hell is an eternity of square wheels......
And the Jesus story is particularly laughable. Hey god revealed himself as a homo sapien to only some Jews and local Romans. Then went missing like Khashoggi.
"He's come back from the dead!" Then he vanished and eons of jerks exploited his memory to control people.
The story would be more compelling if he came today as a talking moose and he didn't leave and he laid down some serious science on us.
"He's come back from the dead!" Then he vanished and eons of jerks exploited his memory to control people.
The story would be more compelling if he came today as a talking moose and he didn't leave and he laid down some serious science on us.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the fact you refuse to listen doesn't mean he isn't in the conversation.....
Labels are a pain-in-the-ass.
Perhaps you are not an atheist...but you are defending the "there are no gods" guess as besing something more than guesses.
They are not.
I am not wrong about that.
Debating with atheists...and non-atheists who defend the notion that there are no gods...
...is a pain, because you guys squirm all over the place. I suspect it is because you realize that your assertions are built on a foundation of clay.
The fact that there is no evidence of gods...is no more evidence that no gods exist...than the fact that there is no evidence of sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...is evidence that there are no sentient beings living on any of those planets.
But people who are convinced (have made a blind guess) that there are no gods...cannot get past their need for that guess to be right...just as the people who are convinced that there IS A GOD...cannot get past theirs.
Too bad for humanity. We'd all be much better off with a bit more open-mindedness from you guys.
ME...I have no problem acknowledging that I do not know if gods exist or not...and that any guess I made would be a rather useless blind guess.
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
Regarding astronomer, Carl Sagan:
"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune
"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune
Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, Henry F. Schaefer III.
If Hawking changed at the time of his death, so be it.
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, Henry F. Schaefer III.
If Hawking changed at the time of his death, so be it.
You are wrong. You failed and lost. Keep going though.
No way I lost, because it is dead certain you are making a blind guess whenever you say "there are no gods."
BOTTOM LINE: The truth about REALITY may be a shitload stranger than "gods exist."
Humans are just a nondescript life form on a nondescript planet circling a nondescript star in a mundane galaxy. We don't know shit.
And there are humans like you pretending they know what does and does not exist in the whole of reality.
You are a joke, Mic.
And you are a joke because you demand to be a joke.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, you simply stated a circular argument. It is quite possible his finger gestures had nothing to do with the Sun.
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. Supporting evidence proves nothing. Observations themselves are not proofs. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only.
The only difference between a theory and a theory of science is the test of falsifiability. That means a null hypothesis of that theory must be constructed, a test developed it, and conducted. That test must be available, practical, specific, and produce a specific result. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. You can't go back in time to test the null hypothesis of such a theory.
Science does not use supporting evidence. Religion does, though.
No, it is not. It is not a falsifiable theory.
Supporting evidence is not used in science.
No, it is not. It is not falsifiable.
Essentially yes, it is a hunch. It is a circular argument.
It is a religion. A religion is any circular argument with arguments extending from it. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.
Religions do not require astral projection of anything. They do not even require a god or gods. ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, then make extended arguments from that initial argument. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. Failure to recognize it is, however. That is what a fundamentalist does. They are people that make circular argument fallacies by trying to prove their religion.
Into the Night
Verified User
Putting God into science books is a circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism) and a redefinition fallacy.
Putting atheism into science books is a circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism) and a redefinition fallacy.
Science has nothing to do with either religion.
Into the Night
Verified User
History is not a proof. It simply is.
The term 'NAZI', when translated into English, means National Socialist German Workers. It is SOCIALISM, dude. Fascism is one of two forms of socialism, the other being communism.
Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth from others. Hitler did it too. Capitalism is the only system that creates wealth out of nothing.