Hawking: 'There is no heaven'
The Starmaker
Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
heaven a "fairy story"...
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there-is-no-heaven
Stephen Hawking is at it again...
He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
You know wat i mean.
The Starmaker
xxein
> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
>
> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
> You know wat i mean.
>
> The Starmaker
xxein: No. I don't know what you simply believe. What do you mean
or believe?
Helmut Wabnig
All idiots come into heaven, he means.
w.
thinbluemime
Richard Dreyfuss once played a quadriplegic and in the film complained
about his bad luck and how his manly parts were just a useless bit of
string. I think of Hawkins in a similar situation while developing his
string theory and how god took a major dump on his body while giving him
an extraordinary mind.
Of course Hawkins doesn't have any hopes of an afterlife or heaven. In his
brilliance and bitterness he has determined that the universe didn't need
any intellectual designer, since the universe self generated from nothing.
Jim
remember nothing.
If I talk to believers they say weird things happened. what if God gives you
the choice?
If you believe in nothing then there is nothing?
"thinbluemime" <thinbl...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:op.vvnbvjl32hx80n@experience...
thinbluemime
> If I talk to atheist's they say they have died for a few minutes and
> remember nothing.
> If I talk to believers they say weird things happened. what if God gives
> you
> the choice?
> If you believe in nothing then there is nothing?
You mean after a NDE (Near Death Experience)? A NDE by it's very
definition is not death, only very near. The mind/brain in this state is
probably scrambled due to lack of oxygen, so it is unreliable no matter
what the person reports.
Wayne Throop
: "There is no heaven of afterlife..." Stephen Hawking, the famous
: British physicist, called the notion of heaven a "fairy story"...
: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there-is-no-heaven
"I recall from your file that you are some sort of theist. I am
an atheist myself. A simple faith, but a great comfort to me in
these last days."
"Yes, I have often felt the pull of it myself."
--- Emperor Ezar Vorbarra and Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan
The Starmaker
>
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:11:08 -0400, Jim <Noe...@noemail.net> wrote:
>
> > If I talk to atheist's they say they have died for a few minutes and
> > remember nothing.
> > If I talk to believers they say weird things happened. what if God gives
> > you
> > the choice?
> > If you believe in nothing then there is nothing?
>
> You mean after a NDE (Near Death Experience)? A NDE by it's very
> definition is not death, only very near. The mind/brain in this state is
> probably scrambled due to lack of oxygen, so it is unreliable no matter
> what the person reports.
I can give you a complete explanation of NDE...
that light you see
like a tunnel is
a gateway...
right here in the middle:
http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k540/TheStarmaker1/BB-8.jpg
and you go through
and the light gets brighter..
because...it's brighter on the other side..
and, Time does not exist there..it's eternity.
And you get to watch everything
you just came from..
on TV!
it's Heaven TV.
Guess what's on Tv?
The Starmaker
Marvin the Martian
He can't talk, but he makes a handy little puppet now. Whomever is
pushing his buttons finds him a excellent little propaganda tool. You can
say whatever you want and attribute it to him. Who's going to prove he
didn't say it?
It's non-science, but there it is.
AC
So, to be a scientist you must believe in fairies, and if you don't you
are desperate? Wow, religion sure has take the intelligent route. Would
have thought god would have given you a better argument than that.
--
AC
James Burns
I suspect that Stephen Hawking was being as kind to believers
as he could manage, without lying outright and saying he
believed in heaven.
A flat denial of a cherished belief is a relatively minor thing
overcome, easy to shrug off.
It would be a much harder thing to bear to hear someone tell
*in detail* WHY they believe there is no heaven. Consider:
-- There is no heaven.
-- Desire for something like heaven is a natural consequence of
the way human brains are wired. If you scratch off the list
such non-evidence as "I really, really, REALLY want my loved
one to still be out there somewhere", which is more easily
explained without referring to any afterlife, there is as
little reason to believe in heaven as there is to believe in
pumpkins that turn into horse-drawn coaches or any other
fairy-tale -- less reason, if that is possible.
Which answer would you prefer Hawking give?
thinbluemime
From the moment each of us are born, no matter how much we resist the
reality, we all are on the same path that leads directly toward physical
death. There is no way escaping this destination. When we are young, we
think we will live forever. Mid life we see the sign posts, and we
struggle and bargain and curse at the notion of death. As we age and
mature and watch our friends and love ones die, we gradually begin to
accept the inevitable.
Death is the only constant in this life. Embracing the reality can make
for a fuller life. Time is limited, relationships are temporary, and the
air that we breath becomes alive with new vigor, when we count the days
and know the days are numbered.
We have no direct knowledge of what, if anything, lies on the other side
of physical death. Only what the myths, legends, sages and religious
teachings tell us, or what we can imagine. If death is inevitable, is it
wrong to imagine something pleasant on the other side?
--
healthy...and still kickin' it..
cloud dreamer
> If death is inevitable, is it
> wrong to imagine something pleasant on the other side?
Yes, when you attach conditions to enjoying what *might* be on the other
side or induce people to murder based on what you *think* might be on
the other side.
Wish for it all you want. The problem comes from forcing your *beliefs*
on others.
..
thinbluemime
Hawkin as a scientist has moved from the study of the law of relativity
into the realm of spiritual law. By using his authority in his field of
expertise, he has set himself up as an authority in another. Do Hawkin's
proclamations carry any implied weight in the intellectual community that
would be just shy of forcing his beliefs on others?
Does Hawkin's physical condition play any role in his mental attitude?
Wayne Throop
: Hawkin as a scientist has moved from the study of the law of
: relativity into the realm of spiritual law.
Who's this "Hawkin" guy?
cloud dreamer
My response has nothing to do with Hawkings. Beliefs are presented as
fact and forced on people - can't have sex before marriage, can't abort
a fetus, can be homosexual, can't can't can't....or you don't go to heaven.
Well, Hawkings is simply saying it's bullshit. He's not telling you how
to live your life with a condition attached. He's not forcing you to
accept what he says. He just says it.
That's the difference. He's not looking for any thing. He presents a
scientific opinion. Those with open, intelligent minds willing to listen
will form an opinion based on what he is saying.
Those who are close minded are not going to listen anyway. They'll keep
believing the fairy tales because they don't have the courage to
question their faith.
And religion doesn't want you to question, because the moment you do,
the answer is obvious...and they stop getting your money.
Religion is the greatest con job in the history of the human race.
..
Thanatos
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why do you care what he thinks?
Thanatos
thinbluemime <thinbl...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Of course Hawkins doesn't have any hopes of an afterlife or heaven. In his
> brilliance and bitterness he has determined that the universe didn't need
> any intellectual designer, since the universe self generated from nothing.
Well, if it had an intellectual designer, who created *him*?
thinbluemime
Try googling "Stephen Hawking"
wikipedia's entry begins like this:
Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942)[1] is an
English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, whose scientific books and
public appearances have made him an academic celebrity. He is an Honorary
Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts,[2] a lifetime member of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences,[3] and in 2009 was awarded the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United
States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Martin Phipps
> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
>
> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
> You know wat i mean.
>
> The Starmaker
Why is it a surprise that Hawking would be an atheist? Theism and
intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need intelligence to be a
scientist.
Martin
Ubiquitous
>"There is no heaven of afterlife..."
>Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
>heaven a "fairy story"...
And you posted this off-topic article here because?
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
thinbluemime
Be sure not to tell Hawkin about Newton then
The Starmaker
Since there are no other intelligent life in the universe...that probably makes Stephen
the smartest guy in the universe. Ain't you're interested in what the smartest guy in the universe has
to say?
Sound like John Lennon to me....
must be a 'brit thing'.
There are more atheist in britian than in the USA...
The Starmaker
How much intelligence? A bird brain can do what scientist does...find
things out.
Raymond Yohros
Let anybody be what ever he wants to instead crying about who's right
Or wrong. Atheist or whatever, what matter is who has the
Physics right so we can go on trying to make the world a more fun
Place to be.
r.y
Howard Brazee
<thinbl...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Hawkin as a scientist has moved from the study of the law of relativity
>into the realm of spiritual law. By using his authority in his field of
>expertise, he has set himself up as an authority in another. Do Hawkin's
>proclamations carry any implied weight in the intellectual community that
>would be just shy of forcing his beliefs on others?
I don't know if he set himself as such an authority. But the media
shouldn't be covering it as if he were one.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why is it a surprise that Hawking would be an atheist? Theism and
>intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need intelligence to be a
>scientist.
The evidence doesn't show any correlation between intelligence and
theism. True Belief isn't about intelligence.
suzeeq
> If I talk to atheist's they say they have died for a few minutes and
> remember nothing.
> If I talk to believers they say weird things happened. what if God gives you
> the choice?
> If you believe in nothing then there is nothing?
Same thing if you believe in heaven or not, I think. I have a friend who
died for a couple minutes after a heart attack 5 years ago. He's more on
the believer side than atheist but said he didn't see or experience
anything - no white lights, no spirits of dead relatives, nothing.
suzeeq
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:00:15 -0400, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>
>> : thinbluemime <thinbl...@geemail.com>
>> : Hawkin as a scientist has moved from the study of the law of
>> : relativity into the realm of spiritual law.
>>
>> Who's this "Hawkin" guy?
>>
>
> Try googling "Stephen Hawking"
He knows who Stephen Hawking is, but you kept calling him 'Hawkin'.
Repeatedly, not just once.
Martin Phipps
But can you?
Martin
Martin Phipps
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>
> >Why is it a surprise that Hawking would be an atheist? Theism and
> >intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need intelligence to be a
> >scientist.
>
> The evidence doesn't show any correlation between intelligence and
> theism. True Belief isn't about intelligence.
It is when belief flies in the face of reality.
Martin
Martin Phipps
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 21:04:48 -0400, Martin Phipps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 18, 5:14 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> >> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
> >> heaven a "fairy
> >> story"...http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there...
>
> >> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> >> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> >> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
> >> You know wat i mean.
>
> >> The Starmaker
>
> > Why is it a surprise that Hawking would be an atheist? Theism and
> > intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need intelligence to be a
> > scientist.
>
> > Martin
>
> Be sure not to tell Hawkin about Newton then
I was using the present tense. Obviously people in the past were
religious. It is a primitive notion after all.
Martin
David Johnston
Wrong. Intelligent doesn't mean "immune to wishful thinking".
But if there's no robot heaven, where do the calculators go?
Joseph Nebus
He's the one who finally proved Fremat's Last Theorem.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFD
"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4DD2E5...@ix.netcom.com...
> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
> heaven a "fairy story"...
>
> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
>
> You know wat i mean.
>
>
> The Starmaker
Yeah, but he's right!
herbert glazier
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:02:51 -0400, thinbluemime
>
GOP Mafia's Godfather will brain wash the poor masses that drinking
his Tang will send they directly to heaven. Their last ride will be in
a Waste Management dump truck. GOPers will make USA into James Towne.
GOPers in this spacetime of America 14 trillion in the red and calling
poor families on food stamps "dead Beats" gives this reality. It comes
down to this. Will GOPers pay taxes,or kill those on food stamps.
TreBert
Martin Phipps
Every once in a while someone screws me over and I wish they would go
to Hell.
In particular, I wish there WERE a Hell so they could go there.
Wishing, however, doesn't make it so.
Martin
cloud dreamer
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
> <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why is it a surprise that Hawking would be an atheist? Theism and
>> intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need intelligence to be a
>> scientist.
>
> The evidence doesn't show any correlation between intelligence and
> theism. True Belief isn't about intelligence.
>
It has. A study completed last year found that the higher the
intelligence, the more likely a person would be atheist and liberal.
Google it.
I don't need a study to prove that point. I can see the results all
around me.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
Wayne Throop
: Wishing, however, doesn't make it so.
Oh. Well. I must have been misinformed.
Howard Brazee
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Every once in a while someone screws me over and I wish they would go
>to Hell.
>
>In particular, I wish there WERE a Hell so they could go there.
>
>Wishing, however, doesn't make it so.
You would like it if even your worst enemy was tortured beyond all
understanding forever and ever without hope of parole?
At least you don't believe you would smugly be watching him.
trag
[NITPICK]Silicon Heaven[/NITPICK]
Will in New Haven
> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
>
> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
> You know wat i mean.
>
I do know what you mean. You mean that you hate and resent anyone
smarter than you are, which is everybody else.
Of course, Hawking is making an error. He is stating as a fact
something that he cannot know and cannot derive from the evidence.
Just like all you assholes who tell us that there IS an afterlife and
we have to do x and not do y and punish people who do z and then we
will get the good version. None of YOU know what you are talking about
either.
It's a fucking MYSTERY. Let it be. Try not to inflict suffering and to
avoid suffering yourself. Even you. I don't really want you to die in
a grease fire.
But at least Hawkings isn't trying to get us to put a roof on his
church or influence us toward slaughtering infidels.
--
Will in New Haven
Wayne Throop
Robot Hell, of course.
Fencing diamonds, fixing cockfights
Publishing indecent magazines
You'll pay for every crime
Knee-deep in electric slime
You'll suffer 'till the end of time
Enduring tortures, most of which rhyme
Trapped forever, here in Robot Hell!
--- Furutama, "Hell is Other Robots"
PD
> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
> heaven a "fairy story"...http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there...
>
> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
Hush now. You're not so religious yourself.
>
> You know wat i mean.
>
> The Starmaker
PD
> On 17/05/2011 9:32 PM, thinbluemime wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 May 2011 19:37:21 -0400, cloud dreamer
> > <dont.att...@the.messengers> wrote:
>
> >> On 17/05/2011 9:01 PM, thinbluemime wrote:
>
> >>> If death is inevitable, is it
> >>> wrong to imagine something pleasant on the other side?
>
> >> Yes, when you attach conditions to enjoying what *might* be on the
> >> other side or induce people to murder based on what you *think* might
> >> be on the other side.
>
> >> Wish for it all you want. The problem comes from forcing your
> >> *beliefs* on others.
>
> >> ..
>
> > into the realm of spiritual law. By using his authority in his field of
> > expertise, he has set himself up as an authority in another. Do Hawkin's
> > proclamations carry any implied weight in the intellectual community
> > that would be just shy of forcing his beliefs on others?
>
>
> My response has nothing to do with Hawkings. Beliefs are presented as
> fact and forced on people - can't have sex before marriage, can't abort
> a fetus, can be homosexual, can't can't can't....or you don't go to heaven.
>
> Well, Hawkings is simply saying it's bullshit. He's not telling you how
> to live your life with a condition attached. He's not forcing you to
> accept what he says. He just says it.
>
> That's the difference. He's not looking for any thing. He presents a
> scientific opinion. Those with open, intelligent minds willing to listen
> will form an opinion based on what he is saying.
>
> Those who are close minded are not going to listen anyway. They'll keep
> believing the fairy tales because they don't have the courage to
> question their faith.
>
> And religion doesn't want you to question, because the moment you do,
> the answer is obvious...and they stop getting your money.
>
> Religion is the greatest con job in the history of the human race.
>
> ..
With all due respect here, I think many scientists would agree that
Hawking has stepped over a line without apology, stating his
*personal* opinions without weight of scientific support. It is
certainly understandable, at his age and condition, that he allows
himself the forum of his popularity to start talking about
nonscientific things. This is not uncommon among accomplished people,
who eventually branch out from the activities that warranted their
accomplishment. Einstein and Feynman did the same thing.
The mistake that his readers often make is in thinking that Hawking is
making a *scientifically sound* statement when in fact he is not, nor
is he really intending to. People attach his scientific credentials to
everything he says, and that's not his fault or doing.
PD
> On May 18, 5:14 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> > Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
> > heaven a "fairy story"...http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there...
>
> > Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> > He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> > he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
>
> > The Starmaker
>
> intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need intelligence to be a
> scientist.
Oh bullshit.
>
> Martin
Jim
so what's your point?
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:GaDAp.5972$UY3...@newsfe20.ams2...
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
>> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
>> heaven a "fairy story"...
>> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there-is-no-heaven
>>
>> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>>
>> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>>
>> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>>
>>
>> You know wat i mean.
>>
>>
>> The Starmaker
>
> So, to be a scientist you must believe in fairies, and if you don't you
> are desperate? Wow, religion sure has take the intelligent route. Would
> have thought god would have given you a better argument than that.
>
> --
> AC
cloud dreamer
> They belive in the fairy tail of global warming
> so what's your point?
Climate change is supported by evidence. Just because you are unable or
unwilling to look at it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
..
Mike Van Pelt
>
> "I recall from your file that you are some sort of theist. I am
> an atheist myself. A simple faith, but a great comfort to me in
> these last days."
>
> --- Emperor Ezar Vorbarra ...
Considering what Emperor Ezar had been up to during his blood-drenched
life, I'll just bet he'd find atheism a great comfort.
(Many ridiculously inappropriate crospostings deleted... I guess some
troll must have started this thread.)
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost | Mike Van Pelt
always a false front for the urge to rule." | mvp at calweb.com
-- H.L. Mencken | KE6BVH
Roger Blake
> Climate change is supported by evidence. Just because you are unable or
> unwilling to look at it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
LOL! "Climate change" has been going on for billions of years.
No doubt you want to bring back the glaciers that once covered
North America. Idiot.
What we need to do is start hunting down environmentalists and
other communists like the rabid animals they are.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cloud dreamer
>
> With all due respect here, I think many scientists would agree that
> Hawking has stepped over a line without apology, stating his
> *personal* opinions without weight of scientific support. It is
> certainly understandable, at his age and condition, that he allows
> himself the forum of his popularity to start talking about
> nonscientific things. This is not uncommon among accomplished people,
> who eventually branch out from the activities that warranted their
> accomplishment. Einstein and Feynman did the same thing.
>
> The mistake that his readers often make is in thinking that Hawking is
> making a *scientifically sound* statement when in fact he is not, nor
> is he really intending to. People attach his scientific credentials to
> everything he says, and that's not his fault or doing.
>
Unhuh. And there's how much scientific proof to support the existence of
the guy in the sky?????
None.
Hawking has more than enough credibility, intelligence and experience to
look at that and the world around us and draw a very simple conclusion.
There is no god.
..
Howard Brazee
>They belive in the fairy tail of global warming
>so what's your point?
In the U.S., this appears to be a political belief, nothing to do with
science. Otherwise you wouldn't have a Congress with every member of
a political party taking united stance on it.
It's about wishing, not about reality, nor preparing for the future.
William December Starr
Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> said:
> LOL! "Climate change" has been going on for billions of years.
> No doubt you want to bring back the glaciers that once covered
> North America. Idiot.
>
> What we need to do is start hunting down environmentalists and
> other communists like the rabid animals they are.
Whoah, Roger Blake! Now _there's_ a ranting idiot I hadn't thought
about in years.
-- wds
"American Indians constitute a conquered nation and therefore need to
just shut their traps and take whatever we care to dish out to them."
-- Roger Blake, rogbl...@iname10.com ("Subtract 10 for email.")
William December Starr
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> said:
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>>
>> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>>
>> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
> Why do you care what he thinks?
Starmaker is inherently jealous of people who can.
-- wds
William December Starr
Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> said:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Theism and intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need
>>> intelligence to be a scientist.
>>
>> The evidence doesn't show any correlation between intelligence and
>> theism. True Belief isn't about intelligence.
>
> It is when belief flies in the face of reality.
No it isn't. Faith is a bug in the software, not the hardware.
-- wds
PD
> On 18/05/2011 4:09 PM, PD wrote:
>
>
>
> > With all due respect here, I think many scientists would agree that
> > Hawking has stepped over a line without apology, stating his
> > *personal* opinions without weight of scientific support. It is
> > certainly understandable, at his age and condition, that he allows
> > himself the forum of his popularity to start talking about
> > nonscientific things. This is not uncommon among accomplished people,
> > who eventually branch out from the activities that warranted their
> > accomplishment. Einstein and Feynman did the same thing.
>
> > The mistake that his readers often make is in thinking that Hawking is
> > making a *scientifically sound* statement when in fact he is not, nor
> > is he really intending to. People attach his scientific credentials to
> > everything he says, and that's not his fault or doing.
>
> Unhuh. And there's how much scientific proof to support the existence of
> the guy in the sky?????
>
> None.
That's true. But then again, scientists (and Hawking) know better than
to say that all assertions can be put to experimental test.
For that matter, "scientific proof" is an oxymoron, and scientists
(and Hawking) know that.
>
> Hawking has more than enough credibility, intelligence and experience to
> look at that and the world around us and draw a very simple conclusion.
>
> There is no god.
Well, he obviously has enough credibility with YOU for you to
implicitly trust his conclusions, whether or not scientists would
agree with there being a *scientific basis* for the claim.
But the reality here is that this is a conclusion you've drawn
(without evidence or proof), and it feels good for a scientist that
you admire to say the same thing. It gives you a sense of credible
support. That's a natural inclination. Again, the thing you have to be
careful about is mistakenly asserting that the conclusion is one done
on a *scientific basis*, which it is not.
Igor
> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
It's just his educated opinion. Too bad you can't have one.
> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
Really? What does a scientist sound like? Does he have to believe in
religious nonsense? He can, but it's not required. In fact, it's
better if he brings none of that baggage with him. It just gets in
the way.
> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
You sound like a 'desperate moron' who has absolutely no clue about
science.
> You know wat i mean.
Nobody has ever known what you mean about anything.
Igor
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:00:15 -0400, Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
> > : thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com>
> > : Hawkin as a scientist has moved from the study of the law of
> > : relativity into the realm of spiritual law.
>
>
>
> wikipedia's entry begins like this:
>
> Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942)[1] is an
> English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, whose scientific books and
> public appearances have made him an academic celebrity. He is an Honorary
> Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts,[2] a lifetime member of the
> Pontifical Academy of Sciences,[3] and in 2009 was awarded the
> Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United
> Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
>
> --http://www.lostdude.com
We all know who HE is, but the clueless OP apparently doesn't.
Igor
> Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 5:14 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> > > Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
> > > heaven a "fairy story"...http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there...
>
>
> > > He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
>
>
> > > The Starmaker
>
> > intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need intelligence to be a
> > scientist.
>
>
> How much intelligence? A bird brain can do what scientist does...find
> things out.
That's your definition of science? No wonder you are clueless.
Instead of spewing your silly ignorance all over usenet, maybe you
should actually look up the scientific method and understand what
science really is and how it works for once.
Igor
> In <1305676...@sheol.org> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
> >: thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com>
> >: Hawkin as a scientist has moved from the study of the law of
> >: relativity into the realm of spiritual law.
> >Who's this "Hawkin" guy?
>
>
> --
> Joseph Nebus
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He might have had something to do with Girdle's completeness theorem
also.
Igor
> They belive in the fairy tail of global warming
> so what's your point?
>
Obviously English is not your first language and apparently you're
ignorant of science too. And do all top posters think that fairies
have tails?
Martin Phipps
Oh but people tell me I just haven't "found" God.
So maybe he's hiding under the sofa.
Martin
Martin Phipps
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 15:31:59 -0400, "Jim" <Noem...@noemail.net> wrote:
> >They belive in the fairy tail of global warming
> >so what's your point?
>
> In the U.S., this appears to be a political belief, nothing to do with
> science. Otherwise you wouldn't have a Congress with every member of
> a political party taking united stance on it.
>
> It's about wishing, not about reality, nor preparing for the future.
The Earth is getting warmer. It's a fact. It has been since the end
of the last ice age. To say that global warming will stop and/or the
Earth will become cooler is wishful thinking.
Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Young children born into
a warmer climate in the future are going to see it as normal just as
you guys are obviously arguing that our current warm climate is
normal.
Martin
Martin Phipps
That's what they "belive".
Martin
Martin Phipps
In order for there to be an afterlife there would have to be such a
thing as a soul. Where's the scientific basis for *that*?
It sounds like people here have watched too many episodes of Ghost
Whisperer.
Martin
The Starmaker
>
> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
> heaven a "fairy story"...
>
> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
> You know wat i mean.
>
> The Starmaker
Maybe Stephen Hawking is just looking to get his assed kicked...
somebody should just take his wheel chair and throw him down the stairs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHHJsXH3BiU#t=3m34s
If he wants to attract attention, why doesn't he just go rob a bank?
The Starmaker
PD
This is an example of one of those assertions that science knows
better than to put to experimental test. I thought I said that
already.
thinbluemime
In the rush of scientist to prove human caused global warming, they
neglected to discover faulty data reports of temperature in excess of 400F
degrees. It was a "non scientist" who discovered the faulty NOAA satellite
data. NASA has since removed the data and unsuccessfully launched two
replacement satellites.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com//climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
3 satellites and 10 years of data, down the drain.
NOAA attempts to show CO2 is the criminal gas, while water vapor is the
predominant GH gas, and in it's liquid state covers 3/4 of the earth's
surface. D'oH!
Holy Jebus! If human caused global warming is a fairy tale fraud
perpetrated by scientific believers and supported by faulty evidence, then
a belief in an afterlife doesn't seem so bad, does it?
--
...no matter what I try to do, you're going to die Charlie
Howard Brazee
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In the U.S., this appears to be a political belief, nothing to do with
>> science. Otherwise you wouldn't have a Congress with every member of
>> a political party taking united stance on it.
>>
>> It's about wishing, not about reality, nor preparing for the future.
>
>The Earth is getting warmer. It's a fact. It has been since the end
>of the last ice age. To say that global warming will stop and/or the
>Earth will become cooler is wishful thinking.
Which is different from a political party saying that it doesn't
exist. I can understand disagreeing that we can slow it down with
CO2 control. But we need to prepare for the future, even if we
can't slow down global warming.
Sort of like Joseph and the famine. The future will arrive - let's
be ready.
>Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Young children born into
>a warmer climate in the future are going to see it as normal just as
>you guys are obviously arguing that our current warm climate is
>normal.
Sure. But flooded cities will be costly. What happens when Canada
and Siberia grow most of the food, and warmer climates turn to desert?
The history of the world shows big changes resulting from climate
change. Maybe this time we know enough to be better prepared.
lal_truckee
> With all due respect here, I think many scientists would agree that
> Hawking has stepped over a line without apology, stating his
> *personal* opinions without weight of scientific support.
Error. Hawking is very much basing his statement on the current
understanding of cosmology, not an opinion or feeling or a belief.
He is saying the current research provides an adequate scientific basis
for the existence and evolution of the universe with no "maker" needed.
Just because you (and me) can't follow the mathematics doesn't negate
the math. The only act of faith here is my belief that Hawking
understands the math and has correctly interpreted the results into a
couple of observations about existence.
You (and me) would have to start over as undergrads, do PhDs in Math and
Theoretical Physics and we still wouldn't understand - Hawking is one of
a handful of such educated people who does understand; that's why peers
shower him with accolades.
Don't fool yourself that he's stating an opinion; he's stating a result.
No afterlife. Do good here and now.
The Starmaker
>
> There is no god.
>
> ..
Of course there is a God, ..he's got a TV set just like everyone else..He's the Donald Trump of Heaven!
The Starmaker
>
> Jim wrote:
> > If I talk to atheist's they say they have died for a few minutes and
> > remember nothing.
> > If I talk to believers they say weird things happened. what if God gives you
> > the choice?
> > If you believe in nothing then there is nothing?
>
> Same thing if you believe in heaven or not, I think. I have a friend who
> died for a couple minutes after a heart attack 5 years ago. He's more on
> the believer side than atheist but said he didn't see or experience
> anything - no white lights, no spirits of dead relatives, nothing.
tell him i said next time he can try a little longer than 2 minutes...
Heaven Can Wait..
PD
> On 5/18/11 11:39 AM, PD wrote:
>
> > With all due respect here, I think many scientists would agree that
> > Hawking has stepped over a line without apology, stating his
> > *personal* opinions without weight of scientific support.
>
> Error. Hawking is very much basing his statement on the current
> understanding of cosmology, not an opinion or feeling or a belief.
>
> He is saying the current research provides an adequate scientific basis
> for the existence and evolution of the universe with no "maker" needed.
There has never been a scientific "necessity" for God, and the
situation is no different now. By the same token, science has never
demonstrated the nonexistence of God, and the situation is no
different now.
>
> Just because you (and me) can't follow the mathematics doesn't negate
> the math. The only act of faith here is my belief that Hawking
> understands the math and has correctly interpreted the results into a
> couple of observations about existence.
This, unfortunately, is where you are led astray in precisely the
manner I described. You see, you *trust* without verification, and you
accept his statements not only on faith (as you yourself say) but you
yourself add a veneer of scientific basis that is in fact not really
there.
Unlike you, you see, I do understand the math. I don't blaze the trail
in that area that he does, but the work is not very difficult to
follow with the proper training and practice. It comes with the
profession. And, like many people who have worked in this and related
topics, I have a good feel for the boundaries of what claims can be
made with string theory, and which ones can be tested.
>
> You (and me) would have to start over as undergrads, do PhDs in Math and
> Theoretical Physics and we still wouldn't understand - Hawking is one of
> a handful of such educated people who does understand; that's why peers
> shower him with accolades.
You see? Here you are worshiping him. You do not understand what he is
saying, but you accept unquestioningly what he says, because you
believe he is wiser and smarter than you are. This is *precisely* the
criticism that is levied against the religious by atheists, just with
a different object of adoration.
Jim
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5af4deb8-c25c-48e0...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Jim
so the IPCC can't drink a nice hot cup of the shut the fuck up.
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ghm8t6l9vgejmufef...@4ax.com...
Quadibloc
> Hawkin as a scientist has moved from the study of the law of relativity
> into the realm of spiritual law. By using his authority in his field of
> expertise, he has set himself up as an authority in another. Do Hawkin's
> proclamations carry any implied weight in the intellectual community that
> would be just shy of forcing his beliefs on others?
>
> Does Hawkin's physical condition play any role in his mental attitude?
The point is, we know that the brain works by means of the electrical
and chemical activity of its cells. We don't really have much excuse
for continuing to take seriously the supernatural claims of any of the
religious beliefs that were concocted by human societies all over the
world, with different and conflicting moral commands.
Religion has contributed in a positive way to life by encouraging
people to respect their neighbors and live in peace. But many
religions have also provided people with an excuse for exceptions to
these positive moral laws. Christianity has outgrown witch burning,
but Islam still seems to have a problem with terrorism.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> In <1305676...@sheol.org> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
> >Who's this "Hawkin" guy?
>
> He's the one who finally proved Fremat's Last Theorem.
And here I thought it was Yanatami...
John Savard
Quadibloc
> But the reality here is that this is a conclusion you've drawn
> (without evidence or proof),
The problem is that there are people out there who draw, also without
valid evidence or proof, the conclusion that there *is* a God, and
they each have their little plans for how you should live your life.
Unfortunately, we don't yet live in a world where 95% of humanity,
even if they recognize that one can't easily prove there is no God,
because they _also_ recognize that this doesn't prove the existence of
each and every contradictory idea of God that people make up, looks
upon those people... like life insurance or vacuum cleaner salesmen.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> In order for there to be an afterlife there would have to be such a
> thing as a soul. Where's the scientific basis for *that*?
Well, although our thoughts clearly come from our brains, how is it we
have perceptions? Why are we here - aware of what comes to our brains
- instead of all this happening with no one there?
Consciousness is still a mystery - it doesn't seem to fit with our
understanding of either matter, or energy, or information.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Just because you (and me) can't follow the mathematics doesn't negate
> the math. The only act of faith here is my belief that Hawking
> understands the math and has correctly interpreted the results into a
> couple of observations about existence.
I assure you, there is no math which leads to "Donc Dieu n'existe
pas!" known to science.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> On 2011-05-18, cloud dreamer <Save....@Resources.now> wrote:
>
> > Climate change is supported by evidence. Just because you are unable or
> > unwilling to look at it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> LOL! "Climate change" has been going on for billions of years.
> No doubt you want to bring back the glaciers that once covered
> North America. Idiot.
>
> What we need to do is start hunting down environmentalists and
> other communists like the rabid animals they are.
Communism was indeed evil, like Nazism was.
Environmentalism had indeed often gone to excess, putting animals
ahead of people, and interfering with America's economic and
industrial might.
However, the dangers of global warming are not some environmentalist's
fantasy; they are the *consensus of the scientific community*. That
means (to put it simply, and omit some details and qualifications)
that they're REALITY.
Of course, it's *also* a reality that if we stopped using oil and
depended on wind power and solar power for our energy, we would be in
a worse fix than global warming could cause.
The solution is obvious, and it should make you glad - because the
environmentalists won't like it.
Nuclear power.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> NOAA attempts to show CO2 is the criminal gas, while water vapor is the
> predominant GH gas, and in it's liquid state covers 3/4 of the earth's
> surface. D'oH!
Carbon dioxide gets added to the atmosphere because we burn fuel. We
can choose to burn fuel or not to burn fuel.
Where does water vapor come from? It comes from evaporation.
Evaporation is controlled by how warm it is.
So water vapor is part of the warming feeding on itself with positive
feedback... but carbon dioxide is the thing from outside that set the
cycle off. The thing *we can control* to stop making it worse and
worse.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> How much intelligence? A bird brain can do what scientist does...find
> things out.
When the easy stuff has already been found out by our ancestors
through thousands of years, finding out new stuff that can't be found
out by looking it up in the library or on Google... often means
learning stuff like calculus.
Which isn't for the birds.
John Savard
Martin Phipps
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
> > Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
> > heaven a "fairy story"...
>
> > Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
> > He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
> > he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
> > You know wat i mean.
>
> > The Starmaker
>
> Maybe Stephen Hawking is just looking to get his assed kicked...
>
> somebody should just take his wheel chair and throw him down the stairs.
Well, at least you are learning to behave more like a Christian. :/
Martin
Martin Phipps
"Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence."
--Carl Sagan
The onus of proof is always on those making the extraordinary
assertions.
Martin
Martin Phipps
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 16:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>
> >> In the U.S., this appears to be a political belief, nothing to do with
> >> science. Otherwise you wouldn't have a Congress with every member of
> >> a political party taking united stance on it.
>
> >> It's about wishing, not about reality, nor preparing for the future.
>
> >The Earth is getting warmer. It's a fact. It has been since the end
> >of the last ice age. To say that global warming will stop and/or the
> >Earth will become cooler is wishful thinking.
>
> Which is different from a political party saying that it doesn't
> exist. I can understand disagreeing that we can slow it down with
> CO2 control. But we need to prepare for the future, even if we
> can't slow down global warming.
>
> Sort of like Joseph and the famine. The future will arrive - let's
> be ready.
>
> >Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Young children born into
> >a warmer climate in the future are going to see it as normal just as
> >you guys are obviously arguing that our current warm climate is
> >normal.
>
> Sure. But flooded cities will be costly. What happens when Canada
> and Siberia grow most of the food, and warmer climates turn to desert?
>
> The history of the world shows big changes resulting from climate
> change. Maybe this time we know enough to be better prepared.
True. A few years ago Taiwan had a typhoon so bad that politicians
there said there wouldn't be another one like that for another hundred
years. The one they got the very next year was just as bad if not
worse.
Nowadays when people hear "typhoon" they rush home and close the doors
and wait it out.
People adapt. People survive. People who refuse to adapt will not
survive.
One way or another we won't have neo-cons in a hundred years. Natural
selection at work. :)
Martin
Martin Phipps
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 19:05:44 -0400, Martin Phipps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 19, 4:53 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 May 2011 15:31:59 -0400, "Jim" <Noem...@noemail.net> wrote:
> >> >They belive in the fairy tail of global warming
> >> >so what's your point?
>
> >> In the U.S., this appears to be a political belief, nothing to do with
> >> science. Otherwise you wouldn't have a Congress with every member of
> >> a political party taking united stance on it.
>
> >> It's about wishing, not about reality, nor preparing for the future.
> > The Earth is getting warmer. It's a fact. It has been since the end
> > of the last ice age. To say that global warming will stop and/or the
> > Earth will become cooler is wishful thinking.
>
> > Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Young children born into
> > a warmer climate in the future are going to see it as normal just as
> > you guys are obviously arguing that our current warm climate is
> > normal.
>
> > Martin
>
> In the rush of scientist to prove human caused global warming, they
> neglected to discover faulty data reports of temperature in excess of 400F
> degrees. It was a "non scientist" who discovered the faulty NOAA satellite
> data. NASA has since removed the data and unsuccessfully launched two
>
> 3 satellites and 10 years of data, down the drain.
>
> NOAA attempts to show CO2 is the criminal gas, while water vapor is the
> predominant GH gas, and in it's liquid state covers 3/4 of the earth's
> surface. D'oH!
>
> Holy Jebus! If human caused global warming is a fairy tale fraud
> perpetrated by scientific believers and supported by faulty evidence, then
> a belief in an afterlife doesn't seem so bad, does it?
I think you'll find that there is a high correlation between people
who don't believe in global warming or evolution and people who
believe in Heaven and the afterlife. I think people should be
wondering how their school taxes are being spent.
Martin
Martin Phipps
> No one dsiputes warming, it's the cause did shit.
"Did shit"?
Actually, people do dispute global warming. Or at least they have
been disputing global warming. If they are not disputing it anymore
then we can move on and ask what we can do about it.
Martin
Wayne Throop
: Consciousness is still a mystery - it doesn't seem to fit with our
: understanding of either matter, or energy, or information.
Yeah, I hear that a lot.
I still don't follow why anybody finds it a persuasive position.
Near as I can tell, the responses I get when I ask specifically
why it doesn't fit, and why it is so mysteriouss, boil down to
"it just *is* mysrerious".
Or sometimes, it seems like a variant on the homuncular fallacy,
a sort of "ok, there's all these mechanisms and abstract structures,
but where's the little man inside that really does the perceiving?".
Ignoring the forrest while looking for the magic tree.
But there sure are a lot of folks that say it's extremely mysterious.
Shrug. So it goes.
"Are they alive?"
"I used to ask that []. The things that move, and act.
The things that watch, and chooze, and decide. And whenever I
asked that question, Corvus would always say, 'the short answer
is no'. And then he'd give the the long answer. And Rowan... it
always seemed to me that the long answer really meant 'yes'.
So... I don't know."
--- Rowan and Willam in "The Language of Power"
thinbluemime
Humans have been killing one another since the beginning of human history
for a variety of reasons, one of which happens to be religion. I don't
think the murders and mayhem and killings would stop if the entire human
race decided to become atheists, or if the entire world converted
exclusively to Judaism or Christianity or Islam.
We don't live that long in the grand scheme of things anyway. If people
would just apply the golden rule that in some variation is contained
within the sacred texts of most systems of belief, the world would be a
lot less violent. The quality of life would be better for nearly everyone,
even if our life span remained the same.
In American we are a melting pot of a multicultural society. It is easy to
have access to different religions, races and cultures, sometimes within
walking distance of where we live. I try to make contact with people, a
smile, hold a door open, help with a grocery bag etc. When my sons were
young, we would visit different churches, mosques, and temples. Not to be
converted or convert, but to experience the different religious centers,
traditions and rituals. I think and I hope this removes some of the fear
between people. Most folks just want to raise their family, pay their
bills, feel safe and enjoy life. People aren't that much different. We
can't always change the world, but sometimes we can change our little
sphere of influence for the better.
Ashton Crusher
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"There is no heaven of afterlife..."
>Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
>heaven a "fairy story"...
>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there-is-no-heaven
>
>Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>
>He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>
>he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>
>
>You know wat i mean.
>
>
I have no idea what you mean but I know what Hawking means. The
notion of heaven is a fairy story, no " " needed.
Sjouke Burry
Google for
-------------------------------------------
"emergent properties" in complex systems
-------------------------------------------
There is no need to add mythical properties to systems
to explain them.
Ashton Crusher
<thinbl...@geemail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:52:35 -0400, The Starmaker
><star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> thinbluemime wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:11:08 -0400, Jim <Noe...@noemail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > If I talk to atheist's they say they have died for a few minutes and
>>> > remember nothing.
>>> > If I talk to believers they say weird things happened. what if God
>>> gives
>>> > you
>>> > the choice?
>>> > If you believe in nothing then there is nothing?
>>>
>>> You mean after a NDE (Near Death Experience)? A NDE by it's very
>>> definition is not death, only very near. The mind/brain in this state is
>>> probably scrambled due to lack of oxygen, so it is unreliable no matter
>>> what the person reports.
>>
>> I can give you a complete explanation of NDE...
>>
>> that light you see
>> like a tunnel is
>> a gateway...
>> right here in the middle:
>> http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k540/TheStarmaker1/BB-8.jpg
>>
>> and you go through
>> and the light gets brighter..
>> because...it's brighter on the other side..
>> and, Time does not exist there..it's eternity.
>>
>> And you get to watch everything
>> you just came from..
>> on TV!
>>
>> it's Heaven TV.
>>
>>
>> Guess what's on Tv?
>>
>>
>>
>> The Starmaker
>
> From the moment each of us are born, no matter how much we resist the
>reality, we all are on the same path that leads directly toward physical
>death. There is no way escaping this destination. When we are young, we
>think we will live forever. Mid life we see the sign posts, and we
>struggle and bargain and curse at the notion of death. As we age and
>mature and watch our friends and love ones die, we gradually begin to
>accept the inevitable.
>
>Death is the only constant in this life. Embracing the reality can make
>for a fuller life. Time is limited, relationships are temporary, and the
>air that we breath becomes alive with new vigor, when we count the days
>and know the days are numbered.
>
>We have no direct knowledge of what, if anything, lies on the other side
>of physical death. Only what the myths, legends, sages and religious
>teachings tell us, or what we can imagine. If death is inevitable, is it
>wrong to imagine something pleasant on the other side?
Wrong implies a moral dimension. In and of itself such imaginings are
not wrong or right. But to take advantage of people's imaginings, as
almost all religions and religious leaders do, is wrong, in my moral
code. There is certainly no rational reason to believe there is
anything after death but there is no law that says our personal
beliefs must be rational. If people wish to calm their worries by
believing in fantasy that's their choice.
Ashton Crusher
<dont....@the.messengers> wrote:
>On 17/05/2011 9:32 PM, thinbluemime wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 May 2011 19:37:21 -0400, cloud dreamer
>> <dont....@the.messengers> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/2011 9:01 PM, thinbluemime wrote:
>>>
>>>> If death is inevitable, is it
>>>> wrong to imagine something pleasant on the other side?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, when you attach conditions to enjoying what *might* be on the
>>> other side or induce people to murder based on what you *think* might
>>> be on the other side.
>>>
>>> Wish for it all you want. The problem comes from forcing your
>>> *beliefs* on others.
>>>
>>> ..
>>
>> Hawkin as a scientist has moved from the study of the law of relativity
>> into the realm of spiritual law. By using his authority in his field of
>> expertise, he has set himself up as an authority in another. Do Hawkin's
>> proclamations carry any implied weight in the intellectual community
>> that would be just shy of forcing his beliefs on others?
>>
>> Does Hawkin's physical condition play any role in his mental attitude?
>>
>
>
>My response has nothing to do with Hawkings. Beliefs are presented as
>fact and forced on people - can't have sex before marriage, can't abort
>a fetus, can be homosexual, can't can't can't....or you don't go to heaven.
>
>Well, Hawkings is simply saying it's bullshit. He's not telling you how
>to live your life with a condition attached. He's not forcing you to
>accept what he says. He just says it.
>
>That's the difference. He's not looking for any thing. He presents a
>scientific opinion. Those with open, intelligent minds willing to listen
>will form an opinion based on what he is saying.
>
>Those who are close minded are not going to listen anyway. They'll keep
>believing the fairy tales because they don't have the courage to
>question their faith.
>
>And religion doesn't want you to question, because the moment you do,
>the answer is obvious...and they stop getting your money.
>
>Religion is the greatest con job in the history of the human race.
>
> ..
>
George Carlin did a good comedy bit on religion. Part of it was how
God is so powerful ... yet he doesn't seem very good at managing
money, the preachers always need more.
Ashton Crusher
<mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 May 2011 14:14:02 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
>> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
>> heaven a "fairy story"...
>> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there-
>is-no-heaven
>>
>> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>>
>> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>>
>> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>>
>>
>> You know wat i mean.
>>
>>
>> The Starmaker
>
>He can't talk, but he makes a handy little puppet now. Whomever is
>pushing his buttons finds him a excellent little propaganda tool. You can
>say whatever you want and attribute it to him. Who's going to prove he
>didn't say it?
>
You are quite the little idiot. No one is pushing his buttons, he
pushes them himself and the machine speaks it.
>It's non-science, but there it is.
Martin Phipps
wrote:
Also ask yourself how a computer can beat people at Jeopardy if we are
so smart.
Martin
Post Card
> On May 17, 8:04 pm, Martin Phipps<martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 18, 5:14 am, The Starmaker<starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "There is no heaven of afterlife..."
>>> Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of
>>
>>> Stephen Hawking is at it again...
>>
>>> He no longer sounds like a 'scientist' to me..
>>
>>> he sounds more like a ...'desperate atheist'.
>>
>>> You know wat i mean.
>>
>>> The Starmaker
>>
>> intelligence are mutually exclusive and you need intelligence to be a
>> scientist.
>
> Oh bullshit.
Belief in any kind of biblical personal god or
life-after-death heaven is certainly not compatible with a
rationally thinking mind. However it is the case that there
are intelligent but psychologically immature people who are
happy to surrender their intellectual integrity in exchange
for an excuse to avoid facing the existential reality of
human temporality. The existence of a non-personal god is
simply irrelevant in any context other than as philosophical
debate fodder.
PC
Androcles
"Post Card" <news_...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Jj4Bp.4706$h35....@newsfe19.ams2...
Religion is the crutch of the mentally crippled.
Oops... that's not politically correct ... 'intellectually challenged'.
Helmut_Meukel
> On May 18, 5:56 pm, thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> NOAA attempts to show CO2 is the criminal gas, while water vapor is the
>> predominant GH gas, and in it's liquid state covers 3/4 of the earth's
>> surface. D'oH!
>
> Carbon dioxide gets added to the atmosphere because we burn fuel. We
> can choose to burn fuel or not to burn fuel.
>
> Where does water vapor come from? It comes from evaporation.
> Evaporation is controlled by how warm it is.
>
Wrong.
Because we burn fuel (coal, oil, gas) we burn hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbones consists of carbon (C) and hydrogen (H). Natural gas is
mostly methane (CH4), LPG is propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10).
It's quite simple:
methane CH4 - ethane CH3-CH3 - propane CH3-CH2-CH3 - butane CH3-CH2-CH2-CH3
then pentane, hexane, heptane, octane (C8H18) and so on. The carbone
chain can be straight or branched.
When burnt you get carbone dioxide and hydrogen dioxide (water vapor),
in case of methane one molecule carbon dioxide and four melecules water,
in case of octane eight molecules carbon dioxide and eightteen melecules
water.
Burning fuel increases the amount of water and carbon dioxide on earth.
But only up to the original amount it was once, eons ago. So what?
Helmut.
Joel Olson
news:op.vvncx0wv2hx80n@experience...
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:11:08 -0400, Jim <Noe...@noemail.net> wrote:
>
>> If I talk to atheist's they say they have died for a few minutes and
>> remember nothing.
>> If I talk to believers they say weird things happened. what if God gives you
>> the choice?
>> If you believe in nothing then there is nothing?
>
> You mean after a NDE (Near Death Experience)? A NDE by it's very definition
> is not death, only very near. The mind/brain in this state is probably
> scrambled due to lack of oxygen, so it is unreliable no matter what the
> person reports.
>
During the French Terror, many heads were able to continue blinking for
a while after being cut off. Knowing they were already dead.