/sci/ - Science & Math

steven hawking is an arrogant retarted fuck.

having said that, he is good at physics and is right.

Hawking's been douchey lately. I think he's scared to die.

>>3068762
Naw his bladder stopped working. That'd make anyone ornery.

>>3068760
>>3068762
>>3068777
Plus, he's right.

>>3068747
1) He's right
2) I challenge anyone to live as he does for a week and not be a douche about shit in general.

>>3068760
>good at physics

No, he's not. He's good at theoretical physics, which is just saying stuff that sounds cool to explain what we don't know. Anyone can be "good" at that. It's basically "untestable science" of the gaps instead of "god of the gaps."

>>3068777
That was such a simple explanation and so elegantly phrased it cracked me up.

What a sad man

why is this news?

>>3068792
Not as sad and pathetic as the freak jobs that believe a hallucination will magic them away to the land of butterflies and gumdrops when they die.

>>3068762
>Hawking makes a comment about how heaven is for people who are afraid of the unknown.
>I think he's scared to die.

10/10, would get trolled again.

The best thing is that I think we are getting closer to developing the technologies to significantly extend our life span. Too bad he will be dead before that and he knows it. Probably why he is so bitter. I would be too.

>>3068789
Anyone can be good at theoretical physics? That's an interesting proposition.

Why would someone say there is no afterlife?
How much do you have to hate life to say that without knowing?

>>3068834
How does it even imply that you need to hate life? where the fuck are you getting that from?

>>3068834
Um if you believe in an afterlife you believe in god.

>>3068843
Thats obviously what it means.

You get absolutely nothing for just blindly saying "THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE!." There is no logical reason to say that unless you dont want there to be an afterlife because you dont like your current life.

>>3068850
And this is what we in the trade call a non sequitur.

Seriously, worst line of reasoning ever.

>>3068850
no isn't what it means. leave.

>>3068834
One of the joys of life is living it for yourself, not some mystical sky man. If you can't enjoy the time you have now without hungering for more, then it is you who doesn't enjoy living, not him.

>>3068847
Not the guy you replied to, but that's not necessarily true. I know at least two (legitimate) atheists who do believe in some sort of afterlife. One of them subscribes to reincarnation, the other to some New Age quantum entanglement babble.

>>3068789
>implying hawking radiation hasn't already been experimentally verified

>>3068862
The "mystical sky man's" rules, however, are intended to make your life a more dignified and better quality life, which can make it more enjoyable.

>>3068870
>implying black holes, which hawking radiation is based on, are experimentally verified.

>>3068874
We can't stop here. This is troll country.

>>3068868
Yeah. They're not atheists. Unsubstantiated fantasies are a religion. They're Neo-atheists.

>>3068862
>is living it for yourself, not some mystical sky man

I dont understand this psychology. If god created you than wouldn't you be thankful? Unless you hate your life, you have no reason to throw him out of the picture and self loath.

>>3068888
That's total bullshit. They don't believe in any deities, therefore, they are atheists.

>>3068874
You should be more than capable of making your life perfectly enjoyable, without blindly following the two thousand year old scrawling of unsophisticated desert folk. In fact, by following these rules, you're actually limiting yourself in many ways, therefore worsening the quality of life you live.

>>3068888
>Atheists

Aka autists who solely believe in science. Thats it. Even though it changes every day.

>>3068870
The fuck are you talking about? Just GTFO.

>>3068874

We haven't been following those for hundreds of years. We made up our own new ones and called them "interpretations" because the original rules are barbaric by modern standards. It's a facade and we don't need it.

>>3068882

Black holes are indeed verified. But you don't even need a black hole to have an event horizon you can test for hawking radiation. Check it:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hawking-radiation

>>3068907
>derp

>>3068882
>implying he didn't retract "Hawking radiation".

Honestly, I wish a god existed. Specifically the Catholic god. But he doesn't so life is much shittier and you have to take everything that comes with it.

>>3068914
>But he doesn't

Because you've seen beyond the universe....

>>3068903
>pyramids
>plumbing
>running water
>numerous engineering and building feats
>Antethecara (sp) device

>unsophisticated
0/10

>>3068923

The universe by definition is everything that exists. Ergo anything that exists, is a part of the universe. Your statement is completely ignorant and meaningless.

>>3068900
They believe in the religion of "the afterlife" without any kind of proof.

They're theists as much as Christians are, they just don't have a book created by the Roman government telling them what the universe is.

>>3068789

our ego, our consciousness will end not our existence.

we will be burried, our body gets eaten and will become fertiliser for plants.

so, with our death we will make other life possible, we will become part of the system, which will be the livelihood of our children and grandchildren.

i like that thought.

>>3068932
>The universe by definition is everything that exists. Ergo anything that exists, is a part of the universe. Your statement is completely ignorant and meaningless.

Because you know that the universe is the only thing that exists....

0/10

Unsubstantiated beliefs are a hallucination, and therefore a religion.

>>3068910
We may not need it anymore... but where would we be morally without them? The entire world would be like Somalia if we evolved with no basis for morality.

>>3068933
>book created by the Roman government

nice try 1.5/10

>>3068937
Until something else is provably observed, it IS everything.

>>3068937

If it exists, it is by definition a part of the universe.

Exist = true = part of universe same.

>>3068933
>They believe in the religion of "the afterlife" without any kind of proof.
"The Afterlife" is not a religion, nor does atheism mean a total lack of belief in unproven bullshit.

>They're theists as much as Christians are
No, theists believe in a god, they don't. Stop raping semantics, just because you want to associate atheism with a disbelief in all things nonsensical. That's not what atheism is.

>>3068950
The apostles were illiterate. None of them could write.

But I'll give you a 1/10 because I responded.

>>3068937
>>3068937
By your logic every science fiction book ever produced is just as valid as any religion. good job.

>>3068942

I'm not discounting everything that has brought us to this point (both good and bad). Not least of which because that cannot be changed.

However, it's time to move on and let these chains go.

>>3068937

That's how it works. Anything not part of the universe cannot and will never be able to affect us or be observed in any way, which is exactly the same as not existing at all. Speculating about such things is utterly meaningless.

>>3068953
HE THINKS WE HAVE TO OBSERVE SOMETHING FOR IT TO BE PLAUSIBLE!


HE THINKS THERE IS ONLY 1 UNIVERSE


HE THINKS THAT SCIENCE IS THE BE ALL END ALL OF DEBATE

>>3068910
That experiment has been done once and not duplicated, and the experimenters only "claimed" to see it without providing substantial proof.

>>3068958
Until you can PROVE an afterlife, it's a fantasy or a hallucination/religion.

>>3068953

If we could provably observe it, it would be a part of the universe.

Anything "existing" outside our universe would in reality not exist, which is why the notion is complete nonsense.

>>3068961
>Matthew
>educated
>tax collector

Literate. Also why would the Romans create a book for a religion that they actively persecuted? Really, I'm taking away your 1.

.5/10 cause I responded.

>>3068968
No, we have to observe something for it to be anything besides a fantasy by some gibbering retard.

U mad.

>>3068975
>hallucination/religion.
Those things aren't synonymous. At all.

Way to dodge the rest of my post. Fact is, no matter what retarded shit one believes in, if they don't believe in any deities, they are atheists.

>>3068968
HE'S RIGHT

>>3068991
If you're a Christian, they are.

>>3068942
>>3068942
humans were moral before religion, religion did not serve as a basis for morality but as a basis for rules which you could not explain which is why they morally vilify sex (STD's, STD's everywhere) and the bible gives specif rules for how you go to the toilet and what food you could eat. People didn't understand why these things caused sickness and diesaes or death or whatever and thus attributed it to god/s being mad because you broke his rules

>>3068993
>HE'S RIGHT

Because you know for a fact that god doesn't exist.

0/10

Unless you prove me that he doesnt, than I am going to continue looking up to god because I appreciate what he gave me.

>>3068991
This is entirely true.

It's...you know...the definition of the term.

Atheists who believe in ley lines and leprechauns are still atheists. Stupid atheists, but still atheists.

Just like Christians who believe in these things are still Christians. Stupid Christians, but still Christians.

inb4 ALLCHRISTIANSRSTUPID FTFY LOLOLOLO

>>3068991
There are no gods. I'm a human.

You're self is just a bunch of electrical signals shooting between neurons in your brain. If you are dead there are no more electrical signal ergo you are not going to nirvana. Unless you believe in some magical spirit which pretty much puts you on the same level of religions.

Can you see why it's retarded to be an atheist and believe in the afterlife? If you are an atheist it is because you realize the logical fallacies behind religion. If you believe in the afterlife you are embracing these fallacies.

>>3069007
I don't believe in fantasies. I'm a human.

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of faith. A lack of faith is not faith. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Atheism is not the Big Bang theory and it is not the theory of Evolution. Science is not a religion, it is a method for discovering new knowledge. Atheism is only a religion in the same way that not believing is Santa Clause is also a religion. The burden of proof lies on people claiming that a god exists. There is no purpose for our existence, only causes. Morality is independent of religion. Actions done under the belief that punishment awaits are impure. "Good" and "bad" are only human perceptions.
Religion is the epitome of ignorance, it is a deadly ignorance. It is an abomination and insult to reason. It is a political tool used to control large populations. It is a security blanket for those that fear death. It is a cheap answer to questions that science cannot at this time explain. It is the result of a lack of information. Religion is holding mankind from it's potential.
Religion continues to exist because of tradition, early indoctrination and an emotional response to deny the coldness of reality. Once indoctrinated the believer becomes loyal to his religion. Because he has invested so much of his life/time and emotion into his religion he becomes openly hostile to people that question his faith. He responds with anger and emotion instead of curiousity. He is unable to look critically at his beliefs. Religious people are feelers. They believe in their religion because they WANT it to be true. They are our lost brothers and sisters.

>>3069005
The Problem of Evil becomes definitive when one accepts that "The Ends do not justify the Means" as a morally true statement.

God allows all kinds of Evil shit in the name of Good. If you believe the Bible, he's willing to murder innocent children for it. Hence, "God's Plan" is a list of grievous moral wrongs. If God is all-good, he cannot do wrong. Therefore, God cannot exist.

QED, bitch.

>>3068997
>References the Old Testament, which's rules were made obsolete by the New Testament.

No Christian church follows the rules of Leviticus. Most Jews don't even anymore except extremist orthodox sects.

>also, implying there weren't religions that didn't villify sex

>>3069014

You wouldn't go to Nirvana if you die anyway.

Nirvana is more like a state of being than a place.

You want "Bhava-Agra", the realm of the enlightened.

>>3069014

We dont know which forms of existence there are, because we only know ours. Our conciousness is determined by our ego and our perception, but maybe this form is not the only conciousness there is.

Fact is, we don't know.

>>3069032
I came not to abolish the law, but to complete it.

I tell you that not one jot or tittle is removed.

Jesus said that.

>>3069033
>you're missing the point

>>3069028
"The ends justify the means" is how every intelligence organisation, everywhere operates.

You tinfoil hat wearing, anti-government scaremonger.

>>3068789
spidermaninbed.jpg

>>3069050

IT'S CALLED A "TRACT", WE'RE ON IT

>>3069038
"Don't know" means "UNICORNS EXIST!"

I'll SOLVE IT FOR YOU. YOU ARE MADE OF MEAT, AND YOU ARE GOING TO DIE AND ROT.

THE END.

Until something observable changes the universe, that is how it works.

>>3069052
>Some people operate this way
>Therefore, it is morally right
>You appear to disagree with me that God ought to be held to more stringent moral requirements than the CIA
>The CIA is, by extension, All-Good
>You are a conspiracy theorist

I admire your logic, sir. It is perfectly airtight.

>>3069028
God does not do evil. People do. He gave them free will, meaning if you want to do evil you can and he won't stop you.

There is nothing evil about not stopping evil.
Also, since God defines good and evil, evil is relative.

>>3069072
God doesn't exist, though, so your point is moot.

>>3069072
>There is nothing evil about not stopping evil.

I disagree. If you have the (infinite) power to stop evil and you don't, you're pretty bad yourself.

>>3068747
I hope science can get you out of that chair.

>>3069043
>taken out of context

>>3069070

yeah man there you got it. everything is possible.

do not forget that this thread is about after life, so you should leave scientific methods outside because theyre not useful anymore.

>>3069077
That would violate free will.
Evil would be manipulating what we want to do with our lives.

>>3069072
Evil doesn't exist. It presumes a force outside of natural humans, and humans can be as wrong as a CIA operative that drops off a van full of naked little boys for the Turkish military guarding a Haliburton installation.

A -CHRISTIAN- CIA operative.

>>3069072
Let me examine this, quickly.

Murdering innocent children at night in order to pressure their parents into something sounds evil. Crumpling the walls of a city so that your people can murder every man, woman, and child inside sounds evil. Crushing cities beneath columns of fire sounds evil. Afflicting people with hemorrhoids for stealing a magic gold box sounds, if not evil, at least really, really mean.

These are actions attested to God in the Bible. If murdering children, for example, is evil, then you must accept that God has done evil things, and thus cannot possibly be All-Good.

BUT WAIT! You then turn around and change the definition of All-Good to mean that If God Does It, It's Good. Therefore, since God murders children, murdering children is Good. If God takes human form to rape puppies, raping puppies is Good.

You DO NOT want to make that argument. It leads down a really, really bad road.

>>3069095
Under the Christian god, there is no free will, anyway. So, it doesn't violate it.

>>3069077
Except that after Moses, God stopped dealing with us directly.

If you're going to argue about God, especially with his relationship to us, at least read the Bible first and get your facts straight. This goes for people on both sides.

>>3069104
HOLY FUCK YOU ARE A RETARD
0/10

>>3069094
This is /sci/.

Unsubstantiated claims DESERVE to be raped.

Under ANY kind of God, there can be no free will. Just ask the God.

Oh, that's right, you can't.

Humanity: 1

Fantasies: 0

>>3069113

> getting mad in a religion thread on a science board on 4chan on the internet

>>3069103
If God wants to take a life, it is not murder. Are you saying God murders everyone in the world, and is therefore a serial killer?

Evil is doing bad to people who are underserving. Punishing people is not evil.

>>3069113
>replies in all caps
>says 0/10
You do know what 0/10 means, right?

>>3069110
MY NAME IS SAMUEL AND I SPEAK TO JEHOVAH.

FUCK YOU AND YOUR DISREGARD FOR THE PROPHETS

>>3069122
>implying religion and science can't get along.

>>3069115

exchanging thought concerning life after death is not unsubstantiated. it is the only thing you can do. if you say there is no life after death, it is not based on empiric observations and scientific examination. if you say there is life after death, it is not based on empiric observations and scientific examination.

both are just hypotheses.

>>3069125
>If God kills somebody, it's not murder.
>Even if he kills innocent children in the night for political reasons unrelated to the children.

Your system of morality is horribly skewed, and I cannot relate to you well enough to continue this discussion. Please seek counseling and stay away from my family.

<Bar Refaeli
Bacon
iPads

What now atheistfags?

>>3069138
> not knowing what an implication is

>>3069142
If you're talking about an afterlife, then it's as unsubstantiated as time-travel into the past.

Anything that can't be observed and you cant prove is a fantasy.

>>3069164

but most people really care about their life after death, so talking about it is not unsubstained.

also, compared to newtons world our world is now much, much larger, and a lot of things are considered real, which would have been considered fantasy by newton.

>>3069143
It wasn't political reasons; Pharoah was enslaving Jews and persecuting them.

I think you are misinterpreting "God is all-good." God does things that to the human observer in the short run may appear evil, but in the long run turn out to be good.

Take this for example:
Let's say someone is addicted to drugs and living off their parents. They are being supplied with shelter, food, transportation and clothing, but spend all their money on drugs. Then one day their parents kick them out. The live on the streets in the rain and cold. They starve. They get beat up by bums. They've hit rock bottom, and then realize they need to get their life straight. Good came out of the apparent "mean" action of leaving them to their own unfit devices.

God is the same way. He loves you, but will use tough love for your own good and to make you stronger.

>this thread
I didnt know there were so many theists on /sci/ or maybe its just dedicated trolling

>>3069182
>Killing babies
>Tough love
>Turns out to be good in the long run
>It's ok, because it kind of, sort of, convinced Pharaoh to let a bunch of people go
>Didn't bring the dead people back
>The babies weren't holding the slaves
>In the end, God crafted their lives entirely so that He could slaughter them in droves
>God created life purely as a bargaining chip, and it's ok

Screw you, dude.

>>3069181

What do you want me to do? Lie?

You are not a good person.

>>3069182
>Pharoah was enslaving Jews and persecuting them
>Jews
>in Egypt

lolno

>>3069240

its not a lie if it can not be disproven

>>3069267
>may be good at science, but doesn't know history

The first humans originated in Africa (duh)
Some of them settles in Egypt.
If you read exodus, you'd know that Moses led the Jews out of Africa into Israel, accounting for the migration there.

>>3069272

>can not

>disproven

Your argument contains a double negative, and that is not an argument. I'll fix it for you.

>its not a lie if it can be proven.

Fixed that for you. Now, proof is where?

>>3069306
facepalm.jpg

>>3069314
A double negative is not an argument. You fail the debate, GTFO!

>>3069292
>If you read exodus you'f believe all manner of bullshit
ftfy

PROTIP: Biblical accounts of history do not always tally with other historical accounts

>>3069319
You don't know what a double negative is.
Prove and disprove have different definitions, and not doing either means a different thing. Just because you have 2 negative semantics in a sentence does not mean it is a double negative.

>I ain't no quitter.
Is a double negative.

>I cannot disprove the existence of God.
is not.

>>3069332
all historical accounts do not always tally with all historical accounts

>>3069348
>cannot disprove
Is not an argument.

I cannot disprove unicorns.

I cannot disprove crystal magic.

I am not who has to prove that a delusion exists.