Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe

[Chevalier des Poissons]

It was in your mind so perhaps you are the one showing animosity through your virtue of logic

Lol.

Falacy number two: False Dilemma. You assumed that I was having some animosity when I didn't even imply that you had such feeling. That's not polite I didn't even consider that fact towards you, so don't state that to me, you don't know what goes on in my mind, alright?

[Jude]

All I said was my view point was valid.5. Do not add information to my words to suit your logic.  I said that both camps point fingers at each other cry persecution (target and attack) I never said one was persecuted more than the other.  You do not know me well enough to tell me I do not understand human nature or persecution.

Note my usage of "If you think," I was not putting words in your mouth, that's a key part of what I said.  It's a conditional.

My analogy has its own logic from a certain point of view
One may chose to believe my point of view is not likely and one has every right to do so, but one does not have the right to judge my point of view as any less valid than any other point of view.

The unlikeliness of god is not a choice that arises out of personal analysis, it's a consequence of scientific principles (and experimentally proven fact -- there have been studies done on the matter).  When examining two competing theories, if one has a portion that can be removed without lessening the theory's ability to explain and interpret the data, then the theory which contains fewer non-essential (ad hoc) concepts is far more likely to be true.

I don't emphasize this because I want to beat down the religious.  I have my own series of improbable thoughts that I hold dear.  I even have religious thoughts from time to time (though my religious inclinations tend to be far more abstract and strange than what most people experience except in times of crisis where I resort to the same "god help me" thinking that most people do).  I emphasize this because the ways in which religion do harm to the world, I think, come from confidence in belief.

You don't have to be an extremist to want to do charitable acts, which is one of the better things that religion encourages people to do.  However, you do have to be a very confident extremist to believe justifications offered for holy wars, terrorism, theocratic impulses, and other forms of demented ascetic behavior.  I'm not making this point because I feel like you're an example of an extremist, not at all, you seem very intelligent and accepting.  It's simply an idea that you've given me the opportunity to elaborate on through our discussion.

I fully believe in your right to have your views and the validity of them, that's why I'm no longer an atheist (though I was more of an anti-theist really).  I even think most religious ideas are good for societal overall.  I do not believe the world would be a better place without religion.

[Oniya]

As opposed to dishonestly asking your other questions?  :)

As opposed to saying it in an insulting or sarcastic manner, which I suppose would be a form of deception, as in that case I wouldn't care about the answer.  Text can be so limiting. :)

Edit:  And along those lines, I took the above question to be a light-hearted dig at my choice of wording.

[Chevalier des Poissons]

I ask you all for the second and last time:

Please, leave the insults behind. This is a thread in an ADULT forum, we are supposed to be MATURE.

I am not going to ask again.

[Brandon]

This is a common tactic, and I'm not sure whether to label it ignorant, or underhanded.

You're making two fundamental mistakes. Atheism, first and foremost, is nothing - nothing - but the absence of belief in a god. You can be a religious atheist, you can be an irreligious atheist, you can be a nihilist atheist, anything you please. The only requirement is that you not believe in a god. That's all it means.

The second fatal mistake is describing it as "belief in nothing", rather than "lack of belief". "Belief in nothing" implies you're believing in nothing contrary to evidence. "Lack of belief" implies that, because of the utter and complete absence of evidence, you see no reason to believe in the first place. It's not even a rejection of the belief.

As for atheism requiring the most faith, or the most assumptions, it doesn't matter how you try to spin "faith", the simple fact remains that the argument "something cannot come from nothing, so something must've created it", is at best moving the goalpost. If "something" can't come from nothing, but "something else" can, then "something can't come from nothing" is no longer true, and god is unnecessary. Either god is impossible, or unnecessary. There is, beyond anecdotes and your own feelings, no evidence to suggest there is a god - none. There isn't any objective evidence that could ever bring anyone, without outside influence, to believe in your particular god. It's an enormous leap of faith. Not believing is simply admitting you don't know - yet.

I would ask that you call it neither, because I misused the definition. I tend to think of atheism as a belief that there is nothing beyond what mankind can percieve, but youre right thats not the definition. The definition of an atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Ive pointed out that there are atheist religions before and I wasnt reffering to them in this case. I was reffering to your regular everyday atheist who wont believe in anything they dont see for themself or the scientific community wont acknowlege (or at least the ordinary atheists that Ive met think that way)

[Lithos]

Science deals with real world, therefore indeed things that it deals with need to be to some extent observable. Religion deals with things outside of the real world, where proof or observation does not matter. Scientist trying to explain some phenomenon by higher being or some other thing that cannot be observed or measured or deduced from something based on observations and tests is just as much silly and wrong as religious person trying to explain observable world based on their scripture instead of actual data. These thing should not be mixed, only things benefiting from the attempts are tabloids.

Humans will likely never learn to be comfortable with saying "I do not know how this or that works yet" without filling the void with some fantasy, therefore gods will always exist.   

[Shoshana]

You're making two fundamental mistakes. Atheism, first and foremost, is nothing - nothing - but the absence of belief in a god. You can be a religious atheist, you can be an irreligious atheist, you can be a nihilist atheist, anything you please. The only requirement is that you not believe in a god. That's all it means.

Well said!

I suspect many people aren't aware that, in certain religions, there's nothing uncommon about being a 'religious atheist.'

It's quite common in Judaism--every synagogue seems to have its atheists and agnostics. There are, I think,  two reasons for this. One is that Judaism is sort of a culture as well as a religion. (A culture you can convert into, but still a culture.) The other is because Judaism holds that deed is much more important than creed. You don't believe in G-d? Who cares? There are far more important questions, like what are you doing to help heal the world? Or even simpler questions, like will you help make a minyan (a quorum) so someone can say Kaddish while mourning? And, some rabbis might add, will you be an observant Jew regardless of what you think (or don't think) about G-d? 

Outside my own tradition, I've come to realize that certain forms of Buddhism also lend themselves easily to atheism, as do a few minority schools of thought in Hinduism. And, of course, you'll find the odd atheist or agnostic lurking even in creed-based religions like Christianity.

So the moral of the story is that atheism is no bar to being religious. 

[Nyarly]

I thought that atheism, while mostly the non-believe in deities, is the general lack of believe in any supernatural things. But if some forms of buddhism and some other religions are considered atheist, then that doesn't seem to be the case. Now I have to wonder if there is a term for any rejection of the supernatural...

[Chevalier des Poissons]

I thought that atheism, while mostly the non-believe in deities, is the general lack of believe in any supernatural things. But if some forms of buddhism and some other religions are considered atheist, then that doesn't seem to be the case. Now I have to wonder if there is a term for any rejection of the supernatural...

The term "Atheism" comes from the lack of Theologies, with the 'a' being the prefix for 'denial'. Atheism could be translated as non-Theism. It necessarily means that the person doesn't believe in any deities, which doesn't necessarily mean a denial. It is the same relationship as cold being the abscence of warm.

Something like that.

[Starlequin]

I'm not too sure that atheism can be translated as non-theism. I seem to recall an article (or something, that I have neither a title nor a link nor any other form of reference for) that agreed with Nyarly's definition for atheism, 'lack of belief in the existence of any form of supernatural power, entity, etc.' I think the problem here is just a confusion of the words, as they are (ridiculously) easy to transpose (atheism and nontheism). Nontheism is, I think, better defined as 'lack of concern regarding the existence--or nonexistence--of any form of supernatural power, entity, etc.' To put it simpler using a part of a discussion I once had with a friend on this topic:

Ask four people if there is/are (God, gods, ghosts, any other supernatural force).

A theist will say 'yes'.
An atheist will say 'no'.
An agnostic will say 'I don't know'.
A nontheist will say 'I don't care'.

(I know this is simplifying an impossibly complex issue to an almost ludicrous level, but it's only for illustrative purposes to hopefully help people form their arguments in more productive manners. If it helps someone, great; if not, just think to yourself 'well, this guy's an idiot' and move on with your discussions. Thank you.)

[Chevalier des Poissons]

I'm not too sure that atheism can be translated as non-theism.

I don't recall the exact language, but the origin of the term is that one I explained earlier.

[Starlequin]

Okay. <points to his 'this guy's an idiot' clause>

[Chevalier des Poissons]

Okay. <points to his 'this guy's an idiot' clause>

* Chevalier des Poissons is an idiot? D=

[Starlequin]

Nooo! This guy! Me! The one writing the post that you're reading right now! <points to self> OTL Not you, Chev. I'm quite certain you are far, far from being an idiot.

We apologize for the confusion.

[Jaybee]

As opposed to saying it in an insulting or sarcastic manner, which I suppose would be a form of deception, as in that case I wouldn't care about the answer.  Text can be so limiting. :)

Edit:  And along those lines, I took the above question to be a light-hearted dig at my choice of wording.

Quite right, it was.  When I'm posing a particularly contentious question, I sometimes follow it with, "That's not a challenge, merely a request for information", and let the other party handle it with whatever maturity, or lack thereof, he may possess.  There are few ways to smooth over a question, that happens to be my personal favourite.  Police are told to avoid 'why?' questions when speaking to witnesses/suspects etc, and instead use, "What were your reasons for..." as they have found the former can be perceived as a challenge that actually obstructs the flow of the desired information in situations where time is short.

Interesting point you make about sarcasm or veiled insult being a subcategory of deception, adds depth to the saying that "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit".  And feel free to dig back, anytime.  :)

[Hemingway]

Ask four people if there is/are (God, gods, ghosts, any other supernatural force).

A theist will say 'yes'.
An atheist will say 'no'.
An agnostic will say 'I don't know'.
A nontheist will say 'I don't care'.

A theist will answer yes only to the question of gods. An atheist, likewise, will only say no to the question of god. As far as ghosts and anything else supernatural goes, both can say either yes or no.

An agnostic will say "I don't know", but can be either theists or atheists. I would probably go so far as to say that you are never entirely agnostic, with no opinion at all - you either believe, or you don't.

As for "I don't care", that answer would probably come from an apatheist.

Non-theism is, as far as I can tell from half a second of research, an umbrella term. It seems to overlap with atheism, though.

As for a person lacking religion entirely, I prefer the term "infidel", because of its nice connotations.

I just felt the need to make this clear, because accurate definitions really are required in these debates. Otherwise you get arguments like, "atheism is a religion" and "atheism requires just as much faith as theism".

[Nyarly]

As for a person lacking religion entirely, I prefer the term "infidel", because of its nice connotations.

As someone who does lack religion entirely, I don't really know what I should feel about this. Nothing positive, that's for sure.

[Hemingway]

As someone who does lack religion entirely, I don't really know what I should feel about this. Nothing positive, that's for sure.

Look it up, and you'll find that definition, among a few others.

[Oniya]

While 'infidel', etymologically speaking, does indeed mean 'not (of the) faithful,' it has been used in a pejorative manner by Christians and Muslims alike.  This will probably overshadow any other definition when it is used in conversation, regardless of intent.

[Azrael Annavianna]

Just commenting that I have read several of Hawkings' books and he contradicts himself in them, using some laws to justify his theories and forgetting laws to allow his theories to take 'flight.'  He is merely looking for more book sales...

[Lithos]

Just commenting that I have read several of Hawkings' books and he contradicts himself in them, using some laws to justify his theories and forgetting laws to allow his theories to take 'flight.'  He is merely looking for more book sales...

I am curiously awaiting references on this one

[finewine]

Lol.

Falacy number two: False Dilemma. You assumed that I was having some animosity when I didn't even imply that you had such feeling. That's not polite I didn't even consider that fact towards you, so don't state that to me, you don't know what goes on in my mind, alright?

May we review the sequence of the whole conversation, my good fellow.

I think you were indirectly suggesting that I had animosity because of my comment about my viewpoint being valid. There was no need to remind me that  animosity is unsuited to this conversation if you did not suspect I may have felt animosity.

Munchausen's trillema: An argument is valid because of itself. Basically, is is true because it is true. It is a very interesting falacy, did you know? A typical implication of the animosity. Of course, we all know that such animosity is inappropriate, therefore unsuited to this conversation, right? The lack of proper argumentation is another issue.

I had no animosity.
And because you were quoting a rule of logic to support your position for implication of my animosity, your brain may have well been the brain harboring an animosity towards my viewpoint. Such associative behavior is taught in psychology classes in university.
I therefore wrote

It was in your mind so perhaps you are the one showing animosity through your virtue of logic.

Falacy number two: False Dilemma. You assumed that I was having some animosity when I didn't even imply that you had such feeling. That's not polite  I didn't even consider that fact towards you, so don't state that to me, you don't know what goes on in my mind, alright?

Your first fallacy rule of logic did in fact imply to me that I had such feelings.
I shall ask you to also be reminded that you do not know what goes on in my mind.

The logic unfortunately has led to the wrong conclusion based on an implication that is false.

For any offense that I may have caused you, I apologize, dear Chevalier des Poissons.

[Chevalier des Poissons]

Then apologize twice, because you just tried AGAIN to distort my explanation and invent what I wasn't thinking.

Analyze my words AGAIN:

Munchausen's trillema: An argument is valid because of itself. Basically, is is true because it is true. It is a very interesting falacy, did you know? A typical implication of the animosity. Of course, we all know that such animosity is inappropriate, therefore unsuited to this conversation, right? The lack of proper argumentation is another issue.

Carefully, this time.

Is there ANY implications that I was referring animosity to you? No, I was -not-. And yet you insist on that even if I denied twice. NOW I state something: You are being arrogant. You are denying not only what I stated about you (I did NOT imply that you had animosity) but also denying what I state about MYSELF.

This is offensive. And I will ask you to refrain your opinions about what I am thinking or seeing, because all I did was to point a logical falacy in your argument. I didn't even try to think about the person saying those arguments.

You used false dilemma to corner my posts into both state that I was wrong (that is fine) and that I had the animosity in myself, which is also not true. In any moments I gave any signs that I was trying to guess what happens inside your mind and even stated it clearly. Yet, you deny it. I won't even wonder why, you made me too disgusted. You just complained about what you did to me three times. I am not going to say anything about it, because when I didn't say you thought I was doing something - and ignored when I said otherwise, of course - so, if I say what I am thinking, you will probably take me as a stalker who is invadind your life And I was just trying to help you with your debate. I am an idiot, I know.

Please, don't drive your words to me anymore. I am going to add you to my ignore list and forget you ever existed.

Thank you for nothing.

[finewine]

Note my usage of "If you think," I was not putting words in your mouth, that's a key part of what I said.  It's a conditional.The unlikeliness of god is not a choice that arises out of personal analysis, it's a consequence of scientific principles (and experimentally proven fact -- there have been studies done on the matter).  When examining two competing theories, if one has a portion that can be removed without lessening the theory's ability to explain and interpret the data, then the theory which contains fewer non-essential (ad hoc) concepts is far more likely to be true.

Your point on your word usage is noted.  "If you think" is a challenging phrase in conflict resolution.

But I will say that studies can be biased towards the group that funds them and who truly knows the truth anymore in our age of information overload.  Selective spin doctoring is an art especially when you have billions in grant money riding on the results.  I will always try to find the funding source of all studies scientific.  I'm not discounting the science already proven and experimentally repeatable.  I will be a skeptic until I can trust the source of the studies or see the evidence for myself.

I'd be concerned if God could be proven easily with the scientific principles and experimentally proven fact of our finite human minds. To be able to confine God into our finite human existence would mean that he is only a construct of our minds and not the infinite being.
Who knows, Jude, perhaps we are nothing more than the embryo and the 'big bang' was the moment of conception and the universe is the womb. What does the future hold? It is exciting to contemplate on it.

I don't emphasize this because I want to beat down the religious.  I have my own series of improbable thoughts that I hold dear.

I would be interested in reading them.

I even have religious thoughts from time to time (though my religious inclinations tend to be far more abstract and strange than what most people experience except in times of crisis where I resort to the same "god help me" thinking that most people do).  I emphasize this because the ways in which religion do harm to the world, I think, come from confidence in belief.

You don't have to be an extremist to want to do charitable acts, which is one of the better things that religion encourages people to do.  However, you do have to be a very confident extremist to believe justifications offered for holy wars, terrorism, theocratic impulses, and other forms of demented ascetic behavior. I'm not making this point because I feel like you're an example of an extremist, not at all, you seem very intelligent and accepting.  It's simply an idea that you've given me the opportunity to elaborate on through our discussion.

I agree with you.  You can also be extremely confident and do great things for  humanity as well.
I think the harm comes from the human heart that seeks to make religion the bitch/slave to the agenda of man.
The truth of God as I know it is not one of man conquering or killing man for political agendas.

I fully believe in your right to have your views and the validity of them, that's why I'm no longer an atheist (though I was more of an anti-theist really).  I even think most religious ideas are good for societal overall.  I do not believe the world would be a better place without religion.

It's a pleasure to have a conversation with you, Jude.  Thank you. 
I would like to read your improbable thoughts in a new thread or PM if ever you'd like an audience or have the inclination to share them.

[finewine]

Then apologize twice, because you just tried AGAIN to distort my explanation and invent what I wasn't thinking.

Then I shall apologize to you thrice, and what is the word for 4X, 5X and 7X 700, my good fellow.

I did was to point a logical falacy in your argument. I didn't even try to think about the person saying those arguments.

A typical implication of the animosity

I do not understand why it was important in the exposition of my error that the first rule implied animosity unless you wanted to generate animosity.

I didn't realize you were trying to teach me how to debate?
Now that you've said that, your reason for writing the fallacies is better understood.

so, if I say what I am thinking, you will probably take me as a stalker who is invadind your life And I was just trying to help you with your debate. I am an idiot, I know.

Olive branch and white flag are offered.

You are not an idiot, you are not a stalking invading my life, and I thank you for trying to help me with my debate.
If you wish to say what you are thinking, you may.

Heartsmiles,
FW