"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

[g3org3y]

Says Stephen Hawking.

Guardian said:

A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

Full article here.

[g3org3y]

cal72 said:

Billions of people beleive in a god they can't all be wrong, can they?

I didn't realise Simon Cowell's success with X Factor had stretched so far!

[g3org3y]

ewenm said:

Really? Why not? Given the number of different religions around the world and throughout humanity, we do seem to be predisposed to deity-worship. I'm just wondering why that is.

A need and a desire for explaining/understanding why we are here.

As humans we want answers, we want understanding. It's fundamental.

[g3org3y]

GilbertGrape said:

"Unseen dimensions" (String theory) are perfectly believable however.

The difference is that this IS a theory. It is someone's 'best guess'. It does not profess to be the all explaining truth (unlike religion).

Science is based on questioning current practice, questioning current ideas. Scientists like nothing more than blowing a 'rival's' ideas out of the water.

Science tries to apply reason to observations and experimentation, constantly refining our best guesses until there is enough evidence for them to be considered 'fact' (whatever facts are, but that's another topic).

In my mind, this is opposite to religion which sets rules which are categorically stated to be fact. No arguments, no debates. Believe and you'll be saved. Don't believe and you'll be going to hell.

[g3org3y]

GilbertGrape said:

Belief in evolution is not disimilar to what you have described. Believe it and be accepted by other believers. Don't believe, and you haven't got your thinking cap on.

The differnce is, the theory of evolution is based on evidence/observation. It has stood up to much scrutiny over the years.

Don't forget, Darwin was a religious man. The discovery of evolution caused him much metnal angst as it seemed to contradict his beliefs as a Christian.

The concept of 'intelligent design' (or whatever they call it now) states that the whole thing was over in 7 days and is based on some stories in a book.

Did humans walk with dinosaurs? Is the universe 6000 years old?

I'll stick with the scientific observation thanks.

[g3org3y]

[redacted]

[g3org3y]

[redacted]

[g3org3y]

GilbertGrape said:

Have you observed macro evolution? Oh, you've never witnessed one species changing to another either?

Observable indeed.

Is there an irony here that I'm supposed to be presenting 'observable evidence'?

Am I supposed to check the fossil records myself?

Ever seen evidence of God?

Evidence of scientific theories are on display in museums and discussed in peer reviewed scientific journals. Evidence of relgion? Fear of hell and a full collection plate.

[g3org3y]

GilbertGrape said:

Why haven't you checked the fossil record? You have faith that the fossil record shows man evolved from apes? You have faith in what is written about evolution. Don't you?

Do you believe that all life started from goo/soup? Where is the observable, testable evidence for this? Don't you just have faith that it's all true?

I have faith in what's written in my Bible.

I don't need to check it personally. This is why we have peer reviewed research. Research and science is always under constant scrutiny with regards to the theories it presents.

I don't have 'faith' in 'beginning of universe theories' as they are theories/best guesses/potential explainations. The very scientists suggesting them present them as such.

Science: 'Well, we don't know how everything started but here's our best guess'.

Religion: 'This IS how it started. It doesn't matter if observable evidence suggests otherwise. This is the truth. Accept it or see you in hell'.

[g3org3y]

ATG said:

g3org3y said:

Religion: 'This IS how it started. It doesn't matter if observable evidence suggests otherwise. This is the truth. Accept it or see you in hell'.

Here's a good example of a really silly straw man argument. Religion does not say that. Some religious people might take that point of view, but a vast number don't ... including the leaders of the CofE and the RC church, for example.

So how does the scientific evidence suggesting the age of the universe/fossils/dinosaurs/evolution fit in with the book of Genesis?

Or is the Bible now not considered a 'factual account' (which I believed it was supposed to be)?

As science progresses, Christianity seems to view the Bible less as a factual account and more as a moral ocmpass guiding us to do good.

A few more years and the bible will be no better thought of than a collection of Aesop's fables.

[g3org3y]

[redacted]

[g3org3y]

Diesel Fury said:

g3org3y said:

So how does the scientific evidence suggesting the age of the universe/fossils/dinosaurs/evolution fit in with the book of Genesis?

Or is the Bible now not considered a 'factual account' (which I believed it was supposed to be)?

As science progresses, Christianity seems to view the Bible less as a factual account and more as a moral ocmpass guiding us to do good.

A few more years and the bible will be no better thought of than a collection of Aesop's fables.

As I understand, the Church (both Roman and Anglican) hasn't taken Genesis literally for years. There have been a few different interpretations over the years, but I think* the most common/accepted amongst the leaders is that it's pretty much just a very, very long metaphor which links up with actual history around the time of Moses.

I could be totally wrong though.

• don't quote me. And no, I'm not suggesting I don't think!

As I said in my post, just a matter of time before the bible is considered a 'posh Aesop's fable'. Although I'm not sure what the moral would be!

[g3org3y]

carmonk said:

Riknos said:

I honestly, and I'm not trolling here in the slightest, but serious would consider something similar to The Matrix being more accurate than the whole god and heaven/hell thing..

..Seriously, it sounds way more plausible to me!

Some scientists believe it's not only likely but pretty much certain to be the case. Then again, scientists are often no better at speculating than anybody else.

But scientists will freely admit this is speculation and not 'the truth' (which is the major difference when compared to their religious counterparts).

[g3org3y]

ChiChoAndy said:

Very good indeed!

With regards to GG and his view of evolution, etc... I think GG may be a woman...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

7 parts to this. Marvel at the sheer wide eyed stupidity.

Who the fk is this Wendy Wright idiot?

Concerning.

The sooner religion is all done away with, the sooner we can get on in the world.

[g3org3y]

GilbertGrape said:

Oh right. So, because I can drink coffee and read the paper under artificial light means that the big bang theory and evolution theory is true.

That means science can just blurt out random imaginings and it will be true because we have lights and other marvels of technology. Science cannot be wrong about anything if these rules apply.

[g3org3y]

nelly1 said:

Worth a watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk&fea...

Just great, really really great. Thanks for sharing.

[g3org3y]

rxtx said:

Regarding the title of this thread, whatever you do don't read the thread on raptureforums on the same subject

raptureforums said:

Stephen Hawking, like a lot of really smart guys, is looking for answers in the wrong places. The Bible substantiates everything from history to science and just about everything in between

Somone email Hawking, he's looking in the wrong place.

[g3org3y]

Einion Yrth said:

On the whole I think people find it difficult, and somewhat unnerving, to conceive of ceasing to exist. For good or ill we are the centre of our own universe and many find the concepts that existance is both short and without any overwheening purpose hard to take.

Yes. Totally.

I am a devoted follower of science. I am fascinated, inspired and awed by our discoveries. I just can't help feeling in a way 'short changed' that I'll go through my life and not get 'the' answer.

For all one's inner complexities: of thought, of emotion, the concept of self, existing and being 'you'; that acceptance of insignificance is exceptionally difficult to understand and truly accept.

Ignorance is bliss. It really is. The more you learn, you realise the less you really know.

I suppose Socrates was onto something: "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing".

A bit of perspective: Pale blue dot, commentary by the great Sagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lm6pEhykhs

Epic. There is no other word.

[g3org3y]

RonnieP said:

You believe in the Stephen Hawking/Dawking crap I'll have my faith anyday - sleep well

When the door hits you on the way out, be sure to turn the other cheek.

[g3org3y]

Pale Blue Dot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Epic. Perspective.

Everything else is bks imo.