Stephen Hawking said this:
>Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation... I'm an atheist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
He was right.
Science Defeated Religion
>OP understands science
My understanding of science is very limited. But I think his point is that we don't need to use speculations like "God" anymore. We should look at HARD EVIDENCE, which is what science does.
OP confirmed underage. I adapted his views when I first read the history of time in my teens and started reddit tier atheism but over time I realize religion is only thing we need to get rid of homosexualry and degeneration
>I had to start believing in god to stop being gay
>we need religion for [my political views]
I don't care what purposes you want to use religion for. The only relevant question is whether religion is true or false.
I think it's false, made up, fictional, not real.
Atheism, like religion, is a social construct. It’s made up, fictional, and not real. Same as science.
>being aware that social constructs are not real
>...is also le not real
fedoras get a lot of flak but this would be a pretty gay edgy take if you actually believed it
Science seems to be real, unlike God.
Here's your based right-wing church bro.
?si=aGrKH5VPhkwQobMH
Do you watch porn?
Used to. But not anymore
It's easy to solve a problem when the solution creates it retroactively. You hate things that are different that is fine, but do you have to create this cosmic lore to annoy people instead of just leaving people alone?
>we need HARD EVIDENCE
>Renormalization? What's that?
>Problem of Induction? What's that?
>Munchhausen Trilemma? What's that?
Keep slurping that goyslop, boy.
>hurr durr we can't actually ever know anything at all
Yes it is clear enough that this science b***h is being manipulated by motivated liars to castrate their intellectual capacity and train them not to think at all
not you though, no sir; you can be as certain of that as you can be about anything.
lol it's exactly this meme
Prove that our consciousness moves to an afterlife after death then. Go on.
You don't understand the latter has some abstract "proof" that the former doesn't
Of course neither of them are proven, he is constructing a straw man by pretending that all atheists believe we live in a simulation.
The point is that the notion we live in a simulation is heavily promoted by pop science celebrities like Stephen Hawking who claim it's impossible that the universe was created by an intelligent being
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=Light
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=Long&q1=Light
us atheists don't believe in science, we're non-believers
Many atheists believe in the reliability of science
Frick off leave
Did Hawking promote the simulation theory? I'm not aware of him doing so, though he could have.
>Frick off leave
Not an argument.
"Science" (academia) has actually lost a lot of ground in terms of credibility thanks to some of its more preposterous claims:
* Sex isn't real, you can become a woman by identifying as one
* Darwinian evolution for everything except humans; race isn't real, tabula rasa for us
* Climate change alarmism that basically amounts to secular eschatology
From a purely objective standpoint, "science" (academia) is less credible than Christianity, since there's a greater than zero likelihood that God exists more-or-less as described in the Bible and that Christ is the Messiah, whereas the likelihood that identifying as a woman makes you one is precisely zero.
>whereas the likelihood that identifying as a woman makes you one is precisely zero
Hey would the likelihood of that be zero of magic is real? Perhaps one could argue that the accidents are male but the substance is female.
God i.e. "intelligent design" is just another fringe hypothesis like miasma, souls, the 4 elements & aether, the world of forms or the 5 humours.
It is ultimately unnecessary with our current understanding of the world derived from our latest scientific observations.
We live in a uncreated transformative nominalistic world.
>God i.e. "intelligent design" is just another fringe hypothesis like miasma, souls, the 4 elements & aether, the world of forms or the 5 humours.
I definitely agree with this.
>We live in a uncreated... world
Perhaps. Or maybe it was created, but we don't know that yet. It could be created, or uncreated. I think the only way we will find out is by doing more science.
Both of them come from empirical EVIDENCE. We believe Caesar existed due to EVIDENCE.
And yes in my view even 2 + 2 = 4 comes from evidence. "2 + 2 = 4" describes a way in which the empirically observed universe behaves.
The ideas that Julius Caesar existed and 2+2=4 are just fringe hypotheses because these conclusions aren't derived from empirical science.
The idea that magic israelites who split oceans, walk on water and fly into space are empirical and backed by the scientific method
What differentiates Julius Caesar from Jesus of Nazareth, King Arthur or Romulus & Remus is the credibility & plausibility of their existence through historical and archeological records and the amount of mysticism/fantastical claims surrounding them which works to their discredit.
History is merely the archeological study of written records & the attempt at establishing a coherent plausible temporality & course of events through dating.
We work through consensus actively questioning them whenever we become aware of new elements.
>we can never be sure!!!!
There is a point where the evidence is so present and undeniable that it is futile and unreasonable to further question.
Did WW2 happen? No one is questioninh gthat especially with remaining living evidence.
Of course we'll always have uncertainty especially with finer details due the nature of information of being simplified, corrupted, exaggerated, incomplete or lost. But it remains so we have to draw a line for clarity and the least we can do is make it the least arbitrary possible by reviewing possibility & credence.
Julius Caesar's existence is heavily supported by dated artefacts, art & mentions in literature from the era he is determined to have lived in accordance to the events that occured.
Jesus's case he only appears in records years after his supposed life, the credibility of the texts is questionable with heavy mysticism beyond one given to a typical historical figure more akin to myth than legend. Beyond the supernatural claims there could have been a hellenized rabbi named Yeshua preaching his sect of judaism and later becoming mystified by his followers. But that wouldn'y be "Jesus Christ" to you, right? Your "Jesus Christ" figure walking on water & resurrecting from the dead is obviously non credible and fabricated.
>Beyond the supernatural claims there could have been a hellenized rabbi named Yeshua preaching his sect of judaism and later becoming mystified by his followers.
Indeed, I think historians generally think Jesus existed, but that doesn't mean he was the son of God. He was probably just a preacher who gained a following.
why am i suppose to give a frick what a moronic Epstein's friend says?
This tbh.
He was far smarter than you will ever be
It is actually
>Problem of Induction
Do you think the sun won't rise tomorrow?
Science is our best method for understanding the universe
>he was smart because he associated himself with a sex trafficker and talked a lot about secularslop using his zany computer voice
Science is pozzed
As an atheist, it's not theism I have beef with. It's Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for being fricking moronic religions that produce fricking moronic apes.
>worked along the catholic church
>survives several decades despite his condition
>comes to the conclusion that god is not real
>dies not a long time after that
>Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation, that once for no reason at all there was a big explosion and it created all laws of the universe
wow bravo science