‘There is NO GOD’ Stephen Hawking’s final revelation of the afterlife REVEALED

Ralph
Verified User

This message is hidden because Ralph is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:00 PM
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

This message is hidden because USFREEDOM911 is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:02 PM
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

This message is hidden because USFREEDOM911 is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:08 PM
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck

This message is hidden because Rob Larrikin is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:29 PM
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck

This message is hidden because Rob Larrikin is on your ignore list.
 
winged.., like a bird.

Larrikin LOL. Hitler was endowed with left wingedness. Bahaha

Is that a St Petersberg translation courtesy of babelfish.

Your arguments will make me vote republican, especially when you butcher our language.
 
"The very first witchdoctor persecuted the very first inventor. It’s been that way ever since. There is a perfect political and psychological reason for that.

The witchdoctor holds a vital job dependent on the chief believing he knows his magic. Should the chief lose confidence in the witchdoctor, it could mean his life. Each time the witchdoctor tosses some bones on the ground and makes a prediction, he worries that if his prediction doesn’t work out, the chief might have him stoned to death. He lives a dangerous life.

One way to keep his position safe is to eliminate the competition. One day a guy invents a way to start a fire using friction. This is mind-blowing. The witchdoctor sees it and is jealous. He realizes his position is threatened by this upstart and decides to fix the problem by turning it against the inventor. He declares the man a devil, and his fire making a devil’s trick, frowned upon by God. He orders the man killed immediately, and his invention destroyed and never spoken of again. The chief never gets to hear about it.

Witchdoctors held back science in this way for millennia. Only when the inventor was lucky enough to survive witchdoctors, and general religious superstitions were the inventions able to survive.

Galileo? He was victim number 3,930,832." RL #660
Your witch-doctor counterpoint is noted, not disputed.

My comment wasn't intended as an absolute report on all human history, but rather a relative point on our culture.

The dominant religion in U.S. culture is Christianity. And though the pope surely doesn't speak for Protestants, the Catholic Church has sort of become the symbolic church politics leader of Christendom.

As you may know RL, some extremely impressive science has been done by churchmen.

Forgive me for dwelling on Newton, but he attended Trinity College at the University of Cambridge.

Gregor Mendel figured out genetics a century before Watson & Crick discovered genes.

Reportedly the guys that figured out sparkling wine ("champagne") were monks.

My intended point is science was the hand-maid of religion, science revealed god's glory, until science exposed error in holy scripture.

And as you say, as it was with the clan's shaman, so it was with the Catholic Church.

The key to the efficacy of the rain dance is excellent timing.
 
IN #631

IN asserts Newton provided one law, not 3.

The following is an image of a Latin text, apparently authentic to not only what Newton taught, but how he taught it.

5dc633822f9dc96a3e49e14062bd0770.jpg


My ancient Latin is a bit rusty.
But it looks to me like this text lists 3 laws, not one.

Please understand IN,
I wouldn't correct you so frequently, if you'd stop posting so many errors.
 
Your witch-doctor counterpoint is noted, not disputed.

My comment wasn't intended as an absolute report on all human history, but rather a relative point on our culture.

The dominant religion in U.S. culture is Christianity. And though the pope surely doesn't speak for Protestants, the Catholic Church has sort of become the symbolic church politics leader of Christendom.

As you may know RL, some extremely impressive science has been done by churchmen.

Forgive me for dwelling on Newton, but he attended Trinity College at the University of Cambridge.

Gregor Mendel figured out genetics a century before Watson & Crick discovered genes.

Reportedly the guys that figured out sparkling wine ("champagne") were monks.

My intended point is science was the hand-maid of religion, science revealed god's glory, until science exposed error in holy scripture.

And as you say, as it was with the clan's shaman, so it was with the Catholic Church.

The key to the efficacy of the rain dance is excellent timing.

If science was going to get done, it was under the aegis of the all controlling catholic church.
I find your observations nothing short of disgusting. The acceleration rate of science with the DEATH of religion has been exponential.
Imagine if you will where we could be already if not for the church's antipathy for science. Knowledge is power, and so science is the enemy
of the church. And battle it they did, every step of the way.

I did appreciate working champagne into that horrible apologia.
 
IN #631

IN asserts Newton provided one law, not 3.

The following is an image of a Latin text, apparently authentic to not only what Newton taught, but how he taught it.

5dc633822f9dc96a3e49e14062bd0770.jpg


My ancient Latin is a bit rusty.
But it looks to me like this text lists 3 laws, not one.

Please understand IN,
I wouldn't correct you so frequently, if you'd stop posting so many errors.

Scientists had to censor their own work not to be killed by christians. Yuck.
 
Your second to last sentence is a lie, show one instance of anyone here asserting that one can prove the existence or disprove the existence of god.
However, were a 500 foot bearded man with a harp to walk from over the horizon, make it rain frogs and part the seas with his thoughts we would all agree a god had been proven.
Still wouldn't be a proof of a god. It is just proof of someone has frogs raining nearby and can make use of seas that happen to have parted. BTW, Moses was not a god.
What religious people seemingly fails to apprehend is that theirs is a false assumed dichotomy.
There is only the real world, the natural world, the observed world. There is no imagined world
other than the chemistry in the brain associated with that undertaking. Nobody needs to prove that
nothing is nothing, and the only way to demonstrate anything is by supplying something real.
Welcome to your new paradox. Are you trying to disprove God or not? Which is it?
That presents a paradox for believers.
Inversion fallacy.
 
When new facts are discovered science updates itself, cannot say that about religions and their bibles where bats are called birds and references to unicorns and stars fall to the sky :laugh:

Where in the Bible does it call a bat a bird?

Where in the Bible is there a reference to a unicorn?

'Stars' do fall from the sky. Ever hear of meteors?
 
Child's play
for those that use their own head for something other than keeping rain out of their neck.

It's a logical, and indisputable proof that god exists.

a) The cosmos can be divided into two categories:
a1) those things that are man-made
a2) everything else

b) We call that "everything else" (a2) "creation". That's what it's called!

c) Well? If there is a creaTION then there must be a CreaTOR, by definition.

d) And the religionists have planted their linguistic flag on calling our CreaTOR "god".

Every time you eat a Brussels sprout you're proving god exists.

Have a nice day, by god.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). it is not possible to prove any god or gods exist.
The Theory of Creation is but one theory about the origin of life on Earth. The other is the Theory of Abiogenesis. Neither theory is a theory of science. Both theories remain circular arguments...and religions.

BTW, the Theory of Creation does not even require a god as the 'intelligence'. For all we know, we could be the result of some horrible accident in an alien lab and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.
 
Larrikin LOL. Hitler was endowed with left wingedness. Bahaha

There are hundreds of pages of hard evidence. All you have to do is look.

“He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.”​



[My task is to] “convert the German volk (people) to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”

Source


“If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites – and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose.” “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?”

Source


We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”.

Source


“Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

Hitler’s idea of national unity was to take socialism directly to the people. He wanted socialism to not just be about nationalizing industry, but nationalizing the people themselves. The people are the servants of the state, and socialism was the solution all of society’s ills.

Source

More
 
IN #631

IN asserts Newton provided one law, not 3.

The following is an image of a Latin text, apparently authentic to not only what Newton taught, but how he taught it.

5dc633822f9dc96a3e49e14062bd0770.jpg


My ancient Latin is a bit rusty.
But it looks to me like this text lists 3 laws, not one.

Please understand IN,
I wouldn't correct you so frequently, if you'd stop posting so many errors.

Newton was English. All 'three' of his laws is just one law: F=mA.
 
And my conclusion is this:
Most of those denying the existence of God are usually someone who had a problem they wanted God to "fix" and it didn't happen, so that means there is no God.

God answers all prayers and sometimes the answer is NO.

Heh. Fairly true, although I might point out that they may not have seen the answer, blinded by their own pride.
 
Your witch-doctor counterpoint is noted, not disputed.

My comment wasn't intended as an absolute report on all human history, but rather a relative point on our culture.

The dominant religion in U.S. culture is Christianity. And though the pope surely doesn't speak for Protestants, the Catholic Church has sort of become the symbolic church politics leader of Christendom.

As you may know RL, some extremely impressive science has been done by churchmen.

Forgive me for dwelling on Newton, but he attended Trinity College at the University of Cambridge.

Gregor Mendel figured out genetics a century before Watson & Crick discovered genes.

Reportedly the guys that figured out sparkling wine ("champagne") were monks.

My intended point is science was the hand-maid of religion, science revealed god's glory, until science exposed error in holy scripture.

And as you say, as it was with the clan's shaman, so it was with the Catholic Church.

The key to the efficacy of the rain dance is excellent timing.

I must not have mentioned; the guy who figured out how to make fire (the one that wasn't killed off) believed all of the witchdoctor's words. There wasn't much choice. If the witchdoctor thought his life was dangerous, the common tribal serf was equally scared. One sign that you didn't believe and it was a stoning for you. So you sacrificed to the weather God as everyone else did. There was no choice. In more recent times any scientist who said he was an atheist would have been shunned and treated like a leper. Most would not have been able to do their studies or receive their research grants, etc.
 
Hitler’s National Socialist Worker’s Party (The Nazi Party) nationalized factories, took over companies, dictated production to private corporations, set price and wage controls, destroyed large retail outlets, maintained universal health care, placed limits on stock dividends, controlled capital and the means of production. The Socialist label Hitler picked was very deliberately chosen, for very clear reasons.

For those who say that Hitler hated other socialists; so what? Hating other socialists doesn’t cancel out one’s socialism, just as hating other capitalists doesn’t cancel out one’s capitalism. Also, there are different types of socialists. Stalin killed Trotsky. Because the Nazis killed certain socialists is no argument that they themselves weren't socialists. Who says that socialist A can't kill socialist B? It happens throughout modern history.

As to the "outlawing of labor unions", this is evidence the Nazis were central planners. When a central government bans or outlaws any non-violent activity, it is evidence of central planning, not some free market or unregulated society.

Quite often Socialists purge or murder various groups, minorities and races. Hitler did this with Jews, blacks, gypsies, and others. The Soviet Union did the same with different groups, including Jews. Mao purged various groups too, as did Kim.

“In November 1948, Soviet authorities launched a campaign to liquidate what was left of Jewish culture. The leading members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with treason, bourgeois nationalism and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve American interests. The Museum of Environmental Knowledge of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (established in November 1944) and The Jewish Museum in Vilnius (established at the end of the war) were closed down in 1948. The Historical-Ethnographic Museum of Georgian Jewry, established in 1933, was shut down at the end of 1951.”

Stalin and antisemitism - Wikipedia

Nazis took over the means of production. Some examples include Junkers Flugzeug.

Junkers - Wikipedia

There was the automobile industry:

"Hitler envisioned widespread car ownership as part of the new Germany. He arranged for designer Ferdinand Porsche to draw up plans for the KdF-wagen (Strength Through Joy car), intended to be an automobile that every German citizen could afford."

Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

Wage and price controls.

"Göring instituted wage and price controls and restricted the issuance of stock dividends."

Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

Controlling retail stores

“The Nazis were determined to eliminate the presence of large department stores (many of which were owned by Jews), and began to implement policies to curb their influence and expansion. Strict licensing requirements and temporary bans (all of which became permanent even after their expiry date) were passed which had an immediate effect on retail."

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

Dictating to industry

Cars and other forms of motorized transport became increasingly attractive to the population, and the German motor industry boomed.[37] However, the government in Berlin banned many types of vehicles and allowed the production of only 19 different models of cars and trucks.[38] This decreased consumer choice and profits, and combined with rubber shortages to create what an American observer called, “drastic restrictions on the use of motor vehicles”.

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

Let’s not forget Germany's Universal Health Care, which the Nazis kept.

After WWII, Socialists in the West were very embarrassed by revelations about National Socialist Hitler’s atrocities. They scurried to distance themselves from him, by labeling him a “right winged fascist.” This was to protect the Left from his actions. This was okay as long as the Liberal media were in charge of information, but when the internet came along, the myth was exposed. Today many millions are setting the record straight online. A Bing search brings up millions of results.

Nice comprehensive description of what the NAZI party was, and who Hitler was.
 
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). it is not possible to prove any god or gods exist.
The Theory of Creation is but one theory about the origin of life on Earth. The other is the Theory of Abiogenesis. Neither theory is a theory of science. Both theories remain circular arguments...and religions.

BTW, the Theory of Creation does not even require a god as the 'intelligence'. For all we know, we could be the result of some horrible accident in an alien lab and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.

Where did this "alien lab" come from and how did those "aliens" come into existence??
 
Heh. Fairly true, although I might point out that they may not have seen the answer, blinded by their own pride.

True and it reminds me of a "story".

There was a flood and people were evacuating.
One man decided to stay and pretty soon the water surrounded his home.
A man in a canoe came by and told him - "Get in, I've got room for you and I'll take you to safety".
The man said - "No thanks, I'm putting my trust in the Lord".

Pretty soon the water go higher and he went to the second floor.
A man in a rowboat came by, with several other people in it, and told him - "Get in, I've got room for you and I'll take you to safety.".
The man said - "No thanks, I'm putting my trust in the Lord.".

The water kept climbing and eventually the man had to get on his roof.
A man in a speedboat came by, with several other people in it, and told him - "You're the last one left; get in, I've got room for you and I'll take you to safety.".
The man said - "No thanks, I'm putting my trust in the Lord.".

The water kept climbing and the man eventually drowned.

As he was standing by the Pearly Gates, he complained to God - "I put my trust in you, why didn't you save me?".
And God replied - "I sent three boats.".
 
"I find your observations nothing short of disgusting." M #665
Noted.
However I also note, "disgusting", the exact word you've chosen & used, is not a synonym for incorrect.
So you're not disputing my account, merely confessing "I find your observations nothing short of disgusting."
I'd invite you to refute any fact you believe I've stated in error. But if you could do that you'd already have done so. So what you're hinting at is that you find a reliable accounting of history "disgusting".
Perhaps you're right. Torquemada paved the way for ISIL, in chronology if not ideology / methodology.
"The acceleration rate of science with the DEATH of religion has been exponential." M
Oh?
We'd need a precise definition of terms. But I suspect there are more religionists alive today than there were when JC strode the Earth (IF JC strode the Earth at all).
"Imagine if you will where we could be already if not for the church's antipathy for science." M
I suppose that thought has crossed many a freethinker's mind. Seth MacFarlane did so in charming animation.

BUT !!

I've never seen a one-sided coin.
Where would science be without great scientific contributors like Sir Isaac Newton?
"Scientists had to censor their own work not to be killed by christians. Yuck." M #666 (savor the irony)
In some rare cases perhaps.
But your free-floating, un-articulated resentment seems akin to that of jilted lover more than acknowledgement of history.

In any case, even if Sir Isaac did feel some pressure to avoid appearing to be religiously incorrect, I seriously doubt that explains why Newton listed his fundamental of physics with three laws, rather than the one (singular) insisted upon earlier in this thread.

Please note, for the remainder of this post IN #671 takes both sides of the argument.
"Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). it is not possible to prove any god or gods exist." IN #671
That's a dismissal, not a logical refutation.
And not only is my proof here to fore un-assailed. It, unlike some lesser religious approaches, has utility for skeptics, agnostics, and perhaps even atheists.
"The Theory of Creation is but one theory about the origin of life on Earth. The other is the Theory of Abiogenesis. Neither theory is a theory of science. Both theories remain circular arguments...and religions." IN #671
Excellent.
You're ruled out the primary two, which means you have in mind the third and factually correct explanation. Please share.
Thanks.
"BTW, the Theory of Creation does not even require a god as the 'intelligence'. " IN #671
If you understood the proof I've already posted you wouldn't be telling me that. For if you understood the proof I've already posted, you'd then understand I've already told you that.
 
"believed all of the witchdoctor's words."
I'd be careful to consider it a binary.

It's easy to "misunderestimate" the uneducated mind.
But even a few astute cave dwellers realized, skepticism is a 3rd option.

They lacked many of the mental / thinking tools we have in the 3rd millennium.

BUT !!

What resulted was they honed those fewer thinking tools they had to an even finer edge. Neville Chamberlain didn't invent appeasement. He just shmeared a more vivid shade of lipstick on it.
 
Back
Top