Kirk Cameron Attacks Stephen Hawking

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Stephen Hawkins can't even see the sky without help. I'm not suprised he can't envision heaven.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Shades

Let's make this easy. Catholics make up what percentage of Christians? Now examine how they view the Pope, the Cross, and contrast it to what the Bible says about men and idols. Now add all "Christans" that have ever been involved in war and politics. Yes, the majority of "Christians" are hypocrites or just plain ignorant of the Bible. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be such a backlash against it.

Okay I understand where you are coming from there. From my viewpoint I was considering only Evangelistic Christians, in which case I think it would be a little tougher to prove that majority of that group are hypocrites.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Shades

Lurker for years on CP, and what I have found interesting is that many posters alway highlight articles featuring religious nut jobs that obviously have viewpoints that are not biblically based

Many do get their views from the Bible, their interpretation of the Bible just differs from yours.

It's usually the nutjobs that get posted because those are the funny/interesting/crazy ones. No one posts a video of a guy walking down stairs in the funny video thread, they post a video of a guy falling down the stairs.

I see a lot of these nutjob stories and videos on a Christian blog I frequent too, I don't think he's commenting on religion or Christianity in general.

Originally Posted by Shades

For those in customer support, you understand what I mean. There's nothing wrong with the instruction manual. It's just the end user that doesn't know how to read, refuses to read, interprets it wrong, reads it out of context or plain just doesn't want to follow the directions.

But if there's enough people that get it wrong, then there could be something wrong with the instruction manual.

Originally Posted by Shades

The Bible and science are completely compatible and harmonious. And whether you believe in ID or evolution, both have unexplainable beginnings.

Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, makes predictions that are confirmed, and has explanatory power. ID has none of that, it isn't a science at all.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Just to clarify what you're saying; your problem with atheists is that we are examining the claims made by vocal theists and finding them to be lacking truth and moral fibre. And this is the fault of Christians that blindly accept the dogma of the church.

Is that what you just said?
I'm not trying to "score a point," I just want to clarify what (I think) you just said.

Partially, however I have no problem with Atheists. I understand why they would feel how they do about Christianity and God. And it is fun poking holes in some Christians claims. But don't you find most of the vocal ones are just seeking their own personal gain. Why are so many millionaires, why are many churches so extravagant? Is it really fair to base your thoughts about the validity of the Bible by those types?

Now I think maybe you were trying to get me to say answer "Yes" to your question in order to then directly discredit the Bible itself.

A while back someone posted a graph of "inaccuracies" of the bible. If someone took to the time to research them, 95% would be explained and eliminated within minutes. But it's easier to just post an overwhelming graph with hundreds of scriptures and present that as evidence without looking it over oneself, isn't it?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Interesting...Cameron makes a good point but people just seem to ignore it. Just because Hawkings says in his scientific view Heaven doesn't exist doesn't make it true. Cameron is right in that fact that Hawkings can't prove that Heaven doesn't exist.

Hawking didn't say that though, so Cameron is right about something he made up. Gold star for Cameron?

This is called a straw man fallacy, any argument made that is a straw man is invalid.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I disagree if you are going to say that something doesn't exist that people throughout history have believed to exist, than you should be able to back up your statement with proof.

This is argumentum ad populum, appeal to a common belief. It is also a logical fallacy, any argument made from argumentum ad populum is invalid.

Not to mention that by this standard, it's up to you to prove the Christian God exists, since more people than not believe in some other God or gods or no gods.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

If he just said that Heaven doesn't exist I'd be willing to accept it but if he says that based upon his scientific view than I'd expect he'd actually have scientific proof to back up such a claim, otherwise it's just an opinion.

Well rather than looking at what Cameron says, look at what Hawking actually does say:

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

I regard, meaning it's his opinion. He didn't say anything about scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

As for proving that heaven does exist I reject your declaration that the bible doesn't count. I'm tired of people stating in any religion thread that the bible isn't proof (I'm not playing by your rules anymore).

Why should the Bible count as proof? Why does the Bible count as proof but the other religious books do not count as proof?

Heck the Bible itself has contradicting points of view on the afterlife from OT to NT.

Is the Harry Potter book proof of the existence of Hogwarts? Of course not. Just because something is written doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

It's proof enough for me and I won't just allow you or anyone else take that away from me.

Who's trying to take it away from you?

You understand that disagreeing with you isn't trying to take it away right?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

The Bible has more proof for the existence of Heaven and God than I've seen from Hawkings regarding his statement that Heaven doesn't exist.

Well since Hawking's statement is his opinion the comparison is nonsensical.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Stephen Hawkins can't even see the sky without help. I'm not suprised he can't envision heaven.

Fantastic, a joke about the mans physical hardship, how Christian of you.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Shades

Now I think maybe you were trying to get me to say answer "Yes" to your question in order to then directly discredit the Bible itself.

It was not my intention to "gotcha" you.

I think the argument you made has a legitimate foundation, even if I disagree with your conclusion.
It is my opinion that demagogues are not an unfortunate by-product of religion, they are intrinsic to it.

[peter12]

I do not believe heaven exists either, but I'm not sure that means God doesn't exist.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by photon

Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, makes predictions that are confirmed, and has explanatory power. ID has none of that, it isn't a science at all.

Quite a fallacious and inaccurately loaded statement there, photon.


I find it amazing that the most brilliant minds today can't really duplicate what chance, chaos, coincidence and randomness managed to create out of nothingness.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by photon

Why should the Bible count as proof? Why does the Bible count as proof but the other religious books do not count as proof?

Heck the Bible itself has contradicting points of view on the afterlife from OT to NT.

Is the Harry Potter book proof of the existence of Hogwarts? Of course not. Just because something is written doesn't make it true.

Talk about strawman arguments, photon. Right after you disparage someone for using them no less.

Archeological evidence supports everything that has been recorded in the Bible. Times. Dates. Events. Using your scientific approach, it's up to you to prove to me that the Bible doesn't actually, right?

And your ignorance of the Bible is evident with comments such as "Bible itself has contradicting points of view on the afterlife from OT to NT."

Normally I take a much more diplomatic approach to debates, but it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't even know the basics of what they're trying to disprove in the first place.

Edit: And before you quote two scriptures in the OT and NT, I suggest you read the context and do the research, so you don't look foolish for trying to follow up on your false assertion.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Shades

Quite a fallacious and inaccurately loaded statement there, photon.


I find it amazing that the most brilliant minds today can't really duplicate what chance, chaos, coincidence and randomness managed to create out of nothingness.

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Shades

Quite a fallacious and inaccurately loaded statement there, photon.


I find it amazing that the most brilliant minds today can't really duplicate what chance, chaos, coincidence and randomness managed to create out of nothingness.

A ridiculous statement. Modern science has only been really around for the last 100 or so years. The advent of computers in the last 20 years pushing science forward at a much more rapid pace. To expect solutions to all mankinds deepest questions is ridiculous and symptomatic of the "instant gratification" in todays culture.

Photons statement is absolutely correct, there is boatloads of evidence for evolution, but it is still just a theory. The same as gravity. ID is another theory based on NOTHING.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Shades

And your ignorance of the Bible is evident with comments such as "Bible itself has contradicting points of view on the afterlife from OT to NT."

Some theologians and scholars argue that the ancient Jewish belief of the afterlife was more akin to annihilation than believing in any eternal soul or any form of damnation. That is only one theory.

Sheol is an interesting concept to study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Stephen Hawkins can't even see the sky without help. I'm not suprised he can't envision heaven.

Why would being able to see the sky have anything to do with envisioning heaven or afterlife?

Your idea on spirituality is so cliched it's laughable.

But to throw a wrench at the basic feeling of your argument, Hawking can't see an atom or electron either, but has no problem envisioning those.

Maybe cause one exists and the other doesn't?

[Shades]

Originally Posted by Gozer

It was not my intention to "gotcha" you.

I think the argument you made has a legitimate foundation, even if I disagree with your conclusion.
It is my opinion that demagogues are not an unfortunate by-product of religion, they are intrinsic to it.

If you would grant me the history as outlined in the Bible (starting with Adam and Eve), do you believe demagogues were always prevalent?

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by photon

Hawking didn't say that though, so Cameron is right about something he made up. Gold star for Cameron?

This is called a straw man fallacy, any argument made that is a straw man is invalid.

I apologize I was wrong. I didn't grab it from what Cameron said though I took it from the author of the article when the author stated: "Stephen Hawking gave an interview in which he declared that in his wholly scientific view Heaven doesn't exist..."

Originally Posted by photon

This is argumentum ad populum, appeal to a common belief. It is also a logical fallacy, any argument made from argumentum ad populum is invalid.

Not to mention that by this standard, it's up to you to prove the Christian God exists, since more people than not believe in some other God or gods or no gods.

If this was just his opinion and he isn't actually stating he has scientific evidence for his belief I'm quite content to leave it at that. Just as I have my belief that God and Heaven exists, so really I don't need to prove to you nor anyone else that God exists. I will tell people about God and allow him to do the work in your heart.

Originally Posted by photon

Well rather than looking at what Cameron says, look at what Hawking actually does say:

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

I regard, meaning it's his opinion. He didn't say anything about scientific evidence.

Like I mentioned above I grabbed my interpretation from the person writing on the article. In which case it's my mistake but it also is poor writing by the author to put that type of spin on what Hawkings is saying.

Why should the Bible count as proof? Why does the Bible count as proof but the other religious books do not count as proof?

Originally Posted by photon

Heck the Bible itself has contradicting points of view on the afterlife from OT to NT.

Is the Harry Potter book proof of the existence of Hogwarts? Of course not. Just because something is written doesn't make it true.

Okay so you believe the Bible isn't the word of God. That's your belief, I believe it is. If you or someone else believed in the existence of Hogwarts than so be it. I don't have a reason to try to force them to prove it.

Originally Posted by photon

Who's trying to take it away from you?

You understand that disagreeing with you isn't trying to take it away right?

Disagreeing is one thing but saying "but the bible doesn't count" is taking away the ability to use bible verses as part of any discussion, which really in essence is taking the bible away from me.

Originally Posted by photon

Well since Hawking's statement is his opinion the comparison is nonsensical.

Well as I mentioned above the author of the article made a statement as I quoted above it really was a bad job on behalf of the author. As I already mentioned if it's just an opinion I'm fine with that.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Shades

Edit: And before you quote two scriptures in the OT and NT, I suggest you read the context and do the research, so you don't look foolish for trying to follow up on your false assertion.

See, that's it, scripture can be interpreted in any which way depending on what the person interpreting wants to argue. That is primarily why Christianity is so fractured with so many divides, schisms, and denominations even down to local churches. How are so supposed to argue something with a scripture that can be so ambiguous and malleable depending on the position of the person reading it?

[Shades]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

A ridiculous statement. Modern science has only been really around for the last 100 or so years. The advent of computers in the last 20 years pushing science forward at a much more rapid pace. To expect solutions to all mankinds deepest questions is ridiculous and symptomatic of the "instant gratification" in todays culture.

Photons statement is absolutely correct, there is boatloads of evidence for evolution, but it is still just a theory. The same as gravity. ID is another theory based on NOTHING.

You're putting a case together for an argument I didn't make. I'm not expecting solutions to mankinds deepest questions. All I pointed out is that mishap and chance somehow managed to create everything from absolute nothingness while intelligent life is having difficulty unraveling it using already available building material.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

How are you saying life began?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Shades

If you would grant me the history as outlined in the Bible (starting with Adam and Eve), do you believe demagogues were always prevalent?

I do, possibly likely because it would be devastating to my argument to concede otherwise. But I will share my logic;

An argument that boils down to "you must submit to my authority or you will burn in hell for eternity" - even if true - lends itself perfectly as a control mechanism for the most dangerous members of society.

There are so many relevant quotes from Thomas Jefferson I'm struggling to pick only one.