Did anyone notice Stephen Hawking contradicted himself?

I don't know how to explain this to you without having you take some college courses on Physics. He isn't dodging the question at all. We have shown, through repeatable experiments, that time is relative... although it is difficult to explain what this means until you have taken the time to understand the experiments.

Sure this isn't satisfying. There are other threads that explain this better. But if you want to discuss "time" as a scientific, measurable concept, then you need to make the effort to understand the science.

Your next post is more interesting anyway...

I do not believe that Human Nature is evil. I believe that there is capacity for human to be brutal, cruel and greedy. I believe that there is also the capacity for humans to be kind, generous, and even self-sacrificing. You see both aspects of human nature, with times of great evil and times of great beauty and honor working together.

My argument against religion is that you see these acts of brutality in every religious tradition and you see these acts of human kindness and beauty in every religious tradition. What religion a society follows, or even whether a society has a religion, doesn't change either the good or the bad of human nature.

Human nature is complex.

I am not sure if you read this in other threads, but I will say this again.

I was a devout, Bible-believing Christian. I studied the Bible every day. I asked myself what Jesus would do in any situation. I based my ethics on my belief in the God of the Bible and I strove to live by them.

When I started to see contradictions in my religious beliefs I started questioning. I had a combination of questioning some of the morality of Christian life, as well as some of the contradictions with science and how society works. I left religion. You might sense a little bitterness... I don't know. Maybe I am upset with God for not existing (which doesn't make sense, but from what you wrote I think you might understand). It isn't a big deal... but I do get upset with believers who I feel are being hypocritical.

You are wrong about what it means to become irreligious. I didn't instantly decide to hurt other people and steal and kill. It is quite the opposite. Once I determined that there was no God... I was free to choose to be a good person, as I understand what it means to be a good person, on my own. If anything, leaving God made me more thoughtful... because instead of thinking what God wanted, I was free to think about what was really kind or honest or true.

You are wrong about natural selection. Human beings are social creatures. We evolved with love, with empathy and with the desire to help other people. When I left God, this didn't change.

You simply wrong that God is the only thing stopping you from murdering people. I have had a lot more sex since I left God (which I consider a good thing), and I have enjoyed some things that I didn't allow myself to enjoy as a Christian. I have the same care for other people that I had when I was a Christian, I have the save urge to do what is right and to treat people the way I want to be treated. I have been angry several times... I have never had the slightest desire to kill anyone.

I can tell you from personal experience that you don't need God or religion to be a good person.

No Man's Sky is awesome. I'm really enjoying it. It's definitely not for everybody because it's not a "shoot 'em up game". But I don't like those games where you have to shoot whatever moves every time you walk around a corner.

This game is mostly an exploration game with a little bit of a larger goal (if you want to do it).

Here's the link to my main thread on this: http://able2know.org/topic/313570-1

I agree with most of what you said regarding religion but one thing caught my attention. You admit you feel some dissapointment at God for not existing but it was your religion you found fault with.

Was/is God synonymous with religion in your view?

Okay, let's drop the Time topic since it's apparent that you couldn't explain it in a way that I could understand (no offense to your abilities).

It is good that you believe human beings are capable of good even when "no one's watching", but, like I said, I am not speaking about you only. I am sure there are good people out there who aren't religious at all. However, it is wrong to say that because some religious people are hypocrites, and therefore, religion is bad. You say you are a mathematician, then you should understand the logical statement that "there exist an / some X in Y such that...." and "for all X in set Y ..." are completely different. There exist some people in the set of religious people that are hypocrites, and therefore religion is bad is a false statement. No matter what kind of law or punishment there is, there are always people who will test it. I think what you are misunderstanding is that religion DOES NOT PREVENT someone to commit horrible crimes or be a complete hypocrite. However, that does not make these people bad -- do you think being a hypocrite is worse than being a thief, a burglar or an assailant? Sometimes I feel like a hypocrite too because I preach to my wife, a non-believer, about the values of religion, but yet, I don't necessarily follow them all the time. I slip occasionally, and so are millions of other religious people. You, like many people I know, are just simply misunderstanding religion as if you are religious you must obey God all the time. That's simply NOT possible and if your pastor wants you to do this then he's a dumb-ass hypocrite. Human nature is desire and desire is selfish and selfishness leads to acts of evil (or just simply taking advantage of others) and to say that your desires will NEVER win is like saying you are absolutely perfect. It is the inner conflict that strives to be good and humble that counts and I think religion helps me do this.

During my high school years I was a horrible person that enjoys bullying others, picking on that nerdy kid. First year of college I was still arrogant and thinking I am the best with not a shed of humbleness. Yeah, and that didn't get me anywhere. Even with a good degree, I still couldn't get the job I want because I was an arrogant douche. Then I learned, I learned to be humble and be respectful of others. Still, old habits die hard and they will always surface, but each time they are surfacing, I remind myself again and again. I don't know. Call me a hypocrite if you want, but I know I am striving to stop those bad habits.

You say human nature good, but, again, I urge you to look at not only yourself, but the society as a whole. There are numerous news, documentaries and even proposed congressional action on internet threats of bodily harm (check out reality documentary on Twitter and Facebook threats). However, you don't make these threats in person. Why do you think is that? It's because if you make it in person, you'll get arrested and go to jail, but on the internet, no one knows who you are so you are unlikely to face any type of "judgement".

I think you are making things up Angel.

1) I never said humans are good. I said humans have the capability for both great good, and great evil.

My point is that religion doesn't change that, societies of any of the world religions have done both great good and great evil, and societies that are less religion are neither better nor worse.

2) I don't believe I have ever said religion is bad. I don't believe religion is bad. In other threads I defend the role of religion in the civil rights movement and the end to slavery.

I disagree with this. China as a nation taught atheism during the communist era that produced a large population of atheists. As the nation becomes more prosperous but the ethical standards never gotten any better. Prostitution, corruption and internal racism never changed and no one cared to change it.


Well, you said yourself you had a bitter tone to it. Why have a bitter tone to it if you didn't think it was bad. I didn't read your other threads.


What's the difference? I say human beings are only capable of good when they are under pressure or some sort of judgement. Free from any social pressure or judgement, they will do as their hearts desires which is to act out of self-interest (which are usually less moral). Capable of doing something doesn't matter to me at all -- it is what you strive to do that matters. You can say Ted Bundy or Charles Mason are both "capable" of doing good, but they didn't.

Forgive me if I am intruding, but that is about the saddest thing I've ever heard a believer say.

Why do you think God has withheld judgement all these years if not in the hope and belief that some will see the inherent value in his way and follow it not out of fear but because it is the only way they would want to live.

This is not my experience either. I have seen people do good, even great good and self-sacrifice, without any social pressure. And I have seen this in myself. Do you have any children Angel?

How about those soldiers who gave their life to save their comrads?

Here's some interesting information about Medal of Honor winners.

When these 14 SECOND ACTIONS by a previous Medal Recipient are subtracted from the total number of Medal of Honor actions, the statement becomes more correct if stated: "3,510 Medals of Honor have been awarded to 3,491 individual American Soldiers.".
Medal of Honor Recipients by War

I suppose (again, emphasize on suppose so you don't call me making things up again), you ask because you want to say that loving and sacrificing for your children is what most people do? I suppose that is true, but this is nothing beyond basic survival instincts. Animals protect their offsprings as well and perhaps even die for them. I guess cicerone imposter brought up a better point that soldiers sacrifice themselves for their comrades. Well, like you said human beings are indeed capable of altruistic acts, but such is probably rare. What about the horrible crimes soldiers committed at war-zone? I was told by a Iraqi veteran that he saw his comrades brutally tortured a civilian, but he couldn't say anything because he was scared. And I don't need to quote anything as there are a tone of internet documents indicating that US soldiers murdered, raped and tortured men, women and children during the Vietnam war.

It's good that you like to see the good side of human nature, and how do you know those people you see who are doing great good are not religious?

To clarify, do you mean that human beings are EQUALLY capable of good and evil? It makes a HUGE difference if it swings one way.

I am saying that doing things we agree are good; such as caring for our children, or having empathy for people in need or doing nice things for people we are close to are part of human nature. Sure... human nature evolved because it has "survival value" (actually the science is a little more complicated than that, but let's go with it).

Your proposal are saying that human beings do good things not because of empathy, or love or care for our neighbors, but because of fear of punishment.

Isn't being motivated by a fear of punishment more of a problem than being motivated by empathy; an intrinsic human trait that evolved because we are social creatures who work better when we relate to and trust each other.

I think that empathy is a far better motivator than fear.

Yes, I mean that human beings are equally capable of good and evil.

More importantly, the belief of human beings in some God, many gods or no gods seems to have no effect on their capability to do either great good or great evil.

I could not disagree more. Try raising your child without any education or discipline and see what they'll choose. Watching all my younger siblings, niece and nephew and even my own child growing up, I can certainly conclude that it is much easier for them to pick up bad habits than to be good. And wait till you get a teenage daughter and she'll make your heart bleed. You can see clearly through kids that human nature is a constant desire to "have something" and without parenting, kids will do anything to get what they want. No body thought little kids to hit someone or take another kid's toys but they do it just by their very own nature. Without their parents telling them no, they'd keep doing it and even if the parents do tell them, they still do it sometimes. It is rather the fear of displeasing their parents that prevents them from recommitting these acts and eventually a good habit could form. So if human nature is equally good and bad, why don't kids naturally share their toys and we must teach it to them? And, FYI apes are social creatures too and they certainly don't display any type of empathy.


I'm not talking about capability, but rather self-correction. You said in a previous post that "[you] asked [yourself] what Jesus would do in any situation." I don't think this is what religion is about. It sounds as though you are doing it because someone is telling you what to do. That does suck doesn't it? In my culture parents tell their kids what to do: their study choices, career choices, friendship choices, and even their partner in marriage is somewhat arranged. You ask those "good kids" why they study so hard, they say, well, "I want to make money". Apparently these kids NEVER understand why in the world they are studying 90+ hours a week and they have ABSOLUTELY no idea what it takes to REALLY make money. They just know what they are told -- BE mommy's good boy / girl and do everything exactly as they say. THAT is NOT living and that is ABSOLUTELY not a healthy relationship.

I go beyond what religious text states and try to figure out why I should do things a certain way. I think overall, major religions teach very basic things -- it's nothing fancy: curb your desires, humble yourself, and treat others like how you want to be treated. When I truly understood this, this "fear" of judgement is not only in a religious sense but very REAL in present day. Someone in one of my peer group brought up a very good example, that is, if you have extramarital sex once and say to yourself you'll stop and just this once. The next time you'll say the same thing until you are so used to it, you are addicted to it. You think you can get away with it once, but eventually you'll get caught and you'll likely lose you wife, possibly your kids and just about everything else you've built and a stack of legal bills. That is very literally "unleashing hell on yourself" before any "divine judgement". You may say there's no need for a "God" here because you could've deduced this yourself based on just logic alone. However, I disagree and say that my "faith" part in this equation is that everything I do, He is watching and if I do bad He'll find ways to let my wife know, one way or the other.

Some people say nah, I can stop on my own -- I have good control. That is major bullshit. The more you fuel your desires, the more you want -- much like drugs. A habit you develop for years and years don't just go away when you say so. If habits are so easy to change, they'll be no divorce, and there will be world peace.

I think parenting is one of the most difficult human endeavors, because the only training we get is from our own parents.
My father died when I was two years old, and our mother remarried and had two more children. I'm closer to my younger siblings, and believe they've done a better job of parenting.

I have witnessed so many outcomes contrary to the mantra that kids grow up no better than how you raise them. That idea is utter nonsense.

Humans are uniquely capable of directing their own behavior and deciding their own values with or against the environment they were raised in. To pretend otherwise is to deny the reality around you.

Yes..! It happens. The reconstruction of your life can be a bit rough though depending on many factors..one of which might be how philosophical you are..

Hello..

I'm sure you are speaking loosely here, but it might be worth it to point out what I see as a huge semantic mistake, a common one when one either speaks loosely or does not understand how to parse the issue into its proper terms.

So, lets try to un-conflate. Science doesn't know anything. One does not 'believe' in science anymore than one 'believes' in an instruction manual. Science is a methodology. A system of procedures that allows us to either catalog or predict phenomenon (this further allows us to model, replicate, build, get consistency etc.). It is a curious thing to not believe or believe in a methodology.

So, what then are we talking about. Philosophies of science? Fair enough. This then, is not a methodology. Neither is it objective. However, it is an analysis of objective data (from our level, not the 'real thing') and because it is that, I would argue it would carry much more weight than say, something that didn't have any objective data to back it up. I think we all acquiesce to this when we have experience with something that someone else doesn't, especially when it comes to children.

So, from reading your posts, I am in agreement with you that there is something that is not able to be understood by science. There is something underneath everything we see and if its anything, its a contentious bastard as it seems to incite a lot of argument, spilt blood/ink/cyber ink etc. Science can provide lots of data, but ultimately it takes our mind to collate it and reason through it. And if that reasoning is not self defining (i.e. true by definition), then you might say scientific philosophy takes over. So, science doesn't provide self defining statements on the moral value of something. You can only collect the data and make your own decision. Same with purpose and rock n roll..

However, it stops there. There is no way to know what lies beneath. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows; your adamant averring that a specific (judeo-christian) 'God' is what's underneath all of 'this' non withstanding.

You see, we don't even have a proper definition of 'God' to begin with; although logically I cannot disprove that there is a creator that is greater than us. Perfectly logical given we are creators and so are other animals. However, when you get on the plane of a specific creator that has specific attributes that you know about that the rest of us don't or see huge contradictions with, then you can actually apply some logic to that to determine if it 'sounds' right.

But I get it, belief in deism-istic creator is absolutely no fun. One that reads like a cross between day time soaps and a Quentin Tarrantino movie is a bit more exciting..