Slashdot Mirror
Hawking Picks Physics Over God For Big Bang
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that in his new book, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity. 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,' Hawking writes. 'It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.' Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, Hawking wrote: 'If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.'"
Well who created the all-mighty then?
Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.
Listen, you don't just randomly use "whom" as a sort of intelligent version of "who", you pretentious jackass.
He's publicly stated a belief in an invisible sky wizard, improper use of "who" and "whom" is the least of bit of evidence pointing to a lack of intelligence.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Who created this law of things can only exist if it first have to go through the process of creation then?
You could have just said "Hawking Picks Rational Thinking Over Superstition"
.
Trolling is a art,
Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.
It's easier to ignore the whole debate and watch TV. This doesn't mean that's the correct decision.
A true believer will just argue that God designed gravity that way for that very reason.
Personally, I think scientists should stay completely out of the religious sphere. They're not going to change anyone's mind, science and religion mix very badly, and commenting on theological issues only increases the perception among many religious types that science is their enemy/competitor.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
When I have an empirical proof that god exists, I will believe. For the moment, I have empirical proof that gravity exists, and Hawking simply extrapolated the laws of physics to the extreme, then came up with the big bang theory, and the theory still holds today.
No theist theory holds. It's all there to explain what we can't understand. And when we get to understand, we say "well, you know, God may have played a role anyway"...
But try to convince 90% of the human race that what I say is true. I may have a hard time.
Oh, summarize and bring the argument here please. I can't even be bothered to follow the link to RTFA. What makes you think I'd wade through a book so that you can be right?
I'm in the strange position of having reached the realization that essentially, unless I'm willing to devote about 20 years of my life studying the matter on my own I'm going to have to decide to accept it by faith and not by reason. Oh irony, you are so delicious.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
You're saying that investigating the laws of the universe to figure out how/why the universe as we know it came to be is outside the realm of good physics?
He's publicly stated a belief in an invisible sky wizard, improper use of "who" and "whom" is the least of bit of evidence pointing to a lack of intelligence.
Here's an honest question, I ask of you as a fellow atheist:
Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?
Of course, when the universe is several nanoseconds old, we're past talking about "creation", aren't we? By several nanoseconds, at least.
Ultimately, the other side of the singularity that is the Big Bang is unknowable. We can speculation all we like, and pretty much all the speculations are equally valid - they're all a pile of crap....
Note that Hawking was, most likely, talking about the galaxies, suns, planets, etc. when he said that God wasn't needed to make it happen. In that, he's correct, in that once the Big Bang happens, gravity pretty much requires the formation of planets, stars, galaxies, etc.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Actually, it's 4 elephants first, and then a single very large turtle.
Because "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding and adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary link in the chain of reasoning. It's a platitude, not an explanation. On top of that, "God did it" has never, in the entire history of mankind, been the correct answer where such answers became knowable:
Why does the sun move across the sky? God did it... no wait, the earth is rotating so it only seems the sun moves across the sky. Why do people get sick? God did it... no wait, it turns out there are things called germs and pathogens that affect our bodies and make us sick. Where does thunder and lightning come from? How is wine formed from grape juice? What causes the seasons to change? There used to be a "God did it" explanation for all of these.
So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists?
=Smidge=
Atheist or not, SOMETHING had to have always existed. Otherwise it's turtles all the way down.
I saw a Mormon laughing at a Christian for believing that God always existed. He said that their belief of a God pyramid going back forever made more sense.
Scientifically, philosophically and theologically "the beginning" is just something we can't figure out. Perhaps our brains are too small.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Their argument is that it's just so obvious that there's a god, or gods and you have to take their non-existence on faith alone; you can't prove they don't exist, so therefore it must be more likely that they do. It's basically the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction argument; we can't find any evidence of their existence, so they must be really well hidden.
The problem with that argument being that it's not that "I believe that there isn't a god or gods", but "I don't believe that there is a god or gods".
I am extremely dubious about our ability to even speculate about something so far removed from human experience as the birth of universes. That applies to physicists and theologians, though it seems to me that physicists at least try to test their hypotheses as best they can.
I'm pretty sure that, whatever the answer turns out to be, it won't look much like anything that anybody today expects. I won't call myself 'agnostic' because I believe it's at least in principle possible to reach some conclusions, eventually. I guess you'd call me "non-gnostic, for now".
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
"Well who created the all-mighty then?" That was an easy question. Moses created "the almight" about 1000 BC. He invented the single god, aka "all-mighty", inspired by the single god of a pharao a few centuries earlier (who btw was Nefertitis husband). Before that the hebrews were polytheistic like most other in Egypt. The big question is how Pharaoh had receieved the idea of a single god. Possibly he in turn was inspired by the zoroastrians, a monotheistic religion which had been created several centuries before him. It is not stranger than that.
I think it's like Einstein's "God does not play dice," or everyone else's "Thank God it's Friday." It's just a turn of speech, and doesn't imply belief in God. Furthermore, when someone like E.O. Wilson professes belief in a god, everyone assumes he means Jehovah -- but "God" is a slippery word, even when you're using it in earnest.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
I sincerely hope that was a sardonic statement. If that's the condition of people in general today, we're going to have a sticky few decades ahead of us.
I don't think there's anything unreasonable about what he said. If you're having an argument or discussion with someone and you believe a book that you read would convince them that you're correct, the least you can do is give them the gist of what the book is about and why you think it's relevant. If they want to know more or are interested, then they can read the book -- but it's kind of asinine to say, "Oh, just read book X and you'll realize there has to be a God."
If you disagree with me, go ahead and read Don Quixote (again, if necessary) and you'll see I'm right.
Since we are talking about unprovable matters, I could also postulate there is a god that will send you to hell for being a nice person. This god is as likely to exist as yours. In fact, as long as there is more than one religion in the world, there are potentially many gods, who, once you die, will send you straight to hell for not believing in them. Surely, by being a practitioner of religion X, you are staking your eternal future too?
Score: i, Imaginary
Just like Christians stake their eternal future on the presumption that if God exists, it's the God from the bible (or rather their interpretation of it). They live their whole lives doing what their interpretation of the bible supports, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything different. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day ruled by different deity they will spend eternity burning in other version of hell.
They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves.
Alternately: Everyone does what they want. Some people choose to rationalize their choices based on a fairy tale.
Sure it does. Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want...
False. That atheists have no "moral code" simply because the reject some arbitrary collection of do's and don'ts is a common but incorrect assumption. Sure, there are plenty of amoral atheists, but then again, there are plenty of outright scoundrels who will bleat long and loud about their "Christian values". On the other hand, some of the most "moral" people I know are atheists. They take full responsibility for their actions (no "salvation" just for uttering some magic words) and weigh those actions against a thoughtful and continuously evaluated personal code. In other words, they choose to do the "right" thing because it is right, not because someone else said it was right and threatened them with torture if they disobeyed.
If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell..
You do know that not every religion has the Judeo-Christian concepts of heaven, hell, and "judgement", don't you?
Stating that a supernatural being outside the physical limitations of the universe and of time either does or does not exist based on the physical limitations of the universe and of time and of our still quite limited ability to measure and explain those limitations is poor physics.
I mean, whose definition of God, gods, demigods, angels, demons, spirits, souls, or whatever do we even use to start looking? How do we test?
Some philosophy is from different branches of philosophy than science. You don't discuss metaphysics and theology from physics. Physics is empirical and objective. Once you violate empiricism and objectivity, you've violated science.
Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).
And many theists assume that, even if there is a God, that it's important to him that you believe in him during this life. (Why would that be so important to God anyway?!)
And many theists assume that, if you don't believe in God before you die, that God will be so upset that he'll send you to hell for eternity. (Why do so many theists think God is a psychopath?)
And even if you do believe in God, what are the chances you've chosen the right one to believe in?
Christianity? What if the Muslims are right?
Islam? What if the Jews are right?
Judaism? What if the Hindus are right?
Hinduism? What if the Buddhists are right?
What if all the major religions are wrong?
And on and on it goes...
It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.
If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...
I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.
And, please: if you're religious, and disagree, or are even offended, please don't mod me down; instead provide some rational counterarguments to what I've said.
Gee...I never thought of that. Now, just tell me which God I should worship so as to avoid my eternal suffering and I'll get right on that. Pascal's Wager is hundreds of years old and makes even less sense now than it did then. Not believing is just as safe a wager as believing in the "wrong" God.
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
Stephen Hawking begging the question.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How convenient. When you lose, change the game.
Point is, this god business doesn't necessarily apply to any level at all. It's your fairy tale, not mine.
With the proper application of apathy, you don't even need to do that much. In fact, I think I'll go fry myself up a delicious bacon/egg and cheese sandwich right now instead of pondering a damn thing. Who gives a shit? I'm not a physicist, biologist, theologian, or policy maker, why should I waste my time on any of this?
Oh right, because it's fun to argue on the internet... oh well :)
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
As a (unfortunately non-car) analogy, think about the question "why did my wife smile when she looked at me just now?". The answer "she loves me" wouldn't be appropriate in a journal article in a scientific journal about correlating human brain activity with human actions, but it might very well be an appropriate answer in other contexts.
Are you arguing that "God" like "love" is an entirely subjective phenomenon that occurs only in the human brain? As an atheist, I'd tend to agree with that.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well that's the whole point.
"Who created the creator?" comes as a retort to religious people saying "Something can't come out of nothing" and then saying that it must have been created by a god since for some reason god is exempt from this rule but any other explanation wouldn't be.
Atheist Communists started plenty of fights over religion.
Derp? That wasn't the question. the question was "When was the last time a war was started because of atheist beliefs? Here's a hint: Never. Wars are fought over "you have resource X and we want it", or "our god doesn't like your god, and he told us to kill you". You're not going to find atheists starting wars over their lack of god anywhere outside of Southpark reruns.
The fact that atheism is relatively new doesn't change the fact that it's just another religion.
Sorry, wrong again. Atheism pre-dates your religion - people didn't believe in god(s) long before they made up yours. And it's not a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?
It has nothing to do with me being an atheist, I'm just an asshole.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Just a minor quibble, but if it turns out the Buddhists are right, Christirans won't spend eternity being reborn and suffering - they only spend as long as it takes to figure out that the Buddhists were right and to get with the program. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism isn't one of those you get one chance, don't fuck it up kind of religions. (And yes, all of the above is just a huge fucking oversimplification - I am aware of that, but the point stands).
words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
Or any of the other tens of accounts of the story which came first. Or other popularizations of it. Or Pratchett.
Is this really Hawking speaking? Has he finally lost his mind?
Yes. It's not that this is a single quote taken out of context from an entire book. He surely never mentions Conservation of Energy or entropy in this book. The statement is obviously not the conclusion of a lengthy argument, but rather the entirety of the argument and conclusion contained together in one sentence. Ergo your observations are undeniably correct and Hawking has no idea what he's talking about.
The enemies of Democracy are
I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept.
Strictly speaking it doesn't. You just don't need God as an explanation when you have real explanations. And for those things you still can't explain, invoking God doesn't help anyway - an unknowable power with unlimited capability and inscrutable will is compatible with any and every observation you make, and therefore has no explanatory value.
Also, people who cling to belief in God tend to cling also to myths that are demonstrably *not* valid concepts, so God tends to get thrown out with the garbage he's sitting in.
If theists had any sense they'd ditch Genesis faster than atheists do.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And I was being a pedantic one, sorry.
And also thinking that, shit, give someone a few million years to mull it over and maybe, assuming the Buddhists are right, the Christians might be able to say "well holy shit, I don't think this here Jesus guy is working for us, what with all the constantly being reborn and suffering and all." That might be optimistic.
words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
As other people have pointed out, that's Pascal's Wager.
However, if you actually think about it, the logic used in Pascal's Wager inevitably leads to the idea that you have to kill as many children as you can.
Consider:
And hey, if you do that, you'll become a martyr! Just imagine all the children you'll usher into heaven, even if you're going to hell.
you made me think, if you assume the christian god is the correct one (i dont, atheist and such), then believing in any particular version of christianity might even be more dangerous then being a muslim. If the christian god exists, and for instance, catholicism is the correct interpretation, then a protestant (reformed, whatever), person, will not only have not heeded the right set of rules of the god he believes in, he will have done things in his gods name, which go directly against gods will (which, for the uk/irish region, might include killing/fighting catholics)
If i was a god (and many people seem to assume god is some sort of allmighty benevolent but very strict human-like thinking mind, sort of a king of old), i would be more upset with people claiming to follow me, and in my (explicit) name, cary out misdeeds/crimes, some even against my own correct followers, then the guys who are just following the wrong god to begin with...
anyway, the problem i see with the pascal wager is that it neglects the potential cost of following a religion, it does not take into account any experiences you might lose, or effort you will spend in vain, worshipping a non existant god, a devout muslim will never taste pork, or taste a good whiskey, thus making his life on earth less complete, with a chance to find out that is all you ever get, if there is no afterlife. In essence, if there is no afterlife, this earthly life is all we humans have, devoting that to a non-existant god in that case (possibly) devalues literally all that we have, even if on an absolute scale earthly life earthly life + afterlife
People, what a bunch of bastards
And how do you know he hasn't? There are some pretty subtle arguments for the existence of God, such as Plantinga's version of the ontological argument using modal logic. I don't accept it, but the problem isn't a lack of understanding of science or critical thinking. (For what it's worth, I don't accept the argument because I don't believe the version of modal logic he uses correctly describes the universe, but that's a metaphysical position -- there's no possible observation that could decide between the modal logics I accept, in which the existence of God appears not to be provable, and the one Plantinga uses in which the existence of God appears to be provable).
If you think that because some religious people have stupid reasons for being religious they must all have stupid reasons for being religious then perhaps you should spend a few minutes with a critical thinking primer too.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I liked this book. I'm not big on religion but a previous boss, who enjoyed debating philosophy and occasionally his religious beliefs, gave me a copy. It was an interesting read.
i am not sure about buddhism, but hinduism also knows the concept of starting over again on a lower step (like going from human to a dog) if you screw up a life, so if in this life you are a christian, and as such do wrong things, you will simply end up as a lower lifeform, and if you do that right, you go up a step, without having to be the same christian guy again.
Being a christian in a hindu reality merely means having to back a few steps on your path to enlightenment, it doesnt mean being stuck in an endless loop of being wrong, so in that respect a hindu reality is more friendly to christians then a christian reality to hindus
People, what a bunch of bastards
but the 'faith' to trust an authority is different than 'faith' that really has never had an actual authority.
the big difference is that scientists can show an audit trail of their thinking; and if its BS, they get called on it.
anyone can stand up, declare a religion and its essentially untouchable. you can't be argued with since most of mankind of brainwashed to think that you have to 'respect religion' (as a valid institution).
the two worlds could not be farther apart and the 'faith' that you talk about is not actually unverifyable. if you really wanted to put work into it, you *could* follow thru all the steps and check the process for bugs/flaws. you simply choose not to do the work, but do realize you did make a choice and that if you wanted to, you *could* replay the thoughts and check for flaws. however, in religion, no such thing exists. no such thing as 'verification' or audit in religion.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Agreed. This is a version of what I call the Proof from Theological Proliferation, which, baldly stated, goes something like: "There are lots of books of theology, and you haven't read them all. Therefore, God." Or, "The proof is left as an exercise for the reader."
If there is a killer argument in the book, he should tell us what it is, rather than just brush off questions with a hand wave.
god IS the laws of physics
god is a metaphor, that some people need to take literally, because not everyone has the mind of stephen hawking, but they still need to understand the world, so mental shortcuts have to do
the whole hullabaloo over the existence of god is really silly, as soon as you realize that everyone has a different way of describing the same thing
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Like many things in this subject it comes down to definitions. Theism is pretty consistent, in that most people accept it as being belief that a deity exists and is somehow active in this world or the supposed next. Atheism could have two basic meanings - depending on who you're talking to.
1) Denial that god(s) exist
This is rarely expressed as absolute certainty, and is a position I personally consider indefensible and problematic in that it shifts the burden of evidence. Also, no-one can say for definite that there are no gods, but one can with a reasonable level of certainty say that the gods described by the major religions are either highly improbable or hideously misunderstood by their followers and biographers. Personally I find it rare to find atheists who'll say with certainty that there are no gods, and most cases it's believers creating straw men that can easily be knocked over. If anyone suggests this to be the norm for atheists then I'd challenge them to show me evidence of well known atheists or atheistic groups that adopt such a line.
2) Non-belief in the existence of god(s)
This is the same as agnosticism. The existence of gods is a binary proposition. The best way to clarify this muddle is to ask the question: Do you believe that gods exist? The answers "no" and "I don't know" amount to the same thing. Personally I adopt this line for gods and all other supernatural frippery. An intellectually honest atheist should be willing to accept, given sufficient evidence, that gods could indeed exist.
It becomes slightly annoying when people self-identify as agnostics with the implication, or stated claim, that their reason for this is because they're not certain enough to adopt the position of atheism. Just as Christianity as a label can in some contexts be pretty vague, it's always worth asking someone to clearly state their beliefs. Atheism doesn't require certainty, and certainty only comes in to play when theists make very specific claims that can through naturalistic observation be refuted. Even then it can reach ridiculous levels - such as the argument that the devil planted fossils to confuse us, or the concept of Last Thursdayism. Therein lies madness like solipsism and conversations that'd belong among a bunch a stoned teenagers rather than serious philosophers and theologians.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Sorry, but logic doesn't work this way. A logical proof only guarantees that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusions must also be true. Because of this, it is fundamentally impossible for a logical proof to demonstrate anything about the nature of reality. You must have at least one input assumption no matter what. This is why all results in science are necessarily contingent upon observation/experiment. Ontological attempts at proving a god (or anything else) are guaranteed to fail before they even begin.
One problem with Plantinga's argument is that he assumes it is possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity to exist, but this is exactly the kind of god we know cannot exist because of the problem of evil (never mind the logical self-inconsistency of omnipotence). Because of this, Plantinga's "maximal greatness" is a malformed statement that has no meaning, and the whole proof crashes in on itself.
As for Stephen Hawking's argument, I'd have to read the book, but in principle it is completely accurate that there is simply no reason to believe in one.
If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe
It's worse than that. Can you think of anything done on earth that deserves eternal, and infinite punishment? Think about it. Hitler was obviously a horrible person and his actions led to millions of deaths, but sending Hitler to hell would condemning him to the most painful experience imaginable (according to some theists) for trillions upon trillions of years.
And then throw in that at one time or another, various religions have stated that you deserve this punishment for everything from murder to premarital sex, from worshiping the wrong god to saying the 'name' of god, from having homosexual sex to simple gluttony. In my opinion, anyone that believes in a god that would punish someone in any way for all eternity believes in a god that is a sociopathic asshole.
Occam only meant that we can't invoke a more complicated explanation than necessary within science.
And even then the application is usually subjective, as what one person considers more complex another considers simpler. I have (tongue-in-cheek) upset people arguing for a form of scientism by invoking Occam's razor to "prove" solipsism ("Zero objective realities is simpler than one objective reality"). Occam's razor is a methodological tool; it is not any sort of guide to what is or is not "true" (although some seem to have what looks to me like a religious belief that it is).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Interesting philosophy. I didn't know plants experienced happiness or sadness.
Probably that's why he put happiness in quotes. It's shorthand for a much longer explanation.
Plants seek out things that help them live/prosper. They turn towards light, etc. This doesn't require conscience thought or a brain on their part; they've just evolved in a way such that this is true.
If you disagree, forming a counterargument is more useful than nitpicking the word choice.
If you think that because some religious people have stupid reasons for being religious they must all have stupid reasons for being religious then perhaps you should spend a few minutes with a critical thinking primer too.
Out of curiosity, do you have or know of a good reason for being religious? You've cited one argument that you find interesting but lacking, which is closer than most people get to having a discussion better than "because my parents and my holy book says so" and I'd actually like to get to some good arguments. I don't really go out of my way looking for them, but I also never get any feedback from genuinely religious folks that's anything but pure faith and irrationality.
For the reference, my stance is based almost entirely on "lack of compelling evidence". I'm not militant about it, I just don't see the point in thinking I know something when I don't have a reason to think I know it.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
I was raised in a non-religious household. [..] So it's quite common for people to believe in Christianity through being convinced of its claims, not only because of an accident of upbringing.
I bet you were raised in a nation with a large Christian following, though. Just how many people will become Christian growing up in a Muslim country? How many Christians were there in every other culture before Christianity arose? Every culture, when separated from others, came up with their own religions. Does it sound like God really wanted one true message to be heard, and that it is Christianity? Or perhaps people were just making shit up.
nor can we ignore the possibility it may be the truth, can we now?
Yes we can. Since it doesn't affect us in the least, we can ignore that possibility quite safely. Just like you can ignore the possibility that god is the most delicious jelly doughnut in the world and crafted all of this around him just to appreciate his greatness. Possible, but improbable, and not worth worrying about.
Science still can't explain from where soul is coming from and what happens with it after death.
You are making a big assumption here. You are assuming that there is such a thing as a "soul" and you are assuming that science can't comprehend it. So far, even if there are still a lot of things to learn about the brain, science got a pretty good grasp on the electro-chemical processes happening in our brain and many other animals' brain too.
I am discussing the truth value of the proposition put forth by the original poster: that "atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist" and (not said but implied by the poster) god-believers somehow do not. I presented an argument showing that the proposition is false. My argument is not affected in any way by personal beliefs (either yours, mine, or anyone else's) or the intricacies of particular religions, which is all your last post refers to. Your remarks, though relevant and even interesting in other contexts, do not have a bearing on anything I said previously.
You seem to be too focused on your own personal beliefs to analyze this matter from an unbiased, rational point of view. I'm not inviting you to give up on your beliefs; however, in order to have a rational conversation, you must at the very least be able to abstract from them (which does not mean ceasing to believe in them). Otherwise, you will soon find you cannot have any meaningful conversation with people with different beliefs than yours (and then you probably wonder why they do not seem to respect your own).
Score: i, Imaginary
But if you believe in those religions, are you REALLY having faith in God himself...or are you putting your faith in those people who are telling you what God wants?
Ultimately everybody -- religious, agnostic, atheist -- is putting faith in themselves making the right call. I don't see any way around that.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
The ontological proof is the weakest one of the six common proofs.
Pretty much all of these boil down to "I really, really, really, want there to be a god".
And the rebuttals:
Anarchists never rule
One of the funniest and scariest things said to me: "You're an atheist? How do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in God? If I wasn't Christian, there'd be nothing stopping me from going on a killing spree."
You don't often see a person of (blind) faith have a crisis of conscience.
Is that supposed to be a good thing? I have no crisis of conscience about giving the same civil rights to homosexuals as to straights, whereas the pope also has no crisis of conscience in this area but he reaches a different conclusion. One of us is wrong.
There's probably a lot more "soul searching" and crises of conscience in churches now, because people are questioning their blind faith. When moral codes and social rules are explained from first principles, they make for fewer crises of conscience than if you are told what to do with no more explanation than "God says so".
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Moral atheists get the morals form the same place as modern Christians: modern secular humanism principals which boil down to "do not directly harm other people". The bible is full of evil stuff: kill your kids if they back talk, its ok to kill people who don't observe the sabbath, etc... The old testament is down right vile in places. Christians have generally rejected the "bad" parts of the bible and embraced the good parts: love your neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, etc... And the good Christians chose what is good the same way the atheists did.
Anarchists never rule
Here's an even better one, courtesy of David Michell
Being a moral atheist is a total win win, compared to being a mere Theist.
Version 1:
Dead Atheist: Oh!, um hi God..., didn't think you existed, oops!
Deity: No problem, it's not like I left any useful clues... Welcome to my heaven.
Dead Atheist: Nice... How come I qualify?
Deity: Because you were a moral and ethical being, because you lived by a code of ethics; you understood that love was the right thing to do even in a universe that you had good reason to believe was completely and utterly godless. You were moral because you chose to be, not because you "believed" in some silly magic book; or were too scared, or weak minded, to think for yourself.
You chose to do the right thing, even when you did not have to; you lived by a moral and honorable code, not by some mythical manifesto of terrorism and fear...
Dead Atheist: So what happens to all the myriad god followers, "believers", the Theists, martyrs, crusaders, suicide bombers, terrorists, etc?
Deity: Tricky one that! They are not really worth anything much, because they never thought for themselves ethically speaking... What do you suggest?
Anyway, no hurry, they can wait outside indefinitely while you decide what to do with them. Welcome to heaven!, go pick yourself out some virgins...
Etc...
Version 2:
Dead Atheist: Hello, Anyone There...! (nothing, nada, zip, zilch, silence, nope...)
Dead Atheist: Thought So! (vanishes in a sudden total existence failure)
So........
Looks like a Win Win to me!
There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.