God did not create Universe: Hawking

will create itself from nothing

will create itself from nothing

If physicist like Hawking considers such brutal violation of causality, then the God is the least problem in further explanations. Every other explanation is possible, after then...

Didn't Stephen had parents because the black matter is getting expensive qua giving it too cheap light. Ever is uneven any hawking but never was not even one hawkst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all hawks are always without theory because with practum is also not the real hawk.

Oh, and the evidence there is no God, god or creator is, to understate it, overwhelming to any impartial observer. Why don't one of you pious pukes explain to a 7 year old with terminal cancer how it's God's plan to not only make him a better person but his suffering and death will help others too.

Alternatively you could tell him when the lights go dark that he's gone forever, annihilated. Moreover you might mention that his existence was totally meaningless because in probably less than a hundred years no one will know or care he existed at all.

Then give him a lollipop...

Hawking cites the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star outside our own Solar System as a turning point against Isaac Newton's belief that the Universe could not have arisen out of chaos.

"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,"

we're just a quantum "burp". This is one of the advanced interpretations of string theory.

Even the simplest of recognized living organisms has so many genes that it's impossible to have life arrive spontaneously from nothing. hand waving from the RNA world does not solve anything.

Neither does arguing from incredulity and ignorance.

IF the Universe was created by some being

I consider energy and life to be the most significant potentials of our Universe.

The universe is the totality of existence so how can a being exist prior to existence itself?

To put things into perspective, let me pose you a challenge:

So who's the one believing in magic? You or I?

If you are so sure nothing exists other than this physical universe then YOU must know everything and hence YOU are GOD!!!!

..the entire universe is net zero energy fluxuation....

The information required to do the processes in the cell lie in the arrangement of the bases in the DNA helix

Even the simplest of recognized living organisms has so many genes that it's impossible to have life arrive spontaneously from nothing. hand waving from the RNA world does not solve anything.

The universe is the totality of your[human] existence. But you cannot exclude the existence of that which is beyond our ability to detect and handle from a physical point of view.

If time is a characteristic peculiar to our universe

then there could well be something that exists outside of time

and hence have no beginning or end as we perceive it.

If all your suppositions are correct then this may be a rational possibility.

..the entire universe is net zero energy fluxuation....

This is just a modern religion without any evidence.

Not very suprising in your case, though. You cannot even realize, how religious creature you are.

More than one half of your posts is based on pure belief.

faith-faith-faith

We all believe in something that cannot be proven - that shapes our relationship with the world around us. We can call this belief whatever makes us happiest- and we look down on those that can't understand.

All require a form of faith a conviction in a personal belief that is based on a few facts that cannot be directly proven axioms, they are called.

We can call this belief whatever makes us happiest- and we look down on those that can't understand.

Surely disk space isn't so dear that we cant be reasonably verbose..

Surely disk space isn't so dear that we cant be reasonably verbose..

Check this thread 2 hours from now and you'll see why there needs to be some sort of limit. We're still in the religion vs. science phase. Just wait till we get to the socialism vs. capitalism, and/or the aetheric phases.

However, when I see things that go beyond the norm, such as the human brain's capacity far beyond that required by mere evolotion it gives me pause and room to believe in a God. I have no proof, but I won't discount the possibility.

Surely disk space isn't so dear that we cant be reasonably verbose..

Check this thread 2 hours from now and you'll see why there needs to be some sort of limit. We're still in the religion vs. science phase. Just wait till we get to the socialism vs. capitalism, and/or the aetheric phases.

Didn't Stephen had parents because the black matter is getting expensive qua giving it too cheap light. Ever is uneven any hawking but never was not even one hawkst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all hawks are always without theory because with practum is also not the real hawk.

is this a foreign language?

Alternatively you could tell him when the lights go dark that he's gone forever, annihilated. Moreover you might mention that his existence was totally meaningless because in probably less than a hundred years no one will know or care he existed at all.

Then give him a lollipop...

At least that way, the child might begin to understand what he's actually up against from the outset, instead of being handicapped right out of the gate with a Big Lie that could require his whole life to disentangle himself from.

Reductio ad Absurdum failed.

Because of COURSE it's more important for a terminally ill child to know what he's "up against".

Esoteric philosophy and a good dose of nihilism is what's best for a kid who's facing death....

IF the Universe was created by some being

I consider energy and life to be the most significant potentials of our Universe.

What does that even mean?

However, when I see things that go beyond the norm, such as the human brain's capacity far beyond that required by mere evolotion it gives me pause and room to believe in a God. I have no proof, but I won't discount the possibility.

See here lies the problem, our brains ARE the norm of what human brains would be like if they evolved over a LOOOONG period of time, because guess what, they did. Our brains are the way they are because that is how they evolved.

There is no natural evolutionary guide that sets the requirements and paths for evolution to follow or what stage of evolution should have what and what will be next. However if we discover one and we can empirically begin to establish a theory of how that would exist, I will change my tune. Until such a time, tangible wins hands down.

Everyone quiet! God has no place anywhere, lets just find a way to survive no matter what.

That you think heaven is imaginary doesn't make it so SH, sorry, it just doesn't.

Moreover I believe in shades of grey too SH, in that even if I DID think heaven was imaginary I see no problem in lying to a kid to give him some comfort in his last days, maybe take is mind off his situation and allow him to relax and enjoy what's left of his life.

I'm sure that just makes me a HORRIBLE person somehow in the purist atheistic fanatical mindset

but STRANGELY enough I'm just fine with that...TOTALLY fine with it.

I too am fine with each parent making their OWN decisions on the matter and being left the hell alone from interference from do-gooders on both sides of the isle.

You may be just astounded by this, but you know SH, you're views on what "my religion" says about me, to me, or means to me mean NOTHING to me.

My religion is a very personal experience

Why is it wrong for YOU to lie SH?

My question is what's the big deal for an atheist to do anything that justifies your ends?

Then why aren't we having this conversation a long time, millions of years, ago when our brains were developed to this capacity by evolution?

God has already given us His word, the Bible, and tells us the future now. Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies regarding His birth, character, ministry, death, resurrection from the dead, ascension, and exaltation. That is alot more than Stephen Hawking. God is just asking for us to accept the gift of eternal life with Him.

Ouuuu touched a nerve there didn't I?

Atheists are soooooo easy.

So you've given me a reason why "I" shouldn't lie, but you still haven't given me a reason absent religion not to lie.

"because it's evil"...hmmm what's evil, what does that word even mean to an atheist? Is anything evil? Why or why not?

Objectively and absent any higher morality we're just bags of mostly water with "complex" electrochemical circuitry. What does it matter if one biochemical machine lies to another?

Ouuuu touched a nerve there didn't I?

Atheists are soooooo easy.

So you've given me a reason why "I" shouldn't lie, but you still haven't given me a reason absent religion not to lie.

"because it's evil"...hmmm what's evil, what does that word even mean to an atheist? Is anything evil? Why or why not?

Objectively and absent any higher morality we're just bags of mostly water with "complex" electrochemical circuitry. What does it matter if one biochemical machine lies to another?

one word answer for you, make of it what you will RECIPROCITY.

Reciprocity...revenge. There's some fancy morality for ya.

LMFAO

Ouuuu touched a nerve there didn't I?

Atheists are soooooo easy.

So you've given me a reason why "I" shouldn't lie, but you still haven't given me a reason absent religion not to lie.

"because it's evil"...hmmm what's evil, what does that word even mean to an atheist? Is anything evil? Why or why not?

Objectively and absent any higher morality we're just bags of mostly water with "complex" electrochemical circuitry. What does it matter if one biochemical machine lies to another?

The universe is the totality of existence so how can a being exist prior to existence itself?

If you are so sure nothing exists other than this physical universe then YOU must know everything and hence YOU are GOD!!!!

First of all, everyone calm down. Accept that you cannot understand the true nature of the universe. Science attempts to solidify ideas through experimentation and observation. Religion just says, "Hey, we cant understand these things, so lets just come up with something that we can understand". I am not a religious person, because I accept that there are some things that are beyond my comprehension, such as creation, death, multiple universes, etc. Just enjoy the life you have, and don't attack others for not being comfortable with NOT KNOWING.

Just enjoy the life you have, and don't attack others for not being comfortable with NOT KNOWING.

Empathy for an animal with a big brain...that's even more funny than the revenge idea. Keep em coming tho.

Then why aren't we having this conversation a long time, millions of years, ago when our brains were developed to this capacity by evolution?

Obvious troll is obvious, but I will bite. Your question/retort is in 2 parts i feel.

Part A just makes no sense whatsoever and betrays your failure to understand simple temporal functions. We both happened to be alive right now to have this conversation. We were not alive a million years ago to have the conversation.

Now I think the gist of your very poor attempt at sarcasm/humour, and please correct me if I misinterpret, was that humans are special because they have large brains that evolution cannot explain.

When I said our brains evolved over a LOOONG time I also meant over a LOOONG series of ancestral species. A million years ago we would not have been homo sapiens?

It amuses me that you think I'm an evil little man SH, it doesn't bother me at all. It makes me pity you now actually to see how you respond to even the slightest touch to your beliefs.
You attacked, with anger, fear, and hatred.

Oh and you don't even know what my morality is, because if you did you'd know there's no "better man" than the other.

you're very insecure in your own beliefs

Empathy for an animal with a big brain...that's even more funny than the revenge idea. Keep em coming tho.

This conversation doesn't have to be us personally, but us as a species. If we've had this capacity all this time, why can we only now do this?

I know evolution works, but if the human mental capacity were purely evolutionary based, and if evolution takes the hundreds of thousands or millions of years that science says it does, then why are we (as a species) only now able to ask these questions?

What is it in human history that forced the human mind to achieve a capacity that is greater than that required for survival?

Why not ask the question in a less personal manner and we can take it from there.

Why not ask the question in a less personal manner and we can take it from there.

Any less personal question would be pointless because I dont want you to argue a position but think about why you believe that human morals are not a function of our being human but something mandated supernaturally. Do you think yourself incapable of appropriate behaviour without being ordered to or do you thing our whole species is incapable of behaving appropriately without some form of supervisor

You ask who cares if it feels at all ...other biochemical machines because their brains have the capacity for abstraction and can easily place themselves in the other machine's shoes....

So a man alone on a desert island isn't self aware, and doesn't possess morality?

I know evolution works, but if the human mental capacity were purely evolutionary based, and if evolution takes the hundreds of thousands or millions of years that science says it does, then why are we (as a species) only now able to ask these questions?

How do you know that we are the only ones who do?

So a man alone on a desert island isn't self aware, and doesn't possess morality?

Of course he is self aware.
But there is no human morality as it requires interaction between more than one human.
(We could discuss about another kind of morality by analyzing the behaviour of that individual towards non-human beings.)

I agree on the first point, disagree on the second though you do make a valid point that MOST of what we think of as morality requires more than one moral agent.

Isn't how we treat ourselves as important as how we treat others?

Or if not isn't it at least important?

I don't know. Existance stretches far beyond the earth and what we know. But this is the only example I've been provided with. Evolution is all about adapting to survive. To get this advanced, what did we have to adapt to? Nature only required that we be hunter - gatherers with simple tool skills to survive. For some reason we kept evolving beyond what nature required of us.

subjective appearance of choice.

subjective appearance of choice.

Seems like a convenient way to do what ever one wants to do.

If everything is biologically programmed, then there is no need for a concept of responsibility.

Completely, and succinctly, explain your logical reasoning to come to such a conclusion. I highly doubt you have the ability or patience to do so, but I'll be waiting nonetheless.

I don't yet have fathomed the advantages and disadvantages of having one's set of parameters published or not but it seems there is an advantage to hiding that set because this way one can better hide one's personal inconsistencies.

I think god created the universe because all the variables in physics are tuned just right to support us. A little off in either way and we simply wouldn't exist. There are too many things in nature that are a reflection of a highly sophisticated mathematical framework to describe. Put directly it is as if the universe has an endless way of unfolding as we probe it's depths and refine our knowledge. What exactly is at planck scale? Betcha there's lots of unknown structure in-between getting in the way of knowing...

Moreover it requires a complex ruleset, as a simple "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" can lead to immoral actions as well.

Caliban implies he has no difficulty with morality, bully for him. The rest of us do. I'll go out on a limb here and say that none of us has it all figured out. [...]I do believe it's necessary to have a higher authority than "man" to appeal to for a proper moral framework, otherwise it's possible to rationalize almost any behavior toward others.

Everything is so exactly tuned to human perception, as you put it, because we have evolved the senses we have in order to be able to apprehend and exploit, as efficiently as possible, our environment, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

It's a Ground-up proposition, not Top-down.

that government which governs least governs best

I WISH it were that simple, I used to think it was...but in my experience it just isn't.

However, there's another way of looking at that. It could be that our environment was tuned in such a way to allow for the evolution of intelligent bipedal mammals to apprehend and exploit the environment made for them.

It just depends on your perspective...

Caliban,
For the sake of argument let's say someone is a suicidal person, who's given up on life. They TRULY think that it's meaningless, hopeless, and everyone is ultimately doomed to nothing but suffering.

If they follow the GR, are they wrong to just take their own life, or would it be more consistent if they could get their hands on a thermonuclear device and take a few million with them?

Is it straining a point?

that government which governs least governs best

That sounds like it came from The Principles of Homeopathic Government school of thought.

I think god created the universe because all the variables in physics are tuned just right to support us.

Something I've learned: you will NEVER convince anyone of anything by posting something on the internet. Why bother trying?

If you take an individual that is potentially, but not yet self aware, like an infant, and attempt to raise it in isolation of the social situation necessary for self awareness, if it survives, it will not be self aware

Something I've learned: you will NEVER convince anyone of anything by posting something on the internet. Why bother trying?

Because it's on the public record for anyone to read. While you won't be able to change blinkered, closed minds, at least people with enquiring minds may profit from evidence based, rational arguments.

I think god created the universe because all the variables in physics are tuned just right to support us.

Wrong. The whole idea of "fine tuning" is bullshit.
What sort of life would arise in this universe naturally? Well, exactly the type of life we have now. To assume that the rules follow life as opposed to life following the rules is utterly ridiculous.

Wrong. The whole idea of "fine tuning" is bullshit.

And this, as I read it, is Hawking's point exactly
-that there is absolutely no need to add another layer of unecessary complexity to the nature of the Universe, by insisting that it was "made" for us, and thereby additionally implying the past or present or future existence of that maker, much less its particular interest in argumentative bipeds aka humanity.

If they follow the GR, are they wrong to just take their own life, or would it be more consistent if they could get their hands on a thermonuclear device and take a few million with them?

What are the roots of the rules of the universe and what (set theory) relationship is there between the rules we know, the rules we don't yet know, and the rules we'll never know?

I've always considered you my greatest opponent, yet my greatest ally when it comes to conversations of this nature.

No, it would not be more consistent.
When I have come to the conclusion that living is meaningless and nothing but a source of pain then I'm aware that I'm different from the majority of humans.

Wrong. The whole idea of "fine tuning" is bullshit.

It's not BS. For instance, if cosmological constant were to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If cosmological constant were > 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the universe would be warm enough for life.

Such trolls who are judging things which they don't understand are quite common here.

I'm sorry for the blatant verbal abuse you're taking here (hopefully the moderators will take note and remedy the situation), but your argument is perfectly sound.

Demonstrate the existence of a random, naturally occurring physical system that will create a store of information that describes a process to create a pin-needle as we know it. I've used this as an example because it's DEAD and easy to understand. For us.

Isn't how we treat ourselves as important as how we treat others?

Or if not isn't it at least important?

I'm sorry for the blatant verbal abuse you're taking here (hopefully the moderators will take note and remedy the situation), but your argument is perfectly sound.

Back slapping from one creationist to another. First, you don't know if any of the constants or laws of nature can deviate from their present state. You have a sample size of 1, which means if it happened, the probability of it happening is 100%. Secondly, you need actual arguments, not suppositions from WLC's "Kalaam Cosmological Argument" which is entirely self refutable.

So you do lie after all :-) How does that make you feel? On the bright side you actually managed not to use the f word or be abusive...

It doesn't matter how much or how little of the universe we can live in, it's totally meaningless to the argument. The fact that we're here satisfies the principle of the argument...period.

So you do lie after all :-) How does that make you feel? On the bright side you actually managed not to use the f word or be abusive...

Grow up. If you're going to bait someone into a conversation by saying stupid things, you should expect that person to converse with you.

You said you'd do something and you failed to follow through.

You're demonstrably a liar.

You said "you'd waste no more time with me" which as EVERYONE, but backpedaling liars knows in modern parlance is that you wouldn't be interacting with me further.

You can backpedal all you want, the fact is that after my post you managed to refrain from "correcting my obvious mistakes" for about a day, which means you know what you meant too.

If Kant was right

is this a foreign language?

I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish by posting that. That post in particular is nearly identical to many others by him, with only a few words replaced by ones that appear in this particular article. I'd concluded that he was a bot using a template post, but his other short comments on this page now make me wonder.

What, you at stellafane? I used to go there. Me and my C8. And my copier lens/PVC armpit scope.

If Kant was right

But, sadly, he was not. How could he be? He knew nothing about evolutionary psychology. Unless he 'intuited' it.

Great propagandist though.

As an aside, I can't PROVE this is a lie, but when you say your lack of posting was due to the fact that you were on a mountain...well you DID make other posts in that same time frame, and we were on the same thread, and I was making arguments I'm quite sure you disagreed with.

Like I said not proof, but strong circumstantial evidence for yet another lie.

Please give me a list of interactions with me you don't consider wasting time... as we surely will if you continue to interact with me in the future on this board.

Didn't Stephen had parents because the black matter is getting expensive qua giving it too cheap light. Ever is uneven any hawking but never was not even one hawkst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all hawks are always without theory because with practum is also not the real hawk.

So your English is worser than my Dutch.

I was posting between 8pm and 3am? Odd, it's entirely absent from my activity log.

What, you at stellafane? I used to go there. Me and my C8. And my copier lens/PVC armpit scope.

If Kant was right

But, sadly, he was not. How could he be? He knew nothing about evolutionary psychology. Unless he 'intuited' it.

Great propagandist though.

What does evolutionary psychology have to do with tea in China? That is about behavioral adaptation.

Niemand begrijpt wat uw gezegde! Niemand begrijpt uw webpage. Leer engels voor schrijven.

I have no idea, but I do know you and I were posting at the same time, in the same thread, and I was certainly making arguments you'd consider "easily deconstruct-able", yet you didn't. Why? We know why don't we ;-)

So, if defending your character isn't a "waste of your time" I guess you'd better prepare to defend your character every time you and I interact on this board then, because I still have no clue what "wasting your time on me" encompasses, and until I do I'll continue to bring this up EVERY time we interact.

Look folks, it's Zephir 2.0 with a slightly better grasp of English. Now you just need 5 more screen names and a paranoid hatred for scientists, the latter of which you may already have.

What does evolutionary psychology have to do with tea in China? That is about behavioral adaptation.

Uhhh correct me if I'm wrong, and it's been a while since I've seen a post from Noumenon, but I'm pretty sure he's an atheist...?

Funny how EVERYTHING equals religion on this board....hehehehe.

You did, therefore you're a liar.

What does evolutionary psychology have to do with tea in China? That is about behavioral adaptation.

Ok, let me be even a little serious. The recognition of the evolutionary nature of the brain and it's influence on cognition and decision as the primary motivator of human behavior totally negates any philosophical musings as to the nature of it prior to this recognition.

Philosophy has been forced in light of this to begin from square one in trying to model human nature and it's relationship to the universe. I bet you know this, but like any religionist refuse to acknowledge it due to the uncomfortable effect it would have on your weltanschuung.

And nou, please spare me any esoteric kantian trivia in rebuttal. I do not have to know the specifics of alchemy to know that it's practitioners were on the wrong path.

Confirmed, I've found Skeptic_Heretic openly lying many times.

The recognition of the evolutionary nature of the brain and it's influence on cognition and decision as the primary motivator of human behavior totally negates any philosophical musings as to the nature of it prior to this recognition.

Uhhh correct me if I'm wrong, and it's been a while since I've seen a post from Noumenon, but I'm pretty sure he's an atheist...? - Modernmystic

Uhhh correct me if I'm wrong, and it's been a while since I've seen a post from Noumenon, but I'm pretty sure he's an atheist...? - Modernmystic

No, I think atheists are simple and irrational. I would rather say I am an agnostic, or would equate God with nature, and we would be of like mind.

No, I think atheists are simple and irrational. I would rather say I am an agnostic, or would equate God with nature, and we would be of like mind.

Agnostics are the ONLY one of the three (deist, atheist, agnostic) that are on a totally logical and self consistent position.

Kant wrote about epistemology, which is closely related to scientific method, in that it's a study about what constitutes knowledge, and how we come to have it, and what is it's scope in principal. Not effected by the discovery of evolution.

Generally I take atheist as one who somehow "knows" that God does not exist, in a positive sense.

Kant showed that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This in effect means that one can never Know that God does not exist, as much as it means on can never show that He does.

I take Agnostic as one who recognizes that one cannot know whether God exists or equivalently, does not exist, so accepts ignorance rather than pursue belief.

Deists, most deists believe they have sufficient proof that God exists.

Generally I take atheist as one who somehow "knows" that God does not exist, in a positive sense.

Ok, but that is a small minority of atheists. By that definition, atheism is certainly irrational, however, that is not the majority held view.

What makes you think social embedding is required to learn self awareness?
IMO, like language, self awareness is built-in in humans, but, unlike language, without any need to be learned.

Right, so the most influential of the founders of modern epistemology, "had little idea how the human organism perceives, collects, processes, and acts upon knowledge, [so] he could not have been able to properly comment on it.

What would the majority held view be exactly then?

@Ottis, Have you read Kant?

What would the majority held view be exactly then?

The majority view is "I see no evidence for the existence of a theist god".

I think the proper term would be materialism or determinism.

The rational problem for an atheist is that they equate a "lack of evidence", a negative, to evidence that "God does not exist", a positive.

They don't simply say there is a "lack of evidence" and stop there, as even the Pope might agree. What differentiates an atheist from an agnostic, is that the atheist takes the next irrational step.

His task was to make sense of why the method of science worked, and his critical epistemology is the foundation upon which any evolutionary behaviorist account must rest.

It was in philosophy where modern scientific method was founded. See the history from Descartes, Lock, Hobbes, Leibniz, and especially Hume and Kant

That Gerbils latched onto and molested whatever was useful for propaganda reasons is quit irrelevant.

Kant, like Plato, could not understand reality by trying to reconstruct it within his own mind. And yet in his own time it was considered a legitimate pursuit.

@nou

That Gerbils latched onto and molested whatever was useful for propaganda reasons is quit irrelevant.

You seem to be a little preoccupied with perversion, besides Kant. What's up with that?

Here, digest this:
http://en.wikiped...temology
-Otto just ate-

It was in philosophy where modern scientific method was founded. See the history from Descartes, Lock, Hobbes, Leibniz, and especially Hume and Kant

Some philo told you that didn't he? Science may have borrowed legitimacy from the established philo community, in order to counter the resistance of the church, but in reality it is simple cause and effect, try-learn-try again, which organisms have been doing for eons.

The gods they fall one by one.

Whatever keeps up the traffic to physorg.com.

IMO, agnostics who claim to not be atheists just haven't thought it through yet. For whatever reason, they still think there is a logical reason to believe in a god.

If you believe in propositions like: "light speed" is constant and is the fastest speed of causality, ...

"a particle wave has no intrinsic potential energy"...

Since there is no experimental evidence what-so-ever for both propositions... God is not "disproved" at all.

... (vedantic) is such that it is not even scientifically provable, yet it 'might' be fully understood as the truth.

I don't think it is possible to say one way or another.

But I may be to narrow in my definition of atheist as SH point out, although then I would not know the distinction between agnostic and atheist.

If everything is biologically programmed, then there is no need for a concept of responsibility.

If one has no choice because of biological determinism, how can one be held responsible?

..Most of the theories he bases this on Haven't even been proven or tested! ....Hawkings needs to sell more books so..whatever.

I fail to see what your point is? Again, what does evolutionary epistemology have to do with my fist use of Kant above?

If Kant was right, that a-priori cognitive faculties determine the form of experience and so the conditions of science, that is,if Reality is made to conform to our intrinsic subjective conceptual framework

He was fully aware of the inductive method as necessary, but did not regard the mind as passive blank slate

my fist use of Kant

agnostics who claim to not be atheists just haven't thought it through yet. For whatever reason, they still think there is a logical reason to believe in a god.

I thought I was an agnostic who does Not think there is any logical reason for belief in God nor for that matter, who does not think there is any logical reason for an atheist's active disbelief in God. I equate both as irrational.

But I may be to narrow in my definition of atheist as SH point out, although then I would not know the distinction between agnostic and atheist.

Whatever keeps up the traffic to physorg.com.

Think there's any possibility to the thought that marjon and kevinrtrs are physorg employees just trying to stir the pot? Nah, that's crazy conspiracy theory talk.

But I may be to narrow in my definition of atheist as SH point out, although then I would not know the distinction between agnostic and atheist.

It seems so. I just use the definitions of theist and gnostic, then put the 'without' before it.

I don't find an English definition for the term "gnostic".

An atheist is not just a person who has no faith in deities; it is a person who additionally has no faith in belief systems without deities.

Yes, this special atheistic definition of "agnosticism" essentially denies that there is a third stance independent from both camps.
This denial, in turn, is the refusal/unability to admit that "I don't know". Thus it resembles the mind pattern of believers.

A Buddhist cannot be considered to be an atheist.

Technically you're probably correct in that adding an "a" negates those definitions, but language is not math,

Language is about conveying meaning and if most folks accept the above definitions then that is the effect of using those words.

That's the thing about language and definitions - they change under your feet.

Using altered definitions completely changes the statement made and allows the ignorant to demonize people who don't deserve it.

It's tricky. Willfully altering definitions to support an indefensible stance is what you're alluding to, but definitions do change over time as a natural process.

If God doesn't exist where did all the matter for everything come from?

Run those questions through the old wheelhouse a few times and see what you come up with.

If God doesn't exist where did all the matter for everything come from? Where did all the power and energy come from to run the universe? If God doesn't exist and the universe is eternal why has everything not gone cold? Why am I here? Heck why is anything here?

However, his qualifications to speak difinitively concerning the existence or universal need for a God don't appear to be publically available.

Whatever the conclusion of the definition war, there are a lot of people on this forum who sure as hell act and post like they "know" and then run and hide behind a convenient "well I don't really know" when it suits them.

Whatever the conclusion of the definition war, there are a lot of people on this forum who sure as hell act and post like they "know" and then run and hide behind a convenient "well I don't really know" when it suits them.

Knowledge of one thing doesn't constitute knowledge of all things. SCience doesn't know everything, if it did. It would stop.

People should really speak english before they are allowed to comment on this site! Otherwise their opinions are simultaneously incoherent and unreasonable!

Didn't Stephen had parents because the black matter is getting expensive qua giving it too cheap light. Ever is uneven any hawking but never was not even one hawkst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all hawks are always without theory because with practum is also not the real hawk.

To say there is no god because the law of gravity will suffice is to ignore the law of gravity (itself) altogether. I.e. Why is there a law of gravity to begin with?

To say there is no god because the law of gravity will suffice is to ignore the law of gravity (itself) altogether. I.e. Why is there a law of gravity to begin with?

You're begging the question. Why don't you ask Stephen or at least read his book? Maybe he knows.

Or you can pray, but I bet all you really hear when you do that is static. Come on, be honest. If anybody got real answers from praying, why would we need guys like Stephen anyways?

there are a lot of people on this forum who sure as hell act and post like they "know" and then run and hide behind a convenient "well I don't really know" when it suits them.

That reasonable men accept that some things may forever remain unknown is a strength, not a weakness. They feel no need to invent a comforting false narrative.

there are a lot of people on this forum who sure as hell act and post like they "know" and then run and hide behind a convenient "well I don't really know" when it suits them.

There are limits to knowledge. Things that are knowable and known need to be promoted especially when men without reason spread dogma and falsehoods. That reasonable men accept that some things may forever remain unknown is a strength, not a weakness. They feel no need to invent a comforting false narrative.

That reasonable men accept that some things may forever remain unknown is a strength, not a weakness. They feel no need to invent a comforting false narrative.

Like, "If we continuously apply the scientific method we will eventually know all."?

To say there is no god because the law of gravity will suffice is to ignore the law of gravity (itself) altogether. I.e. Why is there a law of gravity to begin with?

You're begging the question. Why don't you ask Stephen or at least read his book? Maybe he knows.

Or you can pray, but I bet all you really hear when you do that is static. Come on, be honest. If anybody got real answers from praying, why would we need guys like Stephen anyways?

Does your father give you everything and anything you ask for? Mine didn't.

@ Skeptic_Heretic, are you for real?

I can't believe that an intelligent (a liberty, I know) person can have such a cold and simple view of comforting a dying child.

I take it that you don't have children and have had very little experience with other human beings

You are a very poor representation of the scientific community and anyone actually pondering the existence of a creator or the like may be saying a small prayer (to whatever 'Being' they believe in) for your dark soul.

In fact I'd love to see you tell a dying child that when he die's it's all over, blackness, nothing more.

oh and when you're on your death bed we'll see how many times your mind drifts to the potential of a god.

You are a very poor representation of the scientific community

You are a very poor representation of the scientific community

Skeptic_Heretic is a retired teacher - he never worked as a scientist. You shouldn't extrapolate behaviour of anonymous trolls to normal scientists.

You are a very poor representation of the scientific community

Skeptic_Heretic is a retired teacher - he never worked as a scientist. You shouldn't extrapolate behaviour of anonymous trolls to normal scientists.

I've said very flatly on multiple occasions, and in multiple places, I don't know if a God exists or not.

You are a very poor representation of the scientific community

Skeptic_Heretic is a retired teacher - he never worked as a scientist. You shouldn't extrapolate behaviour of anonymous trolls to normal scientists.

Then you are not an atheist.

You are a very poor representation of the scientific community

Skeptic_Heretic is a retired teacher - he never worked as a scientist. You shouldn't extrapolate behaviour of anonymous trolls to normal scientists.

You are a very poor representation of the scientific community

Skeptic_Heretic is a retired teacher - he never worked as a scientist. You shouldn't extrapolate behaviour of anonymous trolls to normal scientists.

You are a very poor representation of the scientific community

Skeptic_Heretic is a retired teacher - he never worked as a scientist. You shouldn't extrapolate behaviour of anonymous trolls to normal scientists.

You should certainly ignore any opinions from lying, bitch-slapping clones, yes?

Oop sorry MM, I just assumed you were jigga-

That would explain why all of our educational woes are due to "poor parenting" LMFAO.

Sorry please excuse my ignorance, but who exactly are you addressing here? Oh, and what's your point?

You seemed very sure of your position on children and how evil everyone is earlier but you now seem to have resorted to monitoring peoples 'indicator lights'! As most people still have a job I doubt very much whether there whole attention is on your posts!

So then tell us this. Is it morally defensible to lie to children according to your faith?

Phew, I was really concerned about the psychological well being of any pupils taught by such a one tracked mind.

Oh, and thanks for the ranking points.

SF: So then tell us this. Is it morally defensible to lie to children according to your faith?

No, is it morally defensible to tell a dying child anything other than that which would give them comfort?

you argued that it was 'immoral' for a religious person to lie to their child on their death bed

I have no idea what you would say to your own terminally ill child and nor do I wish to hear it as your stance on morality is somewhat unclear and you're upsetting enough as it is.

Your black and white view of the world and of peoples actions and reactions only allows for a single circumstance, upon which you throw your judgement.

I suppose that you would call the same highly religious father a hypocrite for telling his child a lie to comfort him?

SF: So then tell us this. Is it morally defensible to lie to children according to your faith?

No, is it morally defensible to tell a dying child anything other than that which would give them comfort?

So is he a man of science, a man of faith, or man who's gone batty?

How's about getting back to the content of the article?

Sorry you're right ... nuff said as the saying goes.

How's about getting back to the content of the article?

Doesn't it strike anyone as being odd that Stephen Hawking has essentially gone off the deep end?

On the one hand he's advancing paranoid delusions that space invaders are coming to attack the earth, and on the other he's claiming to have all the answers.

If he truly stood by the principles of physics, he would know that interstellar travel is virtually impossible and certainly impractical on the scale he's referencing.[...]

For instance, we can state categorically that Heaven is not a gleaming city perched on the topside of clouds, as we can readily verify this.

However, we haven't the ability to verify a causation for the universe itself, and Hawking is expressing a form of faith, by presuming otherwise.

So is he a man of science, a man of faith, or man who's gone batty?

And, there's no way anyone can scientifically disprove the existence of a deity, without first pinning down the properties of said deity.

We know this to be patently false. Can we thus trust any other conclusions Kant drew using this same well-conceived reasoning mechanism of his? I think not.

Actually it's just Mlodinow, who is writing "Hawking's" books and spreading Jewish propaganda under his name. He is manipulating public, not saying about poor Howking...

Well, they led him to the understanding that gods existence couldn't be proven, and yet left him the wiggle room to conclude that we ought to believe in him anyway, or at least 'act as if' he were real. This seems like blatant political expediency to me, as in propagandist, and makes me wonder just how much of kants works were of a similar vein?

Were moral systems so rare that they only existed in the church? And which church was Kant referring to specifically, as their moral codes all differed somewhat, especially in relation to one another. I assume he was not considering Anglican-?

Faith is nothing more than self delusion. Useful in matters of love but worthless otherwise.

"belief" and "knowledge" are two distinct things

his profound discoveries where with regard to the scope of knowledge

We are aware today of realms of 'knowledge' which neither kant nor his theories could have forseen.

Nothing is brain research refutes Kant's critical philosophy (roughly the first half of The Critique of Pure Reason). Our conceptualizing is greatly underdetermined by emperical imput alone. Ex.,why does mathematics apply to the empirical world with such necessity?

An excellent exposition of this is the first chapter of Robert Hanna's Kant and the Foundation of Analytic Philosophy.

This makes sense to me:

Nietzsche, from the first chapter of Beyond Good and Evil:

"[I]t is high time to replace the Kantian question, 'How are synthetic judgments a PRIORI possible?' by another question, 'Why is belief in such judgments necessary?'--in effect, it is high time that we should understand that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they still might naturally be false judgments! Or, more plainly spoken, [...] synthetic judgments a priori should not "be possible" at all [...]"

-He is taking kants postulate and asking the question everybody really wants to ask, "Who needs it anyway??"

-cont.

Nothing is brain research refutes Kant's critical philosophy (roughly the first half of The Critique of Pure Reason). Our conceptualizing is greatly underdetermined by emperical imput alone. Ex.,why does mathematics apply to the empirical world with such necessity?

If thats true then it was pure coincidence. Kant did no experiments and could not appreciate the success that mathematics has had in modeling phenomena since.

Nothing is brain research refutes Kant's critical philosophy (roughly the first half of The Critique of Pure Reason). Our conceptualizing is greatly underdetermined by emperical imput alone. Ex.,why does mathematics apply to the empirical world with such necessity?

If thats true then it was pure coincidence. Kant did no experiments and could not appreciate the success that mathematics has had in modeling phenomena since.

You seem to make a lot of pronouncements of what Kant could have done or not done. Kant (c ~1790) studied Newton (c ~1665) and many of his early writings were of a scientific nature. He was around, and may have heard that Henry Cavendish measured the gravitational constant (G) to remarkable accuracy.

if Reality is made to conform to our intrinsic subjective conceptual framework in order for there to be knowledge at all, given the nature of mind

Our senses have been enhanced by machines, yes, but this does not effect the conceptual paradigmns in which we formulate knowledge or understanding.

I don't think our brains can make something as complex as billions of personal interactions that doesn't then contradict resulting in a complete system crash.

Science is modeling things with math that only machines, in reality, can fully 'understand'

We are able to reconfigure our machines to pursue new types information

You misunderstand Nietzsche. He didn't accept the soul or substance concept.

Again you mistake quantity for quality. Machines don't really understand squat, they're just controlled phenomena.

While this is going on, machines and their keepers are producing tons of knowledge in useful form while philos are scrambling to decide what it all 'means'.

There isn't a single person on the planet without philosphy otto, it's just part of the definition that neither you or I get to change.

I don't think our brains can make something as complex as billions of personal interactions that doesn't then contradict resulting in a complete system crash.

At any given time, the brain can only focus on ~7 objects at most. So an illusion only needs to be that complex to fool us real time.

Knowledge is absolute.

These limits are becoming irrelevant because of artificial augmentation (sensory and analytical).

@skultch
Well youre constructing things here which im not sure need to be constructed. The most significant effect of classic philosophy has been in how it can affect people sociopolitically, not intellectually. What we may be seeing is the dropping of the veil;...

Knowledge is absolute.

That is one heuristic.

These limits are becoming irrelevant because of artificial augmentation (sensory and analytical).

And, another heuristic.

I'd say that you'd have to have some big qualifiers to state "knowledge is absolute".

I think that maybe a better way to say it is that "reality is absolute".

My two cents.

I'm just trying to summarize the conversation you were having in this thread with others so I know I understand it.

I'd say that you'd have to have some big qualifiers to state "knowledge is absolute".

I think that maybe a better way to say it is that "reality is absolute".

My two cents.

Knowledge is absolute.

That is one heuristic.

These limits are becoming irrelevant because of artificial augmentation (sensory and analytical).

And, another heuristic.

And?

meeting an alien intelligence is the state of their "philosophy".

It gets back to the problem of moral relativism within human societies and how to resolve it without an ultimate authority to appeal to. Whether or not you believe in God it's still an unresolved problem in any theory of ethics.

You seem to be suggesting that you know all the things you don't know.
History has shown that no one has even begun to know what we don't know.

Without "God" how do you tell which aliens are the "good" ones and "bad" ones in that story?

Objectively one is just being prudent, the other self righteous.

It gets back to the problem of moral relativism within human societies and how to resolve it without an ultimate authority to appeal to. Whether or not you believe in God it's still an unresolved problem in any theory of ethics.

Of course the reverse is a problem too, with an ultimate authority to appeal to...why then you can "interpret" and "rationalize" yourself all the way to hell.

If I thought non-reality could be a self consistent concept you might have a point...

Belief in god has nothing to do with ethics. You're either ethical or not, the primary driver for your ethos has nothing to do with why you adhere to your ethics.

And how is it not?

Nice new sockpuppet by the way.

... human rights are inherent and unalienable. If they are not, all sorts of mischief ensues if one must depend upon the benevolence of the mob.

The presence of an alien species that does not agree with or act according to our ethics does not change the validity of our system. Objective perspective is not necessary for us to be "right." No matter our ethical framework, we still have the right to defend, and the validity of our perspective. No one said survival of the fittest was fair.

Isn't that what I basically just said?

Whether or not you believe in God it's still an unresolved problem in any theory of ethics.

What you fail to recongnize is that belief in God does change ethics (not saying BETTER, I'm saying DIFFERENT), at least for human beings.

And how is it not?

Describe it as a concept and I'll answer.

As a species, we are trying to transcend this into our own construct

See, we have this thing called memory.

-Do scientists pull out the popper manual before they configure an experiment? I think not.

Nice new sockpuppet by the way.

What?

Without "God" how do you tell which aliens are the "good" ones and "bad" ones in that story?

See, we have this thing called memory.

Which records various configurations of ~7 objects that we focused on at some time in the past...

Apologies, that was directed at Zephir. Looks like he's cut himself ANOTHER new screen name. wiki11.

I would have no comparison, but it sure feels and seems like I wouldn't have the energy to invent a world in my mind that could be as complicated as we "all" perceive. ;)

billions?

I can ask others about their memories and when they answer, my brain compares the timing, it didn't and doesn't invent the timing.

Do we know enough about the brains programing language to rule out this capability?

-Do scientists pull out the popper manual before they configure an experiment? I think not.

Physicists, chemists and to a certain extent biologists don't have to, because it's built in the object of study, but it wouldn't hurt if the social guys read it every once in a while.

As a species, we are trying to transcend this into our own construct

One way to do that is to state that every individual human being has certain unalienable and inherent rights.
What is wrong with that construct?
Or do you prefer the construct of mob rule?

-The bad aliens are the ones who are shooting at you. And yes, they will tell you that god is on THEIR side.

billions?

Come on, how many facebook friends can you have? All those seemingly numerous external confirmations

it would require the brain to have an internal clock

All we may know comes through the brain, so it could be considered unreliable. Mathematically speaking, incompleteness.

I agree with much of what you're saying skultch...but when exactly was religion invented? :-P

So that is what holds them back? Worship of Popper?
BTW, Popper was not a scientist.

SH

Adherence to a moral code is a problem with moral relativism, among others. When someone admits that morals are relative it cuts the legs out from underneath it's own code. Ostensibly you follow a moral code because it's "right". The problem for a non-relative moral code is very similar but DIFFERENT nonetheless.

There's no way to describe it as far as I can see, moreover if it exists then it's part of reality and therefore invalidates the concept from the get go.

Then what is outside the boundary of reality?

A better question would be when do you think "mob rule" ended and why?

Though initially I'd have said it would have been much older and that perhaps even homo-erectus might have had some form of it in which case we'd be MUCH further back.

I'd say that's a good guess Skultch, after a little research I'd have to agree that it was between 60-50,000 B.C.[...]it in which case we'd be MUCH further back.

What indications do you have that we didn't have "mob rule" 50,000 BCE? How would you define it? I'd assert that mob rule was alive and well during that era.

A better question would be when do you think "mob rule" ended and why?

"Mob Rule" is often only prevented by Leadership-imposed force, aka "Authority".

All societies need leaders AND followers.

Small groups might not necessarily need to be forced into submission

With small groups it would be easy to see the non-followers killed leaving only few (or one) leader(s) and the rest followers.

Another problem with the traditional: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is that; while they are an excellent framework, they mean different things to different people.

I will say that among human beings the IDEA that rights are based in the individual and not "granted" by the state seems to produce MUCH better outcomes. That in and of itself is enough for me to be a proponent, whatever anyone else needs to get on board I don't know...

When our need for group affinity outweighs other notions of want or action, we conform to the rules of the group. That is morality

Let's talk then about groups. And subgroups and supergroups. Like the supergroup of all human beings on this planet. Or the supergroup of all beings on this planet. And the subgroup of one's local gang.

All societies need leaders AND followers.

Why?

But if they don't follow the leader, some will just have to be 'controlled'?

That works for you?

A positive right will usually (always?) place a "responsibility" on someone else to provide it. To me this, far from freedom, could objectively and honestly be described as slavery, or at least a form of it.

A positive right will usually (always?) place a "responsibility" on someone else to provide it. To me this, far from freedom, could objectively and honestly be described as slavery, or at least a form of it.

Sorry for the short question here but, how so?

A positive right being "you have a right to own a firearm" requires no one to grant you that right. I don't think we share the conceptual definition of positive rights.

Kant then showed that it was possible to completely justify the method of science

so that scientists could Know that scientific knowledge was coming successively closer to the Truth

In my view, Kant's ethics is all about freedom in the sense that the subjective appearance of choice is inescapable for us.

Yo moderator gods- some script is screwing up this page and others-

Indeed we don't I'd assert you have the right to do anything unobstructed, including owning a firearm, SO LONG AS you're not breaking legs and picking pockets. A positive right (to me) would be saying the government has a responsibility to supply you with a firearm.

Indeed we don't I'd assert you have the right to do anything unobstructed, including owning a firearm, SO LONG AS you're not breaking legs and picking pockets. A positive right (to me) would be saying the government has a responsibility to supply you with a firearm.

But that isn't a right by any definition of the term. That is an extended priviledge or as you said above, entitlement. A right would be something you can exercise, you're speaking of material or tangental possessions. For example, the "right" to healthcare isn't a right, it is a priviledged resource. The government could make it a universal priviledge, but they cannot deem healthcare a "right" as you'd need someone to perform the service.

Adding the government into the mix also confuses the issue. We're talking about morality, not legality. In order for morality to be binding, it must be self-imposed. External coercion to do the right thing is not the same as choosing to do something because it's the right thing to do.

-I think kants defining knowledge is somewhat like jigga defining physics, only with more class and a lot more authority. And a LOT more words.

Exactly. So I must be misunderstanding you somewhere, because I'm not seeing where we disagree. So long as I don't molest I'm left unmolested isn't a privilege, doesn't require anything (but arguably someone to enforce it) from anyone else. Not so with material

This space and time is constructed (synthesized) by our selves prior to any experience of anything in space or time (a priori)

And adjudicate is a wholly legal term.
http://www.thefre...judicate
-If youre going to use big fat smelly words I suggest you use them properly.

Then what the hell is a "positive right" in your book?

Correct, at which point its proved itself irrelevent. Kant was grasping for any excuse to hold onto the bankrupt 'metaphysics' sham.

we do not experience the world the way it "really is"

Since this is an obvious contradiction, Kant argued that you can't know anything about the soul by just "thinking" about it.

That's just wrong otto, and until you actually bother to learn the history of western thought

we're just gonna keep going around in circles.

Dude quit bitchslappin me. I only gotta slap you back and it only wastes our time. Leave that for jigga and frajo.

he feels it is his duty to down rate everything off topic

The problem of postmodern society is its verbosity and garrulity. It effectively blocks the acceptation of the optimal solution in the same way, like quiet ignorance.

What philosophy ever survived unaltered for much more than a generation? Not counting neos and revivalists that is-

The problem of postmodern society is its verbosity and garrulity. It effectively blocks the acceptation of the optimal solution in the same way, like quiet ignorance.

I declare your argument is guilty of the fallacy of sophisma figurae dictionis, or the fallacy of equivocation/ambiguous middle.

Philosophy started us down the path of the systematic exploration and exposition of our experience of the world, and led the way for more than three thousand years, culminating in the scientific worldview, with all the conceptual tools that make such a worldview possible, that we have today.

It's funny that you would accuse me of sophistry

Look, you yourself admitted you don't know what Kant actually wrote or meant

All you've been doing is quote mining

Until you actually learn what he said, shouldn't you reserve your opinion about it?

.

Look, you yourself admitted you don't know what Kant actually wrote or meant

Honestly, who does? HONESTLY.

You read these guys (and hannah arendt and ann rand etal) and you begin looking for the politics of the times and you say to yourself, 'there it is!' again and again, and you start discarding 'theories'.

Now you're going all conspiracy theory, and like Jigga, you've got zero evidence to support it, just an ad hoc hypothesis.

Having studied much of Kant's writings for almost half of my professional life, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of what he was trying to say.

The brotherhood of 1-voters for Thrasymachus' highly informative comments consists very appropriately of a wannabe physicist unloved by physics and a wannabe philosopher unloved by philosophy.

I doubt you know what the political reality of Konigsberg Germany in the middle-late 1700s was

I would argue that the others you listed did science despite their philosophies, not because of them. In other words their scientific work would have happened with or without their philosophical endeavors.

I doubt you know what the political reality of Konigsberg Germany in the middle-late 1700s was

The monarchical system of rule had run its course and would soon be dissolved. Colonies were being cast off, empires were being constructed, and the stage was being set for the Industrial Revolution. Democracy and consumerism. would fuel rapid techno development and its inevitable counterpart, socialism, would provide an able Adversary for martial field-testing and controlled Competition. Together they would subdue and consolidate the entire world. 2 sides- one coin.

You'd like to argue that, but you can't because you don't have any evidence, so you assert it and claim your assertion is an argument, when it's just dumbassery.

Working out the appropriate formalization is philosophy.

I doubt you know what the political reality of Konigsberg Germany in the middle-late 1700s was

The monarchical system of rule had run its course and would soon be dissolved. Colonies were being cast off, empires were being constructed, and the stage was being set for the Industrial Revolution. Democracy and consumerism. would fuel rapid techno development and its inevitable counterpart, socialism, would provide an able Adversary for martial field-testing and controlled Competition. Together they would subdue and consolidate the entire world. 2 sides- one coin.

That's what I thought, you don't know anything about what was going on then, and instead substitute your own overgeneralized and under-analyzed gloss.

While they probably self-aggrandize themselves and their profession, they weren't totally useless. JMO.

attempting to justify why a person should choose to be virtuous

I bet you've never even read the whole thing, have you?

My reading of Plato's Republic shows to me that a just society depends on the individual virtue of it's constituents. Thusly I think Thras is far closer in intended scope than Otto.

Otto acknowledges that but likes to look for other, less ephemeral and relativistic things.

Otto acknowledges that but likes to look for other, less ephemeral and relativistic things.

SO did the originators of religion and look at the silly nonsense some of them have found.

Ever read Augustine, the most renowned of the Church Doctors? After so many pages you begin to get the idea that his religious constructions were secondary, or ancillary, to a genuine concern about the future of humanity. A detached altruism, as in "disinterested persons who rule not for their personal enjoyment but for the good of the city-state (polis)."

I think he realized the importance of silliness to the vast body of people who desperately needed Shepherding.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

I wouldn't knock philosophy too hard...