Kirk Cameron on Stephen Hawking: ‘He Ain’t So Smart’

May 18th, 2011 // 249 Comments

“I can make that face, too, tough guy.”

Kirk Cameron is a high school graduate who starred on a sitcom where his best friend’s name is Boner and then fell headfirst into evangelical Christianity where he makes money telling people the banana is all the proof we need that God exists. Stephen Hawking is a world-renowned physicist and one of the greatest minds of our generation who recently told The Guardian that heaven is a “fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Guess who’s calling who an idiot. TMZ reports:

Cameron tells us, “Professor Hawking is heralded as ‘the genius of Britain,’ yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life.”
He adds, “Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking’s writings if he cannot provide evidence for his unscientific belief that out of nothing, everything came?”
… “[Hawking] says he knows there is no Heaven. John Lennon wasn’t sure. He said to pretend there’s no Heaven. That’s easy if you try. Then he said he hoped that someday we would join him. Such wishful thinking reveals John and Stephen’s religious beliefs, not good science.”

Granted, Stephen Hawking has about as much proof there isn’t a “heaven” as Kirk Cameron has that there is, Stephen Hawking does have evidence that the Bible is a heavily-edited manuscript which allows him to rule out the possibility of a Christian heaven populated by an old guy with a white beard and hippie son. Whereas Kirk Cameron believes fossils are a trick of the devil because the earth’s only 6,000 years old, and the people who wrote the Bible simply forgot to mention the massive thunder lizards they kept as pets.

PAUL: Hey, should I write a chapter about Chompy here?
PETER: Who wants to read about a giant lizard that eats men? Stick to the good stuff.

Photos: Getty

superficial

  1. Dr. Stephen William Hawking would be a lot easier to anally rape than Kirk Cameron so I’m going with Kirk on this one.

    Team Kirk

    OUT!!

    • Are you kidding? I’m only guessing here, but I’d assuming Stephen Hawking would have a bio-mechanoid anus complete with plasma turrets and concussion mines. Whereas Kirk Cameron is just a skinny little twat…just whack him upside the head with a Stillson wrench and proceed to violate his lily-white decidedly non-sentient and unarmed ass.

      • It’s not often that in our short lives our minds can actually be changed.

        You’re right, Matrim….and funnier too.

        From now on, I’m on,

        Team Cripple!

        OUT!!

    • “Dad,you can’t pray away the gay!!”-Sara Ramirez:”Grey’s Anatomy”.
      “Apparently,I’m guessing Jesus don’t like the Apaches very much.”
      -Ben Wade(Russell Crowe):”3:10 to Yuma”.

  2. Hugh Jass

    Those kids with cancer don’t believe in god hard enough or their mommy and daddy did something bad.

    • Johncougar'sMelonCamp

      “See her this weekend.you hit it off?
      Come turkey day maybe you can stuff her.”
      -Roger Sterling(John Slattery):”Mad Men”.

  3. brian

    stephen hawking is a personal hero of mine and is intelligent enough to make kirk cameron look like an ant

    • David

      Stephen Hawking is a personal hero of mine too, but that doesn’t mean he has any idea what he’s talking about here. He has an opinion. So does everyone else. Nothing makes his opinion any better than that of anyone else on this topic.

      (Not that I care what Kirk Cameron thinks in any way whatsoever.)

      • alex

        David–that’s is the last bastion of hope for the ultra religious. No shit his opinion isn’t “better.” But taking into account all we know of the universe, I’d put more stock in Hawkings opinion than a washed up teen actor. Its a question of credibility.

        And you can’t prove there is a god any more than I can prove their isnt a god. And that is “big win” for religion. As long as it can’t be disproven, religion claims it must be so and you and I should take it “on faith.” I also can’t prove pigs speak telepathically with dolphins but it makes about as much sense as an invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing deity pulling everyone’s strings.

      • Actually, there is a rather large difference between Cameron and Hawking’s positions. Cameron’s is 100% made up from whole cloth without the slightest bit of physical evidence to substantiate it. Hawking’s is based on science that is testable, repeatable, and consistent.

        That doesn’t make “no heaven” a slam dunk, but it does mean there’s a real REASON to not buy into the fairy tale.

      • Happily Faithful

        You are able to repeatedly get something from nothing??! Holy Crap!

      • Stephen

        McFreely, Hawkings can;t even prove his theory. Do you even know what you are talking about. What has science proven? Evolutionists need to climb in a cage with their anscestors and find out who wins the battle for survival of the fittest. Anyone who believes they can win in a death match with what science calls “our relatives,” give it a shot and let me know how it goes. Better yet, have your friends let me know since you won’t be alive to tell.

      • tar baby

        Gravity is just a theory too., Care to jump off a building to test it?

    • Well yeah but

      Krik Cameron doesn’t need Stephen Hawking’s help to look like an ant.

      • Frank

        @Stephen You, sir, are an idiot.

      • Jovy

        Agree with Smackup, Hawking has more credibility. Though as a biologist(I have a bachelors in Biological Sciences and am going for a Masters in Marine Biology, I also work for my state as a field biologist) I’ve learned that nothing can really be proven. Sure there are theories that have been tested repeatedly, however it is only a matter of time before a theory get’s “un-proven” so to speak, there is always that possibility. I’m not religious in the least, yet I do believe in God. I also believe that certain occurrences can and most of the time are supported through science. I don’t understand why it seems impossible for some people to believe in God AND science, it works pretty damned well for me.

      • OMGEE

        @Stephen:

        Look up what survival of the fittest actually means… I’ll give you a hint, it’s not a cage match. Male peacocks with larger and more impressive tail feathers are heavily selected for because of their sex appeal, but they make the male more likely to be preyed upon… males with larger/more impressive tail feathers are the fittest because they produce the most offspring not because they’re the better at surviving than male peacocks with fewer tail feathers.

      • Jammies

        @Stephen: Survival of the fittest isn’t connected to biological evolution. It is a phrase geared toward capitalism from the late 19th century.

    • David

      Alex, McFeely Smackup, tar baby, Jovy:

      I didn’t say Hawking was wrong. I didn’t say Cameron was right. Hawking has a lot of credibility in physics — I happen to have a degree in astrophysics, so I’m quite familiar with his credibility — but the existence of God (or non-existence) is not a matter of science. Nor will it ever be. Stephen can say that God is a fairy tale if he wants. He can also say we’re all just simulations in a giant computer. He could say Justin Bieber is the greatest musical artist ever. He can’t prove any of them, so why listen to his opinion on any? It’s just an opinion, and totally outside his field — the field where he has credibility.

      • joe

        David, by your logic then it is only an “opinion” that unicorns don’t exist, sorry it is scientific fact that they don’t….just like heaven and god

      • Stephen Hawking

        So much bad science makes me sad. For starters, “theory” in science has a totally different meaning than “theory” in common use. My theories rely on observable evidence and demonstrable deductions. They are not “theories” as in “JFK conspiracy theory”.

        “A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.”

    • David

      Joe:

      By YOUR logic, someone 200 years ago could claim it was a scientific fact that dinosaurs didn’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

      • devilsrain

        The absence of a brain in your head is evident

      • JoeBlow

        Actually, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It is just not proof of absence. The total lack of evidence for god or gods is very good evidence of their absence.

    • David

      Wow, devilsrain, you sure showed me with that razor sharp wit.

  4. “I will now compare and contrast Jesus and Spider-Man.” – Robin Williams impersonating Dr. Gene Scott.

  5. the captain

    that’s his mai ‘problem’.
    ……..HE SIMPLY IS THAT SMART.

  6. timmy the dying boy

    Hawkings: Contemplator of the origin and ultimate end of everything, all the while trapped within a broken body

    Cameron: Ray Comfort’s boy toy.

  7. Inmate 12236969

    Hawkins is so smart he’s stupid as with most smart people he has no common sense.

    • Richard McBeef

      Generally people that are dumb as shit will tell you how the “smart” people ain’t got no common sense. I’m sure it’s a comforting thought as you stamp license plates rather than perform brain surgery.

    • wered

      You can’t even spell the guy’s name correctly when it’s pretty much directly above the box you’re typing in. Apparently common sense isn’t quite as common as you think it is.

      • Inmate 12236969

        Hey McMeathead its people like you that have no facts that attack other people.

        The day Hawking sits in a foxhole while somebody is trying to shoot his ass off and tells me he’s not praying to some God then I’ll listen to him. I seen fucks like him for years they don’t believe in God but when the sit hits then they’re all praying.

        @Wered it’s called a typo dickhead, yeah like you never made one.

      • Richard McBeef

        That doesn’t make the fairy tale any more true, Inmate 12236969

      • Richard McBeef

        Also, proof that you are one of these dumb as shit people I referenced above is right there in your first sentence, you know the part about not having any facts and attacking other people – kinda like your first post.

      • Brent Slensker

        Hey Inmate!! I was an Atheist Soldier and was shot at plenty… I had to slap a few bitches that wouldn’t serve their weapons when under fire… Instead they had started to pray…What do you think about that? Fuck you and the lie “There are no Atheists in foxholes”!

    • General Disarray

      Not for nothing, but why are you praying to someone who’s letting you get shot at in the first place? It seems kind of mean spirited to only help you barely escape death one situation at a time instead of just teleporting your ass far away from harm for good.

    • wered

      “The day Hawking sits in a foxhole while somebody is trying to shoot his ass off and tells me he’s not praying to some God then I’ll listen to him.”

      Er, the guy’s got a serious disability and has been close to death more times than most soldiers probably ever will be. Do you think people only get told about the bible when they enlist or something?

      • INMATE 12236969

        Hey McMeathead you’re so fucking stupid you think I’m really in prison—so who’s the dumbshit?

        Hey General Dipshit you pray for yourself that you get out alive; since you never seen the elephant you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about BTW I only attack dumbass far left and far right shitheads.

        Hey wered/Smackup & the rest This has nothing to do with the Bible it about God baby; remember the devils biggest lie is; God doesn’t exist and it seems you fucks have fell for the lie. That’s cool man that’s between you and the bikini you worship I could a flyingfuck about it.

        Now if you pussies want a ride man? Come on down to the Holy City of Fort Bragg and I’ll give ya a fucking ride man; and watch you all shit in your fatass panties. Until you pick up a weapon and defend freedom and the greatest nation in the world—SHUT THE FUCK UP! Just to post on this site—thank a soldier.

        Now you can go back and fist fuck yourselves since you don’t have a woman to do it with; like a real man.

      • INMATE 12236969

        Apologies for one part of my last post “SHUT THE FUCK UP” I do defend everyone’s right to freedom of speech, so please continue to talk shit!

      • Richard McBeef

        oh you mean you aren’t an inmate? I’ll be fucking damned.

        Go die for your country, cocksuck.

      • INMATE 12236969

        No you let the other dumb bastard die for his country! No I don’t suck cock I eat pussy like a real man.

        You do have to admit I got you fuckers fired up—didn’t mean to offend anyone I was just fucking with your heads man.

        However really I’m a Professional Soldier and will fight for your freedom so call me a cocksuck but I think you mean cocksucker? I really dig you people on these boards I don’t agree with a lot the shit but you people crack me up—however call me an ignorant fuck I do believe in God.

    • Richard McBeef

      No I meant cocksuck. You are the personification of a cock being sucked.

    • Pengwynd

      Inmate, my best friend is a soldier. He’s been shot at, had a Humvee blow up in his fucking face while he served in Iraq, and guess what? Still as much of an atheist as ever.

      Also, being an atheist myself, I’ve been moments away from death due to a medical condition. And as I was slipping in and out of consciousness while I was carried to an ambulance, not a single one of my thoughts was wasted on any sort of prayer.

      Also, not believing in a god goes hand in hand with not believing in the devil. So your little “devils biggest lie” speech was as useless as that brain in your head.

      • Inmate 12236969

        Hey Pengwyndickhead; I can’t count how many times I’ve heard from you atheists fucks, “my friend was in a war and almost got killed and never turned a thought to God.”

        My answer to you is BULLSHIT!

        So go fuck your fist again. Oh wait you can’t fuck your fist you could die from your medical condition—yeah right; thanks for the laugh pal.

    • Archie_Leach

      I know way too many assholefuckfaces like this “inmate 1223696″. They’re REAL ideological rigid scumbags. And these nasty fucking “I’m so fucking right” attitude is EXACTLY what you’ll get. These assfucks are so fucking full of themselves and how above all the “know-nothings” that they themselves are incapable of understanding what absolute shit-for-brains they are.

      like I said: the fucking asshole unpleasant dickhead that comes across here IS exactly the person you’ll encounter in person.

  8. Kirk should stick to grinning like a moron while some dude gives handjobs to a banana. Science isn’t his strong suit.

  9. Jeremy Feist

    In unrelated news, Charlie Sheen saw the above picture of Kirk Cameron’s mouth impersonating flobbity vagina and subsequently tried to fuck it.

  10. If you want to see intelligent debates of creationism vs. science debates, youtube “William Lane Craig debate”. I can’t stand watching Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort debate evolutionists and atheists because their arguments are weak. Science doesn’t disprove God as in Aristotle’s “The Unmoved Mover”. Even Hawking can’t find an origin. He sees what the universe is doing now and makes a hypothesis which a lot of people follow.

    • Stephen Hawking

      (In robot voice) Sorry but you are totally wrong. Science does NOT need to disprove the existence of “God”. Science does not work by disproving things; science tries to prove, demonstrate and replicate phenomena. It is believers who should try to prove the existence of “God”, and so far no one has provided a single evidence of that. As to the “origin” of the Universe, you should read my books “A Brief History of Time” and “The Universe in a Nutshell” to understand my position on that matter better. Basically, the Universe DOES NOT NEED of God to explain it’s origin. By the way, when physicists claim that the universe came to be from “nothing”, it is not the same “nothingness” that we regular people conceive. What people call “void” is actually filled with quantum fields, from which we KNOW quantum particles originate. THAT is how “something” come to be out of “nothing”. Oh!, and Dr. William Lane Craig is nothing but a priest with a Diploma. In philosophy and theology, unsurpisingly.

      • Cock Dr

        Thank you for weighing in Dr Hawking.
        Keep staying alive, we really need you around.

      • A MF'ing M.sc

        >Science does NOT need to disprove the existence of “God”.

        Nor do believers need to demonstrate a case to believe that is empirically objective. Nor is the burden of truth since solely confined to one side. Get some balls and stop using a lame excuse.

        >Science does not work by disproving things; science tries to prove, demonstrate and replicate phenomena.

        Science disproves negatives and various held beliefs all the time trying to find the most likely and satisfactory conclusion, from medical trails to engineering. Intentionally and unintentionally by process of seeking the truth. A plethora of contemporary theories were in part built on disproving certain elements of previous theories like, I don’t know, our current understanding of gravity and the evolution of our universe and life. So it does work like it as well.

        >Dr. William Lane Craig is nothing but a priest with a Diploma. In philosophy and theology, unsurpisingly.

        Science came out of the desire to disprove/prove these concepts^

        (omg he is going to make a generalization which is a fallacious statement omgomgomg!111) A real scientist would whip out their years of knowledge and instruct someone to come to their on conclusion using healthy inquiry, and teach them how to inquire but not what to think, instead of being a judgmental dick that says what and what not to do.

    • wered

      Like all current creationists William Lane Craig uses fallacious arguments to support his claims. He relates scientific theories to each in other in nonsensical ways and people assume he knows what he’s talking about just because he comes out with some complicated sounding terms. Science doesn’t disprove god, it also doesn’t disprove that the universe was the final bowel movement of an ancient galactic platypus either, that doesn’t mean it’s true.

    • Stephen Hawking

      Science works on proving positives. Of course, that derives on disproving conflicting hypothesis, but one would think that needs not to be explained. That’s what I get for coming to this stupid gossip sites.

      Moreover, science is not only a method to gain some knowledge, it is THE ONLY method humans have to gain knowledge with a certain degree of success. Science is basically a WAY OF THINKING. Religious people are unscientific by definition. God would NEED to be proven scientifically if religions want to be taken seriously in the 21st century. Science, on the other hand has supplied a mountain of evidence that contradicts the structure of belief of all major religions in the world. As long es there is NO EVIDENCE of “God”, you need not to “believe”. THINK instead.

      • A MF'ing M.sc

        >Science works on proving positives. Of course, that derives on disproving conflicting hypothesis, but one would think that needs not to be explained. That’s what I get for coming to this stupid gossip sites.

        This is just twisted semantics. Science works on solving a proposed problem with a proposed solution, with an empirically sound method. This may be proving or disproving a negative assertion or proving or disproving a positive assertion. Thinkers did not have to illustrate the earth was round nor that the Earth was not the all center of everything but by compulsion to seek the truth, they did and our understanding was expanded. To say that science does not need to disprove or prove god is absurd, and pussyfooting around. A convenient excuse to avoid the lion’s den where respected science, pseudoscience, religion and philosophy all become tangled and you risk offending someone or upsetting or challenging your own held views. I may not hold much admiration or agree with some creationists, general religonists and vocal atheists but scientists like Dawkins, for example, at least have the fortitude to make a thoughtful and strong statement instead of saying “Science doesn’t have to” when they really mean “`I can’t/don’t want to.”

        >Moreover, science is not only a method to gain some knowledge, it is THE ONLY method humans have to gain knowledge with a certain degree of success. Science is basically a WAY OF THINKING. Religious people are unscientific by definition. God would NEED to be proven scientifically if religions want to be taken seriously in the 21st century. Science, on the other hand has supplied a mountain of evidence that contradicts the structure of belief of all major religions in the world. As long es there is NO EVIDENCE of “God”, you need not to “believe”. THINK instead.

        Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, just as belief and fact are not either. But that is not topical at the moment. Science is not the most successful acquisition of knowledge, that would be experience. And scientific knowledge (and knowledge in general) is not always objective nor epistemological, it can metaphysically objective or epistemologically subjective which non-scientific acquisitions can also yield. Religion is already taken seriously because while not all pro-insert faith here arguments up to scientific standards they can be validated logically or in such a way that either eliminates falsifiability or promotes serious debate. You seem to think that you know the correct answer, I however wont postulate on the veracity of god because I’m obviously more apathetic than you on this…but at least I’m not hiding behind a weak ass excuse and antitheist/antireligion rhetoric will little substance pretending to be science. There are some great atheist/agnostic/religious arguments out there but “Science doesn’t have to do shit” isn’t one.

      • Stephen Hawking

        (robot voice) Science and superstition (as in religion) are mutually exclusive, and if you can’t urdestand that simple fact, then nothing else needs to be said. Since you brought the topic of “debating science vs. religion”, it is quite surprising that you end your angry diatribe saying such a blatant stupidity. Also, no matter how “logic” your arguments (or Dr. Lame’s in that matter)might sound to you, you should remember that our common sense is notoriously erroneous. When discussing the origin of the Universe, you should (as we physicstsdo), rely solely on observable evidence and mathematics. If you (or Dr. Lame) can’t bring that to a debate, you should better shut up. *bleeep*

      • Butcher Adams

        So, science also needs to disprove Santa Claus, fairies, chupacabras, ghosts, ufo’s and anything anyones comes up with? I certainly don’t think so. Mr. Hawking is very right.

      • Stepehen Hawking

        Science and scientists do not claim to posses the whole and only truth (as opposed to religions and politicians), that is why it works, because it includes a self-correcting mechanism. Scheintific knowledge is not perfect, but is the most reasonable apporach to the truth humanity may have. You say experience is the best way of gaining knowledge, but you fail to consider that anecdotes (the relation of your personal experiences) actually have NO VALUE as far as science is concerned. By the way, there is no God.

    • I was hoping to read something new but it’s the same argument and points, over and over and over.

      • Santa Claus

        You were hoping to read something new because truth doesn’t meet your expectations. Unfortunately (for you that is) it doesn’t have to. BTW, thanks for making me lose 5 min. of my valuable time watching a nonsensical video by that idiot called “Dr. Craig”.

        [Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.]

  11. fartbucket

    so does this mean ‘this’ particular genius believes the world will end of Saturday?

  12. Richard McBeef

    strange that so many people are skeptical of Obama’s birthplace but a 2000 year old book that is undeniably full of horse shit is considered truth. at least the parts of it that aren’t immediately laughable and are convenient for today’s society.

  13. “QUIT MAKING ME LOOK LIKE AN ASSHOLE!” shouted God, as he transformed Kirk’s mouth into a vagina.

  14. Savalas

    Last I checked, Kirk Cameron has one hell of a hot wife. And Hawkings’ ALS prevents him from jacking off. So you tell me who wins the debate!

    What were we talking about again?

  15. Deacon Jones

    I have absolute proof there is no God: Leo DiCaprio.

  16. Youdrink waytoomutch

    I believe Lennon said IMAGINE there’s no heaven…he also said “All you need is love…”

  17. Amy

    I wonder how many so-called faithful would believe in God if you simultaneously asked them to suspend belief in an after-life and in a big, giant adult in the sky who has a very clear set of rules that makes life much less complicated than it actually is. I’m sure most would ask, “What’s the point, then?” And my response? “Exactly.”

    But then again, maybe you just like feeling bad when you masturbate. Weirdos!

    • Deacon Jones

      Duh, Amy.

      They don’t masturbate. They pray those feelings away.

    • John

      Uh, that’s called early Judaism. Belief in the afterlife did not come until relatively late in Judaism. They believed in God because they believed it was true that he existed. They obeyed God because that was what justice demanded. So the answer to your question is that thousands if not millions believed in God when they also believed there was no afterlife.

      • John

        And the Jewish group called the Saducees were around until 70 A.D. Some of their beliefs:

        - there is no fate
        - God does not commit evil
        - the soul is not immortal; there is no afterlife, and
        - there are no rewards or penalties after death

        It is probably a good idea to inform yourself on a subject before making statements about it.

      • Amy

        Obedience requires laws as in (referencing original comment) “a big, giant adult in the sky who has a very clear set of rules that makes life much less complicated than it actually is.” So . . . nope, the Saducees still don’t fit the criteria. That they didn’t believe in an afterlife . . . /applaud. Still don’t see too many of them around, do you? ;)

        The afterlife isn’t the only opium for the masses. People like to believe in clear-cut, black and white morality. They like to know who is evil and who is good, and they fancy being the good ones. The idea of God, and simply doing what he tells you to do, being obedient, that’s a kind of drug too. Thinking for yourself is hard!

  18. Therapeutic

    I fucked his sister. Deej.

  19. Rancid

    Any god that doesn’t send me hot, naked women on regular basis is a stupid, crappy god.

    • God

      100 fat menopausal nudists will arrive at your door shortly, same tomorrow and the day after, etc.. Be careful what you wish for, sonny.

    • Rancid

      God:

      I haven’t gotten laid in a couple years. Send ‘em over. Blessed art thou, etc, etc.

    • LynxLeopard

      You have to think Rancid…that those women also pray not to be sent naked on a regular basis to you or anyone so both prayers would nullify each other, or at least maybe they have more faith thus their prayer overprays yours so…

  20. May 21 is the end! Repent!

    Kirk only has three days left, so he’s getting a little cocky.

  21. Amy

    Wait a second . . . prayer = orgasm?? Maybe I’ve underestimated this religion thing . . . Although this is all beginning to sound a bit too Robert Heinlein for me.

    “This brother wanted him to place his whole body in the water of life. No such honor had ever come to him; to the best of his knowledge and belief no one had ever before been offered such a holy privilege. Yet he had begun to understand that these others did have greater acquaintance with the stuff of life… a fact not yet grokked but which he had to accept.”

  22. duh

    “Stephen Hawking has about as much proof there isn’t a “heaven” as Kirk Cameron has that there is”

    by definition you can’t “prove” a non-existence, so the burden of proof is entirely on the 3 Day Zombie fan

  23. ThighHighs

    What Kirk doesn’t realize is that his point plays both ways; he can’t prove anything in regards to heaven or God being a real entity, so how can he be so critical of Hawking when Hawking has fact and validity on his side? Kirk needs to disappear. He’s an ignorant bastard.

    • Dooh

      @ThighHighs – I think Kirks a douche but he’s only being critical of Hawking because he said he knows without a doubt that there is no heaven. Kirk wasnt even saying that he knows without a doubt that there is a heaven (granted Im sure he has just not in this case). Hawkings is a brilliant man but there are other brilliant scientific men that would contradict his statement. Even Einstein believed that there could be a God. Are you going to say he’s ignorant?

      • Bucky Barnes

        That was just Einstein’s way of admitting he could not disprove the existence of a god, same as Hawking. You are grasping at straws.

      • Well yeah but

        Einstein did not believe in a personal god, I wish when you made these general statements you would understand, just a little, what the fuck these people say.

  24. Wait a minute...

    You know who *did* believe in God, and is smarter than Hawking? Einstein.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html

    • Einstein was an atheist, the article you linked explains that fact. Read your references.

      • Bucky Barnes

        People only read the parts of the bible which appear to validate their prejudices. Apparently they take the same approach to periodicals.

      • Um…and you need to read the article again, McFeely. A Deist is not the same thing as an atheist. Jefferson had a similar belief in that he had no use for man-made (and therefore man-interpreted) scripture or any religions that depended on God monitoring everyone and passing out rewards or punishments, but did see an indication of a “Creator” in nature (who he referred to as Nature’s God) and the world around him.

        Einstein rejected the notion of a personal God – in other words, one who meddles in everyone’s lives on an everyday basis – primarily due to the fact that he felt there really is no free will and all our actions are predetermined.

    • Albert Einstein

      Did you really cite Time Magazine as proof of what I believe? You are stupid and lazy. Go away, cretin.

    • Ha, ha…oh wow.

      1) While Einstein is the “default smart guy,” there is no real way to indicate whether he or Hawking is smarter, there comes a point where you simply cannot make such judgments.

      2) As has been mentioned, Einstein did not believe in god (especially a personal god). His views are generally accepted to be a form of pantheism, a believe that nature is in itself divine and has no need of a creator; for all practical purposes he was an atheist.

      3) Regardless of his religious bent, Einstein clearly did not believe in an afterlife, as the article you cited notes.

      Gotta love trolls.

      • Richard McBeef

        I don’t need someone with an IQ of 200 to tell me that loading 2 of every animal on a boat is a horse shit notion. Who gives a fuck what these people think? Anyone witha

    • Wait a minute...

      hmm…from the article:

      “For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God’s existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence.”

      “There are people who say there is no God,” he told a friend. “But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos,” he explained.

      Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-3,00.html#ixzz1MjKGM8vu

      • “Wait a minute” is proving to be good at cut-n-paste…bad at reading comprehension.

      • Stephen

        Sad that people who don’t believe in God and heaven resort to homosexual comments and name calling. Show the maturity level of the non-believer. For those science geniuses: why can’t smart men heal all illnesses? Why has science not proven the biblical account wrong? Fact is: they can’t. They don’t know how. Get on your knees and pray. If I’m wrong I’ll join you in neverland. If I’m right, I’ll be in heaven.

    • The Listener

      Here’s the thing about Einstein. Einstein was NOT an atheist. He felt that view was too restrictive. Also, he did NOT believe in the Judeo-Christian belief in a personal God. He DID believe that the immutable laws of science and the orderly manner of the universe served as evidence of some kind of higher intelligence.

  25. TheChemist

    So Kirk thinks Hawking is full of it b/c “everything sprang from nothing”. How does Kirk explain the existence of God, a being that “existed before anything existed”. Kirk’s argument is just as stupid as his criticism.

    • Amy

      Except God is kind of a self-referential argument. You see, so when you have an omnipotent entity you can just say something to the effect of “Well, he either created himself or he just always existed because that’s what omnipotent things do.” Of course, self-referential arguments have been banned in logic not because they prove God exists but because there are limits to logic. So, for example, you get the problem of “Can God build a wall so high he can’t cross it?” Which makes a logical impossibility even if you presume the existence of God to begin with. For more on self-referential arguments, I highly recommend Bertrand Russel (plus, he was a hottie, back when he was alive) or just look up Russel’s Paradox.

  26. Lucille

    Kirk Cameron who??? Who the fuck cares what he has to say? And his rudeness and insulting face doesn’t make his case for stupidity any better.
    I’ll trust Dr. Hawking …if there’s a heaven, prove it or shut the fuck up.

  27. tlmck

    Oh Kirk, Kirk, Kirk. The intellectually blind are are the easiest to lead around by the nose.

    • Dooh

      I agree with this. Anyone who just follows something because its just what they’ve been fed growing up is just ignorant.. religion or science.

  28. It had to be said

    That Kirk. Always willing to clarify the logical fallacies in a genius’s thought process!

    This is the problem with being a fundamentalist: you spend more and more time denying things that are obviously true. Is there any reason you can’t believe in science and God simultaneously? One billion Catholics say no, but I shudder to think of Kirk’s interpretation of THAT theology.

    • It you’re a Biblical literalist (like Cameron), no you cannot believe both. There is much in the Bible we know to be inaccurate, and if you believe that the Bible must be infallible then you must reject the facts that disagree with it.

  29. Randal(l)

    I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If Mike Seaver can’t prove he doesn’t exist then I demand he renounce his God, admit the bible is no different than any comic book, and that every person who follows the bible is a hypocrite who picks and chooses which parts to follow and which part to ignore.

    Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”

    So Christians, If you truly believe in the bible, then stone you prick kids to death

    • Colin

      It makes me sad. If the blind followers (not the people who actually think for themselves about religion) of the Bible would actually follow the Bible, this would pretty much eliminate the problem groups. Unfortunately, it would leave Fish with a lot less to write about.

    • The Listener

      There is a difference between a moral principle and a law. Under the Mosaic law, that was what the Israelites were to do regarding children who made a practice of being a rebel. The moral principle behind the law was to make certain that the ancient Israelites understood the seriousness of children being respectful to their parents. And since Christians are not under the Mosaic law that God gave ancient Israel, they would not follow that law today. But the moral principle still applies today.

  30. PeintureAcrylique

    Aren’t all of you religion bashers the ones that are always yammering on and on about tolerance or at least accusing others of being intolerant? Read 99% of the posts here. They aren’t tolerant!

    • Depends on what you mean by tolerance. I’m not saying that he cannot or should be prevented in believing in whatever he wants to believe. However, ridiculous ideas merit ridicule…especially when those ridiculous ideas are in direct opposition to actual fact.

      He has the right to believe and say whatever he wants…just like the rest of us.

    • Tolerant? You’re visiting The Superficial looking for tolerance?

      Is this your first time here?

  31. Dooh

    There is a problem with todays “science”.. everyone seems to come up with a theory and then try and find the data to back it. Science should be about following the data where ever that may lead THEN forming that into a theory. It is this bias thinking that his holding back science today NOT religion.

    • Bucky Barnes

      I can’t help but notice that you provide no data to support your theory.

      Fail.

      • Dooh

        I made no mention that scientists claim a theory to be true without any supporting data. I only said that they first find a theory they like then look for the data. So I’m not really sure of your point.

      • Bucky Barnes

        You claim that “today’s science” adopts a theory and then looks for supporting evidence, yet you provide no evidence of this alleged trend. There are undoubtedly exceptions but I am confident an overwhelming majority of “today’s scientists” follow established procedures and formulate theories based on collected data. If they did not, they would not be scientists.

      • Yeah, how many scientists do you know, exactly? How much primary research have you been involved in? Just out of curiosity, you know…seeing as how you have intimate knowledge of the workings of six million scientists in hundreds of thousands of research facilities.

        You do realize that you cannot create a theory without evidence, right? When a scientist comes up with an idea about how the world works he starts with a hypothesis, collects data, and often times is forced to abandon a hypothesis because of the data. Believe me, scientists falsify hypotheses much more often than they support them. Once in a while they manage to find a hypothesis that is supported by data. And maybe, after multiple tests by multiple people, often over a long long time, a theory may be developed around the data.

        Dooh, you’ve been sniping at science all over the place on this thread, and it’s very apparent you don’t know much about it. You don’t even seem to understand what science is. Maybe if you educated yourself a little, you might actually grasp the concept.

      • Dooh

        So by your original statement a theory is nothing without data. Well I just gave you data supporting my theory. I can’t help but notice that you provided no data to support your theory.. other then “I am confident”

        Fail.

    • Dooh

      My proof are the scientists who are fired/blackballed for questioning mainstream theories. Like this..
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

    • Dooh

      Of course not all of todays science is bias so it was probably an overstatement when I said “today’s science” but my point is this exists and is harmful to science.. more harmful then religion.

      • Richard McBeef

        I can imagine that it might ruffle some feathers when the case for something that isn’t supported by a shred of scientific evidence is presented in a scientific journal. Even jackasses like Michael Behe admit there is not a single bit of evidence that supports creationism.

    • Dooh has made the classic mistake of not understanding the definition of the word “theory”…here’s a hint, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

      The word you’re looking for is “hypothesis”.

  32. adasdas

    lol william lane craig is a fuckin idiot.

  33. kpatra

    Well written post.

  34. cc

    I was in the paper once as ‘a man at the accident scene comforted the woman until help arrived’. That makes me about 9/10ths as famous as this shmuck.

  35. Donald Trump

    I think Kirk needs to go back to the days when he took in anally from a certainly Hollywood elite. He’s way too uptight now.

  36. Kirk Cameron Stephen Hawking
    ktulu
    Commented on this photo:

    Other sites are breaking who Arnie’s affair was with and his love child and you are yammering on about this nobody because you are such a raging liberal with a bur up your ass. This site sucks.

      • Bucky Barnes

        It’s interesting that days into the story anyone would refer to the Arnie affair as “breaking” news. That’s one long fucking break. Then again, what do I know? I’m just a raging liberal with a bur up my ass (you always find it in the last place you look).

    • Richard

      Right. So some politicians sex life is more interesting than a total (expletive deleted) moron who makes his living spreading lies to children taking the piss out of one of the greatest minds in modern physics.

      This is what I don’t understand; why do you care if Schwarzenegger has a secret love child? How does it effect you in any way shape or form? Politicians lie for a living, how does this surprise you?

  37. The Critical Crassness

    The most interesting fact in the life of Kirk Cameron is that he was an atheist until around the time he turned 17, then he found a belief in God. Bad drug trips and/or near death experience will do that to a person….While I have no absolute proof that Kirk suffered from either a drug problem or had a near death experience,neither does Kirk have any hard evidence of the existence of a super being,creator of all that exists or has ever existed. The proof being cited by many creationist authors and lecturers is in fact many things, a genealogy, history book, a book of prose and poetry, a fantasy written by men to control other less educated men, the collective writings,in the form of letters to various churches,of a drug addict and crook and something resembling the best science fiction stories of all times. The writings contained in it have been translated and re-translated so many times,it would be difficult to determine the true origin and veracity of anything written in it. Yet, Cameron and others of his stripe, use it to garner monetary and physical gratification from mindless robotic followers, who seemingly lack the capacity to question anything they are told. Hawking, who has ever reason to believe given the numerous brushes with death that his ALS has given him and still does not, at least has the capacity for questioning that which he see all around him and deriving answers for himself.
    One final fact, it is possible that Kirk Cameron’s moronic attitude toward God and those who question his existence is a direct result of having been contaminated with idiocy by his close association with Leonardo DeCaprio during his teenage years. After all, it is a proven fact that Leo is an idiot and that is the only proven fact in this whole discourse.

  38. Pippy Longcockings

    I almost hope the Rapture DOES happen so we’ll be rid of this pious little cocksucker!

  39. adasdas

    yeah, and to the guys point, thats why people generally dont believe that shit anymore. theres no fairy tale to back it up. now we have religions with better rewards programs. and credit cards.

  40. adasdas

    einstein did not believe in god. he thought it was a childish concept. google it. really smart people, on average, do not believe in shit just because their parents told them, or forced them to go to church.

  41. adasdas

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24668015/ns/world_news-world_faith/t/einsteins-god-letter-fetches/

    Einstein said that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

    • Dooh

      Did you even read the whole thing?I will quote that same article “He rejected organized faith but often spoke of a spiritual force at work in the universe.”. Just because he didn’t believe in any of the mainstream organized religions doesn’t mean he didn’t have some sort of faith in a God. In fact he firmly denied atheism.

  42. adasdas

    thats not what a theory is, retard. how about you stop using the computer those unreliable scientists made possible and stop polluting the planet with your digital stupidity.

  43. EarnMoreSessionsBySleeving

    Is this motherfucker Kirk Cameron mocking Stephen Hawking’s disability in the above photo? If so, he should have his motherfucking ass whupped for that alone. What a stupid prick he is. (Thanks. I feel a little better now.)

    • I’m guessing it’s just a picture of him making a goofy face that Fish chose because it looks like a caricature of Hawking’s expression. Then again I could be wrong.

  44. Ole one eye Rough

    I have no problem “a heaven” exist. But what is the fate of other beings on earth, after their time has expired? Do they have a second heaven for the animals? or we leave happily amongst lions, tigers and bears?

    Im serous about this and I gave this a lot of thoughts.

    • Since we’re talking a westernized concept of heaven and not an eastern idea of reincarnation as an animal, Catholicism and other Christian sects neatly get around this question by preaching that animals have no souls and are only here to serve our needs, so no heaven for the fuzzy ones. The Amish, in particular,really embrace this concept – which is why they have no problems running puppy mills that are so horrificly cruel that the most casual dog owner wouldn’t think twice about taking a flame to their Bible-following, electric-light eschewing asses. After they burn their DVDs of “Witness”.

  45. CH

    Lawrence Krauss explains how this universe can come from “nothing”.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

  46. Whocares

    NERDS!!!

  47. Ole one eye Rough

    Im siding with Kirk, how come when im in deep trouble, my plea is “Oh god ill never do it again” thus where you get your heaven. SOLVED.

  48. Pat C

    You know, science has never disproved the existence of Apollo and Aphrodite. So to be safe, I’m going to start worshipping them.

Leave A Comment