patrick.net

I've enjoyed cosmos, although I missed this last episode.

It doesn't bother me exactly, in fact I've found the part of the show that reflects their antireligion agenda interesting.

But honestly, I did not expect it to have as much of an agenda with regards to religion as it does.

Robert Sproul says

'Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds

As a young kid who watched the Sagan originals, it was fantastic. Look there are lots of kids out there who can benefit from this, I wouldn't expect it to change the thinking of the people who run this place:

http://creationmuseum.org/

Iosef V HydroCabron says

It's not that these guys are bad at what they do; it's the embarrassingly low level of scientific education among even PhD's in non-scientific fields. I have had bosses who don't know that seasons are due to axial tilt, and co-workers who are surprised to learn that a year is not 365 days on the nose. I have repeatedly tried to explain to my wife that lunar/solar eclipses occur at full or new moon, respectively. Holy living fuck, people are stupid about astronomy!

Very true, but why should that be a surprise? Even around here we have people with small knowledge base pontificating everyday on subjects that they don't understand and are not capable of analyzing. OTOH, would you prefer marrying a woman who knows why lunar/solar eclipses take place or would you prefer the girl who knows how to . . . make you happy? LOL.

Dan8267 says

The only reason most Christians today aren't as bad as Islamic terror organizations is because of us "non-believer" types keeping the power of this vile religion in check.

Interesting observation about the Islamic Religion. When you never hear about dissent among their ranks, it makes you wonder if Islamism is actually a religion or rather a political club imposed to effectively hold people together?

carrieon says

Dan8267 says

The only reason most Christians today aren't as bad as Islamic terror organizations is because of us "non-believer" types keeping the power of this vile religion in check.

Yeah right.

It has nothing to do with the tens of millions of Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc, not to mention the more conservative of the evangelicals.

Plenty of peole in these denominations are essentially non believers when it comes to the more extremist views. They get there all by themself without the help of atheists, just by being educated thinking humans.

The fact that Christianity allows for the existence of fundamentalists, is not an argument that all Christians are pulled toward fundamentalism.

I guess it could be argued that if you convince more of the more rational and conservative Christians to stop believing that then the proportion that are fundies goes up. That is, it could be argued that quite the opposite is in fact true.

I would attribute the fact that Christians (esp in the US) aren't as bad as Islam with respect to terrorism, to the fact that we aren't living in third world squalor. As stupid as we are (on average) we are still a relatively educated people. Not that we couldn't be way more so, which in turn would be reflected by our government, which sometimes acts in ways not so unlike terrorists (ie drone attacks). But that's not due to Christianity as much as it is due to fear of Islamic terrorists.

Neil is an Ass!

He's done how many Universe shows, and have narrated countless others, has been the expert curator in to many to list. He's smugly is up there talking about science using cartoons, to show how the establishment, A.K.A the Church persecuted free though through out the century. In the meantime, the news is chocked full of the Left leaning entities bullying any press or thoughts that are in conflict with their own.

The Professor bullying the Pro Life girls, the Feminist meeting discussing pay inequality, harassing and bullying a female reporter, because they deemed her to be from the Conservative press. Schools sending kids home because of what they wear on their shirt, say or write, while promoting any radical agenda subjects they see fit, from sexual to lifestyle to political leanings, and building a curriculum around it. SO that way if parents refuse to allow their kids to write essays on Lesbian UFC satanic rappers, their child could fail for the year.

He's not going win Sciencelums converts, by being crass and a hypocrite.
And the Mansplain he goes about tying the cosmos in to ungodliness.

The Idiot has no ephn' Idea what so ever, that the Christians have seen this movie.
The ending means to them, God created the Big bang, and 6,000 years ago, isn't 6,000 years ago today. That thought was abandoned decades ago.
Christians have no problem what so ever, believing the Big bang happened, and that there are countless other Galaxies out there. They also abandoned the belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe like a almost a millennia ago.

Who's got Neil wraps the seiries up with tying global warming to religion, and because the cosmos exists, that is why it is important that we do what every the Liberal Political regime says, to save us all from Global Warming... Oh and those mother fuggin' Christians!

What a phony sack of Shit!

I'll bet that this show will be his last high profile television show ever. And it will be the end of his household name. Say what you want about Science and Religion, but the new Pope is still more popular than the periodical table.

Especially this one.

depends on your definition of "corner"...

New Renter says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Holy living fuck, people are stupid about astronomy!

What's really depressing are the people who believe intersellar trarvel is around the corner and lush class M planets are everywhere just waiting for humans to arrive.

marcus says

extremist views

You are simply whitewashing Christianity by using a vague and meaningless term such as "extremist views". The belief in an afterlife without any evidence is an extremist view. If one actually took that belief seriously, it would be quite reasonable to commit suicide in order to be reunited with loved ones such as this girl did.

You use the term extremist to make No True Scotsman arguments. Any religious person who behaves badly or stupidly, you simply dismiss as an "extremist" who doesn't represent the typical religious person. Unfortunately for your argument, such dismissals would discard
1. The vast majority of religious persons throughout human history.
2. Hundreds of millions of modern day Muslims.
3. About one third of modern Americans.

That's hardly no true Scotsman.

There is a BIG misunderstanding about what papal infallibility is and is not, but I think I'd need a new thread for it.

The church hasn't always been on the right side of history, (see inquisition for prime example) but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a place for religion and science to coexist and I can't speak for all faiths, but the Catholic church is, in this day and age, is generally supportive so long as moral lines are not crossed.

Keep in mind just because one CAN do something, doesn't mean they SHOULD do it.

carrieon says

it makes you wonder if Islamism is actually a religion or rather a political club imposed to effectively hold people together?

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are better described as families of religions than as religions. These families of religions are based upon a loose and overlapping set of myths.

A religion is an hierarchical power structure based on a mythology. For example, Christianity was once a religion. However, it is the nature of religions and other hierarchical power structures to expand and fragment as people fight over power.

The religion Christianity went through such a division during the Great Schism in which the one religion split into two: the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. At this point, one would say that the religion of Christianity no longer existed and that Christianity became a family of two religions with a shared mythology and history.

Later splits in the Catholic Church formed the various Christian religions we see today.

Essentially the same applies to Islam and Judaism.

The important thing is the power structure. That is what controls people's behavior. And any power structure based on lies is going to be corrupt. Any power structure that refuses to tolerate truths that contradict those lies which serve as the basis for its power is going to be very corrupt and ultimately evil and self-serving. This is why religion can never be truly a force for good. Sure, there are little things the religion can do to foster its reputation, but ultimately one cannot serve two masters, and serving a lie is always a bad thing.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

The church hasn't always been on the right side of history, (see inquisition for prime example)

Um, slavery and the holocaust come to mind. Pope John Paul II sitting down with George Bush and not calling him out on torturing human beings also comes to mind. The plague of AIDS decimating Africa because of the Church's anti-condom stance is also mentionable.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

There's a place for religion and science to coexist

No. And why should we even want this? Science is about finding out and understanding the truth no matter what it is. Religion is about maintaining power and suppressing all truths that contradict the lies upon which the religion is based.

Why should humanity want to maintain religion? What good does it do that cannot be done without it? Why should be want to persist in the lies and the delusions of religion? The real nature is far more beautiful.

Morality is far better served as a mathematical and engineering discipline than as dogma. Religion has been keeping morality in the Bronze Age and there are dilemmas we have to deal with today that we cannot because morality has been held back for thousands of years by religion.

We are morally failing in areas like animal rights, the rights of other sentient beings on our planet (whales, chimps, dolphins, etc.), environmental management, and the building of economic systems because we have no morality that can deal with these issues. These are modern issues, not Bronze Age issues, and we cannot make moral policies as long as we let that great failure we call religion dictate morality. We need morality to advance as fast as software and hardware does, and the only way to do that is to remove the very subject of morality from religion and put it in engineering where it is supposed to be.

Dan8267 says

We need morality to advance as fast as software and hardware does, and the only way to do that is to remove the very subject of morality from religion and put it in engineering where it is supposed to be.

What a coincidence. You're an engineer (or might as well be one).

So I see, this is all about you. Everyone needs to be like you.

Well, isn't that convenient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQW_4kowyZ4

Why not put computers in charge of everything ?

I would say you have it somewhat backwards. Just like politics and our leaders reflect how far we have yet to evolve (collectively), our spirituality and religions also reflect where we are as a species. THe fix for that is better education, not doing away with God.

You find cause and effect where there is no evidence. That is if you think one can be extremely moral if and only if they are an atheist.

Sure, you can write a few thousand words about the evil done by religion,...fine. OR point to one of many threads where you have done so. That's not proof that spiritual beliefs in general are the cause of ignorance or lack of the highest morality.

You might even be able to prove that evil people have used religion for their purposes. Even that does not prove that religions need to be gone for us to evolve. In the song "imagine" when John Lennon says "no religion too." I didn't take that to mean no spiritual beliefs, or that everyone needs to be an atheist. He just meant no large scale organized religion. Nice to imagine such a world.

Besides, there will always be religion. OR certainly there will be for the next few hundred years, which will more than determine if we survive. So any sensible person would lobby for better religions, and or spirituality, rather than none.

But then you would have to know what that might even mean. I get it, that in your world you either buy the child's fantasy religion with heaven and hell, the old white dude in the clouds and all, or you're a hard core atheist.

I remind you that some of us know the truth which is that we don't know. And not knowing does not make me uncomfortable or insecure.

marcus says

We need morality to advance as fast as software and hardware does

That would be nice. MAybe a dictatorship is the answer.

marcus says

So I see, this is all about you. Everyone needs to be like you.

A typical Straw Man argument by Marcus. You can't even remotely address what I say, so you make up a bullshit argument that has nothing to do with what I posted.

I've told you a thousand times that the messenger is irrelevant. Yet, in your arrogance and willful ignorance, you continue to make everything about me. Yes Marcus, I'm vastly more intelligent than you are. Get over it. Deal with it already. Your tantrums are getting boring.

It does not matter that I'm the one posting the argument here. The argument stands or falls on its own merit, not on the reputation of who wrote it. For a person claiming to be a teacher, you sure don't seem to understand that simple point.

Stop personalizing objective truths. The world is round regardless of how you feel about the person who told you it is. There is no god or afterlife regardless of how you feel about the person who told you that. You are way to ego-centric. Ironically, you've missed the entire point of Cosmos and what Neil deGrasse Tyson calls The Cosmic Perspective. The very concept could not be understood by someone so willfully ignorant as you.

marcus says

Why not put computers in charge of everything ?

Another Straw Man argument. Although only a fool would say that computers serve no purpose in mapping out moral codes. One simply has to look at a Prisoners' Dilemma competition to see how software can aid in mapping moral problem spaces. More advance versions of the game including communication failures and breeding of algorithms.

marcus says

Besides, there will always be religion.

That's a pretty big fucking assumption. And even if it were true, that's no reason not to fight it anymore than one would give up the fight because someone says
- there will always be poverty, so no point in doing anything about it
- there will always be rape, so no point in prosecuting it
- there will always be corruption, so no point in increasing transparency and accountability in government
- there will always be war, so no point in striving for peace and stability
- there will always be dumb people like Marcus, so no point in improving education and spreading knowledge

Thankfully, most of us don't give up as easily as Marcus.

hmmm..Looks like someone got a good confessional spanking in the olden days...
Dan8267 says

marcus says

Besides, there will always be religion.

That's a pretty big fucking assumption. And even if it were true, that's no reason not to fight it anymore than one would give up the fight because someone says

SoftShell says

hmmm..Looks like someone got a good confessional spanking in the olden days...

Your statement is based on the ludicrous assumption that a person can only oppose an evil that directly harmed him or herself. This assumption is easily dismissed. I've never been murdered in my life, yet I strongly oppose murder and believe in prosecuting murderers.

Dan8267 says

We need morality to advance as fast as software and hardware does, and the only way to do that is to remove the very subject of morality from religion and put it in engineering where it is supposed to be.

marcus says

What a coincidence. You're an engineer (or might as well be one).

So I see, this is all about you. Everyone needs to be like you.

Dan8267 says

You can't even remotely address what I say, so you make up a bullshit argument that has nothing to do with what I posted.

I've told you a thousand times that the messenger is irrelevant. Yet, in your arrogance and willful ignorance, you continue to make everything about me. Yes Marcus, I'm vastly more intelligent than you are. Get over it. Deal with it already. Your tantrums are getting boring.

I see.

For the record, I find your supposed genius argument more than lacking. You're the one that will say it's because I don't understand it.

What's lacking is that you presuppose that religion is holding morality back. My point was that the kind of religion we have (and the type of politics and govt we have) are a reflection of how evolved (unevolved) we are.

Not the other way around.

Dan8267 says

Yes Marcus, I'm vastly more intelligent than you are.

I don't know about that. But you're pretty funny sometimes. I'll give you that.

Dan8267 says

That's a pretty big fucking assumption. And even if it were true, that's no reason not to fight it anymore than one would give up the fight because someone says

- there will always be poverty, so no point in doing anything about it

- there will always be rape, so no point in prosecuting it

For a genius, you sure are thick.

I said that since religion will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better religions rather than no religion. A battle that can be won, or at least where inroads could be made.

It's a fact that as people leave established moderate religions such as Presbytarians or Catholics, you are increasing the percentage of fundamentalists. This has been the trend in recent decades.

So why don't you and the other genius adolescent children go on r/atheists and talk more Catholics and moderate protestants into becoming atheists. That's really going to improve the world.

Science is a religion. It is a faith on the negation of faith.

Another genius.

I respect most religions but I cannot stand Gnostic Atheists. They are epistemically confused and they are not usually funny.

Science started with a superior stance to religion, based on the idea that scientists did NOT know it all and were searching for verifiable answers in an infinite universe of possible facts. As science has entered open combat with religion, it's had to take hard stances on issues for which it has no definitive proof. It's become more dogmatic than say, the Catholic Church when it comes to it's unquestioned belief system and excommunication of those who dare to offer alternative theories. Any wavering on core beliefs, however, is seen to give comfort to the deistic enemy, or worse, the proponents of Intelligent Design.
Science has lost the moral high ground, precisely when it resorted to shouting down detractors and enshrining dogmas that have not yet been proven correct and may be proven false! I love the idea of science. The meticulous building of fact upon fact, hypothesis, theory, and experiment is what has enabled our society to make unbelievably astounding breakthroughs. But when the papal congregation of "peers" decide to ignore the very process by which the order is named, they become just another rabble of clerics arguing about how many neutrons can spin in a Planck distance.

Scientists care about Peer-reviews. Unless they know a Lord, how is that possible?

Dan8267 says

I'm vastly more intelligent than you are.

Intelligence as a measure was invented by those who:

1) thought intelligence could be measured
2) they would be measured favorably by that measure

Actually, it can be parameterized as:

X as a measure was invented by those who:

1) thought X could be measured
2) they would be measured favorably by that measure

X could be the length of a man's... well... (At least that is slightly less subjective.)

Yes. He's compensating, as everyone who has been around here a while knows.

Quigley says

As science has entered open combat with religion, it's had to take hard stances on issues for which it has no definitive proof. It's become more dogmatic...

Total BS.
Science is not a set of results, it is a methodology, and one that is constantly proved valid as a tool to accumulate knowledge on the world.

People who believe in dogma are always ready to call science dogmatic: they want to lower it to their own level because they only understand the world in fixed, unchanging ideas.

But that's precisely the point: if it can't be revised, it's not knowledge. If it's not validated by observation, it's not knowledge. Thus scientific facts are not of the same nature as dogmas, and cannot be placed at the same level.

In that sense there is no conflict between science and religion, because as far as knowledge of the physical world is concerned, there is ONLY science.

If you claim that there is life after death: that's an arbitrary belief that cannot even be excused as spiritual in any way. The best that can be said about it is that it may be emotionally satisfying to some people.

Quigley says

Science has lost the moral high ground

Morality has nothing to do with science. The high ground of science was never based on morality.

Peter P says

I respect most religions but I cannot stand Gnostic Atheists. They are epistemically confused and they are not usually funny.

You are the one who is epistemologically confused.

If you admit the methodology of science as valid, any claim of existence of a God that influences the physical world, of life after death, etc... can only be seen as a terrible lack of intellectual honesty.

You can't have it both ways. You can't admit this methodology and at the same time "respect" religions.

Heraclitusstudent says

Quigley says

Science has lost the moral high ground

Morality has nothing to do with science. The high ground of science was never based on morality.

Enhance your reading comprehension and perhaps I'll begin taking you seriously.

Quigley says

Enhance your reading comprehension

Maybe you need to enhance your writing skills.

Quigley says

Science started with a superior stance to religion, based on the idea that scientists did NOT know it all and were searching for verifiable answers in an infinite universe of possible facts. As science has entered open combat with religion, it's had to take hard stances on issues for which it has no definitive proof. It's become more dogmatic than say, the Catholic Church when it comes to it's unquestioned belief system and excommunication of those who dare to offer alternative theories. Any wavering on core beliefs, however, is seen to give comfort to the deistic enemy, or worse, the proponents of Intelligent Design.

Science has lost the moral high ground, precisely when it resorted to shouting down detractors and enshrining dogmas that have not yet been proven correct and may be proven false! I love the idea of science. The meticulous building of fact upon fact, hypothesis, theory, and experiment is what has enabled our society to make unbelievably astounding breakthroughs. But when the papal congregation of "peers" decide to ignore the very process by which the order is named, they become just another rabble of clerics arguing about how many neutrons can spin in a Planck distance.

Quigley is making his point in a provocative way, but I agree completely.

I can disprove the "Soul" easily, as well as "Good and Evil" people.

Dementia.

Makes great people act like monsters. Funny, the brain is deteriorating and the soul seems to be turning wicked at the same time. What a coinky-dink, unless there is a simpler explanation: No Soul, All Brains.

Counter argument:
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/

Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Oxygen Deprivation, reduced bloodflow to the brain, electrical stimulation to certain parts of it, etc. can all cause the brain to do weird things.

My dad swore that the dean of UMich gave him a diploma at 2AM several weeks ago - and that there was a lot of broken glass and that my mom threw out his diploma. He fell asleep watching the UMich game and knocked away the CPAP machine. It took him 24 hours to realize it was 100% a delusion, there was no broken glass, no dean, and no diploma for mom to have thrown out.

Just because brain function is limited, doesn't mean the senses don't work at all. Somebody with limited brain function can still hear, smell, even see to some degree.

Also, a lot of NDEs don't report the room correctly, even though they swear they saw themselves on the operating table.

Quigley says

Counter argument:

Right.
An experience that can be reproduced by drugs or brain stimulation must in fact be something totally different because.... ."fill-in your emotionally loaded explanation"

As long as you guys don't separate what is human experience and what is empirical knowledge of the physical world you will continue to miss the point.

Also, blind people "See" in their brain functions, which is excreted by biochemicals just like the Liver excretes bile and Stomache excretes Stomach Acids. Even lifetime blind people visualize things in their heads.

That Blind people have NDEs is evidence for, not against, it being a biochemical experience.

marcus says

Quigley is making his point in a provocative way, but I agree completely.

Seriously? You agree that science is dogmatic?

His point is loaded with paid for propaganda such as "Global warming is a global conspiracy of liberal scientists" with for ideological background: "Evolution and even the big bang theory is BS generated by liberal atheists satanists", and "Yeah science used to be great, but let me choose when it makes sense to me".
Let propaganda separate us from the "liberal atheists scientists enemy".

marcus says

For a genius, you sure are thick.

When an idiot calls someone else an idiot, one must question the idiot's judgement. Fools often call the wise fools.

marcus says

I said that since religion will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better religions rather than no religion.

Equivalent to saying that rape will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better rapes rather than no rapes. Same for poverty, corruption, and war.

No wonder you don't find my arguments convincing. You don't even read them.

Ultimately religion is evil. It should be fought with education, rationality, and a demand for evidence. The same goes for superstition, the ultimate basis of religions.

Peter P says

Science is a religion. It is a faith on the negation of faith.

This is a lie. The religion apologists often try to convince people of the lie that science is based on faith. Science is base on questioning and demanding evidence. The cornerstone of science is the scientific method.

Side note: I'd say "support hypothesis" rather than "accept hypothesis".

Science is based on evidence, repeatability of experiments, and transparency. As such, science is a self-correcting mechanism. Religion, in contrast, is a joke. Apply the scientific method to the question of a god, and all experiments reveal a rejection of the god hypothesis.

To state that science is somehow a faith-based guess of how the universe operates is an utterly ridiculous lie that makes the liar look like a complete idiot. Science allowed man to walk on the moon, cure diseases, fly, and create nuclear weapons and the Internet. Science has an indisputable track record. Faith does not. You cannot pray you way to the moon.

The abundance of technology in our everyday lives proves the validity, accuracy, utility, and supremacy of science. The countless wars, genocides, and tortures in history proves the vileness of religion.

marcus says

Yes. He's compensating, as everyone who has been around here a while knows.

Marcus's insecurities become transparent every time he busts a nut when someone says anything anti-Dan. Marcus, you really need to get over your obsession of me. I don't think about myself as much as you do.

Heraclitusstudent says

Morality has nothing to do with science.

On that I disagree. Sociobologists have extensively documented the existence of morality in social species from meerkats to apes to whales to squirrels. Morality was developed by nature through evolution. Therefore, it is most certainly a valid scientific subject. The existence of religion simply hinders mankind from developing the science of morality and thus also the engineering principles to apply morality to government and business. In other words, we have immoral political leader and immoral economic systems because religion has prevented STEM from taking over morality.

thunderlips11 says

Oxygen Deprivation, reduced bloodflow to the brain, electrical stimulation to certain parts of it, etc. can all cause the brain to do weird things.

Exactly.

Hell, if there are so many souls of all the dead people in all of history, why the fuck doesn't one of them communicate clearly about the consequences of immorality and prevent the next genocide? Or is that too insignificant?

Hell, if Jesus had a soul, why doesn't he tell Putin to lay off the gays? Or told Hitler to leave the Jews alone? Or told the American south that no, slavery is bad? And don't give me the crap that he says it in the Bible. He doesn't, and any half-intelligent being, nonetheless an all-knowing one, would realize that a little face-time with one's god goes a long way in convincing people not to commit such vile acts.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

Morality has nothing to do with science.

On that I disagree.

You can study morality as a scientific subject, but what constitutes scientific fact is not based on a moral judgement.

Any attempt to link morality with science is further proof that science is dogmatic.

Peter P says

Any attempt to link morality with science is further proof that science is dogmatic.

Mammals evolved cooperative social behaviors. The "God has written on our hearts" is really "Primate morality written in our DNA"

Dan8267 says

When an idiot calls someone else an idiot, one must question the idiot's judgement. Fools often call the wise fools.

True.

Dan8267 says

I'm vastly more intelligent than you are. Get over it.

Dan8267 says

Equivalent to saying that rape will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better rapes rather than no rapes. Same for poverty, corruption, and war.

If you think this is a legitimate analogy to what I said, then as usual, you prove what I would prove about your reasoning, better than I ever could.

Dan8267 says

Ultimately religion is evil.

THat's the core of your adolescent confusion. Nothing more than an assertion.

The proof you would cite, is no different than proof that humans are inherently evil. And it can be argued that they are at times.

Again, my point ? We get religion that reflects who we are and how evolved we are. It's an absurd fallacy to suggest that who we are, that is our morals, and how 'good' we are is a refection or an effect (primarily) of our religion

Dan8267 says

Hell, if Jesus had a soul, why doesn't he tell Putin to lay off the gays? Or told Hitler to leave the Jews alone? Or told the American south that no, slavery is bad? And don't give me the crap that he says it in the Bible. He doesn't, and any half-intelligent being, nonetheless an all-knowing one, would realize that a little face-time with one's god goes a long way in convincing people not to commit such vile acts.

Once again evidence that the religion that you reject is a young child's idea of what it might mean for there to be a god.