Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
New Testament and everything! or is this out of context?
ah yes, one of the differentiating factors introduced when christianity was fabricated by Constantine et. al 300 or so years after the death of the source of the religion. (why wait so long by the way....hmm) many previous religions/cults/societies had strong matriarchal qualities but christianity sought to stamp that out completely. Not sure what the reasoning was for this but most likely due to extension of old testament teachings. it's obvious the religion was created to try and stem the loss of power from roman society and create cohesion as the empire crumbled but this endevour to make women seem so evil and in need of subjugation is still hard to understand (oh right, it was a bunch of men creating a power structure so why not). I can't imagine someone in today's society admitting out loud that treating a woman as the bible directs would be moral or even borderline acceptable.
so back to the original argument. The case for atheism. this is a well structured question for creating confusion. Atheism doesn't need a case. It's not the position that needs to be proven. It is what is left after you tear apart every religion for their obvious fallacies/fabrications. a basic understanding of psychology, history, science and 5 minutes of thought is enough to bash un-patchable holes in every religion. Calling out to ask for a case to be made for atheism is just one of the many smoke tricks used to prop religion in modern debate. It doesn't need a case. Show me any sound proof that a higher power exists and I will drop my current beliefs and join in exaltation of that power. And that is the difference. showing someone who "believes" the obvious flaws in their beliefs does nothing to sway them (intro psychology), but for those of us who are not snowed, we will easily change our position in the face of real proof.
I walked away from this discussion a long time ago and can't believe it's still going on. The faithful(l) won't be swayed if they haven't already and those who are on the side of reason can't be shown any proof to accept the fallacies "into their hearts". (and just think of that, the heart isn't even the source of devotion, it's the brain. you'd thing an all knowing power would get that)
so back to the original argument. The case for atheism. this is a well structured question for creating confusion. Atheism doesn't need a case. It's not the position that needs to be proven. It is what is left after you tear apart every religion for their obvious fallacies/fabrications. a basic understanding of psychology, history, science and 5 minutes of thought is enough to bash un-patchable holes in every religion. Calling out to ask for a case to be made for atheism is just one of the many smoke tricks used to prop religion in modern debate. It doesn't need a case.
Kai Nielsen, an Atheist, says in Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 143-4. the following:
"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false...All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists."
Obviously you have forgotten the original post. I have not tried any kind of trickery or smoke screen with the question. I have merely pointed out that Atheist themselves recognize the need to come up with a valid argument that goes beyond "tearing down religion".
The great thinkers of Atheism believe that they have to have a valid argument beyond attacking the Bible. While most have tried based on philosophy during the enlighten period, today's new atheist try's based on science, the achievements of man, as well as continuing the philosophical argument like the existences of evil or why bad things happen to good people.
The atheist asks for proof on the existence of God yet the Bible doesn't set out to proof the existences of God. Genesis starts out with a declarative statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..." and then gives a history of the Jewish people and the beginning of the church.
Therefore I believe Kia Knelsen has it right. The atheist does have a burden to prove that goes beyond tearing down the Bible. My belief is that which ever way you choose requires faith. Nik brings up some interesting difficult texts but in no way disprove the existence of God. They may allow for someone to say "I won't believe in a God that says ... and throw in most of the things Nik is arguing.
These are some of the topics atheist has to answer:
Cosmological Argument
Argument from Reason
Moral Argument
Ontological Argument
Intelligent Design (what we are learning from micro biology)
Trigs has done some nice research and I have read everything he has written but I can't get by the randomness of everything that the atheist asks us to believe in.
I was watching a documentary on the first landing on the moon. It started with Kennedy’s speech about going to the moon by the end of the decade. They do a great job describing what has to happen in order to pull of this seemingly impossible task. After Armstrong and company land on the moon and Armstrong says "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", the announcer says “Over 400,000 man hours later man has landed on the moon and only 1.5 miles from the spot they were aiming at”.(proud of that accomplishment) And I think to myself, “How is it that people can believe in Evolution and the “Big Bang”. It took 400,000 man hours of planning, calculating, simulating every little detail and they missed the mark by 1.5 miles. No when you are talking about a trip of 238,855 miles it doesn't seem like to big of a deal. You might even say “I am nit picking.”But consider this:
• A big bang happens and EVERYTHING in the known and unknown universe goes perfectly into place.
• The earth is exactly where it needs to be in relation to the sun and the moon so that life is sustainable.
• It is spinning at the exact speed and tilted just right in order to make life sustainable.
• That ALL life came from one cell?
• The complex design of a living cell. And all this happened by one Bang?
Frankly, I find it takes more faith to believe that there isn't a God than that there is a God. If it took man 10 years and 400,000 man hours and they still didn't hit the spot they were looking to land, what is the mathematics behind everything is in perfect place by an unguided, blind, random chance theory?
You like Dawkins, read David Berlinski, he is a writer, thinker, and mathematician, who lives in Paris. One of his book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. He wrote the book to answer Dawkins. Berlinski doesn't even claim to be a Christian. Read Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in a Cell and Darwin's Doubt. Think Stephen Hawking has the answers with a Brief History in Time, try William Lane Craig. The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: MacMillan. 1979. These guys are all well educated.
Even Anthony Flew, a world renown atheist, at age 82 admits with the advances in science and our understanding of the cell and micro biology admits there at least has to be some sort of designer.
I don't mind that the thread has taking a bit of a turn but did feel the need to answer SuitedPair because I don't think the case has been made and I agree Kia Knelsen is right and Atheist have to layout a logical case for atheism.
I am surprised that "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" (2014) has been brought up yet. I haven't had the chance to watch the first two episodes. Maybe over the weekend. My guess is this series is designed to answer The Kalam Cosmological Argument (see William Lane Craig) although I could be totally off here. I am sure of one thing, the questions will abound from both sides after seeing it.
I walked away from this discussion a long time ago and can't believe it's still going on.
The faithful(l) won't be swayed if they haven't already and those who are on the side of reason can't be shown any proof to accept the fallacies "into their hearts". (and just think of that, the heart isn't even the source of devotion, it's the brain. you'd thing an all knowing power would get that)
and with that have fun.
Since at many and various times in history believers have indeed become atheists, and vice versa, then the bolded statement above seems a bit foolish.
Unless of course you were just using figurative language, like saying "heart" as a substitute for mind; or saying "...I can't believe it's still going on" when you in fact do believe because of the clear evidence in front of you.
Since at many and various times in history believers have indeed become atheists, and vice versa, then the bolded statement above seems a bit foolish.
Unless of course you were just using figurative language, like saying "heart" as a substitute for mind; or saying "...I can't believe it's still going on" when you in fact do believe because of the clear evidence in front of you.
personally, i try to act like people generally have an open mind most of the time. i know they don't, but i can't go around acting like no one will ever change their minds about anything ever. i'd be too depressed and i'd probably just give up on humanity at that point (something i'm trying not to do as it'd probably result in my suicide or something worse).
personally, i try to act like people generally have an open mind most of the time. i know they don't, but i can't go around acting like no one will ever change their minds about anything ever. i'd be too depressed and i'd probably just give up on humanity at that point (something i'm trying not to do as it'd probably result in my suicide or something worse).
And an explanation of the bold would be? ... never mind, for a second there I envisioned you being a pilot and the bold makes sense now.
And an explanation of the bold would be? ... never mind, for a second there I envisioned you being a pilot and the bold makes sense now.
lol you probably don't want to know. i've been trying to be more optimistic lately, but i was pretty bad when i was younger. i've always been a depressed individual for the most part.
After busting out of the Storm on Stars today, I decided to watch "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey". It is an unlikely collaborated effort with Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator and Family Guy creator, Seth MacFarlane serving as co-producer, along with the widow of Carl Sagan, Ann Sagan.
MacFarlane stated one of the reasons for doing this series is “No one seems to care about the space program. Evolution has somehow become a debatable fact. The resistance to science is idiotic.” Yet one of MacFarlanes heroes, Carl Sagan said “There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. (Darwin’s theory as stated in 1859 has certainly been challenged in today’s 21 century understanding of micro biology in a way that even Darwin couldn't have imagine or predicted.) That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.” (Which should at least include a conversation something like Richard Dawkins doesn’t even want to consider.)
The show starts off with Dr. Tyson asking the viewer to take a journey and “imagine” and the infinite possibilities. Episode 01 is titled "Standing Up in the Milky Way". He talks about generations of searchers testing ideas, build on the ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. "Except these terms and the cosmos is yours". Then you see him inside a cool looking spaceship to make use of the show using cutting-edge visual technology and takes off into the galaxies.
The imagery that is used is absolutely spectacular. Much of what we know comes from the pictures we receive for Voyager I and II as well as the Hubble telescope.
One of the goals of "Cosmos" is to introduce the world to "heroes of science." So naturally you start thinking of Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein and a host of others. But this first episode chooses to acknowledge the great Italian philosopher named Giordano Bruno as its first hero. Unfortunately for "Cosmos," Bruno, wasn't a scientist at all. “Bruno had no scientific basis for his theories. "His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess,” says Tyson. Not off to a good start for a scientific understanding of the cosmos. In the animation they show him lecturing in England on Bruno's vision of the cosmos and then is thrown out of the country. He goes back to Italy where he stands trial. The show makes it look like it was for his theories on the cosmos, but in reality it was for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of virginity of Mary, and denial of Transubstantiation. The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake. So why put this in the story? “Martyrdom.” To make the church out to be the bad guy when it comes to scientific achievement. (all one has to do is look at statements by Bill Nye and even Tyson himself, more on that next week.) But right off the bat we see confusion. The educated scientist can’t be happy as it is taking tentative steps away from science and into realms like history and religion. And the church isn't happy because they are seen as lunatics and burning people at the stake. I then go back to the beginning and remember Dr. Tyson say imagine, test, try, and reject what doesn't pass the test. (And that is what we will do with this series and let the chips fall where they may.I am not a great scientist by any stretch of the imagination but I know a couple of things and will point out things that I believe are thrown in to confuse the viewer or misrepresent the churches point of view as I see it.)
The episode continues onto the scope of time, 13.7 billion years, using the concept of the Cosmic Calendar as used in the original series to provide a metaphor for this scale. The narration describes how if the Big Bang (which took a while for the scientific community to accept) occurred on January 1, all of mankind's recorded history would be compressed in the last second of the last minute on December 31.
I liked his personal story when he tells the audience about how he met Sagan as a 17 year old. I love the imagery in the show. The visual effects are pretty stunning. Dr. Tyson does a good job narrating the story and has a soothing voice for the show.
I never watch the original show with the late Carl Sagan so I can’t really compare the two. Fox says that about 5.8 million viewers tuned in. The original series was seen by an estimated 400 million so we will see how the numbers compare by the end of the series.
Next week part 2 - "Some of the Things That Molecules Do" (Unless a have a great run on Stars playing Storm)
Just because science hasn't explained some things does not mean it wont. If you use god of the gaps argument you shrink god into increasingly narrow definition. Evolution may be "just a theory" but definition of scientific theory is that it must be disprovable as opposed to faith.Consider mountains of evidence supporting evolution vs not one piece disproving. I don't think earth is flat or moon is made of green cheese. Also biogenesis is separate from evolution. Miller theory was shown to be very unlikely but beware god of gaps. Religion is always trying to keep up with science ie changing paradigms according to new scientific knowledge. It can do this because you cannot disprove faith. Therefore any faith is equally valid-- earth is supported on backs of turtles.
Successful 3 year TV show, Bridesmaids, a few indie hits, Thor 2, This is 40, generally consistent work for the last decade...
Just because you aren't aware of non North American stuff, doesn't mean he's a flop. Also? Benedict Cumberbatch is not a one hit wonder with Star Trek 2....
No need to do so. Just because you happen to think he's the bee's knees, and his blatherings support your position, does not make him a cultural icon. In Europe or elsewhere. I have stipulated that he is known to me, and that he has a certain level of fame. But come on Mark . . . If you showed his picture around the world, the vast majority of reactions would be of the, "Yeah, I've seen him in something . . ." variety, and you bloody well know it. As opposed to a Coronation Street actor, or Cumberbatch, or one of the Pythons, etc. Get over yourself.
Moreso I said I hated the fact I had to go to celebrity opinion... but he nailed it, as I said before.... to paraphrase you: "Get over your fairy tale"
He nailed nothing . . . except the definition of intolerance. As for my own beliefs, I have made no secret of my struggles with Faith. Still struggling . . . but not to "get over" anything.
I will concede to agreeing with him about America's obsession with making sure their President is a "believer, though . . . I have never truly understood that.
He nailed nothing . . . except the definition of intolerance. As for my own beliefs, I have made no secret of my struggles with Faith. Still struggling . . . but not to "get over" anything.
I will concede to agreeing with him about America's obsession with making sure their President is a "believer, though . . . I have never truly understood that.
Man..
I'mma just let this one ripen for 800Over to enjoy responding to.
Moreso I said I hated the fact I had to go to celebrity opinion... but he nailed it, as I said before.... to paraphrase you: "Get over your fairy tale"
Mark
I am trying to understand the hostility towards religious beliefs? It can't be because they (religious people) tend toward having political power and therefore shape policy because there are all kinds of governments in the world that don't prescribe to a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN belief system. In fact it could be argued our own country wasn't founded on the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN beliefs of our American friends. Unlike your post, I am not looking for a fight, just an understanding.
Im basically agnostic skewed to atheism. What I was saying is that anyone that does not believe evolution is real might as well believe earth is flat. Anything can be accepted as true but some things stretch credibility. Any faith based belief cannot be disproven so any such belief is equally valid ie the faith that the earth is supported on backs of turtles. Only scientific method stipulates that any theory must be -able- to be disproven. Also it seems funny that religion responds to new scientific knowledge and not the other way around eg mental disorders as opposed to being possessed by demons. My difficulty with religion is the incomprehensible amount of suffering it has caused from misguided beliefs. One other thing thought. Ever since self awareness evolved the natural question was why are we here--why something from nothing. Latest theories show something can come from nothing therefore no need to invoke gods.
Yeah . . . that whole "love thy neighbour" stuff causes all kinds of grief.
Hard to tell if this is hypocrisy because you essentially said "tough shit women in NB" because of your neighbour with cancer or if you're being consistent because you said "tough shit women in NB" because of your neighbour with cancer.
love thy neighbor comes from evolutionary adaptation for cooperation to increase survival probability. Same as religious beliefs in general. However just like immune system does not always work beneficially. Use of scientific knowledge can alleviate suffering caused by system discordance and can also be applied to religious beliefs'
Yeah . . . that whole "love thy neighbour" stuff causes all kinds of grief.
Is that your way of not answering ANY of the points raised?
Extraordinary evidence is required for extraordinary claims. What evidence is there for God?
You keep harping on Science being supported by Church....but when Science disagreed with Church (until recently) people died. More people have been killed in the name of Christ/(insert deity here) that you'll care to admit.
Comments
Does that roughly translate to "I can't actually answer any of the arguments posted?"
ah yes, one of the differentiating factors introduced when christianity was fabricated by Constantine et. al 300 or so years after the death of the source of the religion. (why wait so long by the way....hmm) many previous religions/cults/societies had strong matriarchal qualities but christianity sought to stamp that out completely. Not sure what the reasoning was for this but most likely due to extension of old testament teachings. it's obvious the religion was created to try and stem the loss of power from roman society and create cohesion as the empire crumbled but this endevour to make women seem so evil and in need of subjugation is still hard to understand (oh right, it was a bunch of men creating a power structure so why not). I can't imagine someone in today's society admitting out loud that treating a woman as the bible directs would be moral or even borderline acceptable.
so back to the original argument. The case for atheism. this is a well structured question for creating confusion. Atheism doesn't need a case. It's not the position that needs to be proven. It is what is left after you tear apart every religion for their obvious fallacies/fabrications. a basic understanding of psychology, history, science and 5 minutes of thought is enough to bash un-patchable holes in every religion. Calling out to ask for a case to be made for atheism is just one of the many smoke tricks used to prop religion in modern debate. It doesn't need a case. Show me any sound proof that a higher power exists and I will drop my current beliefs and join in exaltation of that power. And that is the difference. showing someone who "believes" the obvious flaws in their beliefs does nothing to sway them (intro psychology), but for those of us who are not snowed, we will easily change our position in the face of real proof.
I walked away from this discussion a long time ago and can't believe it's still going on. The faithful(l) won't be swayed if they haven't already and those who are on the side of reason can't be shown any proof to accept the fallacies "into their hearts". (and just think of that, the heart isn't even the source of devotion, it's the brain. you'd thing an all knowing power would get that)
and with that have fun.
https://twitter.com/Whoozley
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
Kai Nielsen, an Atheist, says in Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 143-4. the following:
"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false...All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists."
Obviously you have forgotten the original post. I have not tried any kind of trickery or smoke screen with the question. I have merely pointed out that Atheist themselves recognize the need to come up with a valid argument that goes beyond "tearing down religion".
The great thinkers of Atheism believe that they have to have a valid argument beyond attacking the Bible. While most have tried based on philosophy during the enlighten period, today's new atheist try's based on science, the achievements of man, as well as continuing the philosophical argument like the existences of evil or why bad things happen to good people.
The atheist asks for proof on the existence of God yet the Bible doesn't set out to proof the existences of God. Genesis starts out with a declarative statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..." and then gives a history of the Jewish people and the beginning of the church.
Therefore I believe Kia Knelsen has it right. The atheist does have a burden to prove that goes beyond tearing down the Bible. My belief is that which ever way you choose requires faith. Nik brings up some interesting difficult texts but in no way disprove the existence of God. They may allow for someone to say "I won't believe in a God that says ... and throw in most of the things Nik is arguing.
These are some of the topics atheist has to answer:
Cosmological Argument
Argument from Reason
Moral Argument
Ontological Argument
Intelligent Design (what we are learning from micro biology)
Trigs has done some nice research and I have read everything he has written but I can't get by the randomness of everything that the atheist asks us to believe in.
I was watching a documentary on the first landing on the moon. It started with Kennedy’s speech about going to the moon by the end of the decade. They do a great job describing what has to happen in order to pull of this seemingly impossible task. After Armstrong and company land on the moon and Armstrong says "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", the announcer says “Over 400,000 man hours later man has landed on the moon and only 1.5 miles from the spot they were aiming at”.(proud of that accomplishment) And I think to myself, “How is it that people can believe in Evolution and the “Big Bang”. It took 400,000 man hours of planning, calculating, simulating every little detail and they missed the mark by 1.5 miles. No when you are talking about a trip of 238,855 miles it doesn't seem like to big of a deal. You might even say “I am nit picking.”But consider this:
• A big bang happens and EVERYTHING in the known and unknown universe goes perfectly into place.
• The earth is exactly where it needs to be in relation to the sun and the moon so that life is sustainable.
• It is spinning at the exact speed and tilted just right in order to make life sustainable.
• That ALL life came from one cell?
• The complex design of a living cell. And all this happened by one Bang?
Frankly, I find it takes more faith to believe that there isn't a God than that there is a God. If it took man 10 years and 400,000 man hours and they still didn't hit the spot they were looking to land, what is the mathematics behind everything is in perfect place by an unguided, blind, random chance theory?
You like Dawkins, read David Berlinski, he is a writer, thinker, and mathematician, who lives in Paris. One of his book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. He wrote the book to answer Dawkins. Berlinski doesn't even claim to be a Christian. Read Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in a Cell and Darwin's Doubt. Think Stephen Hawking has the answers with a Brief History in Time, try William Lane Craig. The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: MacMillan. 1979. These guys are all well educated.
Even Anthony Flew, a world renown atheist, at age 82 admits with the advances in science and our understanding of the cell and micro biology admits there at least has to be some sort of designer.
I don't mind that the thread has taking a bit of a turn but did feel the need to answer SuitedPair because I don't think the case has been made and I agree Kia Knelsen is right and Atheist have to layout a logical case for atheism.
No, it means it's the weekend . . . also this:
We are not going to convince each other to change . . . so I am going to let you have the field. Feel free to keep going . . .
Suited Pair . . . no Matriarchal tradition in Christianity? Missed the whole Virgin Mary thing, did we?
And the Christian Church was not founded by Constantine . . . Dan Brown is in the fiction sections for a reason.
Since at many and various times in history believers have indeed become atheists, and vice versa, then the bolded statement above seems a bit foolish.
Unless of course you were just using figurative language, like saying "heart" as a substitute for mind; or saying "...I can't believe it's still going on" when you in fact do believe because of the clear evidence in front of you.
personally, i try to act like people generally have an open mind most of the time. i know they don't, but i can't go around acting like no one will ever change their minds about anything ever. i'd be too depressed and i'd probably just give up on humanity at that point (something i'm trying not to do as it'd probably result in my suicide or something worse).
And an explanation of the bold would be? ... never mind, for a second there I envisioned you being a pilot and the bold makes sense now.
lol you probably don't want to know. i've been trying to be more optimistic lately, but i was pretty bad when i was younger. i've always been a depressed individual for the most part.
MacFarlane stated one of the reasons for doing this series is “No one seems to care about the space program. Evolution has somehow become a debatable fact. The resistance to science is idiotic.” Yet one of MacFarlanes heroes, Carl Sagan said “There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. (Darwin’s theory as stated in 1859 has certainly been challenged in today’s 21 century understanding of micro biology in a way that even Darwin couldn't have imagine or predicted.) That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.” (Which should at least include a conversation something like Richard Dawkins doesn’t even want to consider.)
The show starts off with Dr. Tyson asking the viewer to take a journey and “imagine” and the infinite possibilities. Episode 01 is titled "Standing Up in the Milky Way". He talks about generations of searchers testing ideas, build on the ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. "Except these terms and the cosmos is yours". Then you see him inside a cool looking spaceship to make use of the show using cutting-edge visual technology and takes off into the galaxies.
The imagery that is used is absolutely spectacular. Much of what we know comes from the pictures we receive for Voyager I and II as well as the Hubble telescope.
One of the goals of "Cosmos" is to introduce the world to "heroes of science." So naturally you start thinking of Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein and a host of others. But this first episode chooses to acknowledge the great Italian philosopher named Giordano Bruno as its first hero. Unfortunately for "Cosmos," Bruno, wasn't a scientist at all. “Bruno had no scientific basis for his theories. "His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess,” says Tyson. Not off to a good start for a scientific understanding of the cosmos. In the animation they show him lecturing in England on Bruno's vision of the cosmos and then is thrown out of the country. He goes back to Italy where he stands trial. The show makes it look like it was for his theories on the cosmos, but in reality it was for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of virginity of Mary, and denial of Transubstantiation. The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake. So why put this in the story? “Martyrdom.” To make the church out to be the bad guy when it comes to scientific achievement. (all one has to do is look at statements by Bill Nye and even Tyson himself, more on that next week.) But right off the bat we see confusion. The educated scientist can’t be happy as it is taking tentative steps away from science and into realms like history and religion. And the church isn't happy because they are seen as lunatics and burning people at the stake. I then go back to the beginning and remember Dr. Tyson say imagine, test, try, and reject what doesn't pass the test. (And that is what we will do with this series and let the chips fall where they may.I am not a great scientist by any stretch of the imagination but I know a couple of things and will point out things that I believe are thrown in to confuse the viewer or misrepresent the churches point of view as I see it.)
The episode continues onto the scope of time, 13.7 billion years, using the concept of the Cosmic Calendar as used in the original series to provide a metaphor for this scale. The narration describes how if the Big Bang (which took a while for the scientific community to accept) occurred on January 1, all of mankind's recorded history would be compressed in the last second of the last minute on December 31.
I liked his personal story when he tells the audience about how he met Sagan as a 17 year old. I love the imagery in the show. The visual effects are pretty stunning. Dr. Tyson does a good job narrating the story and has a soothing voice for the show.
I never watch the original show with the late Carl Sagan so I can’t really compare the two. Fox says that about 5.8 million viewers tuned in. The original series was seen by an estimated 400 million so we will see how the numbers compare by the end of the series.
Next week part 2 - "Some of the Things That Molecules Do" (Unless a have a great run on Stars playing Storm)
Prophet22
Mostly because of the whole "Jenny McCarthy is a crazy bitch" thing and vaccinations... but, this sums it up fairly nicely.
Actor Chris O'Dowd says religion is 'unacceptable'
Mark
Successful 3 year TV show, Bridesmaids, a few indie hits, Thor 2, This is 40, generally consistent work for the last decade...
Just because you aren't aware of non North American stuff, doesn't mean he's a flop. Also? Benedict Cumberbatch is not a one hit wonder with Star Trek 2....
Mark
Considering the source, it comes off more as attention whoring.
I haven't the time / energy to keep you informed of non NA cultural icons, nor to argue with your willful blindness.
Yes, that also applies to religion.
Mark
Moreso I said I hated the fact I had to go to celebrity opinion... but he nailed it, as I said before.... to paraphrase you: "Get over your fairy tale"
Mark
I will concede to agreeing with him about America's obsession with making sure their President is a "believer, though . . . I have never truly understood that.
Man..
I'mma just let this one ripen for 800Over to enjoy responding to.
Mark
I am trying to understand the hostility towards religious beliefs? It can't be because they (religious people) tend toward having political power and therefore shape policy because there are all kinds of governments in the world that don't prescribe to a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN belief system. In fact it could be argued our own country wasn't founded on the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN beliefs of our American friends. Unlike your post, I am not looking for a fight, just an understanding.
That theory I mentioned above just rings true. And I hope to see the day when the world in general comes to its senses.
Mark
Hard to tell if this is hypocrisy because you essentially said "tough shit women in NB" because of your neighbour with cancer or if you're being consistent because you said "tough shit women in NB" because of your neighbour with cancer.
Isn't it funny how you can hide?
Mark
Is that your way of not answering ANY of the points raised?
Extraordinary evidence is required for extraordinary claims. What evidence is there for God?
You keep harping on Science being supported by Church....but when Science disagreed with Church (until recently) people died. More people have been killed in the name of Christ/(insert deity here) that you'll care to admit.
The difference is that Jesus is more recent.