"I agree, most religious people are probably decent people." Quote from a fellow atheist.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"I agree, most religious people are probably decent people." Quote from a fellow atheist.

The quote in the title is from a fellow atheist at another website. I agree with that despite what my detractors here think. The problem with religion is that it turns our evolutionary behavior into a comic book and creates excuses to set up social pecking orders.

 

Ann Frank wrote:
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

 

One of my favorite quotes to ever come out of our human history, especially from such a brave girl in the face of such horrors. I can agree with this quote without agreeing that the Hebrew god existed. I cannot agree with her that her god existed knowing that it is a spin off of prior polytheism.

If one can agree that we are capable of being good and doing good, and that shows in every reliigion AND I AGREE it does, then we as a species have to learn to accept that what we do, both good and bad, is not a result of religion, but is a result of our evolution in spite of the labels we hold or the clubs we chose to be part of.

I really don't know how to appease my detractors on this site. I will say this, I will not coddle any superstion or myth or god claim knowing we have a better understanding of reality and human behavior in scientific and evolutionary terms.

If we are to avoid the horrors that lead that poor girl to her death, we cannot afford to allow antiquity to rule a modern age.

I can feel emptathy for human suffering and human struggle without giving religion itself undue credit in the face of known reality. I can value the struggle of Malala and King knowing their respective gods do not exist. I know what was good in them is in all of us.

Liberals especially accept that much more than fundementalists of any religion of course. But that is precisely the point. This universal notion that humans can be good, prove the fact that it is HUMANS doing it, our evolution doing it, not the clubs we invent.

And I also get tired of my detractors ignoring that I included atheists in on this universal fact as well. There IS absolutely no garuntee if atheists become a majority in at any givin time that we ourselves are above good or bad behavior.

There is a very real science to behind why people believe false things, inside and outside the issue of religion. Just like we no longer think comets bring evil and know now what they are made of and how to track them. Our brains did not evolve with facts in them when we come out of the womb, and this flaw of perception because we are blank slates, hinders us as  as species to clinging to our placebos.

When people argue to leave religion alone, to me it is like saying it is ok to use a kaliedescope to look at the stars instead of using a tellescope. It can placate our sense of fairness with good intent, but in doing such it comes at the sacrifice of knowledge of how our thought processes and perceptions of reality can be flawed, to the point of allowing us to be divided and excuse the dark side of our human behavior.

I am only in acceptance of the volcano in the context that you will never get rid of it, our species has always, as well as the capability of doing good and being good, is also capable of the same horrors that caused the unfortunate murder of Ann Frank.

I will NEVER be against human rights in the context of law and the protection of pluralism. But claims themselves do not deserve taboo status. I think the mistake being made here by my detractors is the unwillingness to seperate rights from the separate issue of the credibility of a claim.

It is NOT ok for Ukrainians to round up Jews anymore than it was ok for Christian Germans too murder Ann Frank. It is not ok for Muslims to slam planes into buildings becuase they want to be a maryter to defend the claim that Allah exists. It is not ok for Christians here in the states to deny marriage to gays because an ancient book told them gays are bad. I am tired of the excuse "most people are good and don't do this". It is preciesely because the good people ignore that goodness is in us, and not their human invented construct, that they allow just enough bad people to cause the division in the first place.

The left is awesome in it's sensitivity, but that cannot be used by anyone to avoid scrutiny of bad cliams. I attack my well intended friends on the left because I know our species is capable of better things that give us a real view of the world, just like we know the earth is not flat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

 

                                                                                  Buy a gun, that's all that really matters in life...


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Anne definitely could have

 Anne definitely could have used more guns. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The quote in

Brian37 wrote:

The quote in the title is from a fellow atheist at another website. I agree with that despite what my detractors here think. The problem with religion is that it turns our evolutionary behavior into a comic book and creates excuses to set up social pecking orders.

 

Ann Frank wrote:
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

 

One of my favorite quotes to ever come out of our human history, especially from such a brave girl in the face of such horrors. I can agree with this quote without agreeing that the Hebrew god existed. I cannot agree with her that her god existed knowing that it is a spin off of prior polytheism.

If one can agree that we are capable of being good and doing good, and that shows in every reliigion AND I AGREE it does, then we as a species have to learn to accept that what we do, both good and bad, is not a result of religion, but is a result of our evolution in spite of the labels we hold or the clubs we chose to be part of.

I really don't know how to appease my detractors on this site. I will say this, I will not coddle any superstion or myth or god claim knowing we have a better understanding of reality and human behavior in scientific and evolutionary terms.

If we are to avoid the horrors that lead that poor girl to her death, we cannot afford to allow antiquity to rule a modern age.

I can feel emptathy for human suffering and human struggle without giving religion itself undue credit in the face of known reality. I can value the struggle of Malala and King knowing their respective gods do not exist. I know what was good in them is in all of us.

Liberals especially accept that much more than fundementalists of any religion of course. But that is precisely the point. This universal notion that humans can be good, prove the fact that it is HUMANS doing it, our evolution doing it, not the clubs we invent.

And I also get tired of my detractors ignoring that I included atheists in on this universal fact as well. There IS absolutely no garuntee if atheists become a majority in at any givin time that we ourselves are above good or bad behavior.

There is a very real science to behind why people believe false things, inside and outside the issue of religion. Just like we no longer think comets bring evil and know now what they are made of and how to track them. Our brains did not evolve with facts in them when we come out of the womb, and this flaw of perception because we are blank slates, hinders us as  as species to clinging to our placebos.

When people argue to leave religion alone, to me it is like saying it is ok to use a kaliedescope to look at the stars instead of using a tellescope. It can placate our sense of fairness with good intent, but in doing such it comes at the sacrifice of knowledge of how our thought processes and perceptions of reality can be flawed, to the point of allowing us to be divided and excuse the dark side of our human behavior.

I am only in acceptance of the volcano in the context that you will never get rid of it, our species has always, as well as the capability of doing good and being good, is also capable of the same horrors that caused the unfortunate murder of Ann Frank.

I will NEVER be against human rights in the context of law and the protection of pluralism. But claims themselves do not deserve taboo status. I think the mistake being made here by my detractors is the unwillingness to seperate rights from the separate issue of the credibility of a claim.

It is NOT ok for Ukrainians to round up Jews anymore than it was ok for Christian Germans too murder Ann Frank. It is not ok for Muslims to slam planes into buildings becuase they want to be a maryter to defend the claim that Allah exists. It is not ok for Christians here in the states to deny marriage to gays because an ancient book told them gays are bad. I am tired of the excuse "most people are good and don't do this". It is preciesely because the good people ignore that goodness is in us, and not their human invented construct, that they allow just enough bad people to cause the division in the first place.

The left is awesome in it's sensitivity, but that cannot be used by anyone to avoid scrutiny of bad cliams. I attack my well intended friends on the left because I know our species is capable of better things that give us a real view of the world, just like we know the earth is not flat.

You do realize that the horrors you mention here were caused by government, not religion, right? Using your logic, you really should be ranting against government. Are you ready to join the anarchists yet? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Anne

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Anne definitely could have used more guns. 

Um no, what would have helped is not allowing Germany to rot after WW1.  If we had done after WW2 with Germany after WW1 Hitler would have been treated like the nut he really was.

Hitler was the one who relaxed gun ownership when he took power, problem was he only expanded gun rights to party loyalists.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:...he only

Brian37 wrote:
...he only expanded gun rights to party loyalists.

 

 

 

                Yes, they were also referred to as "soldiers".


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The quote in the title is from a fellow atheist at another website. I agree with that despite what my detractors here think. The problem with religion is that it turns our evolutionary behavior into a comic book and creates excuses to set up social pecking orders.

 

Ann Frank wrote:
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

 

One of my favorite quotes to ever come out of our human history, especially from such a brave girl in the face of such horrors. I can agree with this quote without agreeing that the Hebrew god existed. I cannot agree with her that her god existed knowing that it is a spin off of prior polytheism.

If one can agree that we are capable of being good and doing good, and that shows in every reliigion AND I AGREE it does, then we as a species have to learn to accept that what we do, both good and bad, is not a result of religion, but is a result of our evolution in spite of the labels we hold or the clubs we chose to be part of.

I really don't know how to appease my detractors on this site. I will say this, I will not coddle any superstion or myth or god claim knowing we have a better understanding of reality and human behavior in scientific and evolutionary terms.

If we are to avoid the horrors that lead that poor girl to her death, we cannot afford to allow antiquity to rule a modern age.

I can feel emptathy for human suffering and human struggle without giving religion itself undue credit in the face of known reality. I can value the struggle of Malala and King knowing their respective gods do not exist. I know what was good in them is in all of us.

Liberals especially accept that much more than fundementalists of any religion of course. But that is precisely the point. This universal notion that humans can be good, prove the fact that it is HUMANS doing it, our evolution doing it, not the clubs we invent.

And I also get tired of my detractors ignoring that I included atheists in on this universal fact as well. There IS absolutely no garuntee if atheists become a majority in at any givin time that we ourselves are above good or bad behavior.

There is a very real science to behind why people believe false things, inside and outside the issue of religion. Just like we no longer think comets bring evil and know now what they are made of and how to track them. Our brains did not evolve with facts in them when we come out of the womb, and this flaw of perception because we are blank slates, hinders us as  as species to clinging to our placebos.

When people argue to leave religion alone, to me it is like saying it is ok to use a kaliedescope to look at the stars instead of using a tellescope. It can placate our sense of fairness with good intent, but in doing such it comes at the sacrifice of knowledge of how our thought processes and perceptions of reality can be flawed, to the point of allowing us to be divided and excuse the dark side of our human behavior.

I am only in acceptance of the volcano in the context that you will never get rid of it, our species has always, as well as the capability of doing good and being good, is also capable of the same horrors that caused the unfortunate murder of Ann Frank.

I will NEVER be against human rights in the context of law and the protection of pluralism. But claims themselves do not deserve taboo status. I think the mistake being made here by my detractors is the unwillingness to seperate rights from the separate issue of the credibility of a claim.

It is NOT ok for Ukrainians to round up Jews anymore than it was ok for Christian Germans too murder Ann Frank. It is not ok for Muslims to slam planes into buildings becuase they want to be a maryter to defend the claim that Allah exists. It is not ok for Christians here in the states to deny marriage to gays because an ancient book told them gays are bad. I am tired of the excuse "most people are good and don't do this". It is preciesely because the good people ignore that goodness is in us, and not their human invented construct, that they allow just enough bad people to cause the division in the first place.

The left is awesome in it's sensitivity, but that cannot be used by anyone to avoid scrutiny of bad cliams. I attack my well intended friends on the left because I know our species is capable of better things that give us a real view of the world, just like we know the earth is not flat.

You do realize that the horrors you mention here were caused by government, not religion, right? Using your logic, you really should be ranting against government. Are you ready to join the anarchists yet? 

You realize that government uses religion right? Do not sit there and tell me they dont.  That is a cop out.

When the Saudi goverment makes decrees that atheists are terrorists, what do you think they base that on, Harry Potter? Can you seriously tell me that the wholesale attack on reproductive rights for women is completely secular? You are going to tell me that homophobia is not religious based? Religion is a tool of government and for you to say it isn't is absurd. Government uses it to play off of people's fears and emotions and tribalism. And Hitler used it too and "Germans are god's chosen people" worked quite effectively to the detriment of Jews.

And no I am NOT an anarchst by any stretch. I don't know where the hell that comes from. Secular governments are why we do not look like the fascist states of the middle east. The founders were a combo of all sorts of beliefs including deism and Unitarianism which would be today considered cults by many on the right. Having lived in Falwell's city for 10 years I can't tell you how many times that dipshit called Unitarains evil either not knowing or ignoring Jefferson's quotes on both atheists and Unitarians.

Wanting a less relgiious government is not advocating an irradication by force of religion. Wanting a more secular government is not either a call to fascism or anarchy. It merely means we need to stop allowing religion to be used by govenrment to divide us, and to say it isn't is absurd.

I do not want an anarchist state like Somolea nor do I want a fascist sate like Saudi Arabia, or the religious political fascism of North Korea(worship of the state).

 

I do stand by my position that religion is a huge distraction and I will not back off that position.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I do stand

Brian37 wrote:

 

I do stand by my position that religion is a huge distraction and I will not back off that position.

 

 

 

 

                                                 I stand by my position that Brian37 is huge distraction and I will not back off that position.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
...he only expanded gun rights to party loyalists.

 

 

 

                Yes, they were also referred to as "soldiers".

"Gott Mit Uns" would make them good Christian soldiers too.  But I guess those SS belt buckles were a product of my immagination. It would have been avoided if humans were not taught to be lead by the nose by religious convictions.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Anne definitely could have used more guns. 

Um no, what would have helped is not allowing Germany to rot after WW1.  If we had done after WW2 with Germany after WW1 Hitler would have been treated like the nut he really was.

Hitler was the one who relaxed gun ownership when he took power, problem was he only expanded gun rights to party loyalists.

Exactly, the Nazis had guns, the Jews didn't, hence the problem. 

Also, you need to brush up on your history. Germany was not left to rot after WWI. The United States loaned the Germans a ton of money and Germany was very prosperous from 1924-1929. It was the Great Depression in the US which led to a massive recall on the loans and brought economic problems to Germany (as well as most of the world). 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

I do stand by my position that religion is a huge distraction and I will not back off that position.

 

 

 

 

                                                 I stand by my position that Brian37 is huge distraction and I will not back off that position.

 

Have you watched the entire Cosmos series, meaning every single episode up until now? Christians have been blasting Neil and the show for not giving them equal time. Are you going to accuse him too of being a "distraction".

 

Now what he has been doing in the entire series has been SHOWING in all points of history how easily humans get distracted by fear and superstition. Most reciently he pointed out how close ancient China was in becoming a more open society, but when questionging got too close to the powers that be they squashed it.  He also pointed out the same thing in Islam as well as Christianity.

He rightfully pointed out all points in history where humans feared comets, and how ALL religions made this mistake in history.

He is rightfully pointing out how our perceptions as a species are flawed. Do you want humanity to progress or be ruled by our superstitions and fears?

Now if you are going to blast me for not giving any religion a pass then you should have a problem with Neil too because he refuses to give Christianity or any religion a pass when it comes to science.

The only thing religion is good for in reality is placating our own ignorance.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You realize

Brian37 wrote:

You realize that government uses religion right? Do not sit there and tell me they dont.  That is a cop out.

So. Government also uses money, guns, people, roads, mail, advertising and a million other things. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Can you seriously tell me that the wholesale attack on reproductive rights for women is completely secular? You are going to tell me that homophobia is not religious based?

Can you seriously tell me that the concept of equal rights is completely secular?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Religion is a tool of government and for you to say it isn't is absurd.

Depends completely on the government. Some governments institute their own religions, some adopt current religions, some don't. Religion has as frequently been a tool used by those rebelling against governments as it has been used by government.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Government uses it to play off of people's fears and emotions and tribalism. And Hitler used it too and "Germans are god's chosen people" worked quite effectively to the detriment of Jews.

Kind of like someone's posts on this site attempt to use fears and emotions? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

And no I am NOT an anarchst by any stretch. I don't know where the hell that comes from.

Obviously you aren't. The question is why. If you apply the same logic to government that you use to judge religion, then you should be an anarchist. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Secular governments are why we do not look like the fascist states of the middle east. The founders were a combo of all sorts of beliefs including deism and Unitarianism which would be today considered cults by many on the right. Having lived in Falwell's city for 10 years I can't tell you how many times that dipshit called Unitarains evil either not knowing or ignoring Jefferson's quotes on both atheists and Unitarians.

Nonsense. The governments in the middle east are not fascist. And to date, every government that has gone the fascist route has been secular. The term "fascist" has a specific meaning and is a specific ideology. It is not a replacement for the term totalitarian or something that just means every government you don't like. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Wanting a less relgiious government is not advocating an irradication by force of religion. Wanting a more secular government is not either a call to fascism or anarchy. It merely means we need to stop allowing religion to be used by govenrment to divide us, and to say it isn't is absurd.

I do not want an anarchist state like Somolea nor do I want a fascist sate like Saudi Arabia, or the religious political fascism of North Korea(worship of the state).

You obviously don't have a clue what the word fascist means. I suggest you look it up before you make even more of a fool of yourself. Out of curiosity, what exactly is your problem with anarchy in Somalia? I should say that anarchy was much better than the current shari'a based system that has been implemented now. Can you point to specific problems caused by anarchy in Somalia that don't exist in equally impoverished countries that have a government? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:;Gott Mit Uns"

Brian37 wrote:
;Gott Mit Uns" would make them good Christian soldiers too.  But I guess those SS belt buckles were a product of my immagination.



HEY, YOU FUCKIN' ASSHOLE, I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU AT LEAST THREE TIMES. "gott mit uns" had been on the buckles of the prussian military since AT LEAST the days of bismarck. the nazis (not just the SS, but the wehrmacht as well) kept this slogan to prove their dubious CONTINUITY with the old prussian military establishment, not because of any genuine religious feeling. i would wager that the average german soldier gave no more thought to what was on their belt buckle than the average american gives thought to "in god we trust" on the change in their pockets. typical hysterics.




when someone educates you on something, have the balls to incorporate it into your thinking. then again, i'm probably expecting too much from a fucking tard.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Everyone today

is a victim of decisions made by those of 1000's of years ago. We have nothing more then an inheiritese from someones that thought they knew better but were nothing but fools--creating a liars paradise and fools parade. Old Seers.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
;Gott Mit Uns" would make them good Christian soldiers too.  But I guess those SS belt buckles were a product of my immagination.

HEY, YOU FUCKIN' ASSHOLE, I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU AT LEAST THREE TIMES. "gott mit uns" had been on the buckles of the prussian military since AT LEAST the days of bismarck. the nazis (not just the SS, but the wehrmacht as well) kept this slogan to prove their dubious CONTINUITY with the old prussian military establishment, not because of any genuine religious feeling. i would wager that the average german soldier gave no more thought to what was on their belt buckle than the average american gives thought to "in god we trust" on the change in their pockets. typical hysterics.

when someone educates you on something, have the balls to incorporate it into your thinking. then again, i'm probably expecting too much from a fucking tard.

If using god in government propaganda did not work, then why do we have morons here even today crying "Christian Nation"? Because selling people a fictional sky hero DOES WORK.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If using god

Brian37 wrote:
If using god in government propaganda did not work, then why do we have morons here even today crying "Christian Nation"?



you said it: because they're morons. and a moron without religion is still a fucking moron, of which you're living proof.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Have you

Brian37 wrote:

 

Have you watched the entire Cosmos series, meaning every single episode up until now?

 

   I tried watching it but it was too maudlin and cheezy in its presentation.  Too much empasis on the awesome, awesomeness of how awesome the universe is.  There are better science programs out there, I watch them instead.

 

 

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
Now what he has been doing in the entire series has been SHOWING in all points of history how easily humans get distracted by fear and superstition. Most reciently he pointed out how close ancient China was in becoming a more open society, but when questionging got too close to the powers that be they squashed it.  He also pointed out the same thing in Islam as well as Christianity.

He rightfully pointed out all points in history where humans feared comets, and how ALL religions made this mistake in history.

 

   This is precisely why I consider  the new version of Cosmos to be pure shit.   Jesus Christ, just present the current scientific findings and quit wasting my time with some woeful narrative about how people hundreds of years ago got it wrong.  Focus on the current scientific knowledge of the 21'st century and not past superstitions.  

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
He is rightfully pointing out how our perceptions as a species are flawed. Do you want humanity to progress or be ruled by our superstitions and fears?

Now if you are going to blast me for not giving any religion a pass then you should have a problem with Neil too because he refuses to give Christianity or any religion a pass when it comes to science.

The only thing religion is good for in reality is placating our own ignorance.

 

  Then Macfarlane and deGrasse Tyson should do a companion series that deals strictly with how ancient supertitions impeded scientific progress and confine their social commentary to a specific venue.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'm still waiting for you

 I'm still waiting for you to point out what was wrong with anarchy in Somalia Brian.