Cosmos Reboot: Running Discussion Thread

So, no hard data, then.

I've never thought that science must deny faith, and vice-versa. They shouldn't be fighting about it.

Jumping to conclusions - how unscientific.

When I have access to my computer and links, I'll post them

Faith? Maybe not. Dogma? Oh HELLS yeah!
FUCK yeah!

"One might have said so in the first place."

It is amazing how useful TOS can be. Just last night my own brother almost ran me down in the middle of a city street. I told my wife I "almost pulled an Edith."

Oh, aliens period, sure.
Anal probing, pyramid building aliens?
Yeah, not so much.

You know what drives me bonkers about doubters of evolution and the big bang?

The arrogance of the ignorance.

They're basically saying, they're smarter than Einstein, Hawking, etc, etc, just because they read a book of fairy tales.

They're saying that primitive screw-heads had it all figured out.
They were the smartest people whom ever lived, and by reading their book, they're part of the club.

Um, no, not the way it works.
Primitive screw-heads, are primitive screw-heads.

Einstein is the fucking Einstein.
Mmkay?

And it doesn't take an Einstein to figure that much out.

If there were humility with the stupidity, I could let some of it slide, but FUCK, the cockiness of the dimwits.
They're not only saying they're smarter than Einstein, they're saying they have fucking super powers!
And you're supposed to "respect", that.
NO!
Fucking NO!
Dammit!
Argh!!

And yet humility is supposed to be a Christian virtue . . .

Yup. It's entirely possible that we could, for example, kill off all the ocean-dwelling mammals in the next few centuries. Almost all European megafauna is gone. Look at Australia as well, it was a probably a combination of climate change and the arrival of people, but in the past 50,000 years almost all Australian mega-fauna has vanished.

Here's one of the studies I was thinking about. It starts off with a lot of the same "we assume the world's going to hell in a handbasket" handwringing, but shows that when you really dig into what's happening with plants and birds on islands with invasive species it's not always the apocalypse the alarmists expect, but often results in greater biodiversity.

This is not to say that we don't need to do anything to avoid causing extinctions, but shows that it's not all doom and gloom and that life thrives regardless of what humans are or aren't doing.

Meanwhile:

Creationists demand equal airtime on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos to provide "balance"

Oh wait, they're serious?

That's the equivalent of meeting the girl of your dreams the one day you're late to work. It may seem like divine intervention, but it's just a series of coincidences. Because we lack the ability to see how it would be otherwise, we assume that the outcome that exists is the optimal one.

Please don't lump us agnostics in with believers, for one agnosticism is far more nuanced than just being "fence sitters". For example, I'm an agnostic atheist, which means I don't believe in God, but don't feel I can definitively say that there is not a God, I leave the possibility open. Most people are agnostic theists(I believe there is a God but I can't be sure), while a few people fall into the gnostic theist (I know there is a God) and gnostic atheist (I know there isn't a God).

What's funny is that that a lot of those people voted for (or would've voted for, if they were old enough back then) the guy who eliminated the Fairness Doctrine.





BTW, I'm not commenting on whether it should've been eliminated or not (or that it would even apply in this situation) but the irony is hilarious.

That gives the God hypothesis more credence than Leprechauns and Fairies, and absent emotional attachment, childhood nostalgia, social pressure, etc, etc, there really, really, REALLY is no reason to.

None.

Who said I gave it more credence? I can't definitively say that Leprechauns or Fairies don't exist either.

I'm with Exception. While I don't immediately dismiss everything out of hand, you will have to show me solid evidence if you want me to agree to the possibility.

You essentially did.
See below.

But you don't label yourself an agnostic afairiest, or an agnostic alperechaunist, do you?
No, because it would be stupid.
And what makes it feel stupid?
Cultural programming.
And what makes God agnosticism not feel stupid?
Cultural programming.

Nothing else.
Nothing.

See it for what it is.

No, because we weren't talking about Leprechauns or Fairies until you brought them up, so it'd be pretty weird if I just listed all the things I was agnostic about, especially things we weren't talking about.

Try not to read too much into stuff there champ.

You can't dismiss anything with 100% certainty, but you don't have to.
There's microscopic odds OJ Simpson had an evil twin brother he never knew about that left that blood everywhere.
Do you go through a single day entertaining the thought?
Fuck no.
You get on with your life.
Fuck OJ.

Why?
Outside of cultural conditioning?

That's a really poor analogy, because it wouldn't really matter if OJ Simpson had an evil twin brother. If God existed though, that'd be a pretty big deal.

Because I'm not an autistic fuck who rambles on to people about stuff that's not relevant to a conversation.

Why?
Why is that a more compelling hypothesis than fairies?

Do I really have to explain to you why the existence of an all-powerful all-knowing being that ruled the universe would be more relevant than the existence of fairies?

The list would be more honest though.
In the end, you have to cherry pick, and you pick the God thing.
You DO give it credence.
Even if by a little sand grain.

I'm saying, it doesn't even deserve that much.

The WHOLE category of magical horseshit ought to get a big "whatever".

IF it were an honest position.