It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

SprocketUK
I don't see any need for Richard Dawkins to pop up during Songs of Praise to tell everyone it's all a load of hogwash, similarly I don't want a science show ruined by some nut who believes in fairies.

Let religion and science stay separate. As they ought to be.



As they delve further into the mysteries of science they are discovering that science and religion (God) are forever bound together. God makes science possible because He created everything we apply science to.




posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



As they delve further into the mysteries of science they are discovering that science and religion (God) are forever bound together. God makes science possible because He created everything we apply science to.

But didn't Tyson say "no one really knows how life started"?
That doesn't seem to be claiming that science trumps the concept of a God/Creator -

I can appreciate your sentiment, but there really are things we just don't know (and may never). This, to me, is where the argument for a 'creator' remains safe in the world of science. Acknowledging we don't know is not denying - it is stating a fact; we don't know. And, for my part, no holy book has the answer.

The Dalai Lama, though, says:
If science proves some Belief of Buddhism is wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.

Isn't it most sensible for that idea to apply to all religions? The Pope seems to think so.
I agree that they are not mutually exclusive. I think it's sad that the show's style or angle makes you too uncomfortable to watch it and think things over.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BuzzyWigs
 


You know the Creationist group Answers In Genesis should be careful of what they ask for. Their alternate version of events could be presented however giving them equal airtime is far to much of an expectation as they couldn't possibly have enough science based evidence to present on their behalf I think a time allotment of about a commercial breaks worth should suffice to present their case.




posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


*sharp intake of breath* AHA gasp! That's the answer! (Especially with how frequent commercial breaks are!!)


If they want equal time, they can buy it, and do/say whatever they want!!!

It would probably even up the ratings! (as in: increase the ratings, not even up anything)...or would it?? I wonder if FOX sales people are courting the Creationists for just that reason?

GOOD CALL, Grimpachi!

Sorted. whew.


edit on 3/22/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CornShucker
 





I invite you to rent the original and compare. Sagan presented his show with the joy of someone who wanted to share the things he had to show because of the immenseness and beauty of creation.


LOL... You must be new, you have no idea who you are talking to.

At an early age I was fascinated by science, Sagan's Cosmos is one of my greatest inspirations, along with David Attenborough, Isaac Asimov and Sir Arthur Charles Clarke. I now own a lab, thanks to these great men.






Maybe it just comes down to personal taste.


Taste is subjective, I can respect that. I still say you're going to miss out on a masterpiece, I should hope you give it another look.

edit on fSaturday143731f374101 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Fromabove

SprocketUK
I don't see any need for Richard Dawkins to pop up during Songs of Praise to tell everyone it's all a load of hogwash, similarly I don't want a science show ruined by some nut who believes in fairies.

Let religion and science stay separate. As they ought to be.



As they delve further into the mysteries of science they are discovering that science and religion (God) are forever bound together. God makes science possible because He created everything we apply science to.


There's a world of difference between believing in some godly entity or power and believing despite evidence to the contrary the the world is 4000 odd years old, man didn't evolve and that dinosaur fossils are a test of faith.

I have no problem with people having whatever religion they want as long as they keep it to themselves and don't try inflicting it on others. That really grinds my gears.

I'm religious, but my religion is. ..complex and a result of my own experience and observations, not something spoon fed me from an organisation that's all about control and conformity.

If you enjoy church and stuff, great, but it doesn't give you the right to interfere with scientific programmes, books or other resources. Make your own tv show.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Personally, I prefer that my reality not include 2000 year old primitive fairy tales from some desert that is located on one single planet among billions within the Universe. ~$heopleNation



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Fromabove


As they delve further into the mysteries of science they are discovering that science and religion (God) are forever bound together. God makes science possible because He created everything we apply science to.

Who are 'they'?

God is myth, science is based on finding facts.
Where are the facts when it comes to god?
Oh...the bible.

Now, give me Thor and science and then we are getting somewhere!
The hammer's comin' down people!



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Good one, here is another classic from bronze age fairy tails.




posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I'm watching the show right now and it's so Cool!

smart show.

I believe in God and Evolution at the same time.

The Cosmos is so amazing to me.

And I'm not at all offended. That would be ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

flyingfish
reply to post by CornShucker

LOL... You must be new, you have no idea who you are talking to.

At an early age I was fascinated by science, Sagan's Cosmos is one of my greatest inspirations, along with David Attenborough, Isaac Asimov and Sir Arthur Charles Clarke. I now own a lab, thanks to these great men.

Taste is subjective, I can respect that. I still say you're going to miss out on a masterpiece, I should hope you give it another look.

edit on fSaturday143731f374101 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)


Seems we have much more in common than I might have thought.


While I try not to judge others by appearance, I may have let that happen on a subconscious level. I always loved the way Sagan's face would light up on certain subjects and resemble a guy that had something they just had to show you because it was "So Friggin' Neat!!!"

Mr. Tyson can't do anything about his heavy-lidded eyes or other facial features that may accidentally give the impression that his attitude is something other than it seems. One of my fondest childhood memories is our visit to the Hayden Planetarium. Being the Director of that institution is a major feather in his cap and I should give the show another shot for that in itself.

I cut my teeth on Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Dick, Pohl, Anderson and Bradbury (among others). I'll take you up on your advice.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

GetHyped
So we're playing the game of "dictionary abuse" where we cherry pick the context and meaning of words? Very intellectually dishonest. Let's see what else Wikipedia has to say about the definition of religion:

No, we're playing the game of observing reality as it is... not getting trapped in authoritative definitions of the day. "Religion" is a word. The mindset is a reality. Over time words fail to accurately describe reality.


There are numerous definitions of religion and only a few are stated here. The typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a "belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods"[22] or the "service and worship of God or the supernatural".[23] However, writers and scholars have expanded upon the "belief in god" definitions as insufficient to capture the diversity of religious thought and experience.

What you are missing in my efforts to share an alternative perspective with you... is that the Culture of Science in full force today is very much a religious thought and experience and the "typical" definition is insufficient to capture this reality.

It shows its face in the very style of language you've chosen during our discussion.


GetHyped
What does any of this have to do with the TV show "Cosmos" in any meaningful way?

Everything.


GetHyped
If you drew this conclusion from a popular science TV shoe then you need to lay off the acid.

I draw the conclusion by observing the behavior, methods, and mindsets of the ardent adherents of the Culture of Science.

There is a difference between the scientific process and the conclusions of a certain time and place. Currently the Culture of Science has conflated them.

The Cosmos TV show is serving the same purpose as any "religious" play or ceremony. It's not science... it's a celebration of a certain culture and conclusions with a worshipful and reverent tone.


GetHyped
When you have to bend and abuse language to make your argument appear logically consistent on the surface, you have lost.

Language is a tool to communicate about a reality that exists regardless of language. When the language is insufficient or in fact BLINDS the culture to itself... yes... updates are required for more accurate understandings to emerge.

Words play games.
Some reveal.
Some conceal.
In the end, they were never real.

Understand the *mindset* of "religion" regardless of whatever is considered an adequate definition "today" and you'll begin to recognize the *reality* of "religion" in far more places. Best to you.
edit on 22-3-2014 by ErgoTheMirror because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheMirror
 


Explain how Cosmos is a religion. Be specific. Don't say things like "it has a spaceship therefore it's a religion" because that is beyond idiotic. Enough of the dictionary abuse, present your case and state your criteria clearly and succinctly.
edit on 22-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   

GetHyped
reply to post by ErgoTheMirror
 


Explain how Cosmos is a religion. Be specific. Don't say things like "it has a spaceship therefore it's a religion" because that is beyond idiotic. Enough of the dictionary abuse, present your case and state your criteria clearly and succinctly.
edit on 22-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)


He's a believer poo-pooing science. He thinks science is a religion in its own way.

Science is a belief and a method, yes, but not a religion.
edit on 3/22/2014 by Restricted because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 

The Stations of The Cross is not a religion.
It's an activity within a certain cultural religion.

Cosmos is not a religion.
It's an activity within a certain cultural religion.

The adherents of any currently dominant religion never view themselves as being particularly religious. They are just "right" about the reality of the world around them.

I have stated my perspective multiple times at great length and with a variety of angles. I no more expect you to grasp it right away than you expect a theist to grasp yours. Time will do the real work.

Thanks for the conversation.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Now he's insulted your intelligence.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Revealing beliefs being expressed there!
edit on 22-3-2014 by ErgoTheMirror because:



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Restricted

GetHyped
reply to post by ErgoTheMirror
 


Explain how Cosmos is a religion. Be specific. Don't say things like "it has a spaceship therefore it's a religion" because that is beyond idiotic. Enough of the dictionary abuse, present your case and state your criteria clearly and succinctly.
edit on 22-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)


He's a believer poo-pooing science. He thinks science is a religion in its own way.

Science is a belief and a method, yes, but not a religion.
edit on 3/22/2014 by Restricted because: (no reason given)


I have to disagree with you. Religion requires belief and that is not optional. While I do believe in most conclusions from science belief is optional. If there is any aspect that I doubt where science has come to some conclusion all I need is the motivation to do the work myself to either prove or disprove said conclusion and if I am successful in disproving said conclusion once my findings are verified those findings would be celebrated instead of shunned.

See belief is not required in science so it can't be classified as a belief.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Restricted
He's a believer poo-pooing science. He thinks science is a religion in its own way.

Believer in what, exactly? Surely you have evidence to back up your claim?

Why would I poo-poo a process that I think is fantastic and use every day in my career and personal development?

There is a *culture* surrounding science that is a religion in its own way. It's the culture, the social mindset, the behavior, that is being poo-pooed.
edit on 22-3-2014 by ErgoTheMirror because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CornShucker
 





Mr. Tyson can't do anything about his heavy-lidded eyes or other facial features that may accidentally give the impression that his attitude is something other than it seems.


Actually, you might be on to something!

There is a conspiracy theory that Tyson is actually filmed in high speed so he doesn't come off as stoned.



I kid..




top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join