Fox News Audience

[Monster]

I avoid these threads for a reason.

i find that it's better to call people on their bullshit than to let them think they're right.

 

[Mitchrapp]

My problem with Christians is that science is treated as opinion and a book with dozens of factual errors and magic is fact. Then, some rules from that book make it into our laws, no matter if we don't believe in the same thing.

We're told that we're going to a place after we die where we will be tortured for all of eternity. We're told that we're not good people no matter how many good things we do in life. It's all because we don't have a god to give us our morals.

This is my problem with Christians and religion. It doesn't apply to all of you, but I think if you put yourself in the minority instead of the majority you'd probably understand where we're coming from with our criticism.

I'm curious who these people are? I know no-one, at least personally, that talks like that. We have faith, talk to God etc. , we don't go spouting "you're evil" to non believers. One of my best friends didn't believe, still a hell of a guy.

 

[jwlcosu]

Dude, it's the same thing in context with the question. I don't get your point. Granted, I didn't read page 2, but what he said and what you said are the same thing. Bill O thinks that atheists don't want to believe in god because we don't want to be judged for what we do. That way we can get away with anything without a guilty conscience.

My point is that Thumb and apparently now you, are missing the question. The question was not remotely close to "Why do atheists not want to believe in God?" The clearly worded question was:

Q: Why do you think that there is so much sneering and ridicule toward religion by people who don?t believe?

Based on the question, it is fair to say that O'Reilly thinks non-believers sneer at and ridicule religion because they don't want to be judged. You can agree with him or not but that was the question and his answer was his answer.

One is not required to believe, who cares? But one doesn't have to sneer and ridicule.

 

[Michchamp]

I avoid these threads for a reason.

you avoid these threads?

 

[Michchamp]

it's kinda funny that Christians are now getting all pissed that the reboot of Cosmos, hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't just come out and say religion is truth and their religion is the right one.

How confused of a mind do you have to have to watch a science program and get pissed because it doesn't agree with your belief that a magic space zombie jew* was the son of god, who created the world? Fucking retarded... and there are a lot of people like that!

*I did not coin this phrase, but I wish I had.

 

[Gulo Blue]

We're told that we're going to a place after we die where we will be tortured for all of eternity. We're told that we're not good people no matter how many good things we do in life. It's all because we don't have a god to give us our morals.

If it makes you feel any better, the people you're talking about say that us regular believers are going to hell too.

 

[TheVictors]

i find that it's better to call people on their bullshit than to let them think they're right.

That's all good. I just don't like how the vocal/in your face "religious" are assumed to represent all people of any faith. You don't have to be atheist or a tool like jwlcosu to have an opinion either. I think faith is a personal issue.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's kinda funny that Christians are now getting all pissed that the reboot of Cosmos, hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't just come out and say religion is truth and their religion is the right one.

How confused of a mind do you have to have to watch a science program and get pissed because it doesn't agree with your belief that a magic space zombie jew* was the son of god, who created the world? Fucking retarded... and there are a lot of people like that!

*I did not coin this phrase, but I wish I had.

I just wish they'd leave Catholics out of it. I only saw the 1st episode, but I will get to the others because I love the show and can shrug off the 1 minute of Catholic bashing. I suspect if you took two groups of people and had one read the transcript and the others watch the show, you'd get two very different impressions. I think they tried to stay somewhat true in what they said, but the imagery and the impression it left was about scary Catholics persecuting someone over science and that's not really what happened. I don't know why they picked Giordano Bruno and painted the story the way they did when there are better examples of Church history to demonize, but the real point I'd get at is why, if you want to promote scientific understanding, would you take that route? If you want to get creationism out of classrooms, you'll have a better chance if you collaborate with Catholics rather than point to them as the problem. If you want to get political, why single out the ones that agree with you on evolution and climate change as the bad guys?

 

[TheVictors]

you avoid these threads?

Yes, I do. The religion threads. I don't usually post in them. I just pointed out Bill O's stupidity in calling Bill Maher and adulterer when he's single and brags about that.

 

[Michchamp]

I just wish they'd leave Catholics out of it. I only saw the 1st episode, but I will get to the others because I love the show and can shrug off the 1 minute of Catholic bashing. I suspect if you took two groups of people and had one read the transcript and the others watch the show, you'd get two very different impressions. I think they tried to stay somewhat true in what they said, but the imagery and the impression it left was about scary Catholics persecuting someone over science and that's not really what happened. I don't know why they picked Giordano Bruno and painted the story the way they did when there are better examples of Church history to demonize, but the real point I'd get at is why, if you want to promote scientific understanding, would you take that route? If you want to get creationism out of classrooms, you'll have a better chance if you collaborate with Catholics rather than point to them as the problem. If you want to get political, why single out the ones that agree with you on evolution and climate change as the bad guys?

probably because the Bruno case was particularly egregious... saying God is infinite = getting burned at the stake? regardless of whether his beliefs proved to be scientifically accurate, the chilling effect the church trying a heretic and publicly burning him to death had on scientific thought and inquiry was pretty extreme. I can't think of a more extreme example that is also somewhat well known. Galileo wasn't treated anywhere near as badly.

I scanned a couple of the complaints about the episode... one guy was bashing Bruno for allegedly plagiarizing some of his talks (presumably he's saying death by fire is an acceptable punishment for that?). :ugh: another was that Ken Ham guy, I think complaining that Cosmos didn't mention creationism as a plausible theory for discussion on the origins of the universe. :nuts:

many complaints seemed to get bogged down in semantics and other BS... "he said 'most scientists agree' which is bla bla bla inaccurate, because technically only 83% of scientists agreed in this survey conducted by The 700 Club..."

these people just do not want anything scientific aimed at a wider audience, and they especially don't want any such program to become popular again, so they're really going after it to keep the sheep from tuning in. Hope it backfires!

also... I remember lots of pop-science/educational programs being on TV in the 80's, and I don't remember this backlash. Maybe some of this is just more widely accessible media (i.e. the internet) and dedicated Conservative platforms like Fox News providing a place for these more extreme views to be heard; it does seem like we have become more credulous, superstitious, and religious, and less educated, skeptical, and informed as a nation in my lifetime.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Try googling "Giordano Bruno" and "Cosmos".

We're all happy with Vice right now, right?

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heretic-scientist

To me this article reads like a fair treatment of the subject (I'm not historian enough to know, but this isn't triggering my BS detector.) Here's the middle of it:

Still, you'd need a whole series to really flesh out Bruno's weirdness, so we're going to take a crack at filling in two big gaps that Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey missed. The first is his legitimacy as a science martyr, an archetype he is commonly strong-armed into. Last night's episode not only reinforced that reputation, but relished in it, playing up the violent tensions between the Catholic Church and Renaissance scientists.

But the truth is that Bruno's scientific theories weren't what got him killed. Sure, his refusal to recant his belief in a plurality of worlds contributed to his sentence. But it's important to note that the Catholic Church didn't even have an official position on the heliocentric universe in 1600, and support for it was not considered heresy during Bruno's trial.

On top of that, his support for Copernican cosmology was the least heretical position he propagated. His opinions on theology were far more pyrotechnic. For example, Bruno had the balls to suggest that Satan was destined to be saved and redeemed by God. He didn't think Jesus was the son of God, but rather “an unusually skilled magician.” He even publicly disputed Mary's virginity. The Church could let astronomical theories slide, but calling the Mother of God out on her sex life? There's no doubt that these were the ideas that landed Bruno on the stake.

 

[Michchamp]

We're all happy with Vice right now, right?

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heretic-scientist

To me this article reads like a fair treatment of the subject (I'm not historian enough to know, but this isn't triggering my BS detector.) Here's the middle of it:

like I said, the fact that Bruno's theories were absurd today, and his reasoning may not have been particularly scientific is less significant than the fact that the Church arrested him, tried him, and burned him at the stake for refusing to recant his views. His crimes were not malum in se; he never stole, murdered, embezzled, etc. he was prosecuted and condemned to death for thoughtcrime.

The people trying to move to the center or say "well both sides have a point here" are actually missing the point themselves.

 

[Gulo Blue]

like I said, the fact that Bruno's theories were absurd today, and his reasoning may not have been particularly scientific is less significant than the fact that the Church arrested him, tried him, and burned him at the stake for refusing to recant his views. His crimes were not malum in se; he never stole, murdered, embezzled, etc. he was prosecuted and condemned to death for thoughtcrime.

The people trying to move to the center or say "well both sides have a point here" are actually missing the point themselves.

Religious thoughtcrime. Not scientific thoughtcrime. That's the point. The show is about science, but if he only butted heads over his astronomical speculation, there wouldn't have been an issue.

How about Slate? You love Slate.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...as_one_big_problem_with_sunday_s_episode.html

 

[Michchamp]

Dude, it's the same thing in context with the question. I don't get your point. ...

Either jdilco is trying to pull a fast one, or he doesn't understand the concept of "context" in the first place.

Since we're dealing with a guy who complained to the mods when someone edited a quote from him in their own post, I'm going with the latter. >

 

[Michchamp]

Religious thoughtcrime. Not scientific thoughtcrime. That's the point.

How about Slate? You love Slate.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...as_one_big_problem_with_sunday_s_episode.html

maybe these days you can draw a distinction between the two, but at the time you could not. Any scientific inquiry that conflicted with Church doctrine was not allowed, unless done in private, or while out of reach of church authorities.

 

[Gulo Blue]

maybe these days you can draw a distinction between the two, but at the time you could not. Any scientific inquiry that conflicted with Church doctrine was not allowed, unless done in private, or while out of reach of church authorities.

What? So now everybody killed in the Inquisition is a scientist? That doesn't make any sense. I think your 'no distinction' arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. Did you take a look at the links? He wasn't killed over scientific inquiry.

 

[Thumb]

Either jdilco is trying to pull a fast one, or he doesn't understand the concept of "context" in the first place.

Since we're dealing with a guy who complained to the mods when someone edited a quote from him in their own post, I'm going with the latter. >

Apparently misquoting and paraphrasing are terrible crimes in *ohio buckeye land.

 

[Thumb]

What? So now everybody killed in the Inquisition is a scientist? That doesn't make any sense. I think your 'no distinction' arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. Did you take a look at the links? He wasn't killed over scientific inquiry.

I haven't followed this part of the convo much yet, but do you think everyone killed during the Inquisition was guilty of anything? Or anyone at all?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I haven't followed this part of the convo much yet, but do you think everyone killed during the Inquisition was guilty of anything? Or anyone at all?

No. The Inquisitions were horrible and wrong and innocent people were murdered and if you need to show someone why church and state should be separate, the Inquisitions are a good place to start.

edit: I'm kind of baffled by this question. What are you getting at? Do you expect anyone to be sympathetic to the Inquisition?

 

[Thumb]

Well I haven't had time to go back and read all the new stuff from you and Champ yet today, so I was not sure where you guys were coming from. Just the way your last post was phrased made me wonder.