Dr. Guestman wrote:Tyson's point about the universe being so dangerous was a counter to the argument "God must exist, because why else is the world so perfectly hospitable to life?"
In response, he goes on to say that the world, and the universe in general, are very dangerous and inhospitable to life; in other words, that argument is fundamentally flawed.
Yeah, that fits more with what I know of Tyson. I know he's an atheist, but he's not usually a dick about it.
Kaharz wrote:The varied hazards of the universe are not trying to kill us. They aren't sentient beings with intentional will. I believe the point is that most of the universe presents an incredibly hostile environment for life, including humans. The rationale is probably something along the lines of, "If God created the universe for us, why would trying to live in most of it kill us?" I'm not saying it is a good argument. I personally think scientists or atheists / agnostics should just completely ignore the subject of the existence of a god or other supernatural phenomenon for the most part. Just as I think creationists should stop trying to discuss evolution. Leave theology to the theologians and science to the scientists.
The reason not many people have been killed by any of the things you've listed is because we avoid them. Mostly by staying on the inhabitable parts of Earth where we are really safe from the hazards of the universe at large.
Yeah I never really understood the conflation of science and religion. I think people who use science arguments to argue religion don't really understand what religion is.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
Dr. Guestman wrote:Tyson's point about the universe being so dangerous was a counter to the argument "God must exist, because why else is the world so perfectly hospitable to life?"
In response, he goes on to say that the world, and the universe in general, are very dangerous and inhospitable to life; in other words, that argument is fundamentally flawed.
Uh... even if that would have been a decent point (it's not in any way, shape, or form), watch the friggin' video. He's not countering an argument, he's stating his beliefs at the request of an audience member.
Dr. Guestman wrote:Tyson's point about the universe being so dangerous was a counter to the argument "God must exist, because why else is the world so perfectly hospitable to life?"
In response, he goes on to say that the world, and the universe in general, are very dangerous and inhospitable to life; in other words, that argument is fundamentally flawed.
Uh... even if that would have been a decent point (it's not in any way, shape, or form), watch the friggin' video. He's not countering an argument, he's stating his beliefs at the request of an audience member.
Even watching the video, I wasn't bothered at all by what he said. He's giving and explaining his personal beliefs and why he believes that. He's entitled to his own opinion. It also seems to me what he's mainly arguing for is a separation of religion and science. Which is pretty reasonable. He's not putting down people with different beliefs than his.
What bothers me are the scientists who can't seem to talk at all publicly without talking about how there's obviously no God because there's no proof in it, and putting in little 'invisible friends' barbs and the such. There's a difference between talking about your own beliefs/philosophies etc. and attacking other people for theirs.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
smiley_cow wrote:What bothers me are the scientists who can't seem to talk at all publicly without talking about how there's obviously no God because there's no proof in it, and putting in little 'invisible friends' barbs and the such. There's a difference between talking about your own beliefs/philosophies etc. and attacking other people for theirs.
I get annoyed with this too, even though I'm not the least bit religious. There is a video of DeGrasse Tyson rebuking Dawkins concerning his aggressive style. I don't know what the talk he is referring to was about and it probably wasn't about religion, but the attitude is the issue. I agree with DeGrasse Tyson completely when it comes to educators. I agree with Dawkin's rebuttal in general, but I think if you are an educator you have a responsibility that should hold you to a higher standard.
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
Why is it that this relatively benign comic involves a rabbi, whereas the comics actively poking fun at religion in an altogether harsher way tend to be priests? Perhaps I'm reading too far into this, especially since priests and preachers don't tend to wear hats, and that'd ruin the tagline joke, but that's just something that caught my eye. I'm no particular religion, it doesn't bother me. It's just a tad odd.
Kaharz wrote: I believe the point is that most of the universe presents an incredibly hostile environment for life, including humans. The rationale is probably something along the lines of, "If God created the universe for us, why would trying to live in most of it kill us?"
Well then, try turning my response on its head. The vast and extremely dangerous gulfs of space don't just stop us from going on a galactic killing spree (or slow us down, at least). They also make it difficult for the monsters on the other side of the universe to get here before we even exist as a species, and to pre-emptively destroy our ancestors thus ensuring that we never even got to exist in the first place.
I personally think it stretches credibility that there could be another independently-evolved species anywhere in the universe as destructive as our own, but the point is that it works either way. A God who created the universe for us would necessarily make most of it lethal in order to protect us from alien monsters. A God who created the universe for the benefit of a wider range of sentient beings would necessarily make most of it lethal in order to protect the alien monsters from us.
Zanga wrote:Why is it that this relatively benign comic involves a rabbi, whereas the comics actively poking fun at religion in an altogether harsher way tend to be priests? Perhaps I'm reading too far into this, especially since priests and preachers don't tend to wear hats, and that'd ruin the tagline joke, but that's just something that caught my eye. I'm no particular religion, it doesn't bother me. It's just a tad odd.
Zach is a huge Redditor, and recently r/atheism decided that they don't make fun of non-Christian religions enough.
r/atheism is the smuggest place in the world.
Wind catches lily / Scatt'ring petals to the wind: / Segmentation fault
Zanga wrote:Why is it that this relatively benign comic involves a rabbi, whereas the comics actively poking fun at religion in an altogether harsher way tend to be priests? Perhaps I'm reading too far into this, especially since priests and preachers don't tend to wear hats, and that'd ruin the tagline joke, but that's just something that caught my eye. I'm no particular religion, it doesn't bother me. It's just a tad odd.
Zach is a huge Redditor, and recently r/atheism decided that they don't make fun of non-Christian religions enough.
r/atheism is the smuggest place in the world.
sotic you answered his question with the opposite.
MTGradwell wrote:I personally think it stretches credibility that there could be another independently-evolved species anywhere in the universe as destructive as our own, but the point is that it works either way.
I don't much care for this kind of anti-human sentiment. We're the product of natural selection, a process that rewards ruthlessness above all other virtues. Any species that evolves intelligence will get to that point by taking what resources it can whenever and wherever it can. There's no reason to think that life anywhere else in the universe would be any less brutal and rapacious than we are, and the simple fact that we can identify these traits as undesirable is a testament to how far we've come from our bestial ancestors.
Now, whether a species as "destructive" as ours can survive long enough to interact with life elsewhere in the universe is a different question, and it's one we don't have an answer to yet.
Police said they spent some time working out if they could charge the man with being armed with a weapon, as technically he was armed with part of a fish.
Here's a question, where is the barrier to contacting other forms of intelligent life? Is the barrier in front of us, or behind. Are we rare or is what we need to be see other lifeforms rare and we don't have it?
Dr. Guestman wrote:Tyson's point about the universe being so dangerous was a counter to the argument "God must exist, because why else is the world so perfectly hospitable to life?"
In response, he goes on to say that the world, and the universe in general, are very dangerous and inhospitable to life; in other words, that argument is fundamentally flawed.
Uh... even if that would have been a decent point (it's not in any way, shape, or form), watch the friggin' video. He's not countering an argument, he's stating his beliefs at the request of an audience member.
Even watching the video, I wasn't bothered at all by what he said. He's giving and explaining his personal beliefs and why he believes that. He's entitled to his own opinion. It also seems to me what he's mainly arguing for is a separation of religion and science. Which is pretty reasonable. He's not putting down people with different beliefs than his.
Oh, I have no issue with him stating his beliefs. He was requested to do it and he did it.
But that argument frustrates me to no end, because it's terrible science. He's an atheist. Fine. Just... don't put that reason to it. Just say that you don't believe in any of the religions that you know. I don't have much issue with the statement betraying a lack of knowledge in religion because of the simple fact that he's not being a militant atheist. He's not going out and saying that religion is wrong, and he does, in fact, mention that science =/= atheism.
MTGradwell wrote:Well then, try turning my response on its head. The vast and extremely dangerous gulfs of space don't just stop us from going on a galactic killing spree (or slow us down, at least). They also make it difficult for the monsters on the other side of the universe to get here before we even exist as a species, and to pre-emptively destroy our ancestors thus ensuring that we never even got to exist in the first place.
I personally think it stretches credibility that there could be another independently-evolved species anywhere in the universe as destructive as our own, but the point is that it works either way. A God who created the universe for us would necessarily make most of it lethal in order to protect us from alien monsters. A God who created the universe for the benefit of a wider range of sentient beings would necessarily make most of it lethal in order to protect the alien monsters from us.
You know, if I was the supreme creator and I had singled out humans as being my favorites, I just wouldn't create other sentient beings that be inclined to wipe out humanity. And if I was the supreme creator who wanted a range of sentient species, I wouldn't make them so destructive that I had to have a huge more or less impassible void between them.
In short, your argument is dumb.
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
