I recommend Dr Science!
[youtube]oRLstHNRsdU[/youtube]
Ask Dr Science - Praying Mantis & Religion - YouTube
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Creationists demand equal airtime on Neil deGrasse Tysons Cosmos to provide balance"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
[youtube]oRLstHNRsdU[/youtube]
Ask Dr Science - Praying Mantis & Religion - YouTube
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I think he does a decent job.
The show is not about religion at all. That's what the creationists have a problem with, the producers aren't giving equal airtime to religious views, only using the show as a mouthpiece for science.
Me, too. I love Dr. Tyson. It's also wonderful to have a black astrophysicist from the inner city in the media because it can inspire minority and inner city youth.
I'm very much enjoying this Cosmos show. I like Neil Degrasse Tyson who is perfect for the job. I hope he is careful to keep a healthy reputation. Its important. I think he'll cause a lot of people take another look at natural history who wouldn't before. Partly I think its because people are already questioning things, people who didn't before. He has the potential to be very influential. I particularly like that he recognizes how awesome it is that we exist and able to see so much. Truly the universe is vast and amazing. So far I like the second episode the best, but the most recent episode does a good job of explaining why its necessary not to view science through the eyes of religion.
IHaveTheGift
U know who U R
I didn't mean creationists should have equal airtime.
I just mean to use science and sort of tell white lies that, such such proves there isn't a God, they shouldn't even say things like that.
What if God is real, and they tell fibs that cause kids watching to not know the real truth that is being presented.
Just talk about science, and science only.
Several atheists such as Dawkins, abuses his power and knowledge of science to twist stuff, to "disprove" God.
That is being unfair to children and is lying.
IHaveTheGift
U know who U R
Not sure if you are just kidding around or serious. :sarcastic
I am here for intellectual discussion and if you misunderstood me and ignorant to what I said,
Not cool bro and proves nothing to be ignorant to mock others :no:
love the video though, funny guy, I love parody
Hey IHave, I have watched the show. It doesn't try to prove there is no God. To some limited extent it is non-creationist, but its not anti creation. It does say that the wonderful natural world could not be explained by natural means for all of previous human history. It points out that up until Newton there was no explanation for the solar system except that it behaved like a well designed clock. Lots of people for thousands of years said that it proved that everything must have been designed. Today things are different, because that argument no longer stands. The show does propose a believable natural history in which the various conditions in our universe have given rise to life as we know it. Its not incompatible with believing in God.
IHaveTheGift
U know who U R
I wasn't personally attacking the show itself.
I was speaking of hypotheticals.
People like dawkins has too much influence on children and he fibs to them.
In my defense I been debating people like him for much too long.
Sorry if it seems like I am attacking the show :sorry1:
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Dawkins has said that god cannot be disproven, actually. What lies, specifically, are you attributing to him.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Just what are these fibs?I wasn't personally attacking the show itself.
I was speaking of hypotheticals.
People like dawkins has too much influence on children and he fibs to them.
In my defense I been debating people like him for much too long.
Sorry if it seems like I am attacking the show :sorry1:
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Can you please give us a specific example, naming the "they" and filling in the "such such" that is claimed to prove there isn't a God?
IHaveTheGift
U know who U R
In reference to the questions asked of me, I will not derail this thread.
If you actually believe that what I said does not happen in the real world, and need examples, I already know this discussion is a huge waste of time, so I will just humor you.
All Non-Theist scientists are completely honest, my hypothetical references and using Dawkins as an example hold no merit.
He does not tell one white lie/stretch the truth in his God delusion book at all, nope, fully honest man there,
I watched the Debate he held with Lennox, and when called up on some of those (non-lies)
He admitted to them, then claimed "it doesn't matter"
If it gives the impression of huge misconceptions, it certainly does matter.
No atheist I have ever debated on it, can explain why one would tell lies, then claim them to not matter.
If they didn't matter, why did he tell them?
Round and Round we go.
I seen Dawkins admit to them, so debating about it is irrelevant.
You cant debate them off the face of the earth, nor explain them away.
Dawkins admitted to them, tiny white lies.
So whats next, claiming this has nothing to do with the OP?
It doesn't really, I just said, I hope Cosmos isn't doing that sort of stuff and since its confirmed they are not, I have nothing much left to say.
I have learned long ago, if someone tries to lure a debate, and start off with intellectual dishonesty, I do not wish to engage them.
Sorry to the OP for my hypotheticals, sorry it sort of took a bad turn for your thread.
"All Non-Theist scientists are completely honest, my hypothetical references and using Dawkins as an example hold no merit."
My bad.
If you actually believe that what I said does not happen in the real world, and need examples, I already know this discussion is a huge waste of time, so I will just humor you.
All Non-Theist scientists are completely honest, my hypothetical references and using Dawkins as an example hold no merit.
He does not tell one white lie/stretch the truth in his God delusion book at all, nope, fully honest man there,
I watched the Debate he held with Lennox, and when called up on some of those (non-lies)
He admitted to them, then claimed "it doesn't matter"
If it gives the impression of huge misconceptions, it certainly does matter.
No atheist I have ever debated on it, can explain why one would tell lies, then claim them to not matter.
If they didn't matter, why did he tell them?
Round and Round we go.
I seen Dawkins admit to them, so debating about it is irrelevant.
You cant debate them off the face of the earth, nor explain them away.
Dawkins admitted to them, tiny white lies.
So whats next, claiming this has nothing to do with the OP?
It doesn't really, I just said, I hope Cosmos isn't doing that sort of stuff and since its confirmed they are not, I have nothing much left to say.
I have learned long ago, if someone tries to lure a debate, and start off with intellectual dishonesty, I do not wish to engage them.
Sorry to the OP for my hypotheticals, sorry it sort of took a bad turn for your thread.
"All Non-Theist scientists are completely honest, my hypothetical references and using Dawkins as an example hold no merit."
My bad.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Before the comma, dubious at best; after the comma, spot on.
Skwim
Veteran Member
We understand your dilemma here and why you've chosen this tactic to avoid addressing it. :yes: Should we expect similar ploys in the future?In reference to the questions asked of me, I will not derail this thread.
If you actually believe that what I said does not happen in the real world, and need examples, I already know this discussion is a huge waste of time, so I will just humor you.
All Non-Theist scientists are completely honest, my hypothetical references and using Dawkins as an example hold no merit.
He does not tell one white lie/stretch the truth in his God delusion book at all, nope, fully honest man there,
Unsupported claims are unconvincing. In the future I suggest not wasting your time with them---just a bit of friendly advice.
I don't think anyone is expecting anything different.
Very wise.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
littleoldme
Member
IHaveTheGift
U know who U R
I have been debating atheists/agnositics on the web for quite a while and watched more debates on all sorts of subjects where they get scientists such as Dawkins/Krauss up against Theists such as Craig/Lennox, then I can count.
I am sure many of you have as well.
I also have watched a few of Tysons YT vids, and probably shouldn't have let all that question his ability to discuss science in unbiased manors on TV.
In the future, try to tone down the one sided attitudes:
such as:
So you claim I avoided the debate, because I have no evidence on Dawkins and tons of others who have stretched true, by claiming I didn't want to derail it?
Intellectual honesty sir, not strawman attacks.
Then you make an observation that you didn't think anyone expected any different?
Kind of put your foot in your mouth on that one, ehhh?
As you told me "Unsupported claims are unconvincing"
We can do this all day, I love a good show.
All I did was present an honest hypothetical.
A simple "No, I watched it and Tyson isn't abusing his position to throw in little white lies"
"we understand where you are coming from, though"
Cant wait to have actual debates on subjects with you(if it ever happens) and see if you can "keep it real" on what science knows for sure and what they just assume might be true.
So far, you are not "appearing" capable of keeping it real.
All I did was present an honest hypothetical, and if you needed evidence of something so obvious,... perhaps, you have no clue what goes on in the real world, then?
Maybe I will gather up info, and put it together just to prove my hypothetical had merit, just to put you in your place, maybe I will not.
As I said, "if someone tries to lure a debate, and start off with intellectual dishonesty, I do not wish to engage them."
And you agreed and basically admit that you yourself are a waste of time to engage.
Your siggy tells even a bigger picture, you think you can never be wrong.
Bad attitude to have.
We can do this all day, I love a good show, Mr know it all
I am sure many of you have as well.
I also have watched a few of Tysons YT vids, and probably shouldn't have let all that question his ability to discuss science in unbiased manors on TV.
In the future, try to tone down the one sided attitudes:
such as:
Skwim said:
So you claim I avoided the debate, because I have no evidence on Dawkins and tons of others who have stretched true, by claiming I didn't want to derail it?
Intellectual honesty sir, not strawman attacks.
Then you make an observation that you didn't think anyone expected any different?
Kind of put your foot in your mouth on that one, ehhh?
As you told me "Unsupported claims are unconvincing"
We can do this all day, I love a good show.
All I did was present an honest hypothetical.
A simple "No, I watched it and Tyson isn't abusing his position to throw in little white lies"
"we understand where you are coming from, though"
Cant wait to have actual debates on subjects with you(if it ever happens) and see if you can "keep it real" on what science knows for sure and what they just assume might be true.
So far, you are not "appearing" capable of keeping it real.
All I did was present an honest hypothetical, and if you needed evidence of something so obvious,... perhaps, you have no clue what goes on in the real world, then?
Maybe I will gather up info, and put it together just to prove my hypothetical had merit, just to put you in your place, maybe I will not.
As I said, "if someone tries to lure a debate, and start off with intellectual dishonesty, I do not wish to engage them."
And you agreed and basically admit that you yourself are a waste of time to engage.
Your siggy tells even a bigger picture, you think you can never be wrong.
Bad attitude to have.
We can do this all day, I love a good show, Mr know it all
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
As I said, "if someone tries to lure a debate, and start off with intellectual dishonesty, I do not wish to engage them."
And you agreed and basically admit that you yourself are a waste of time to engage.
Your siggy tells even a bigger picture, you think you can never be wrong.
Bad attitude to have.
We can do this all day, I love a good show, Mr know it all
Really? You are the one being intellectually dishonest and derailing the thread, which by the way no one but you is complaining about.
So far the conversation has gone something like this:
You: Dawkins tells lies to children
Us: What lies?
You: I don't want to derail the thread. You're being intellectually dishonest. I don't debate people who are intellectually dishonest.
I think it's obvious you are angry that your incredible claim was questioned and maybe you weren't being dishonest and genuinely believed it but when you did a google search realized you were wrong and are trying to save face by attacking the character of anyone who questions you. Am I in the ballpark here?