Slashdot Mirror
Neil DeGrasse Tyson Explains His Christmas Tweet
140Mandak262Jamuna writes Neil DeGrasse Tyson tweeted on christmas day what appeared to begin as a tribute to Infant Jesus, but ended up celebrating Isaac Newton. Apparently this was retweeted some 77000 times, far above his average of 3.5K retweets and caused many to be angry. He doubled down on it by tweeting about people being offended by objective truths. Then wrote a fuller explanation.
"On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642"
The only thing offensive is that some people continue to belief that their religious beliefs should be accepted as "universal truth".
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Everyone has the right to mock, and everyone has the right to be offended. Some mocking is silly, and some offense-taking is silly. As a dispassionate third party observer, I'm having a hard time deciding why I should care about this episode.
But still, never forgiving him for Pluto. Next time pick on a planet big enough to fight back, tough guy.
It must be nice to be the most powerful political force in the world and still be able to bang the drum about how persecuted you are.
The only people offended are the religious people who dont really know anything about their religion.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Tyson's job is to explain things to the masses.
It's his job.
Some conservatives seem to hate him just for being a smart black guy who is associated with science. He's not even really an outspoken liberal or anything. He's just a smart black guy and it drives them CRAZY.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
outspoken popular black science man uses internet to tell people something fascinating and true that really happened. Outraged and offended group who tell people something bombastic and farcical condemn black science mans refusal to adhere himself instead to their thing they tell people, which is absurd and not science. In response, infuriating white television man who 'cant explain that' demands action and protection from imaginary war on pagan shopping holiday. When asked, average American man became furious that neither group were offering a deep fried food he was never promised.
Good people go to bed earlier.
What is funny is so many people will just not get it.
It doesn't matter if he is right which he isn't since that day means different things to different people.
He has just alienated a large number of people for no good reason. His tweet will change no a single mind. All it will do is get praises from his fans.
That is not good science, education. or frankly good manners.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Ever heard the term flamebait?
Why are you blaming Neil?
Blame Isaac for having the NERVE to be born on December 25th! After Jesus was (not) born on that date NO ONE ELSE should be born then!
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Tact is nice, but why does it always have to come from the side of the non-believer ?
On the other hand, being misunderstood does nothing to contribute to improving the education and awareness of those who misunderstand.
With a succinct message, Tyson started a discussion that spread to thousands of people. Some people misunderstood, and despite the elegance and artistic quality of his written words, that misunderstanding tarnishes his reputation in their minds, and that extends to everything he supports - most notably science and an appreciation of the beauty of the observable world without religious connection. By explaining his meaning clearly, and expressing no wish to offend, some of those people will see the mistake for themselves, and open their minds again to science.
It's not about winning or losing, or of being the stalwart champion of misdirection. It's a matter of graceful interaction with other humans.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Damn that Pope Gregory XIII. He should have left the calendar as it is. It would prevent any alchemists or astronomers born on January 4 from being praised on their birthday when it gets shifted to December 25. What was he thinking! So much for papal infallibility.
For those that know of him, they probably already know he is an atheist. For those that don't, a little internet searching on his name will lead to that conclusion. I know I don't care what most people think about religious stuff one way or the other. It doesn't bother me that they think that way, only when they try to get laws and such changed based solely on their religious beliefs does it bother me. Sure, he goes out of his way to keep his name in the public eye, but I don't think this tweet was intended as a lobbying effort, so who cares? If you don't like what he says just ignore him and pray for his soul; be sure to send him a note that you are doing so.
Very true, but you are missing the point. If I make the statement: "I feel like McRibs are the best damn thing ever" I am entitled to do that. If you, as a vegan, flip out over my choice of words, that's fine too. You can be offended all you want, but I am not obligated to care. Tyson shouldn't clarify his statements to appease people who are offended, because it's implying that he "may" be wrong. It's hamstering, and that's not what men do.
Tact is nice, but why does it always have to come from the side of the non-believer ?
You deal in absolutes; in an age where even voluntary prayer is discouraged (if not banned) in public schools, "always" doesn't even come close to being true. I only mention that because it does go both ways, and has for quite awhile now.
You do bring up a good point though - if you're in the minority, how best are you going to win converts - by showing kindness and tact, or by swinging superiority like a cudgel? Consider that your movement becomes what it attracts, and attracts according to behavior.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Tyson's life work is education, when he explains something to the masses and someone learns something, he wins. You, on the other hand, want him and others to be losers. This says a lot about you.
I don't believe that any of the offended will care, sadly. They will be upset no matter what, because they hate all things rational and science-related.
What part of his tweet constitutes telling Christians that Christmas is "bullshit"? The part where he celebrates Isaac Newton's birthday, or the part where.... Oh, wait; that's the ONLY part. It is not mutually exclusive with celebrating the birth of Jesus, and nowhere in the original tweet - or the following explanation - does he imply that it should be.
Should the world at large be banned from honouring the memory of anyone else on that date, just because it happens to be a Christian religious festival? Sounds remarkably like religious discrimination to me.
Well it is him and it's not him. He baited religious folks on social media and there were ramifications for it. Whether or not he was understood isn't the point. The point is you either believe in your convictions and your right to express them or you fold by catering to the whims of people who don't agree with you. In this case he folded "ohh I have to explain that maybe other people have birthdays that are on Dec 25 and that some are famous." Blah. Shame on the retards who have no grasp on that concept.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
there's also a difference between posting verifiable objective truths and, well, being a dick about it.
Making a cute joke by changing the expected ending of a bit of useless glurge to something unexpected doesn't count as "being a dick".
I'm certainly not going to bust into any of Dr. DeGrasse-Tyson's celebrations and go out of my way to tell him why the reason he celebrates it is bullshit
His original tweet doesn't say anything negative about Christmas or Jesus. He didn't comment on how the church usurped the winter solstice with a made-up birthday, he didn't snipe that at least Newton actually exists, he didn't even mock the annual materialism-fest. He just wished Newton a happy birthday.
Look at it this way - If he had made a similarly clever tweet where you expected the ending to involve the tooth fairy, would anyone have cried foul?
On the other hand, sometimes a strategically applied barb can be pedagogically useful:
In this case, Tyson tweeted something that was orthogonal to Jesus(not that he is actually suspected by scholars of even the distinctly pious persuasion of having been born conveniently on a pagan holiday that needed assimilating; but that's another matter). It didn't denigrate him, question his existence, use the phrase 'purportedly magic jew', laugh at the peasants who were putting up their nativity idols, none of that. It just wasn't about him, it was about Isaac Newton, who was born on that day, and who was a pretty damn titanic figure in the history of science(although also intensely pious, though his religious works are not of much broader interest).
It is, arguably, rather interesting that he provoked a minor firestorm just by talking about someone else. It's a commonplace that some anti-jesus flamebait spread in the right areas would have caused a moderate shitstorm, and so nothing would be proven except one's own somewhat juvenile sense of humor by doing so; but that isn't what he did: he just celebrated a different guy(and pretty damn arguably a worthy one) who shared the same birthday. The fact that that caused a ruckus is frankly interesting, informative, and perhaps even food for thought for those offended. Is Jesus really incapable of gracefully sharing a birthday with one of history's more remarkable physicists? He certainly manages to share it with a load of consumerist gluttony without much comment.
I (mostly) grew out of baiting people purely for sport years ago; but I still think that there is room for discomfort, even unrest, in the context of discourse; and this seems like a good example. Not just flamebait, which would be trivial; but prove nothing; but willing to risk kicking up a fuss. Hopefully a least a few people asked themselves why it was so necessary that exclusivity be defended(especially when other 'meanings of Christmas' like family, presents, pagan conifers, assorted ritualized meals, etc. are handled in parallel without issue. If Jesus can share a birthday with the Jones' traditional honey glazed ham, surely he can share one with Isaac Newton?).
I'm pretty sure it's a reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Do you know where your towel is?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
voluntary prayer is discouraged (if not banned) in public schools
Yes, but it's not because for lack of want by the religious people. It's not a matter of them being tactful towards the atheists. It's simply because the law requires separation of church and state.
Oh right, half the planet is christian now? Since when?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
You are missing his intent. Tweeting on Christmas day and starting your tweet as "On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world." is an obvious attempt at misdirection where most people (non-Christians included) would assume is is talking about Jesus. Then to suddenly reveal you are really talking about Issac Newton is a way of playing a joke on the reader. No one would bat an eye if he had tweeted "Happy birthday to Issac Newton!". But instead he drew obvious parallels to Jesus in an attempt to misdirect, and bring up the topic of Christmas while making a point of ignoring it. This joke he played on the reader is why people are upset. It was a dick thing to do, and he should not be surprised that this upset some people.
Wrong about what?
I actually read Mr. Tyson's post. I found no hamstering in it. Your problem appears to be with Slashdot characterizing it as an "explanation". In fact, it didn't contain any explanation about the motives or meaning of the tweet. Perhaps it is time to stop blindly believing what the news media feeds you, including Slashdot's slapdash editors.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
I don't quite know how to address this other than to say that I don't think anything you've said in this thread makes any sense. My best guess is maybe you didn't read his actual explanation and assumed it said something it does not?
Point by point:
- The (strange) strawman about a vegan who hates McRibs is an argument about why we shouldn't get mad at Tyson if he didn't make an explanation, but it does not argue against making an explanation in the first place. It's the one point where I agree with you, but it's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.
- Explaining something to the masses does not mean you lost anything.
- Giving into criticism is not what he did (pulling his tweet or apologizing would be giving in).
- In this case I feel he was right not to give into criticism, but in general, I don't think it's good to imply that giving into criticism is necessarily wrong.
- I don't see any appeasement from Tyson.
- Talking about a thing doesn't in any way imply that what you previously said about that thing may be wrong.
- I had to look up "hamstering" on urban dictionary, and I have to disagree that he did that at all.
- "It's not what men do"? That's a literary flourish without any meat behind it.
How odd. Someone posting as AC saying someone else is a coward.
Typical religious apologist.
Don't you have a clinic to bomb? Or maybe a soldier's funeral to picket?
morcego
Classic flamewar....but with 100,000 people. Isn't that why we all do the internet?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
This was my reaction. He trolls the people, then protests getting flamed. A follow up of, "ha ha made you look" would have been fine. My general impression is that Tyson thinks a lot, sometimes even of subjects that are not himself.
Tyson paid respect to the birth day of a very important historical figure (who happened to be a devout Christian too). How is that an attack on Christians? Only the most narrowminded people would be able to see it that way.
(a) You know that "hamstering" isn't a word, right?
(b) Please never use the phrase "that's not what men do" ever again.
So now Jesus is the Tooth Fairy?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
What's bad about scientists who like to teach the general public becoming popular? that's a good thing in a civilization where ignorance of science is a huge problem with vast repercussions.
I challenge anyone to show me where in the Bible it gives the exact birthdate of Jesus.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Does it really matter if ignorant conservatives can't handle reality-based people? Making fun of their absurd beliefs, rather than say locking them in mental hospitals, seems like a pretty good approach to me.
Your fatwa envy makes me embarrassed for you. People like you are the worst.
And his explanation post: https://www.facebook.com/notes...
a) You know that "hamstering" isn't a word, right?
Hamstering is indeed a word, ffs it was used in the previous two posts, this now being the third. It is now an established word.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That's it right. Because religions is all about hate. So making comments about them will, obviously, draws the hate.
When you talk about religion in any critical way, you can expect nothing else: only hate.
Is that what you are saying?
morcego
On the other hand, being misunderstood does nothing to contribute to improving the education and awareness of those who misunderstand.
With a succinct message, Tyson started a discussion that spread to thousands of people. Some people misunderstood, and despite the elegance and artistic quality of his written words, that misunderstanding tarnishes his reputation in their minds, and that extends to everything he supports - most notably science and an appreciation of the beauty of the observable world without religious connection. By explaining his meaning clearly, and expressing no wish to offend, some of those people will see the mistake for themselves, and open their minds again to science.
It's not about winning or losing, or of being the stalwart champion of misdirection. It's a matter of graceful interaction with other humans.
Based on that perspective, Sarah Palin would be a marvel of helping human knowledge and understanding progress.
Only, she's not :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
1 scientist said 1 thing that I didn't like so now I'm anti-science..
C'mon, was I really that fond of science in the first place?
Banning prayer in school isn't tact by the religious to the non-religious. It's part of the separation of church and state, which became a big thing after two Christian groups had a violent falling out with each other in Europe and a bunch fled to the the US. The idea was that if you kept overt religious practice out of government and public activities (like education) then everybody (all Christians, or at least the more mainstream) could get along.
Who do fucking care about religious nuts, either Christian or muslims?
This whole thing reminds of the Back to the Future movie. I was 10 or 11 or so when it came out and I distinctly remember seeing that movie with a kid raised in a fundamentalist baptist household. When Doc Brown said "so do you want to see the birth of Christ" and then set the time machine to Dec 25 0000 I laughed quite hard. The other guy asked me why I thought that was so funny and I spent about 45 minutes trying to explain it to him after the movie. He never got it and was somewhat offended that I found it so funny. After another couple of days discussing this and other things (like creation in 6 days etc.) I finally realized how deeply misinformed people become by being taught about literal interpretation of the bible. I was absolutely amazed at that understanding of the world and it was my first real exposure to this insanity. Up to that day I had always understood bible stories as being just stories (I was raised mildly Catholic but my family was really just going through the motions). It actually makes me very sad to think back to that experience.
Dude or dudette, I'm solidly atheist as one can tell by examining my posting history and I took Tyson's post to be exactly that, trolling on purpose. I hate atheists that do that kind of thing just as much as I hate religious people who do it. He was being a douche.
Is gerbiling now a word as well?
I see no mockery whatever. A surprise ending, perhaps, worthy of O. Henry, but no mockery. Now, if you want mockery of someone's birthday, go watch "Monty Python's Life of Brian".
It's not intolerant to bash a Muslim's beliefs, it's just unwise.
That doesn't reflect well on Islam but it's hardly a justification for not taking a pop at Christianity. Unless of course you want Christianity to shelter under the Islamic umbrella of fear?
He can fuck himself because he alienated deeply ignorant people like you? Wouldn't it be better if you got up to speed, rather than getting angry with someone for seeing through your absurd, archaic beliefs?
In my opinion it was just a little joke. Besides, isn't Easter the most important Christian holiday?
I think at this point we can be confident that the supernatural is imaginary. No one needs to prove that any gods don't exist, because the religious people can't provide any evidence at all to support their absurd claims. They can't produce their imagined god, or even a simple demon for testing because it's all fiction.
And how exactly you being an atheists disproved the fact that Christians try to co-opt stuff? Most of their holidays were pagan holidays who got co-opted. They keep saying they are the only reason for christmas.
You don't like what he did? That's your prerogative. Doesn't make what I said before any less true.
morcego
Come on Christians, are your beliefs so weak they won't withstand a little good-natured ribbing? I'm not kidding when I say that I think Newton's scientific work will, in the long run, turn out to have a more observable impact than Jesus' teachings, especially since most of his so-called followers don't know those teachings.
Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th
It just happens to be a day that mopst western Christians celebrate His birth.
Like USians celebrate Washingtons birthday on a monday
And some in the commonwealth celebrate the Queen's birthday on the 1st monday in June, and others on the 2nd monday in June, her actual birthday is April 21 which has significance to another Religion
a calculated and unwarranted troll towards Christians on their numero uno holiday.
A holiday which was forced on people at knife and spear point to co-opt an already existing holiday (nice Christians ya got there), which celebrates the birth of someone who was born sometime in the spring/summer and who has inadvertently led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people (a billion perhaps?) and which, for the most part, has turned into feeding frenzy of mass marketing Chinese-made cruft to the masses.
Now compare that to Newton who helped get us to the Moon, developed mathematical models to help explore our universe, and who contributed in numerous ways to our understanding of what goes on around us every day such as reflecting telescopes. See for example:
This link and this one for what Newton gave us.
So what did Jesus give us other than death and intolerance, as evidenced by your post?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Don't be absurd. It's religious people who have nothing, and saying someone who lived before humanity had much of an understanding of the universe was religious does not support your continued superstition in 2014. There's no irony here, and Tyson isn't just agnostic, he fully understands that gods are imaginary.
Where I'm from it's called tongue-in-cheek humor.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Why was she offended?
It isn't even the supposed birthday of Jesus.
It's the day that the party is held.
So what was offensive to your wife about it?
People like you are the worst.
Actually, people like you aren't doing a lot of good either.
Does it really matter if ignorant conservatives can't handle reality-based people?
Does it bother you that you come out appearing to only acknowledge to camps of thought? My thing with the "Science!" crowd has been their inability to understand the concept of low hanging fruit. When people discuss something you come out swinging you're pretty much alienating someone with an open mind. NDT isn't as bad as you but he wasn't as good about it as Sagan was. That's one reason I cringed when I heard he was to be the next presenter or Cosmos. He really doesn't embrace the open ended aspects of the universe like Sagan did.
Lemmiwinks? Is that you?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I didn't ask him to, I didn't hire him to, I didn't indicate any desire on my part for him to do so.
So his tweet just randomly showed up without you following him, or without someone you follow retweeting it? I'd contact Twitter, it sounds like you've found a bug.
Don't axe me man, I didn't make it up. However its what people do, we make up new words all the time. Shit, where do you think all the ones we have came from? Then sometimes we reword old ones to new meanings as well, its amazing how much wording goes on.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Any scientist that is absolutely OK with pissing off uneducated rabid republicans is a hero in my book.
Carl Sagan and others had no problems calling the uneducated what they are. And none of the best human beings on this planet backed down in the face of religious stupidity.
Just Ask Galileo and Giordonano Brunio what it was like to be imprisoned by a bunch of idiots in power.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Says the guy that did not graduate Grade school.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The masses who choose to read his stuff still count as masses. Nobody is forcing you to read his post.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Science was already politicized prior to any effort by Tyson. His views are just interpreted as political because they're scientific, and unfortunately "conservatives" have too often aligned themselves with non-scientific viewpoints, thus making scientific viewpoints appear political, in their eyes. Also, I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that his fame and position were gained through means other than merit...
And a perfectly cromulent one, IMO.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Obviously they do, since Tyson did and is a man. Why should he, or anyone for that matter, care what someone else thinks their particular configuration of genitalia obligates them to?
Be a hamster or be macho, but if you're either just to fulfil other people's expectations, you're really nothing but a puppet.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It isn't a dick thing to do something perfectly reasonable even though you know some completely unreasonable people will be upset by it. Everything he said was true, nothing he said was critical of Jesus/Christianity/Religion. If someone is that much of a dick that they can't appreciate that Newton was an incredibly important person born on the 25th December without seeing it as slur on Jesus then fuck them.
So all those "This day in history" web sites and calendars should not mention anything else on December 25th? Like the Christmas truce, which is an undisputed fact?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
According to your logic, we should also despise Newton because he was a follower of Jesus. At the very least, we should also despise Newton if anyone who ever favored him committed a crime.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'm pretty sure we appreciate tact from the believers, too. You'll notice Pope Francis has been very well-received saying the same things Popes have been saying for tens, hundreds or thousands of years, but with grace and tact.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
No, probably assuming he's Christian. Christian Fundies are just as bad as Muslim ones. Letting delusion rule your life is a massive fail.
Why should anyone care what a stupid AC thinks is retarded?
Only Slashdotters would defend this guy for what was clearly a calculated and unwarranted troll towards Christians on their numero uno holiday.
Commercial interests have turned the Christmas holiday into a shop-till-you-drop marathon, and you think Christians are under attack from a simple factual tweet? If he had posted "If you love Jesus, you'll love these deals on Telescopes!" then it'd have been ok, right?
Really, does Tyson have nothing better to do than use Twitter to mock Christians? Are there no pressing issues in the world of astrophysics that could use his towering intellect and staggering genius?
The most pressing issue that he's been working hard to fight against is the lack of science literacy in the country, and open hostility to Science to the point where a science educator can't post a Christmas Day related fact without coming under attack -- and at least Newton was actually born on Christmas (depending on your calendar), as opposed to Jesus -- most biblical scholars agree he was not born on Dec 25th, even if they disagree on when his birth was.
Why on earth people are so infatuated with Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Brian Cox (UK) is beyond me. What's next?
So we should aspire to be a snarky hipster like yourself?
He's doing important work explaining science in a comprehensible way to a lot of people who aren't scientists. People make important decisions based on whether they understand science. Most of these decision makers are not scientists themselves. The more they know the better the odds that they will avoid stupid decisions. Would you prefer your doctor treat you based on mythology instead of science? A lot of science gets funding because the public supports and trusts science. Scientists in general are terrible at public relations so having some guys like NDGT who are actually good at it is hugely beneficial to all of us.
If you want to get out there and explain science to the masses and can do so with reasonable eloquence then please do. But if all you want to do is be snarky and act cooler-than-thou then please go elsewhere.
Of course these guys are trolls. Only imbeciles would believe in such a preposterous being in the first place. All glory to the IPU!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Newton was quite religious and thought the mechanistic universe an expression of rather than rebuke to god’s design.
I agree with Newton. :-)
Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves!
No, please reread my post, this time more carefully. I address everything you said in your post. The way he worded his post was a deliberate troll, much the same way referring to Jesus as "zombi-jesus" [sic] is also a deliberate troll.
Even if one wanted to do a misdirection about Christmas in a tweet, there are tons more offensive targets one could have chosen related to 25 december:
* The Malkh festival formerly practiced by the peoples of present-day Chechnya, celebrating the birthday of the sun.
* Pakistan celebrates the birthday of the Great Leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah
* Residents of Chumbivilcas Province in Peru celebrate Takanakuy ("To Hit Each Other"), a fighting-themed holiday where the goal is to get back at people who wronged you during the year, while wearing a traditional ski mask.
* Michael Palaiologos, ruler of Constantinople, has his 11-year-old second cousin blinded so that he is no longer qualified for the throne.
* Columbus runs aground in Haiti due to incompetent management, then proceeds to abuse and enslave the natives that helped rescue his men and supplies.
* Conquistador Pedro de Valdivia is defeated in battle, captured, then roasted and eaten.
* A drunken mutiny involving 1/3rd of the candidates at West Point is finally put down by force and their whiskey is taken away.
* Future president Zachary Taylor leads his troops into an obvious ambush by the Seminoles, leading to serious losses; gets promoted for it.
* The Vietnamese National Party is founded and quickly begins a campaign of assassinations against French officers and Vietnamese collaborators.
* Henri Nannen, later-rehabilitated Nazi propagandist, born.
* A 7,6 earthquake kills 275 people in China
* Scottish nationalist students steal the British coronation stone.
* 44 untouchables in India massacred in revenge for them campaigning for higher wages.
* Cyclone Tracy destroys more than 70% of the buildings in Darwin, Australia
* Jesus Christ, aka messianist Marshall Fields, drives a Chevy Impala through the White House gate.
* Charlie Chaplain dies
* Porn actress Joanna Angel born
* Deposed Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauescu and his wife are captured, convicted by tribunal, and summarily shot.
* The "underwear bomber" fails
* Plane crash kills 27 people near Shymkent.
I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
We follow the Gregorian calendar. Newton was born on December 25th of the Julian calender. Newton's birthday isn't for another 6 days.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I agree that his goal was to get people up in arms. His job is to stay i the public eye. Those offended aren't his audience anyway. Now people are talking about him.
But he's a great reminder that one need not choose between being a great scientist and a devout follower of Jesus Christ.
That is technically true it typically means that the scientist is not applying the scientific method to all aspects of their life. A rational scientist would be expected to demand some tangible evidence supporting the assertions made in relation to Jesus. Since most of the "evidence" consists of claims in a book unsupported by credible historical evidence, observed laws of nature and logic, it shouldn't be surprising that scientists in general tend to not be theists. Blind faith and the scientific method are poorly compatible world views if you are disciplined about one or the other. While there are some scientists who are devout, it tends to be a willful blindness on their part.
Basically, just because Newton was smart and got some important stuff right, doesn't mean he was right about everything. You can figure out a lot of physics and still believe in myths and superstitions but it doesn't follow that doing so is rational behavior.
He is director of the Hayden Planetarium, a job which clearly is all about explaining things to the masses.
He has also become a pop figure who does things like the Star Talk Radio podcast, which is all about answering science questions and explaining the universe to the masses in a fun fashion.
However you want to slice it, Mr. Tyson has made it his life's work to be one of many ambassadors of science who have made it their life's work to explain science and the universe to the masses and has done a pretty good job of it in my opinion.
So It is both his literal and figurative job to explain things to the masses.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Our chief weapon is surprise ....
Have gnu, will travel.
Can you 'prove' that your thoughts aren't actually transmitted to you, via a method we haven't discovered? In Science you are expected to prove your theories not throw them out there and demand others disprove them. You can't disprove Christianity, but then you can't disprove Scientology or Pastafarianism either. There's no point in talking about religion in the terminology of science, unfortunately as you've got plenty of religious nuts trying to do that via creationism and school books full of blatant falsehoods to indoctrinate children many scientists come to see religion in general as a nuisance.
I'm a conservative [read: slightly on the conservative side of dead center, with the added bonus of holding views that piss off my friends on both sides of the aisle] evangelical Christian, and I didn't see anything at all offensive about his posts. I've forwarded a couple of them on to my Christian and non-Christian friends. Really, I think this whole thing is an attempt by both Tyson and folks who make a career out of hating him to get media attention.
Hmm... if you're trying to suggest people have no right to be offended, you should try to act like a reasonable individual who doesn't troll the religious. You will not win anyone over with talk of "zombie-jesus" - that's trolling, pure and simple. Trolling while sticking up for someone against accusations of trolling is where the old saying "with friends like these, who needs enemies" comes in....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Jesus was a Jew. He'd use a TAR-21. Or a Galil.
Have gnu, will travel.
Tyson's job is to explain things to the masses.
It's his job.
No, it's not.
According to Websters, the word job has a definition of "the work that a person does regularly in order to earn money", and since he is being paid to do exactly what he has done, then I think it is his job. The fact that you didn't hire him to do it doesn't change that he has been hired by someone to do it, just like you didn't hire all the pastors at the local churches, but being pastors is still their jobs. If you disagree with what he is saying then don't watch his shows or follow his tweets, just like if you disagree with the philosophy of the local church's pastor don't go to their service.
No, please reread my post, this time more carefully. I address everything you said in your post. The way he worded his post was a deliberate troll, much the same way referring to Jesus as "zombi-jesus" [sic] is also a deliberate troll.
No. Me referring to "zombi-jesus" is an offense, not a deliberate troll. Even if it is descriptive of this iconic and mythological figure of a death cult turned into a religion.
Neil was not trolling. He was making a tongue-in-cheek statement, that apparently was too much for some people.
morcego
I think I just pulled my hamstering while running away from this conversation.
No, it's not.
Yes it is. He is director of the Hayden Planetarium which is part of a museum devoted to the natural sciences. The purpose of a museum and by extension its administration is in part to educate the masses. So yes, it very much IS his job.
It's no more his job to explain things to me than it is for some guy to just barge into my home and begin telling me how I should redecorate. I didn't ask him to, I didn't hire him to, I didn't indicate any desire on my part for him to do so.
Nobody is forcing you to listen to him. He is teaching and providing information to those willing to listen. If you wish to remain willfully ignorant that is your choice. If you are just disliking him because he is a public figure then you have issues you should really work out.
We're allowed to find fault with the man.
You certainly seem determined to do so. Not really sure why. I would suggest you lighten up and try to understand that he is doing a public service since scientists in general are rather bad at public relations and explaining what it is they do and why it matters. If you already know what he is saying then move along because he's not speaking to you.
It's hamstering, and that's not what men do.
I hope that was meant to be hamstringing. If not, I probably don't want to know.
Hmm... if you're trying to suggest people have no right to be offended, you should try to act like a reasonable individual who doesn't troll the religious. You will not win anyone over with talk of "zombie-jesus" - that's trolling, pure and simple. Trolling while sticking up for someone against accusations of trolling is where the old saying "with friends like these, who needs enemies" comes in....
That is not trolling. That's being offensive, which is quite a different thing. Which I will grant you I was being, and will keep being in the same proportion that religious people offend me by trying to impose their twisted views and morality on others.
Neither was Neil trolling. He was making a tongue-in-cheek comment.
But apparently people who only learn 1 book is unable to differentiate the 3 things. (See, again being offensive, and not trolling)
morcego
We should declare Dec 25 a national holiday!
The birth of the man for whom the unit of mass was named.
I guess that was a bit forced.
It's funny, I can't think of ever meeting a person who doesn't understand that it's a celebration, not an anniversary.
I know quite a few people who think it is an actual birthday. A few get quite hostile if you suggest otherwise. These are not highly educated people but they believe what they are capable of understanding.
Are there any Christian denomination that has as dogma a fixed date of 12/25 (or any other date) as the birth day anniversary of Jesus? I can't think of any.
Probably but that kind of misses the point. I would suggest that a huge percentage (probably the majority) of the devout don't really understand a lot of the finer details of their faith. Much like math class, just because you sat in the lecture doesn't mean they comprehended what was said. I think a lot of people attend because of social pressure or due to personal insecurities rather than with the intent to really comprehend.
http://www.neildegrassetysonli... Pop science. A bit pricey in my town.
I thought he was going to say, "Happy Birthday ... Saturn"
:-D ba dum tish
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Christians on their numero uno holiday.
Easter is the numero uno holiday for Christians. Christmas is second (or third depending on who you ask).
I have a difficult time understanding the impetus that drives random people on the internet to lecture perfect strangers on how they should live their lives.
At the very least, we should also despise Newton if anyone who ever favored him committed a crime.
Based on the number of people who use weapons based on Newtonian physics to kill, Newton may be the biggest mass murderer of all time.
This comment is exactly the mentality that I struggle to comprehend. How is the misdirection offensive? We do this all the time with other subjects, and no offense is given, often it's celebrated (see "rick rolling"). I guarantee you that your "non-asshole" version would have offended quite a few, simply for bringing it up on the sacred day. I'm offended you're cowing to notions of offense for no damned reason. People must learn to be civil about one other's beliefs, or we'll have more danish cartoon killings.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Surely by starting the tweet as he did - "On this day long ago, a child was born" - it automatically dismisses any chance of it being about Jesus because, as discussed further up, every true Christian knows that the 25th is a celebration of Jesus' birth and not an anniversary.
If people wish to claim that the opening was an obvious misdirection, then they need to accept that Jesus was in fact born on that day. However, it seems to be the generally accepted stance that he was not...
Did Newton personally force anyone to adopt Christianity?
Someone can condemn the enormity of the crimes Christians have committed against humanity in the name of their religion without condemning everyone who claims to be a Christian.
It certainly is a case of 'the few' making a lot of noise, and certain media outlets amplifying it. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people have no feelings at all about such a trivial thing.
At the very least, we should also despise Newton if anyone who ever favored him committed a crime.
Based on the number of people who use weapons based on Newtonian physics to kill, Newton may be the biggest mass murderer of all time.
Haha, I was just going to post that, with the emphasis on how Newton masterminded the only historical deployment of nuclear weapons against civilian population centers.
Why make up new words when there are perfectly good ones that better describe what you're saying anyway?
It embiggens the English vocabulary. Do you have any idea how many words William Shakespeare made up? Language evolves. If you don't like it, then start speaking Latin.
Tweeting on Christmas day and starting your tweet as "On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world." is an obvious attempt at misdirection where most people (non-Christians included) would assume is is talking about Jesus. Then to suddenly reveal you are really talking about Issac Newton is a way of playing a joke on the reader.
Sounds like a creative way to inform people of a fact to me. Pretty funny and clever actually.
But instead he drew obvious parallels to Jesus in an attempt to misdirect, and bring up the topic of Christmas while making a point of ignoring it. This joke he played on the reader is why people are upset. It was a dick thing to do, and he should not be surprised that this upset some people.
I'm sure Mr Tyson is not entirely surprised at the reaction but I strongly disagree that it was "a dick thing to do". Why should he have to walk on eggshells around their faith when they don't even pay attention to the teachings of they guy they are trying to protect? Didn't Jesus preach something about turning the other cheek?
. . . he demonstrated a kernel of cleverness. He's a witch! We must burn him for upsetting the simpleminded villagers!
For some reason, this post reminded me of this:
A story by David Moser...
This Is the Title of This Story, Which Is Also Found Several Times in the Story Itself
This is the first sentence of this story. This is the second sentence. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. This sentence is questioning the intrinsic value of the first two sentences. This sentence is to inform you, in case you haven't already realized it, that this is a self-referential story, that is, a story containing sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This is a sentence that provides an ending to the first paragraph.
[http://consc.net/misc/moser.html]
hamstering
When a person or company tries to get out of a situation, by finding a loophole to get through, or coming up with some kind of bullshit excuse.
Much like a hamster tries anything to escape its cage.
The "underwear bomber" fails
Just don't start celebrating this with gifts pertaining to the event.
I think many people are forgetting that Newton and Christ do not share the same birthday...
Forgetting also that only one of them actually existed. Protip - it was Newton.
You deal in absolutes; in an age where even voluntary prayer is discouraged (if not banned) in public schools, "always" doesn't even come close to being true.
It's banned because the believers almost invariably attempt to force their prayers and other religious ceremonies on those who do not share their beliefs. They had to make a law because it too often isn't voluntary and frankly it has no place in getting an education. We shouldn't need laws like the 14th and 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution but we do because otherwise the rights of disadvantaged groups get abused.
I only mention that because it does go both ways, and has for quite awhile now.
Really? Maybe where you live but being an atheist in quite a few places in the US is regarded with little to no tact at all. There are other places where being an atheist can be a death sentence. I don't honestly see a lot of tact coming from the theists.
You do bring up a good point though - if you're in the minority, how best are you going to win converts - by showing kindness and tact, or by swinging superiority like a cudgel?
Depends on the circumstance. Both have their time and place unfortunately. I think the former is by far preferable but the later is sadly necessary now and then.
He provided the mathematical description. People were using kinetic energy of objects hurled at great speed to the other party before he did that.
Bert
Yes, but you are a nobody. Dr. Tyson is an advocate for science, so alienating 40% of the population isn't really a good thing.
"and that's not what men do."
Men don't clarify things that get mistaken? Seriously?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's not what makes a word, you ghyieheadre.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
'Word change' is not an excuse for being an idiot, nor is it an excuse for being wrong.
What we have today is a bunch of people who can't own up to making a mistake so they say 'Words change' instead of. 'sorry my mistake'.
And we have the internet, so the reason words change is now gone.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Also verbing - which as we all know weirds language/
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
lets ask richard gere
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I am trying to understand this better, a scientist (who is an atheist), angers a few Christians for stating a fact.
OK for those of you about to argue that Isaac Newton wasn't technically born on Dec. 25th, neither was Jesus. There is plenty of research to back up the fact that Jesus was most likely born in September. The reason that Christmas is celebrated on December 25th is to put it in contention with other end of the year celebrations (religious and secular) like Hanukkah.
I also heard him say that the earth is more than 5 billion years old, and the universe is around 13.8 billion years old. Why aren't these people yelling at him about these scientific observations?
Not even sure if this christ fella was even born, and if he was real, the book of fairy tales really places his birth in September
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The christians shouldn't have been checking their tweets, they should be on their knees in church......
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I learned today that there was a disagreement among Christians as to when their god was born. If one group follows one calendar and the other group follows a different one, and they both say December 25th, who was right? I find that kind of amusing.
and according to the stars in the fairy tale, this jesus bloke, was born sometime in september
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
It is, arguably, rather interesting that he provoked a minor firestorm just by talking about someone else. It's a commonplace that some anti-jesus flamebait spread in the right areas would have caused a moderate shitstorm, and so nothing would be proven except one's own somewhat juvenile sense of humor by doing so;
About 2000 years ago, there lived a man that may have agreed with you. I'm sure you have heard of him, you may even recognize him by his initials, JC, as everyone still talks about him today. We know that he was born unlike most men. And as he matured, he had many followers, but also had those who were afraid of the would-be-king, so they put him to death. Yes, Julius Caesar left a legacy that influenced generations. Anyway, what was your point?
Except he never intended it to be flamebait.
There's two general camps among science communicators, there's one camp that goes straight for the hard truths and controversial subjects with the idea that you fix the root cause and the rest is easy, this tends to be the Richard Dawkins camp.
The other side basically says communicate as much as you can but try to avoid offending people by being non-controversial as possible, I've always thought of that as the Neil DeGrasse Tyson camp.
The tweet here essentially a corny joke ie "huh, Tyson is writing about the birth of Jesus, I didn't think that was his thing... ohh Newton, now I get it, haha Mr. Tyson". There is nothing flamebaity or controversial about it as he intended it.
The problem is the religious right is embracing a culture of victimhood to compete with the left, attempts to reduce the degree of Jesus talk around Christmas become an attack to their right to talk Jesus, hence the "war on Christmas".
Viewed through that light the joke now becomes "Hey Jesus-folk, I'm on your side putting Jesus back in Christmas... ha ha! Just kidding, it was just Newton!"
And since they're actively looking for reasons to become offended, they become offended.
I stole this Sig
oh dear, projecting much, are we?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Your petty application of the current level of knowledge of the radio magnetic spectrum to try and disprove the invisible pink unicorn merely exposes your ignorance and unworthiness to stroke her sparkly horn.
That honour belongs only to the true believers. You will instead be forced to swim in her glowing invisible liquid diarrhea.
they tend not to go out of their way to kill you if they disagree, I know, calling people names is just as bad, if not worse than murder though
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No, and no. Tyson has been trolling religious nutbars for decades. He didn't give in to criticism, he just twisted the knife when people demanded clarification. Make no mistake -- religion is more of threat to our species than global warming and nuclear winter combined. More than three-quarters of the population of the planet's last existing superpower are religious, and nearly half of them believes their messiah is going to return to them in their life time. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that these nutbars have exactly zero interest in solving the problems confronting our species because they truly believe that they aren't going to be around to have to deal with them.
No what makes it a word is that it is used in a sentence.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
"On this day long ago, a child was born " - has this been patented? these sort of topical reference jokes are used all year round so didn't "do a dick thing"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
" three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic." - from the said article, says it all really and they were written years after the event so its not conclusive at all so in my book, it hasn't been proved he existed. you'd think the historians/diary writers/journalists of the day would have written about the "miracles" immediately. Its ll too tenuious
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
it was a time topical joke, happens all year round so why get "offended" ?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Please follow along: Jesus founded His Church. His Church founded centers of study and learning, and institutionalized these as colleges and universities. Among these were the colleges merged to form Trinity College where Newton studied.
Ironic.
as real as the tooth fairy
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I find it more disturbing that anyone would actually care that he made a joke out of it.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
That joke must be relying on Newtonian physics, because it was loaded into a catapult and just WHOOSHED over your head.
Neil was not trolling. He was making a tongue-in-cheek statement, that apparently was too much for some people.
Tyson's tweet parodies one of the most recognizable of all bible verses: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." That is definitely trolling, in the sense of making a statement which is almost correct, but in which a certain segment of people will find an error that requires correction. It's trolling like parodies of the lord's prayer. It's trolling like a picture of Mohammed eating a BLT.
Actually, Galileo backed down at the end. He learned an important lesson. Never underestimate how frightened religious people are of their gods, prophets, clergy, etc. They would never say anything irreverent about any of their religious icons or deities. They are frightened that they will be held accountable for allowing anyone else in the world for disrespecting what they fear. Even today, there are people who would burn you at the stake or stone you to death for saying that Jesus was not the Messiah, or that Muhammad was not a prophet, etc.
They will react with real hostility to the notion that "Your sacred cow makes great hamburger".
If those two are helplessly retarded, just how low do you fit into the grand scheme of things? they probably crush you under their feet as they walk.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You can't disprove that something doesn;t exist. Even the few scientists that are still believers haven't provided proof that a god exists. its a very naive childish attempt at an argument along these lines.
The only living god is Eric Clapton of course.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
good grief, one minute Newton is a Catholic and the next he's Church of England..... Anyway it was safer to be a believer in that time so you didn;t get burnt at the stake or drowned as a witch.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
This link and this one for what Newton gave us.
Let's not forget the guy Newton got his optics and celestial mechanics from. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/781...
You have a very weird definition of trolling.
Trolling is when you make a statement regardless of your belief (sometimes even contrary to it) for the SOLE PURPOSE of creating dissent.
Somehow, I have trouble seeing what he did fitting that definition.
You are also making an assertion that he was making a parody of that "most recognizable of all bible verses" which I, having read the bible 3 times from cover, and having been educated in a Jesuit school didn't recognize. So not only it is not "most recognizable" (not arguing it is not on the Bible), but it is highly unlikely he was thinking about that verse when he made the post.
So yeah, you are seeing things where they don't exist (pun not intended).
morcego
Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves!
Heretic! You shall be touched by his noodly appendages! And you won't like it!
so as the romans were in Palestine at the "assumed" jesus, they must have used the Julian calendar as well so that makes his mythical birth the same day as Newtons
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"Cristianity is a religion of loving" - tell that to all those killed in the bible via various methods like stoning....
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You know what lots of other people call a carefully crafted misdirection? Wit. Or humor. Why is it automatically "a dick thing to do" and not one of the former? Because Jesus is involved?
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
so acknowledging that other people were born on that day is a mockery of the one special person you hold dear?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"Word Change' does not exist. It is just a liberal hippy environmentalist conspiracy to destroy our way of life.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Oh yeah? I'll have you know that followers of the IPU eat spaghetti for breakfast.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Making a cute joke by changing the expected ending of a bit
I'm not sure I'd classify the structure of the tweet as a "cute joke" I think Tyson was drawing a parallel that Newton was *also* a great man that changed the world and should be celebrated on the day of his birth.
Personally, I would argue, given the countless wars and violence attributed to Christianity and other religious beliefs, versus the zero attributed to Issac Newton, that Newton has been better for this world than Jesus - or, more specifically, his followers.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
He was either very tone deaf when he did that or he did it on purpose.
If he did it on purpose, maybe he wasn't not looking to start a war, but he definitely wanted to be mischievous.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Very filbisteric of you. If only I could hergmo such peolistic amacronisms.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
If you objected to DeGrasse Tyson's tweet, then be constructive and make a suggestion as to what he should have done differently.
The balls of someone suggesting we celebrate some nut who packed a bomb in his underwear!! That's enough to make a lot of people testy.
I am saddened in a way that the guy didn't have a partner so we could label them a pair of nuts...but you can't have everything.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I see no religion bashing here. Tyson said nothing whatever about religion; only referenced Newton.
But as long as you brought up the subject, why do atheists have to prove that God doesn't exist, rather than theists having to prove that God does exist? Faith may be the evidence of things unseen, but if something is unseen and unheard and immaterial and unknowable . . . how does a theist have any proof that it exists? and where would an atheist find any evidence?
You seem to be assuming I'm a religious person. But when you assume, you make an ass of U and... U alone. I did not once claim that the tweet was offensive. But clearly some folk think it is, and if you want to convince them otherwise, being deliberately offensive is not a particularly good strategy. If on the other hand, all you want to do is feel smug and superior...
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Nah. Even LoB was clearly intended as a story about a different guy. They even showed Jesus in the movie, to emphasize that this is a different person they are talking about.
It was a story about someone being popularly deified when they clearly weren't in fact a deity. That certain Christians took the depiction of this possibly happening as an attack on their own faith says a lot more about their own insecurities than it does about the movie. (This is coming from a Christian, btw.)
Are either of us prohibited from celebrating because the other owns the day? Should we have checked our birth certificates for exact times, so that the earlier could claim the day and the later could never celebrate again? Oh dear, I bet we're not the only two humans born on that particular day; probably not even the only ones in our city, let alone the country, let alone the world. Maybe we should all get together to fight it out . . . or, better idea, we should all get together for a PARTY.
I'll throw my two cents worth into the noise. I am an Orthodox Christian clergyman, and I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson's tweet is humorous, as well as objectively true. I am at a complete loss why anyone would be angered by it. People are so quick to hate these days, for no reason whatsoever. Truly we are in the end times.
Proverbs 21:19
It reminds me of this xkcd: http://xkcd.com/169/
Other ways he could have stated this:
We shouldn't forget that Isaac Newton's birthday is Dec. 25th, 1642. His work transformed the world. Happy Birthday!
or
Happy Birthday Isaac Newton, b. Dec 25, 1642. Thank you for the laws of motion, the universal law of gravitation, and calculus.
or
Happy Birthday Isaac Newton (b. Dec 25, 1642)! He did more before age 30 than most of us do in a lifetime. Thanks for transforming the world
Or so many others. If his point was just to alert people that Isaac Newton was born on Dec. 25th and we should celebrate that fact, he wouldn't have phrased it to intentionally mislead people.
I agree with you. I'm not religious, and I don't care one way or another about this "tweet". But it's obvious to anyone not trying to be purposefully obtuse, that the substance of his statement was in what he didn't say, rather than what he said. I can see how it would upset some over-sensitive people. All of you pretending like you didn't see that, and don't know where this is coming from,are either socially retarded, or just wasting your own time pretending.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Except he never intended it to be flamebait.
This is quite disingenuous. The way he phrased his 'tweet' was purposeful. I personally don't care about what Tyson says or what other people think about what he says. I doubt that I am in the minority either. Even if thousands responded to him negatively (and was he that dumb that he thought that no one would? Really??) the reaction would still amount to a small minority of twitter users, which according to the company's last year numbers they had 232 million users.
Yes, it was flamebait.
The problem is the religious right is embracing a culture of victimhood to compete with the left
The bigger problem is people who are responsible for representing a scientific message not being culturally sensitive to have enough tact, even if they disagree with that culture. For example the importance of teaching people the science of climate change should lead to a degree of restraint in other not very related public arenas such as holidays.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
If you were a Christian, you would have to blame God, not Isaac Newton. After all, to believers, it would be God who caused Isaac Newton to be born on Christmas day.
Christians often have problems blaming the wrong person for God's works. For example, blaming Galileo for the heliocentric solar system that God made. How dare God refuse to follow the doctrines of the Medieval church? Galileo did not make the planets orbit the sun, he merely observed it and described it. Or blaming Darwin for evolving all the species of the Earth through the process of natural selection. Darwin did not create all those different animals through the process of evolution, he merely observed it and described it. How dare God ignore the doctrine and belief of fundamentalist Christians?
As a christian, I was in no way offended when I saw the post last week. I thought it was a nice reminder.
You seem to be assuming I'm a religious person. But when you assume, you make an ass of U and... U alone. I did not once claim that the tweet was offensive. But clearly some folk think it is, and if you want to convince them otherwise, being deliberately offensive is not a particularly good strategy. If on the other hand, all you want to do is feel smug and superior...
"Ass of U"... "Ass of U"? Please. I'm sure you can do better than that.
I can't say if I was assuming you were a religious person or not. My offending religion and religious people is in not way a personal thing. When I'm being offensive toward religious people, I'm being offensive toward the religion itself. The person I'm talking to is just the one representing the religion in that particular case.
About feeling smug and superior... Superior, maybe. But smug? I don't think any of my comments could lead anyone to feel smug, even if in a misguided way. Definitively aggressive and lashing back. I never claimed otherwise. I gave up trying to use rational arguments against people who hold irrational ideas. It is just incompatible. Right now, I'm settling to letting religious people know that if they push, me and others like me will push back. Hard. So yeah, you are right it is not a good strategy to convince them otherwise. But, again, I'm not trying.
I also don't believe people have a right not to be offended. However, it is one thing to be offended by a direct attack, like I do. Or even Ricky Gervais. But to feel offended by what Neil posted is a whole different issue, taking ignorance to a whole new level, and showing the person is most likely immune to logic or rational arguments.
morcego
Tyson's job is to explain things to the masses.
Really? You've been sending him checks for your share of this mass education, have you? While a professor and occasional host of science programs, his job is no more to explain things to the masses than mine, or yours.
I'm here EdgeKeep Inc.
It's hard to know his intentions, he does tend to be a bit smug, but I might just be reading into him. As a Christian, I think it's pretty cool Newton's birthday was on Dec 25th. I'd put a Newton ornament on my Christmas tree. He was scientists, mathematician, inventor and theologian.
But when you talk about "zombie-Jesus", you are not merely offending those who were offended by the tweet - you are offending the vast majority of Christians' and at risk of supporting the notion that "science" is anti-religion.
I personally believe that overly aggressive atheists have done more to harm science's standing within the religious community than the crazy fundamentalist preachers that nobody was listening to in many parts of the world many years ago. When I was younger, these extreme sects were restricted mostly to certain states of the US, and also parts of West Africa. They have spread alarmingly quickly. Why? Why did people turn away from the mainstream churches and turn fringe beliefs into something approaching a new orthodoxy? The preachers are getting a receptive flock from the get-go because secular media has already told them that science isn't for the religious.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
What's even worse is that Jesus was born in the spring "while shepherds were watching their flocks by night." The actual date is unknown. The date was moved to December 25th to compete with the feast of Saturninus.
Actually, from what I read (in Frazer's Golden Bough) the nativity of Christ was first celebrated by early christians in Egypt in January, starting from the 2nd century BC. It was later moved to December 25th by the roman church to compete with the cult of Mithras, a sun-death-and-rebirth deity that was very popular in Rome at the time. The mithraists (if that is the word..) celebrated the birthday of the sun on December 25th, and this festival was popular to the point that Christians also participated in it. This happened sometime in the 4th or 5th century after Christ (if I recall correctly), and according to Frazer there are historical records from the time documenting the change and even the motivation for it.
You're confusing two things, here.
Jesus, the man, the guy with a bunch of hippie ideas about everyone loving each other, MAY have existed around that time.
Jesus, the son of God, that is more questionable from every verifiable point of view.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Except he never intended it to be flamebait.
This is quite disingenuous. The way he phrased his 'tweet' was purposeful. I personally don't care about what Tyson says or what other people think about what he says. I doubt that I am in the minority either. Even if thousands responded to him negatively (and was he that dumb that he thought that no one would? Really??) the reaction would still amount to a small minority of twitter users, which according to the company's last year numbers they had 232 million users.
Yes, it was flamebait.
Flamebait means you're trying to stir controversy and draw fire by annoying the other side. If he wrote something like On this day long ago, one of the greatest non-mythical people in history was born. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642 it would be definite flamebait. His second tweet QUESTION: This year, what do all the world's Muslims and Jews call December 25th? ANSWER: Thursday probably is a bit of flamebait, but the first tweet isn't. If anything it's a fake flamebait, "I'm going to step in this contentious issue... no I'm not!".
The problem is the religious right is embracing a culture of victimhood to compete with the left
The bigger problem is people who are responsible for representing a scientific message not being culturally sensitive to have enough tact, even if they disagree with that culture. For example the importance of teaching people the science of climate change should lead to a degree of restraint in other not very related public arenas such as holidays.
I agree that's an issue but it's not the issue here.
There's a common pattern in US media that plays out multiple times per year. Someone says something that sounds kind of objectionable, one side lines up to act as offended as they can and the other side lines up to justify the statement or defend the speaker. Eventually the speaker either doubles down or apologizes and everyone gets bored and moved on.
That's exactly what happened here, just another iteration of the Kabuki Dance of inadvertently offensive statements.
That's not to say there are legitimately offensive things said on both sides of any issue, but I don't see it here.
I stole this Sig
Tact is nice, but why does it always have to come from the side of the non-believer ?
Both believers and non-believers have people in their camp with tact and without tact. Your own personal biases will color whether you attribute that to someone else's personal beliefs. In the age of the internet, you will always hear more from people who lack tact, because tactless people bray the loudest. What you read in these comments reveal more about a Slashdot user's personal perceptions than any larger reality.
But when you talk about "zombie-Jesus", you are not merely offending those who were offended by the tweet - you are offending the vast majority of Christians' and at risk of supporting the notion that "science" is anti-religion.
Good. First, it is my intention to offend all religious people. And second, regardless of intention, science IS anti-religion. Science is based on logic and rationality, which must reject religion, since religion is based on faith (believing without proof or despite proof of the contrary). People who say that science and religion can go together either don't understand science, religion, or is just trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.
I personally believe that overly aggressive atheists have done more to harm science's standing within the religious community than the crazy fundamentalist preachers that nobody was listening to in many parts of the world many years ago.
You see, we disagree completely here. You seem to think that science keeping a good standing with religion is a good thing. I, on the other hand, think it is a very bad thing, because it can be used to lend validity to religion. Religion is mysticism, lies and control. It is (as proved by Ron Hubbard) a good way to get rich. It is a way to control people and to impose bronze age morals to a society much more evolved morally.
When I was younger, these extreme sects were restricted mostly to certain states of the US, and also parts of West Africa. They have spread alarmingly quickly. Why? Why did people turn away from the mainstream churches and turn fringe beliefs into something approaching a new orthodoxy? The preachers are getting a receptive flock from the get-go because secular media has already told them that science isn't for the religious.
It is because preachers and churches in general started noticing they had to impose a firmer grip, because they were losing the battle against reason. Also, religion is big business. International business. Brazil is a country that is particularly good in exporting evangelical churches based on the "prosperity theology". Give to god and the church, and you will get rich.
I can see where you are coming from, relating the aggressiveness of atheism with people turning to more ortodox and fundamentalist forms or religion. But that is definitively not the case. What we see is not a backlash against atheism, but a backlash against science, because science is disproving religion every day. Up to a couple centuries ago (heck, even 1 century ago) religion still had a firm control over science. What could be researched, what could be published. But the cat is out of the box now, and believing in the supernatural is becoming more and more silly in face of the advances in science, philosophy, history and archeology. When we compare ancient bibles with the modern ones, we can see how much was changed. When we compare the way these old books describe the world with what we can test through science, we see them for the lie they are. We can now show that the gospel of john was written by several different people, and not one. We can show that all gospels were written much better than they were supposed to.
I'm perfectly fine admitting I'm anti-theist, and not only atheist. I am openly against religion, the same way I'm openly against slavery. Exactly the same way.
Religion is evil, and should be extinguished. We should fight against it, the same way we fight against crime, slavery, child abuse and anything else that harm humanity.
morcego
I do not have to be a Christian to find the obvious undertones of hatred and intolerance in his tweet.
I do not see any reason to get that mad about it, but the tweet, even though it is without slurs and typically offensive language, is obviously aimed at diminutizeing Jesus. It is no coincidence that 100% of people would of though we was talking about Jesus up to the very end, because that was his purpose. The entire point of the tweet was an attack on Jesus, just because he is a smart well spoken guy that can pull it off without swear words does not change that fact.
So it is an offensive tweet, a tweet whose only purpose is to attack a specific group of people. But in the grand scheme of things is is really not a big deal.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Or fourth for the pentecostals. (I believe parent is an offshoot known as the pentepostals) Easter, Good Friday, and Pentecost are big deals for Christians for theological reasons. Christmas is a celebration with little theological implications.
Now for the punch line, Isaac Newton was very devote and believed there was all kinds of deeper meaning, including scientific, in the Bible. He ought be as much a hero of Christianity as Science. People need to take a chill pill.
The one with the bigger stick is right, of course.
I refuse to sign
"which assault rifle would Jesus choose"
For the disciples? He would suggest the one that they could buy by selling their cloaks.
Peter would choose one with good enough aim to shoot a man's ear off at two paces.
No, probably assuming he's Christian. Christian Fundies are just as bad as Muslim ones. Letting delusion rule your life is a massive fail.
Yup, was assuming he is a Christian. Not necessarily a fundie, tho. "Moderate" Christians are just as bad, albeit in a different way. They are, at least, condoning the evil done by others in the name of their religion.
"Oh, but they are not REAL Christians, they don't follow the REAL message". And who decides what is the real message? So many different bibles (including the oldest ones, that show how much they changed over the centuries). So many interpretations. So many contradictions. So many excuses, apologies and lies of convenience. So many parts that get ignored because they are less moral than the moral developed by society. It is all true. Except the parts you don't like. Those don't apply anymore. Or you are reading it wrong.
morcego
He must have known his tweet was going to offend many people, as well as the many people who retweeted it. Shame on anyone who unnecessarily offends others, but even more shame on people so easily offended. Many stopped following Jesus because they were ''offended,'' and he asked his disciples if they would do the same, so it's pretty clear what his thoughts on the matter were
I am a Christian. I got a chuckle out of Tyson's post and I suspect many other Christians did as well. Good flamebait catches even those with a sense of humor.
The tweet like previous tweets was a snarky comment meant as a dig against Christians. It annoyed me when I read it. His explaination is not an apology. Am I offended? At first I was but the Bible stresses us not to take offense.
While watching Cosmos I enjoyed most of it till he attacked Christianity now and then. Carl Sagan wasn't a Christian but he didn't attack Christianity. I mean if you are an Athiest why bother? Much of science is theory and only some of it can be proven. To attack and make fun of those who you consider fools only to raise yourself is not an admirable trait. I don't know what Neil's problem with Christians is but he's got a serious anger issue. He has a deep seated hatred for the Christian God. That is usually due to a deep loss of a loved one after spending a lot of time in prayer. It is for that reason I pity Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He carries a spiritual wound. Why else would he care so much what the Christians believe and why attack them? Same goes for those nativity scene attacks and the distorted belief in separation of church and state. Who cares if there's a nativity scene on the town square for a few weeks or if there's a Ten Commandments in the court house?
Tact is nice, but why does it always have to come from the side of the non-believer ?
Coffee/nose
Right ... gentle, kindly atheists everywhere, just dodging those nasty rampaging Presbyterians. How could I have missed it?
Neil was clearly mocking one of our most sacred holidays, Santa Claus day, where we lie to children about an imaginary omniscient, near omnipotent, and briefly omnipresent being who rewards good and gives evil a reminder of fire. Santa Claus, of course, is based on the real historical character Saint Nicholas. The rewards are presents placed under a decorated evergreen tree (no relation to similar trees used to celebrate the winter solstice**) and preceded by about a month of winter-themed songs (also no relation to the solstice) whose purpose is definitely not to remind grownups that they must be extra materialistic for a while.
Christians, of course, insist that this holiday is a celebration of the birth of Christ, a very-real-and-definitely-not-made-up-this-time-we-swear omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being who rewards good and punishes evil with eternal hellfire. Furthermore, he is so holy he can't forgive anyone without a human sacrifice, with the caveat that the sacrificed human must be entirely innocent. He is said to be very forgiving, though critics say he would die before he would forgive anyone of anything. This is also the historical figure Joshua*, who was miraculously conceived out of wedlock by the (hand?) of God and born from a virgin. Non-Catholic Christians frequently confuse the holiday (Christ's Mass) as being the anniversary of his birth. Christians celebrate Christmas in much the same way as non-believers, besides also going to church and getting upset at people who aren't Christmassy enough for them.
Anyhow, my point is that pretty much everyone disrespects Christmas, and it is extremely well-accepted to do so, at least in the traditional manner.
*Joshua, of course, is a more direct if less unique transliteration of the name, though if you prefer to transliterate first to Greek and then Latin you get Jesus.
** Grinches and cynics take note, it is advantageous to have celebrations around the time of the winter solstice to counteract the tendency toward depression caused by the record low light levels around this time.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
People start reading that tweet and their associations light up before they are through (cold, snow, shopping - Jesus) and they expect to read it's about Jesus but then suddenly - SNAP!
It ain't.
Then they realize at about the same time that what they are reading IS true and that their prejudice caused them to be wrong about such a trivial thing.
That's when the E (as in ego) comes in, and the following train of emotionally loaded thoughts rushes through their minds:
"That ain't fair. I WAS right. He changed the rules. It was SUPPOSED to be about Jesus. I can't be wrong! I'm smart and shit! He's making fun of me. But he can't be making fun of ME - cause I WAS right and I AM smart. HE MUST BE MAKING FUN OF JESUS!!!111eleven! HE'S CALLING JESUS AN ASSHOLE AND SAYING THAT CHRISTMAS IS BULLSHIT!"
They are not actually thinking all that.
It's purely an unconscious thing, with only the final result floating up to their conscious mind.
Their minds are offering them a way out of feeling embarrassed about their own fault, by being angry about someone else's perceived fault.
It's a defense mechanism.
It's the same thing as being angry at spilled milk (or the container it came in) instead of crying over being clumsy.
It hurts less when your problem is someone else's fault.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I think that's more of a cultural thing than religious. I assure you that fundies of all religions are quite murderous in the less civilized parts of the world.
Lebanese Christian militias terrorizing, murdering, and raping Islamic and Druze refugees and villages from the 70's to 90's? Lord's Resistance Army?
Army of God?
Concerned Christians?
"Jesus was the first Klansman"?
National Socialist Council of Nagaland's conversion of the Naga to Christianity, by the sword?
Eric Robert Rudolph and the Centennial Olympic Park bombing?
Frankly, I'm less scared of my Muslim coworker than any devout Baptist that hails from south of the Mason-Dixon.
Shame on you.
It's hard for a moderate Christian to accept that they're just as culpable for the murder, rape, and terrorism committed by fundamentalist Christians as every single Muslim they paint with their own culpability brush.
Nobody likes to look in the mirror and see the evil they hate; so they choose to delude themselves with justifications for their form of evil.
I'm not a Christian, but you've nailed it. It was an indictment of followers, not Christ. The only explanation for the outrage is their own insecurity. It's hard to back up blind faith, and even harder to defend it from attack and you yourself don't really understand it.
Nonsense. Einstein gets all the credit for that. Every single weapon today is based on mass-energy equivalence.
Of course, if ballistic weaponry had not existed prior to Newton, you'd have a much better argument...
He passes to Moses...
He shoots..
HE SCORES!!!
It's almost as if scientific learning and schools didn't exist before Christ. I bet if Christ hadn't come around, founded his Church, which eventually led to the Trinity College's formation, Newton would have been a mentally deficient chimney sweep.
Not ironic at all, really. Simply a misattribution of credit.
Now, you want some real irony? Much of Newton's success in celestial mechanics and physical sciences hinged on work by al-Hassan Ibn al-Haytham, an Iraqi Muslim. So perhaps we have Muhammad to thank for Newtonian Physics?
Yotube
Well, yes, and Lemmy too.
A fact that needs purging from the history books. The very idea that the enemy is human needs to be vigorously denied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Maybe I'm missing the joke but how did Newton do that in the 17th century?
How is the tweet belittling anything? It's a classic joke that relies on misdirection, leading someone to a different answer than what they had thought it was.
On another note, why can't we mock religion? We mock everything else in this world including science, sex, children, old people, ...
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Tone deaf?? Just because someone believes in a myth with all their being doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with the delusion. Zeus, Jupiter, Buddha, Aphrodite and the Baby Jesus don't deserve equal mindshare vs. rational thought and inquiry.
It is ironic the people wanting to feel offended are doing the exact opposite of everything Jesus supposedly stood for.
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
irrational fear is still irrational. and quite frankly in america, being scared of fundies or muslim terrorists is irrational fear
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
But at least he taught me something: That Sir Isaac Newton was a proto-Mormon.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowheel , thanks for reminding me that the word is gerbiling, not hamstering.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
September was in winter?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yes! We're all individuals!
If the tweet had referenced Karl Rove instead (another Dec 25 birthday), would they be as upset?
Or more generally - do the hard-core Christians seriously think that no-one else has ever been born on this day?
First: show me the clause of "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution... (hint: it's not there).
Second: While it's been understood in more modern times (but not in the past), that the school, nor teachers can force prayer in school, it certainly is NOT illegal, or against any law for students to practice their first amendment rights by praying in school on their own. However, many teachers/schools have reprimanded and lied to students about this being illegal (in recent years), for even mentioning Jesus or Christian beliefs, or trying to prayer on their own. There is currently an active attack to suppress students rights in these cases by using false claims, lying, and misinterpretation of the Constitution (either will-fully or out of ignorance).
A difference is that vegans don't eat McRibs and they generally don't give a fuck if somebody else does it. OK, they do care but they won't feel offended and certainly not in the way relinuts do. These do not only air their opinions but try to force-feed them down our throats and generally succeed, even in countries with an atheistic majority such as mine.
I don't think this was news outside of the Netherlands but while we live in a country with a 40% of atheists (many of them belonging to the 'liberal' right) and most of the religious people do keep their believes in private and support laicistic views (including abortion and euthanasia) we have got two proposals for law changes blocked in recent years:
One was the abolition of the Blasphemy Law, a law that makes it illegal to insult godly beings (from any religion, BTW), a law which is absolutely useless, has never been enforced and is in clear contradiction with the right of free speech which is as fundamental here as it is in the USA and is included in our Constitution (dating back to 1806). A few Catholic ministers from the CDA (a party that's now a minority) and a couple of members of the two Christian parties were enough to block it. So, we still have a stupid and useless law just for the sake of a few old farts (with the support of an also small bunch of Muslims, of course).
Another example was the ban on ritual slaughter without previous stunning of the animal. There was and is massive social support and there was a majority in both chambers supporting it. Yet Muslim and Jewish orthodox didn't want to hear about it and pulled a stunt sending in some high-ass imams and rabbis to lecture the Chamber of Deputies and with the help of (again the same) Christians the law was rejected and in a country were we have a Party for the Animals and even the far Right makes this an important point it is still allowed to any guy wearing some fancy robes to cut the throat of any animal he likes in the name of his religion. I actually wonder if they would also permit this in the name of the Cult of Cthulhu or as a sacrifice to Hekate, but I assume that it's only our dear right-to-left-writing friends who can do that.
Morale: Even in completely agnostic places we are still captives of these that are entitled for no good reason to impose their particular beliefs and fancies upon the rest of humanity. And this has to stop.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
And second, regardless of intention, science IS anti-religion. Science is based on logic and rationality, which must reject religion, since religion is based on faith (believing without proof or despite proof of the contrary). People who say that science and religion can go together either don't understand science, religion, or is just trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.
I would suggest that it is you that doesn't understand science or religion.
The university system was instituted by the Catholic church, with the aim of studying the mechanisms of the universe (hence the name). Muslim scholars of old were pivotal in the further development of Greek mathematical thought and of Greek and Middle Eastern astronomy. For most of history, studying the physical world has been considered a sacred endeavour -- under the religious viewpoint, this is studying the works of $DEITY.
As for logic and rationality, the basic concept of a supernatural deity sits outside of all repeatable observable evidence. You cannot make a logical conclusion either way without solid evidence. All we have is a few documents purporting to record witness testimony from centuries past. The most likely explanation for this witness evidence is a mixture of schizophrenic disorders and hallucinogens (in particular the fungus ergot), in my opinion, but I cannot state that Moses didn't actually see a burning bush. Even if we can discount certain events (eg the Great Flood), that does not mean that the existence of the related deity (in this case the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
The only truly rational stance is agnosticism: I do not know, and cannot know, and because of this, that knowledge is irrelevant.
That is my stance, and I do not think it shows any intellectual integrity to mock somebody for believing in something that is not demonstrably false. Consider the recent "discovery" of the phenomenon called the "rogue wave" -- people had been talking about it for centuries, but this testimony was discounted as the same sort of fantasy that made sailors come up with stories about giant squid... which also turned out to be true. But of course not all witnesses were reliable, and we can be pretty sure there was never such a thing as a mermaid.
I personally believe that overly aggressive atheists have done more to harm science's standing within the religious community than the crazy fundamentalist preachers that nobody was listening to in many parts of the world many years ago.
You see, we disagree completely here. You seem to think that science keeping a good standing with religion is a good thing. I, on the other hand, think it is a very bad thing, because it can be used to lend validity to religion. Religion is mysticism, lies and control. It is (as proved by Ron Hubbard) a good way to get rich. It is a way to control people and to impose bronze age morals to a society much more evolved morally.
The brainwashing cult relies on its victims having limited reasoning powers. A broad education allows adherents of a religion to think for themselves. And if they can't think for themselves, how are they ever going to question their beliefs? Many religions want their followers to question (ie critically appraise) their beliefs. And I'm absolutely sure that you want religious people to question their beliefs. But you cannot arm them with the tools to question their beliefs if you tell them the tool is a poison that will kill their beliefs.
It is because preachers and churches in general started noticing they had to impose a firmer grip, because they were losing the battle against reason.
That would imply it was the same preachers and churches, but they are new preachers and churches. The change isn't the message the followers receive in the same old place, but the place they go to. Why did they go there? Did they go their seeking to be controlled? Do you genuinely b
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
This should be interesting...
And second, regardless of intention, science IS anti-religion. Science is based on logic and rationality, which must reject religion, since religion is based on faith (believing without proof or despite proof of the contrary). People who say that science and religion can go together either don't understand science, religion, or is just trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.
I would suggest that it is you that doesn't understand science or religion.
The university system was instituted by the Catholic church, with the aim of studying the mechanisms of the universe (hence the name). Muslim scholars of old were pivotal in the further development of Greek mathematical thought and of Greek and Middle Eastern astronomy. For most of history, studying the physical world has been considered a sacred endeavour -- under the religious viewpoint, this is studying the works of $DEITY.
You are making a flawed assumption there. Just because religions founded schools and universities (and they did), that doesn't mean it is compatible. Because religion gets to decide what can be questioned and what can't. They get to discard things because they contradict their teachings. And, even more, religion is the opposite of the scientific method.
You see, religion says you must believe without proof, which is by definition anti-scientific. Even more, they say you must believe even if all evidence points in the contrary direction. You will see many scholars that had to add to the end of their works, after all proves and conclusion, things like "but since this contradicts religion, it can't be true, so further studies are necessary". How is that science?
It is like the people who say that the catholic church is a force for good in the world, and prove a single example of something good, while discarding all the evil it's done. You can't do that. Even that is unscientific. You have to take into account Mother Thereza refusing medicines to the sick, because suffering is beautiful in the eyes of god.
Science MUST be skeptic. If you can't prove, you should not believe it. It is NOT true. Otherwise it is not science. Just because religion likes to study stuff doesn't mean it is science, or even compatible with it.
As for logic and rationality, the basic concept of a supernatural deity sits outside of all repeatable observable evidence. You cannot make a logical conclusion either way without solid evidence.
Of course you can. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE => THEE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS TRUE.
That's both logical and rational.
All we have is a few documents purporting to record witness testimony from centuries past. The most likely explanation for this witness evidence is a mixture of schizophrenic disorders and hallucinogens (in particular the fungus ergot), in my opinion, but I cannot state that Moses didn't actually see a burning bush. Even if we can discount certain events (eg the Great Flood), that does not mean that the existence of the related deity (in this case the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
There is a logical fallacy. You can't disprove Russell's teapot either. However, that is not reason to accept it as true, even as a promissory truth. It is logically impossible to prove a negative, so claiming god is a possibility because you can't prove it doesn't exist is a logical fallacy. You can't prove there isn't an invisible and intangible unicorn in the corner of my living room.
Also, by your logic, if not disproving is reason to accept it might be true, then you have to accept that ALL gods must be a possibility. Together, at the same time. So you end up, by that logic, with all gods or no gods. Because all gods, by that logic, are equally likely. But the existence of one god would disprove the existence of another, so the logic fails on itself, with the only logic deduction being that, since there is no proof of
morcego
Banning prayer in school isn't tact by the religious to the non-religious. It's part of the separation of church and state, which became a big thing after two Christian groups had a violent falling out with each other in Europe and a bunch fled to the the US. The idea was that if you kept overt religious practice out of government and public activities (like education) then everybody (all Christians, or at least the more mainstream) could get along.
Several of the states actually had state churches. It was a ban on the federal government having a state church.