Bill Nye disses Jesus

[Hayabusa Rider]

And we never will. If you want proofs, go talk to a mathematician.

There's nothing in what Bill Nye says that's a diss on Jesus. If you want to believe the Bible is the revealed word of God, that's your choice. I view the Bible as a collection of stories passed on down through the ages and translated through scores of languages about how to live your life. A lot of those stories are interesting, entertaining, and contain a lot of wisdom. A lot of those stories are clearly fantasy. Accepting the main tenets of Christianity does not require you to abandon acceptance of science. I've spent my entire adult life studying human evolution (it's what I do for a living), and there is nothing in the fossil record or our genomes that say God isn't real, that there was no Jesus, that abortions are morally acceptable - none of that.

Pity there are many who advocate science at the expense of useful religious teachings, and pity there are many who think the Bible is a scientific text. Do yourself a favor and read Gould's NOMA.

Stop making sense, that's not allowed in religion threads 😛

Of course there are those who's faith depends on religious people not believing in evolution, as the OP and others apparently do.

There are those on both sides that create a false dichotomy which requires verbal assassination of the other to prove their superiority. They both take it on faith.

Then again the standard is low for what supposedly passes for critical thinking. You point out that Bill Nye did nothing which supports the OP title, however he had to do it anyway. Hopefully none of them will grow up to be either preachers or scientists.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dawkins is fine, you might be thinking of Hitchens(RIP).

Dawkins is the Rush Limbaugh of atheism. A pedestrian intellect who has a big fan club.

 

[DrPizza]

Dawkins is the Rush Limbaugh of atheism. A pedestrian intellect who has a big fan club.

Hey may be rabid, but I don't think he distorts the truth or is intentionally misleading, does he? Thus the analogy isn't really good. (I don't pay much attention to Dawkins.)

 

[pelov]

Dawkins is schooled as an evolutionary biologist whereas Rush Limbaugh isn't schooled at all.

Dawkins gets under people's skin because he takes incessant jabs at religion and its followers, but his points are valid, thoughtful and derived from research. His book, The Greatest Show On Earth, is a must read for anyone interested in learning a bit about evolutionary biology regardless of what side of the fence you sit on. It's not like his other books in that he doesn't stick his tongue out and call people stupid for believing what they do (although admittedly I do this very frequently), it's actually very informative read on the subject of biology with evolution. If you've got any questions or have skepticism towards the theory (or law) of evolution then I'd highly suggest you read it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dawkins is schooled as an evolutionary biologist whereas Rush Limbaugh isn't schooled at all.

Dawkins gets under people's skin because he takes incessant jabs at religion and its followers, but his points are valid, thoughtful and derived from research. His book, The Greatest Show On Earth, is a must read for anyone interested in learning a bit about evolutionary biology regardless of what side of the fence you sit on. It's not like his other books in that he doesn't stick his tongue out and call people stupid for believing what they do (although admittedly I do this very frequently), it's actually very informative read on the subject of biology with evolution. If you've got any questions or have skepticism towards the theory (or law) of evolution then I'd highly suggest you read it.

It isn't a question of Dawkins knowing about evolution. Hell I know the technical stuff. My wife knows more about biology that Dawkins ever will having taught most aspects of it as well as holding a doctorate in molecular genetics. It's about how he browbeats others with his self defined superiority. His claim to fame is his behavior and disdain. There are other atheists and agnostics who are his intellectual superiors who feel embarrassed when Dawkins spouts off. He then looks down them because they aren't as arrogant as he. Remarkable.

 

[mrCide]

Dawkins goes into detail on how it's okay to be an idiot and not get called out on it but everything else is not okay. Why? Nonsense. An idiot is an idiot, and idiots breed and spread their idiocy to other ignorant people perpetuating the problem. Believing and spreading ignorance is not okay.

 

[pelov]

It isn't a question of Dawkins knowing about evolution. Hell I know the technical stuff. My wife knows more about biology that Dawkins ever will having taught most aspects of it as well as holding a doctorate in molecular genetics. It's about how he browbeats others with his self defined superiority. His claim to fame is his behavior and disdain. There are other atheists and agnostics who are his intellectual superiors who feel embarrassed when Dawkins spouts off. He then looks down them because they aren't as arrogant as he. Remarkable.

I partially agree with you. I think he can do without the belittling and condescending tone, but as the poster above me has pointed out, it's not a matter of "belief" anymore when this sort of thinking finds its way into the public forum and starts dictating policies that affect us all. People are welcome to be ignorant and bigoted and racist and irrational, but as soon as that sort of thinking perpetuates the public psyche and policy then we're going to have a problem. You should never make decisions that affect other people on feelings or unsubstantiated belief. I think that's where Dawkins' is directing his rage, or as he calls it "militant atheism."

While I don't agree with his methods, I most certainly agree with him that it's a huge problem. You can't pray yourself to the moon or mars no matter how hard you try. You won't pray the cancer away nor will you pray away China. It's this same ignorant and self-centered tone (subsequently policy) that permeates religious thinking that holds back scientific progress and consequently the advancement of our nation as a whole. This all stems from people who believe their opinions based on absolutely nothing actually matter. They don't. If you're not going to explain yourself with a coherent and well-thought out argument then keep it to yourself because nobody wants to hear it.

The book is laid out such that a layman can understand it and it's a very good read. Like I said, he holds back on the punches and the general tone of the book reads like a college lecture rather than a derisive critique.

 

[busydude]

Believing and spreading ignorance is not okay.

I don't recall Dawkins doing that. I am not a fan of him, but I do know he does not talk hyperbole.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dawkins goes into detail on how it's okay to be an idiot and not get called out on it but everything else is not okay. Why? Nonsense. An idiot is an idiot, and idiots breed and spread their idiocy to other ignorant people perpetuating the problem. Believing and spreading ignorance is not okay.

So he is a preacher who casts out all who do not follow his True Path as defined by his sense of things. Shun the unbelievers! He's the Way the Truth and the Life.

Somehow many of us do not find that appealing either. Certainly Bill Nye didn't express his concerns as Dawkins did. He's failing the True Path. He should have insulted everyone.

 

[Cerb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

Typical scientific elitist crap.

Nice flamebait. He didn't even mention Jesus, though. The biggest diss would probably be if it weren't all fiction, and he came back, and saw everyone arguing about Creationism and brandishing images of a thin tall white guy on a cross as him, instead of advancing ourselves 🙂. Not only that, but the largest Christian religion on the planet accepts and teaches 99% of science (that the brain needs to reach a certain size before any thought or feeling can exist is a sore point, though).

There are still gaps. For instance, we aren't sure WTF happened to cause us to start communicating with language, to create and value symbols, and synthesize tools, pretty much around the same time, without much of a gradual change. Alien intervention (usually called a god, or the god) is by far the most common belief, and it's as good a one as any, but that's still a head-scratcher.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I partially agree with you. I think he can do without the belittling and condescending tone, but as the poster above me has pointed out, it's not a matter of "belief" anymore when this sort of thinking finds its way into the public forum and starts dictating policies that affect us all. People are welcome to be ignorant and bigoted and racist and irrational, but as soon as that sort of thinking perpetuates the public psyche and policy then we're going to have a problem. You should never make decisions that affect other people on feelings or unsubstantiated belief. I think that's where Dawkins' is directing his rage, or as he calls it "militant atheism."

While I don't agree with his methods, I most certainly agree with him that it's a huge problem. You can't pray yourself to the moon or mars no matter how hard you try. You won't pray the cancer away nor will you pray away China. It's this same ignorant and self-centered tone (subsequently policy) that permeates religious thinking that holds back scientific progress and consequently the advancement of our nation as a whole. This all stems from people who believe their opinions based on absolutely nothing actually matter. They don't. If you're not going to explain yourself with a coherent and well-thought out argument then keep it to yourself because nobody wants to hear it.

The book is laid out such that a layman can understand it and it's a very good read. Like I said, he holds back on the punches and the general tone of the book reads like a college lecture rather than a derisive critique.

I agree that basing science education on non-science is not acceptable. I do not in anyway support Creationism being taught as fact. Nevertheless there are those who have a religious belief that feel the same way, contrary to the misconceptions of other. In fact they have no problem accepting evolution. Perhaps they see it as a means to an end, but that's as much a philosophical point as religious. It's the demand by the extreme fundamentalists that call for creationism taught as fact that I object to, but I also feel the same when Dawkins and many of his supporters claim that scientists cannot be scientists if they have a religious faith. They must believe as he does and feel as dedicated to the absolute intolerance he displays or they are lacking. He's done this, attacking the former head of the Royal Society himself (an atheist BTW) for not being aggressive enough (that being defined by Dawkins own personal arbitrary standard) in attacking those who have a faith. I've found beating someone with a bible doesn't work, but I doubt doing the same with "On the Origin of the Species" will do much good either.


That's why I object to him, not that he's correct or not regarding evolution, it's his hubris and willingness to sacrifice reason and civility when faced with others which do not strictly adhere to his metric.

An ass who is correct is still an ass.

Edit. He can indeed be convincing in writing, however when he's in the spotlight he generally becomes insufferable. Perhaps the written word is his forte.

 

[Xecuter]

Actually, the analogy is quite apt.

The biggest problem people have with evolution is abiogenesis and the point of creation of life. That's something science hasn't yet worked out (as opposed to seeing gradual changes in genetic code which we have seen and documented endlessly...). This runs in parallel with gravity. We know how gravity works just like we know how evolution works, but we haven't yet figured out why nor how gravity is created; gravity's abiogenesis.

The experiments at the LHC that are digging for the Higgs boson believe they've probably found it which would answer some of the questions pertaining to gravity, thus tying micro (quantum) and macro physics together. There would still be gaps in the theory, though. I'd expect us to see a biochemical equivalent with some amino acids, some lightning, heat and a bit of gas sometime soon ;P (though some strides have already been made with respect to self-replicating RNA which is likely one of the first steps to creating life)

The two "theories" are derived the same exact way and have the same large problematic gap. It's telling that most religious people only have an issue with evolution and not gravity. The point of contention only lies with evolution because some robed old men with beards put together a book a couple thousand years ago. Had they written of gravity then we'd be having a very parallel conversation with just a few words substituted.

shit... smart post from me.

I mean boobies. Large, bouncy boobies.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2376

relevant

 

[zinfamous]

Typical person who has never read a bible in his life. The bible simply tells of the history of man and God. As a matter of fact that are many places in the bible that support the theory of an evolving earth. But it is clear the man was created in whole and did not evolve. Many sections give a glimpse of Pre-Adam time period.

😵

 

[pelov]

That's why I object to him, not that he's correct or not regarding evolution, it's his hubris and willingness to sacrifice reason and civility when faced with others which do not strictly adhere to his metric.

An ass who is correct is still an ass.

I agree with you, it's just not a friendly way to teach or approach people. Nevertheless, his motivation for it stems from the same thing you and I both agree with: Science and its role in education and public policy shouldn't be diminished by an ever-diminishing religious influence.

 

[mrCide]

I don't recall Dawkins doing that. I am not a fan of him, but I do know he does not talk hyperbole.

I think you misunderstood my post.

 

[Juddog]

The bible is just an old book of fairy tales with pieces of wisdom in it. That's all it boils down to, the same as many older fairy tales that teach a lesson through a story. It boggles the mind that anybody could possibly take it to mean exactly what it says in the literal sense. It's the equivalent of people a thousand years from now picking up a Dr. Seuss book and proclaiming that the cat in the hat was a real entity.

 

[jhu]

People who do not accept that God could exist are idiots as well.

People who do not accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Allah exist are idiots as well.

 

[Binarycow]

Typical person who has never read a bible in his life. The bible simply tells of the history of man and God. As a matter of fact that are many places in the bible that support the theory of an evolving earth. But it is clear the man was created in whole and did not evolve. Many sections give a glimpse of Pre-Adam time period.

I doubt something that was written by a bunch of primative screwheads would have known anything about evolution to have written it, or not.

 

[Binarycow]

There is no denying Jesus existed, the debate was if he was the son of God.

anyone who lives in the modern time who would even debate the above should definitely be institutionalized. If I had a daughter and she got pregnant without a husband, the first thing I would do is to get my gun and go hunt that SOB down, not to fall on my knees worshipping her.

 

[Binarycow]

Human race is here all because it is part of an experiment being performed by a greater galactic race. The experiment was designed with various parameters in mind so that the subjects will only last for so many years un-assisted by their own technologies before their physical selves wear out. There are also other constraints put on life in general such as the constant needs for sustenance, oxygen, love, the idea of a greater being (or beings) than themselves, being grounded on the ground due to their physical form, etc. Some of the constraints were designed as limitations to test if life created by the experiment would eventually be able to overcome them. Other parameters such as hope, altruism, and faith were included as tools to help the subject race progress further into latter stages of the experiment.
The Solar System was chosen as the location for the experiment mainly because of its relatively remote location; a dark corner of the galaxy, so other galactic races will not likely stumble upon it by accident.
Early on, other parts of the experiment were carried out in other planets and natural satellites within the Solar system but they all eventually ended up with life died off in the early stages or ended up not progressing in the direction anticipated by the experimenters. Earth so far has been one part that has been able to produce the closest replication of what is deemed to be life that is (projected) advanced enough and is progressing in the proper direction that has a great chance to create technologies at some point in time to allow itself to escape the space it is originally confined to, in addition to the potential of transforming its physical self in the far future to another more advanced form to evade the eventuality of this physical universe coming to an end.
Not all has gone well with the experiment, however. A short while ago, a passer-by of a lesser galactic race had almost ruined part of the experiment when its chariot moved close enough to Earth’s space and was disabled by one of the barriers erected to cloak life on Earth from other space beings. The debris from its chariot had caused unintended spikes in technological progress of the subject race and more importantly provided concrete evidence of other more advanced beings. Another even greater compromise was the violation of the Non-Interference Principle. Far into the experiment, life on Earth evolved into the current subject race. Unlike all previous species life has created within this confined space, this new race has the natural tendency to deviate itself from set parameters. It has very peculiar ways of stretching and manipulating set boundaries to modify and mutate itself especially mentally on a large scale. In short it is the most chaotic version of life thus far on Earth.
About the chaotic nature of the subject race as mentioned above, it tends to magnify itself into some of the most destructive ways the experimenters have seen on this experiment scale. Its potential as a race that could last the whole experiment is constantly threatened by its aggressive and violent nature. Parameters that were introduced to safeguard life are constantly being twisted and combined in perverted ways to fuel its hunger for self-produced calamities.
Since in some sense the human race is the most promising part of this experiment so far, the experimenters are unwilling to allow it to destroy itself. A while back they decided to abandon their original role as the Clock-Maker and started allowing extremely limited interference when it is absolutely necessary in order to keep the subject race safe from itself. Seeds of philosophy, religion, deities, prophecy and life after death were introduced as additional parameters allowing the subject race limited abilities to subjugate itself and its destructive nature. Various deadly diseases and natural disasters are also injected periodically at the right moments to slow down the rate of expansion of humans. Advanced concepts in Mathematics and Science are intermittently revealed to the most promising humans pushing the subject race as a whole down a specific corridor to speed up the experiment progress and preventing the subject race from consuming all natural resources before having a chance to colonize other places in the Solar System.
The question that the experiment was designed to answer has always been HOW? Instead of WHY? Also, the experiment was designed to end abruptly when a certain result is attained by the subject race since beyond a certain point of biological and technological advancement the future outcome from that point on is always predetermined, for all galactic races that the experimenters have encountered so far.


That's my theory about how humans got here. Worship me, ignorant BITCHES!!!!