- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So Cosmos is more atheistic rant than actual cosmos?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:32 am to Slippy
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:32 am to Slippy
quote:
The Roman Catholic Church takes no official position on evolution, and is in fact very friendly to the theory. It is American Evangelicals who are so dogmatically opposed to the idea, moreso than anyone in the world. It is they who push ridiculous bills through legislatures trying to mandate the teaching of creationism, not Catholics.
My dad went to catholic school his whole life and said he was taught evolution by the brothers. I always found that interesting.
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 9:33 am
0
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:32 am to Slippy
quote:
Therefore, it is very easy for the church to buy into scientific advancement without surrending its fundamental dogma
What you decree on Earth, I shall honor in Heaven.
Makes it very easy for Catholics to change their views to match the present world.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:35 am to mizzoukills
It's not that it's an atheistic rant, but the show is seemingly focusing on rebuttals used against creationists.
The whole human eye segment. It was interesting, but he started it with "Some people say that the human eye is too complex to have formed through natural selection...." If you follow the creationists vs. intelligent design vs. evolution debate at all, you know that the premise that the human eye is too complex for evolution is a big argument put forth by creationists and intelligent design folks.
And that's pretty much the feel of the whole show. The first episode defined "some people" as the church with its animated flashback to Bruno. The second episode focused big time on proving that any point put forth by creationists is wrong.
I'm completely on board with everything the show is saying except for its delivery. All the show is doing is alienating people who may come in with predisposed notions about life that the show's producers disagree with.
The whole human eye segment. It was interesting, but he started it with "Some people say that the human eye is too complex to have formed through natural selection...." If you follow the creationists vs. intelligent design vs. evolution debate at all, you know that the premise that the human eye is too complex for evolution is a big argument put forth by creationists and intelligent design folks.
And that's pretty much the feel of the whole show. The first episode defined "some people" as the church with its animated flashback to Bruno. The second episode focused big time on proving that any point put forth by creationists is wrong.
I'm completely on board with everything the show is saying except for its delivery. All the show is doing is alienating people who may come in with predisposed notions about life that the show's producers disagree with.
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 9:37 am
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:36 am to LSUFOREVERAMEN
quote:
I'm an atheist.
quote:
LSUFOREVERAMEN
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:39 am to magildachunks
quote:
Makes it very easy for Catholics to change their views to match the present world.
No, quite the opposite. It allows it to stand firm on a series of core beliefs, regardless of where science takes us. It allows Catholics to explore science, and follow wherever it leads, without worrying if it violates a 3,000 year old text. The Catholic Church hasn't changed its views on such matters in a very, very long time... probably before your denomination (if you have one) was invented.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:42 am to Slippy
quote:
No, quite the opposite. It allows it to stand firm on a series of core beliefs, regardless of where science takes us. It allows Catholics to explore science, and follow wherever it leads, without worrying if it violates a 3,000 year old text. The Catholic Church hasn't changed its views on such matters in a very, very long time... probably before your denomination (if you have one) was invented
I'm a Deist. Raised Catholic.
It allows them to change with the times without going against God.
Whether they do it or not is a different story.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:45 am to Slippy
I'm a Catholic and know that evolution exists, as do most Catholics, despite what the media tries to paint religion in general.
It's possible to have a God, and evolution in my opinion. They are not mutually exclusive.
This show isn't that great. Production dollars went mostly to special cgi effects, and a certain anti-religious slant. But go figure, its produced by McFarlane, who hates all religion.
My biggest problem with the show is that its disjointed. They bounce all over the place and topics.
To me, I think it would be better to focus each episode on one thing.
It's possible to have a God, and evolution in my opinion. They are not mutually exclusive.
This show isn't that great. Production dollars went mostly to special cgi effects, and a certain anti-religious slant. But go figure, its produced by McFarlane, who hates all religion.
My biggest problem with the show is that its disjointed. They bounce all over the place and topics.
To me, I think it would be better to focus each episode on one thing.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:45 am to mizzoukills
quote:
I kind of don't take the stories in the Bible literally. I never have. Am I supposed to? I believe Jesus was real, a real man, but do I believe he walked on water? Do I have to? I think the point of Jesus was to teach us the way of living. How to respect others, be charitable, be good.
I could be way off base and that might be getting off topic
i share your beliefs there. it's nice to know that there are others that do.
quote:
At one point just before a commercial, he asked why evolution has taken so long to be accepted as solid fundamental science, and then he paused to look up at the sky and shake his head in disgust. At that moment, the show broke to commercial.
shite like that is retardedly pretentious and unnecessary.
see, i go the other way. when i think about how religion has purposefully disregarded proven scientific facts to further/keep their beliefs in tact, it's a little infuriating.
to blatantly mis-educate children.
the only reason schools even started teaching evolution was the science and math push that came with the russians launching sputnik and the ensuing cold war.
i really don't mind a show that says it's 2014, it's time to stop treating religion as fact and science as a religion.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:48 am to TDTGodfather
quote:
see, i go the other way. when i think about how religion has purposefully disregarded proven scientific facts to further/keep their beliefs in tact, it's a little infuriating.
to blatantly mis-educate children
Just curious, because I don't see any of this, but can you cite examples?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:52 am to White Shadeaux
quote:
My biggest problem with the show is that its disjointed. They bounce all over the place and topics.
that's been my chief complaint.
also to those that wondered why they spent so much time on bruno and not copernicus or gallileo (sp?), didn't bruno basically precede the other two? or were bruno and copernicus contemporaries?
and on a related note, (i was born and raised catholic) are we not supposed to acknowledge that the church (many of them) has done some horrible shite through history? i mean inhibiting free thinking is kind of way down on the list.
but isn't part of the beauty of them and us as individuals is that we grow and learn from our mistakes?
i dunno i never looked at horrific stuff the catholic church has done in its history and think its some kind of affront to my faith.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:55 am to White Shadeaux
quote:
Just curious, because I don't see any of this, but can you cite examples?
since it's the main topic in this thread, how about anti-evolution?
or the belief that the earth is 6000 yrs old.
or the belief that carnivories basically didn't exist until adam and eve ate the apple.
edit: i'm aware this doesn't taught in every church/school
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 9:57 am
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:00 am to TDTGodfather
quote:
edit: i'm aware this doesn't taught in every church/school
I'm glad you edited, because my kids have always been in Catholic school. My wife has taught in a couple Catholic school systems, New Orleans and Baton Rouge, and they in no way teach any of that stuff you mentioned.
In fact, the opposite.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:02 am to White Shadeaux
quote:
To me, I think it would be better to focus each episode on one thing.
I think it is. The first is an overview, and I think this one is focused on evolution.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:02 am to mizzoukills
quote:
I bet NdGT is a huge IRL douchebag cynic
You sound a lot like a guy that never watched the original Cosmos if you think this has gone in a different direction.
LINK
Truth is, Carl Sagan was an outspoken atheist...Neil deGrasse Tyson is absolutely not. In fact, he's made a point of not being grouped with guys like Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins. That's not to say he is not, but that he has never once in his public life come out of the closet as such or taken so hard line a position as that. Call it simply PR, but the guy has been quite content to not join that group openly despite being on countless panels with them all.
For the time, the Original Cosmos was FAR harsher in it's criticism of religion than I bet this new iteration will be. Sagan trashed the early Church for the sacking of the library at Alexandria, if I recall he had his own piece on Galileo's persecution, etc.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:03 am to OMLandshark
quote:
think it is. The first is an overview, and I think this one is focused on evolution
The second was definitely focused on evolution.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:03 am to White Shadeaux
good to know. and i didn't think they did. in fact growing up in catholic school (i'm 37) it never occured to me that there was opposition btwn evolution and belief in God. we were taught evolution in catholic schools.
it's almost seems that an anti evolution (and anti science) movement has come about more recently.
it's almost seems that an anti evolution (and anti science) movement has come about more recently.
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 10:05 am
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:04 am to TDTGodfather
quote:
it's almost seems that an anti evolution movement has come about more recently.
my biology teacher skipped all the evolution chapters in a public LA HS
so let's not act like this doesn't happen
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:06 am to Salmon
quote:
my biology teacher skipped all the evolution chapters in a public LA HS
so let's not act like this doesn't happen
no no not saying that at all.
it just seems like the opposition is more vocal now.
and the fact that it was disregarded in public school is almost crime worthy.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:09 am to TDTGodfather
quote:
it just seems like the opposition is more vocal now.
they have the internet now
quote:
and the fact that it was disregarded in public school is almost crime worthy.
it is more than likely very common in small rural schools everywhere
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:09 am to TDTGodfather
quote:
also to those that wondered why they spent so much time on bruno and not copernicus or gallileo (sp?), didn't bruno basically precede the other two? or were bruno and copernicus contemporaries?
I think it's because they are not updating the Original Cosmos, but adding to it...filling in the gaps in some places. I'm almost certain that Sagan had a piece about Galileo and Copernicus, but had not mentioned Bruno, for instance.
I haven't caught last night's episode on life/evolution, but I will say that Sagan did answer criticisms of science back in 1980. It stands to reason, given the climate of distrust of basic science, that Tyson would spend some effort addressing those criticisms. Hell...not three weeks ago a huge topic of discussion in this country...in freaking 2014...was a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Hamm on whether the earth is really 10,000 or so years old. To not address that there's a growing and politically savvy group of people who are pushing these beliefs would be turning a blind eye to it.
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News