The Fundamentalist Christian Reaction To Last Night’s “Cosmos” Debut Is About What You’d Expect

Last night saw the debut of the new Cosmos reboot on Fox, with the brilliant Neil DeGrasse Tyson filling the shoes of the late — and equally brilliant — Carl Sagan. Considering the fact that it was essentially a science documentary show running right after Family Guy, with Seth MacFarlane as its executive producer, it did respectable but not incredible numbers. There was a good amount of buzz going in but it aired simultaneously on a ton of networks so that could easily have diluted the audience pool, with Fox pulling in 5.8 million viewers for the hour.

One crowd, however, that did apparently pay close attention to the return of Cosmos, whether it actually watched the show or not, is America’s far-right Christian contingent. And many of its members responded exactly as you’d imagine: with social media-driven cries of blasphemy and attempts to correct the lies of science with the truth that the world is 6,000 years old and we’re all the result of special Jesus magic. Because who needs proven scientific fact when you’ve got an ancient book written by people who lacked the imagination to even realize they were only inhabiting about two-percent of the entire Earth.

And so we get to laugh at the kind of thing you see below. In a reasonable world, anyone who thought like this wouldn’t even be able to turn on a computer, but there’s simply no accounting for the kind of stupidity we inexplicably continue to sanction in this country under its more socially acceptable name: religion.

I guess to their credit, though, these people manage to disprove both evolution and intelligent design at the same time.

Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 5.22.31 PM
Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 5.22.20 PM
Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 5.22.08 PM
Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 5.21.57 PM
Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 5.21.42 PM
Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 5.21.27 PM
Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 5.21.15 PM
Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 5.20.59 PM

(via AATTP)

Like The Daily Banter on Facebook!
  • MEMBERS ONLY: Inside The Obama White House's First Christmas

    MEMBERS ONLY: Inside The Obama White House's First Christmas

    Through never-before-seen photographs and video, Daily Banter White House correspondent Tommy Christ[Read more...]
    Why Obama Will Never Prosecute Dick Cheney Or Anyone Else For Torture

    Why Obama Will Never Prosecute Dick Cheney Or Anyone Else For Torture

    The New York Times dares to dream with a bold but sadly unrealistic editorial.[Read more...]
    The Ultimate Christmas Gift: A Banter Membership!

    The Ultimate Christmas Gift: A Banter Membership!

    With only three days to go till Christmas, the rush to buy shiny things for relatives they'll probab[Read more...]
    President Obama Condemns Killings Of Two NYPD Officers
    The Sony Story Once Again Proves That Hackers Are Absolutely Not "Young Online Activists"

    The Sony Story Once Again Proves That Hackers Are Absolutely Not "Young Online Activists"

    The skewing of Snowden's story into the utterly bizarre territory of defending and legitimizing hack[Read more...]
    • Lomus.

      The most fundamentally disgusting part of creationism is the way they lie. A man was cured of Ebola recently thanks to an experimental drug, produced by scientists, prescribed by scientists according to the scientific method. How insulting, nay, how dare you say to me that some despotic dictator saw fit to just stop the disease there and then, that all those dying of Ebola across the world deserve it because some bloke ate a bit of fruit. Is it not just sick to point to some celestial narcissist for healing a child of cancer, but to credit doctors of trying so hard only when they fail?

      Religion: the bane of humanity.

    • Rubs Troll

      Science is a Xmas present given to Man by Yeovah GOD.

    • babybearo.o

      I’m pretty sure that Christianity and Science are 2 complete different concepts. Everybody believes in different things but seriously, christians are going to be this stupid and immature?! If it offends you DON’T watch it at all! Just Ignore it! In the bible it says “Don’t judge people” and “Do unto others do unto you”…….Look what this world turned in to. (I don’t mean to offend anyone sorry if i did)

    • Brian Wheeler

      Good thing these types of people aren’t running our country and making decisions. Oh, never mind.

    • Leslie Graham

      Even Jesus thinks they’re fuckwits.

    • William Williams

      The biggest fear religious and religions suffer from is the truth. The day is coming, and fast, that all the worlds religions/mythology will be rendered into the sewer of the human intellect.

    • James Mc Cormack

      its amazing that in this time and place where we have found that the Bubonic plague was caused by fleas rather than some superstitions that it was a punishment handed down by God.That we have people that use science everyday in their daily lives yet deny it when their religion calls on them .
      if the bible said ” Let man not enter the skies lest he doomed in the eyes.of God ” we would still have invented the AIRPLANE !!!!! THINK ABOUT IT COUSIN BILLY !

    • Brenda Rodríguez

      I feel really bad for these people and their narrow ways. Sad! Cosmos is a great show and I am glad they brought it back.

    • jwveverka

      I was a Christian once so I know what its like to ride the crazy train.

    • JCNow

      It’s clear these religious fruit cakes are incapable of logical thought. And when you’re incapable of logical thought or too lazy to engage the brain, belief in imaginary sky fairies is the consequence. What a sad waste of humanity.

    • David Stephenson

      Didn’t Jesus tweet to the dinosaurs on his iPad?

    • Donald Griffith

      Interesting that believing in science suddenly makes you liberal.

    • Kels

      I wanted to bang my head against a desk after reading the one that stated the bible seemed like a more plausible explanation of how the universe was created..really? REALLY??? It still reinforces the fact that the only weapon in a creationist’s arsenal is “because God”. On a positive note, they should all be rather ecstatic all the time, ignorance is bliss after all.

    • NAME

      I’m always amazed how creationists forget to use this as a defense :
      2 Peter 3:8: “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends, with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”
      So rationally thinking from both view points, they could go hand in hand, if God was the greatest scientist who ever existed, he created the earth for billions of years letting it evolve, which only appeared as 7 days to man in Genesis. Now If only creationists weren’t so damn blinded with pride.

    • Elkhorn

      “Because who needs proven scientific fact when you’ve got an ancient book
      written by people who lacked the imagination to even realize they were
      only inhabiting about two-percent of the entire Earth”

      That cracked me up and almost spilled my coffee. Nice one!

    • Brandon Roberts

      true look i agree with these guys that being said they don’t have to watch it and it’s just some peoples opinions and a theory but to make any atheists on here feel better i’m an anti-logic idiot there i made a little fun of myself and i know it will be a bunch of atheists going after christians on here it’s o.k i have my beleifs as they theirs (no offense to any atheists here’hope no hard feelings)

    • Bob White

      Good Lord… what a bunch of pagan idiots. The Christian fundamentalists, I mean.

      If a fundamentalist’s child has a physical malady that modern science can relieve… I kind of think they’d convert for the cure.

      Jeebus… it’s sad.

      • PatrickPlante

        If science cure’s the kid, it would be a miracle, God would have directed the hands of the doctors…, but if it failed, it should be called ‘God’s will’.

        That’s how sick fundamentalist’s are. That should be insulting to hear when a surgeon has a 10+ hours straight operation, saves a life and then the family said ‘It’s a miracle, thank God…’, oh yeah, by the way, the surgeon has nothing to do with that…, let’s just pray!

    • SimonLeigh

      Intelligent design doesn’t seem too bright if it never drops a design and starts afresh. Who wrote the Bible again? I forget. Was it Jesus or God? I find it easy to follow but impossible to believe.

    • andychannelle

      Just wait until they see episode 2…

    • imageWIS

      The next time someone states that the 10 Commandments have to be followed, be sure to point out the other 603 that they aren’t following… although I’ll bet they aren’t really following the 10 either.

    • Ken Roach Jr.

      And most scientific references come from the same Bible.

    • Lkball

      The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

      • swift_4

        Scientifically, fear shuts down logic and reasoning, and increases your capacity for either fight or flight. Someday, if we don’t destroy ourselves or make our environment unsustainable for our form of life, our evolution will continue and perhaps we’ll be beyond such things.

        Perhaps our evolution is designed to bring us closer to a God who created a universe with a Big Bang.

    • ageron

      It’s a good thing Jesus was crucified rather than drowned or else these people would have to walk around with an aquarium.

    • deerpark101

      I don’t know if the author of this ignorant article was aware that half of this show was based off of theories. Big Bang = Theory, Evolution = Theory, nothing Tyson said showed evidence of the “Big Bang” creating Earth as we know it today. All you blind little science freaks are just as bad as these religious freaks in the sense that you BLINDLY accept what’s on TV in the name of SCIENCE as the TRUTH. Blindly accepting something is called “FAITH”.

      IF you little imbeciles actually cared about science you’d go do some real homework and figure out the mathematical probabilities of life forming. See here : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2227/

      The minimum gene concept takes the smallest living cell which
      contains 496 genes and tries removing them one by one to mimic an
      evolutionary start from 0 genes. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH found they could only get to 200
      genes before the cell is non functional. Completely disproves evolution. Not only that–the chance of creating ONE functional protein in a cell is 10^164th power. And its only been 10^16th seconds since your little “big bang theory”.

      Here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+C2C-InTheNews+%28Feed+-+Coast+to+Coast+-+In+the+News%29

      Shows the smallest particle of matter having the golden ratio of
      1.618. If the universe was all created at random, consistencies in the
      1.618 ratio would not be seen in a small particle of nonliving matter. The golden ratio is seen in nature everywhere (flowers, shells, humans, acorns, pinecones, trees, snowflakes, EVERYWHERE).

      There are tons of other constant variables that MUST
      have gone right for life to even occur. For life to even begin to have a chance at forming we must have: a constant force of
      gravity, atmosphere with water and oxygen to sustain life, perfect
      distance from the sun to heat the planet yet not be too cold, an ozone
      layer to protect us from the sun, enough land for life to thrive on, a
      molten magnetic moving core, a moon, a perfect spot in the galaxy where
      it’s not volatile and full of debris, and the list goes on. All of this
      to chance is too large a number to even imagine and that’s just for the
      ABILITY to have life, let alone create proteins that all bind in a
      specific order to form life. The hemoglobin alone contains 141 amino
      acids in which all 4 bases must be in a specific order. Now take all the billions of cells in your brainless human bodies and times all those cell probabilities together to get your answer. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to leave this to chance.

      • ToyBoxofGuns

        You haven’t the slightest clue what a scientific theory is. Scientific theory isn’t the same as saying “I have a theory about _____”, scientific theory is demonstrated through repeated and falsifiable evidence, evidence backed up by fact that is beyond proven. Gravity is also a theory, why don’t you test your “faith” by jumping off the nearest 15 story building? Let’s see how seriously you take scientific theory after that. No, but you go ahead and stick to the talking donkeys, snakes, incestuous miraculously created first couple and a guy that fit every living thing on a boat because it rained really hard.

        It’s funny that you lambaste science in one breath, and then in the other attempt to use it to justify your own position. “SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH!!! …that I accept in this one instance because it supports my ridiculous assertions if you squint really hard and misconstrue everything…”

        You’re a hack. If there is a God, you defecate on everything that that God put in this universe for us to understand and be a part of. You are a disgrace to our species, to our country and to yourself.

        Better luck in the next life, because you have most certainly failed in this one.

        • deerpark101

          Great so you’re saying if I can demonstrate repeated evidence of evolutionz and big bangz then it must be true?!?! When you develop your time machine let me know so I can go back to when the Big Bang happened and watch it through my deloreon space ship. All you guys need was to see a 3D rendering of this theory so it must be true omgz. You totally disregarded my topics too disproving your little illusion theories..

          You totally disregard every correct fact about Noah’s ark. God sent a flood to destroy a hybridized version of man called Nephilim. If you want to do research on Nephilim, read the countless stories and the countless fossil evidence of giant 15-30 foot human beings around the world. They also go by the name of Gigantopithecus, Rephaim, Anakim, Emim, Gibborim. It’s really simple if you don’t believe in God why don’t you do your own research and try and disprove the bible? If the bible is such a mythological story then why hasn’t it been disproven once yet? I guess the 2000 prophecies fulfilled big and small weren’t enough for you because it’s not science. I guess the mathematical secrets hidden in the the texts are not enough proof. I guess all 66 books penned by 40 authors over thousands of years with precise accuracy and historical consistency wasn’t enough for you. Go look up the four blood moon tetrad prophecy that’s falling over all Jewish holidays starting in April and compare it to world events happening now.

          http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/blood-moons-fallout-nasa-goes-hiding/

          • Churchlady320

            That story of Noah began with the Assyrians and predates the story in the Bible. Hard to rely on it as anything other than an interpretation of events rather than a chronicling of them. Taking the Bible as a synopsis and metaphor does not undermine its most profound role – pushing us always toward greater equality and justice and inclusiveness. If you’ve missed that point in both the prophets and in Jesus, then you’ve sort of missed the whole point.

          • alarmclocktothestars

            “If the bible is such a mythological story then why hasn’t it been disproven once yet?”

            AAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. Are you serious? If so, please, don’t ever have children.

          • Brugger Meister

            OH NO, HE HAS A LINK TO WND.COM. HIS ARGUMENT IS NOW FLAWLESS.

          • Johnny__Fever

            … “giant 15-30 foot human beings” …
            100 points for such excellent trolling

        • Churchlady320

          Thank you. So many people say, “Ya know – I have a theory about that…” meaning a HUNCH. We have done such a poor job teaching the INDUCTIVE scientific method we have a nation that believes too much that any tickle of an idea is a theory. I appreciate your discussion of how you build and test theories from EVIDENCE.
          Religion is DEDUCTIVE and might well make some profound metaphysical declarations, but it leads to false premises that in turn lead to false outcomes. Even we in the Protestant world respect and rely on science without a worry in the world it does anything but make us more wise.

      • alarmclocktothestars

        HAHAHA.
        Hey Jethro, let me rephrase your whole post for you:
        “I don’t understand science, therefore nobody must be able to”

      • anon1157

        “Theory” in science is the equivalent of “fact” for everyday speech. Just because you choose not to believe in evolution or the big bang does not mean they didn’t happen because they did. You can BELIEVE the earth is flat but that won’t change its spherical reality. You can disbelieve in gravity but guess what, it’s reality and so is evolution!

    • Trevor

      Dear ignorant masses- the next time you are sick please stay home and pray. Medicine is anti Jesus.

    • Per

      I’m tempted to say that the people behind these tweets aren’t fit for responsibility, and should be assigned legal guardians. Stop using your computers, phones, cars, homes and medicines right now, since you denounce that which makes them possible.

    • http://slrman.wordpress.com/ James Smith

      The tweets demonstrate the stubborn stupidity and willful ignorance of the religious. That’s the reason the USA is falling behind so many more rational countries.

      • Churchlady320

        SOME religious yes. Please remember we are not all the same.

    • Dan Rios

      So much hate. Culture is a strong thing people. Calling others stupid because they’ve been raised their entire lives to believe something is just unfair. Regardless of what we believe or know, it’s not right to look down on others for where their philosophical journeys have brought them.

      • Kitty Smith

        Yes, yes it actually is, because these people act on these belief and vote on them at the very least, and fuck over science education locally as well.

      • ToyBoxofGuns

        These people are adults. They are done being raised. I’m hoping they no longer believe in Santa Claus as well, though that is less ridiculous than many beliefs *cough* Adam and Eve *cough*.

        I have never met anyone that did not believe something they were not complete and fully willing participants in. Their parents are no longer responsible for them, it’s time they grow up and become accountable for their ignorance. I don’t care what someone’s personal beliefs are, but when they use those personal beliefs to deny truth, fact, science, and common sense, then they put their beliefs and their personal opinions on the table for scrutiny and dissection. No one else has done that but themselves. No one forced them to put their opinions online and attack basic scientific fact and common sense, they made those attacks and voiced their own opinions, and people have a right to call them out on those “opinions”. Because you don’t get to choose fact, as it is by definition not a matter of opinion. And by denying fact they are justifiably called out on that ignorance.

        The world would be a much better place if ignorance were confronted more often and not allowed to poison people’s minds and spirits.

        • Churchlady320

          Will you also confront the fundamentalism of those who assert that all people of faith are evil dupes? Because while a good portion of my work is to uphold the rights of NON believers via our civil rights and other laws, I see the same dogmatic evil from those who pay no attention to the huge diversity within religions, denominations, beliefs.
          Among non believers it has become perfectly OK to violently abuse progressive Christians and others in guilt by association. It is also bad science – at least bad statistics – to reason from the individuals to the whole without evidence. What is the POINT of rejecting people who are in agreement with your views and principles?

      • Schneibster

        It’s not philosophy.

        There’s no super magic daddy in the sky. There’s no pie in the sky when you die. We’ve been in the sky. We know for sure.

        Similarly, the Earth is not flat.

        Humans, like all life on Earth, evolved. We are not special, not the pinnacle of creation, just another species that will be gone again in another few million years (or less than that if we keep fouling our nest).

        The entire universe developed by natural, random processes, including Earth and everything on it. Including life. Including us.

        Early in human history we had two species of brothers and sisters: Neanderthals and Homo Erectus. We interbred with them both and carry those genes today, and they have been positively identified. Neither were “ape men;” in fact we now know for sure Neanderthals spoke, and we’re pretty sure Erectus did too. Neither was a great deal hairier than we are, and only Erectus had a face we’d consider… different, primarily due to a longer upper lip and higher flatter nose, and a somewhat sloped forehead.

        These are facts. Philosophy has nothing to say about them. None of this is hate. It’s simply truth.

    • Katie Gared

      Honestly, the grammar in most of those tweets offended me more than the ignorance to understanding scientific theories.

    • Cain

      Just lost brain cells reading their comments, I can not believe the disillusion people have nowadays. I’m so over humanitty

    • Sam W.

      I love my country but am gravely embarrassed by many of my countrymen. Shameful, willful ignorance. And of course it’s pointless to argue with them. One cannot have a battle of wits with those who are unarmed.

    • Buddah Dave
    • http://zachsmind.wordpress.com/ ZachsMind

      Neil Tyson is a liar! Everyone with a brain knows Magrathea created The Earth thousands of years ago as a megacomputer to factor out the question to the answer of life the universe and everything, and that the Earth is secretly run by lab mice. A day will come when The Earth will be destroyed by Vogons to make way for a new hyperspace bypass! Are your thumbs ready?

    • Wanumba

      The talibornagain strike again. Such ignorance, such stupidity..such is religion.

    • James Hickman

      The great beauty of reality is that belief matters less then manure.

    • Truth be told

      What the heck? I wonder what all those people would say if you mentioned the Bible says the sun goes around the earth…

    • Gunnut2600

      The sad thing is so many people think that the Big Bang Theory invalidates Christian Theology which is weird seeing as Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, first proposed it and the actual common used name for it was actually an insult created by Sir Fred Hoyle to mock the concept as he proposed a steady state universe.

      Like the Big Bang Theory, the Catholic Church has continued to support the Theory of Evolution for a longer period of time than even some secular institutions in the US.

      I was honestly disappointed by the show, but on grounds that iwas more fluff material than hard science. The product placement was also quite cheesy. If felt more like trying to watch the Super Bowl than an actual documentary or science show.

    • Guest

      Jesus has already returned! #i’mrighthere

    • Andrew Sinchar Spears

      Lmao… People are so funny… I just don’t have the energy to argue with right winged idiots this morning Lol dumb dumb’s!!!!

    • Danab

      Do americans really think like this or are these statements just picked among thousands of answers? This is really worrying. :I I know we see these comments all the time on 9gag how people think USA is 2000 years old, or that evolution isn’t true. But come on, this is just too much. Neither evolution nor what life is actually made of (Cosmos tells the truth) are in conflict with people’s belief in God. WHAT…..THE….HELL….DO…..YOU….TEACH…TO THE KIDS IN AMERICA?
      Keep religion (teaches us how to be better men, to respect one another, to have in faith in Lord) OUT of real life issues such as science (tells us where we came from, what things are, how they work, how we can make our society better) and politics.
      This isn’t an opinion, it’s common sense.

      • AnnieH

        Hold up, people actually think that the US is 2000 years old? What? This is the first I am hearing of this. We really are heading for another dark age.

        • Churchlady320

          No – some think the US was brought by Jesus who lived 2000 years ago, more or less. Even some of our most dumb Dominionists don’t believe the US was created 2000 years ago.

      • dustyjo

        All of that stuff IS taught in America, but then their families maek a ruckus about it and tell them that it’s not true, and to just do the work in order to pass. In fact, all textbooks that mention evolution at all in my state are required to have a disclaimer. http://www.driko.org/blogicons/evolution_disclaimer.jpg

        • Churchlady320

          In itself this statement is ludicrous since theory is made FROM facts. One cannot prove anything in creationist views. It’s just there. That is the absolute opposite of science, and evolution is science.

        • anon1157

          Whoever wrote that failed to realize that when something attains “theory” status in science it’s virtually synonymous with “fact” for our everyday speech.

      • Nick Green

        It’s not just America, it’s the orthodox believers. Mom is orthodox Catholic in Portugal and doesn’t believe in Evolution, etc.

    • Ken Roach Jr.

      All the comments in this section shows the ignorance and close mindedness of this society, all the unexplained science theories are because they are afraid to acknowledge that a God does exist and that he had a hand in all of creation. There is no reason why God and science can’t Co exist in all theories of todays society.

      • Churchlady320

        Theories are built from FACTS. They are constantly changing, but they rarely are disproven entirely. No one – and I mean NO ONE – is dislocating you from accepting or believing God had a hand in creation. But you cannot use that as a testable fact under the scientific method. It is NOT the issue.

      • anon1157

        Science just reveals truth, there is no consideration for what we WANT to exist…if a “God” exists it will be made apparent. So far there is no evidence for one.

    • JunkChuck

      This stuff is priceless. “Thank god” for christians. My day would have a lot less laughter without them.

    • Angela Diliberti Feuring

      These tweets give new meaning to the term “religitards”

    • JvB

      Listen, I’m an atheist too. But I don’t agree with the hostility and hatred towards religion. Some of my favorite people in my life are deeply religious. And some of those people respect science enough to not turn a blind eye. I realize that there is ignorance out there but it’s on both sides. I believe we can prove the benefits of science without being a total jerk to someone else’s beliefs.

      • Paddy Kelly

        You say “I realize that there is ignorance out there but it’s on both sides”. Not true. There is arrogance on both sides. Shouty atheists bug the crap out of me too. But here is ignorance on only ONE side. That’s what science is, the struggle to become less ignorant. It’s the WHOLE POINT.

        • Churchlady320

          Very well said. Thank you.

      • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

        There is no ignorance on both sides. People following scientific discovery can hardly be described as ignorant; quite the opposite. However, taking a staunch opposition to something they know nothing about is the purist definition of the word.

        And why must someone’s beliefs be respected when they are either incorrect, impossible, unproven and thoroughly discredited? Why must we always cater to the lowest common denominator in intelligence? This regressive attitude just holds society back.

        • Thomas S.

          I disagree, there is definitely ignorance on both sides. It depends on who you mean though. The scientists are not ignorant of their particular fields. But if you agree with “science” in general (and you should), that doesn’t mean you can’t be ignorant about stuff too.

          Evidence: everyone on this thread is smugly laughing at the religious people for blindly following their book while blindly assuming that the story of Bruno as presented in the show is factually accurate, which it most definitely is not. The guy was NOT a martyr of science and his whole life story was changed with a lot of artistic license.

          I’m an atheist, all I’m saying is we should recognize our own preconceptions and assumptions and not just poke fun all day.

        • Churchlady320

          When you decide you can sneer and deride Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for his faith, when you can dismiss Rev. William Sloane Coffin for his leadership in the anti-war movment, when you can deride and sneer at the nuns on the bus, and the one who just went to prison for peace, then do tell me you’re doing this from wisdom.

          You probably have no idea what any of us think or believe. If you reduce us to superstitious worshippers of a ‘sky god’ you prove you have no knowledge and are engaged in reductionism.

          You are hearing on this post from people who do represent one thread – ONE – of religion. The vast majority of us would not remotely agree with them. But if you wish to throw every leader fighting for civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights, immigrant rights etc. and all the people of faith who love science into that same pot – that is insufferable illogic and superstitious nonsense from you.

          • RuariJM

            You were doing pretty well till you mentioned the Nuns on the Bus…

          • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

            Mercifully, I don’t ~care~ what any of you think or believe. Religions can happily exist as far as I’m concerned, as long as their actions in no way impact my life.

            This is not the case, however. On a daily basis, the overwhelming power of religion is demonstrated around the world in the form of wars, misogyny, homophobia, and attacks on those who have differing points of view.

            I’m sick of seeing debates where “science” is put on the same pedestal as religion when the two are mutually exclusive. “Science” is a term, somewhat incorrectly used nowadays, to describe the process of learning through reason, discovery and evidence. These are three concepts that sparsely appear in any religion. Anyone who states that a religious superstition has any place in answering meaningful questions on origin are extremely misguided.

            Within America, religious groups won’t engage in violence to the extend of the middle east; instead, they lobby and try to legislate their unfounded beliefs to impose upon non-believers. This proselytizing affects me. It’s unwanted and unwelcome.

            If religion is kept out of the educational system, and out of government, then there’s no reason why people can’t believe whatever they want. It doesn’t make it true, but they can continue to delude themselves for all I care. But I don’t want it in my life; I don’t want it affecting me. Is this so hard to understand?

          • anon1157

            Okay, so you believe in evolution and you are a Christian, that’s good. I mean, it doesn’t matter because it’s true no matter what but it’s great that you acknowledge it. So my question for you is: why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Was it because of sin? Because in order for original sin to even be real Adam and Eve had to be real and they weren’t.

      • Churchlady320

        Thank you. I work for a large Protestant organization. Everyone within the membership of over 1 million accepts science, believes in evolution, and works for justice which includes upholding the rights of non believers who are absolutely our peers, friends, allies. But I do get tired of the violence directed at me and us by those who engage in reductionism and think everyone who has faith is just evil and Jerry Falwell Lite. It is hard to keep fighting for the civil rights of others when those others are bashing you. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

    • Lauren

      So happy to see Cosmos doing so well and sparking so much conversation. :-)

      Also: http://www.mediaite.com/online/tyson-religion-and-science-can-be-compatible-just-dont-use-the-bible-as-a-textbook

    • http://www.facebook.com/devedsmith David Smith

      Are these real tweets? What a bunch of retards.

    • Mortalc01l

      It strikes me that an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent being could arrange it so that a book purporting to be his divine word, could be impossible to misinterpret, misrepresent, or otherwise be buggered up.

      Instead we have a book that doesn’t have any knowledge in it that isn’t specific to the time it was written in. No mention of semiconductors or maglev or the Americas; no logarithms or calculus… nothing of actual use… just bizarre proclamations that a bat is a bird and that God hates people who eat shellfish or wear mixed cloth…

      Seems quite unlikely that the argument used that the Universe is SOOOOOOOO complex that it had to be created by God, isn’t more thoroughly examined! If the universe is SOOOOOO complex, then doesn’t an all powerful, immortal being who can be everywhere and can read all our naughty thoughts have to be INFINTELY more complex than the supposedly too complex universe?

      • Richard_thunderbay

        You’d think that an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent being that actually loves us (as Christians allege) wouldn’t bother even with a book. That being could make its existence and intentions as self-evident as the sun in the sky.

        • Churchlady320

          Outside of the appendix (clear evidence we are works in progress- what a useless appendage for no purpose) I never could understand why if there is an all knowing God babies are born NOT knowing a thing about that omniscient force. That actually makes no sense. For people of faith who are not fundamentalists but who try to unpack the teachings of that heritage, all faith really can be is the quest for truth, a never ending process in which science is ESSENTIAL to that experience. We don’t believe in an all powerful all knowing being much less the cranky Santa Claus with a list that keeps tabs on every sin. So we agree with you – if that were what it was all about, it would be a colossal waste.

        • anon1157

          People delude themselves to the point where they don’t ask themselves these questions…that’s how they remain in their delusions.

    • Diogo

      Can’t these “fundies”, at least, follow the wise words of Prof. Georges Lemaitre (catholic priest, director of Vatican’s Academy and first to postulate the Big Bang) that religion
      and science are completely separate and, therefore, they can co-exist as
      different, parallel interpretations of the world? I do not fully agree with the statement because of the wicked atrocities done in name of religion, but at least it does not jeopardize science development and popularization.

      • RuariJM

        Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic and these posters (14 of them… out of an audience of how many?) – or others like them – often declare that the Pope is the AntiChrist.

        I don’t entirely agree with the statement as quoted by you. Where would that ‘separate but equal’ idea leave Rev Gregor Mendel (father of genetics), the Rev Pavlov (father of psychology), the Cambridge graduate in Divinity, Isaac Newton (the father of modern physics, as well as decimal currency); and others such as Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Bernard Bolzano, Francesco Maria Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, William of Ockham (the razor guy), etc, etc?

        The Jesuits led the world in the study of earthquakes – they devised and developed seismology. The Order has also been described as “the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century.” By the eighteenth century the Jesuits had “contributed to the
        development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting
        telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as
        magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before
        anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s
        surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorised about
        the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical
        possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the
        wave-like nature of light (Jonathan Wright, “God’s Soldiers”).

        That’s just the Jesuits and a few others.

        To anyone who was unaware of that and shoots their mouth of about ‘ignorance’, maybe a while spent studying oneself in the mirror and reflecting on whence came the knowledge on which the modern world is based would be a good idea.

        • Diogo

          I think your critical thinking has been atrophied by religion. I just feel sorry that happened to you. Once again, what I was trying to imply is that those religious people that truly made accomplishments in science were capable to keep theology separated from science. More importantly, they valued the necessity of evidences to confirm their original ideas. In fact, Lemaitre rejected the statements made by Pope Pius that his ideas of Big Bang was the confirmation of Genesis. The reason is that Lemaitre thought that if the evidences proved him wrong that would be a strong blow against Genesis.
          However, the posts here are ridiculing those stupid religious people that deny scientific evidences because they go against what is stated on religious scriptures. As a result, they are grasping and twisting the scientific theories to conform with bullshit theology like incompetent design.

          • RuariJM

            I guess you didn’t bother reading the entire post, then.

            Actually, what specific objection do you have to disagreement with your imposition of a kind of ‘cultural apartheid’?

            BTW – as we are in the context of the Big Bang, if you want a solid example of clinging on to belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary, based on faith and obedience to instructions from custodians of that faith, then read up the history of the Solid State theory of the Universe and the reasons for adherence to it by Fred Hoyle – its chief proponent but not its only disciple.

          • RuariJM

            btw – I have been able to find only one, unsupported, allegation that Pius XII went overboard on Big Bang, to Lemaitre’s embarrassment, as you claim – and no direct quote.

            I checked because the public statement from Pope Pius XII with which I am familiar was made in 1951, to meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation. However, he went on to say – in a good, scientific way! – that the facts needed further investigation, and theories founded upon them need ‘new developments and proofs in order to offer a secure basis for reasoning’.

            However, if you have a quote then please link to it.

            Just a bit of interest – other members of the Pontifical Academy included Max Planck and Schroedinger, the ‘cat’ guy. They didn’t have a problem with religion v science, it would appear – and they were much brighter than anyone on this discussion thread…

            • Diogo

              Ok. Now, you are just irritating me with your dishonesty and poor scientific curiosity and reasoning. Where do you think the statement “that the facts needed further investigation.” came from? How do you think the Pope came up with such statement? It was an advice from Georges Lemaitre, who had been nominated the President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. As a result, Pope Pius never mentioned it anymore because it took several years for the evidences of the Big Bang to appear.
              Again, Max Planck, Schroedinger, Galileo, and many others were for sure brighter than you because they kept theology separated from science in the sense they were not afraid to accept proved hypothesis that went against religious scriptures. The people being ridiculed here simply refuse to accept the great amount of evidences proving earth is not flat, earth is older than 6000 years, that we share common ancestral with chimps/gorillas, etc.
              Why would you bring a useless and obsolete theory like Steady-State? Fred Hoyle also denied Darwinian evolution. He is one example of scientists refusing to accept evidences on the grounds they do not conform with their view of the universe. The Universe does not give a damn about your view, religious or not, just follow the evidences wherever it leads.

            • RuariJM

              Sorry if my insistence that on what I said, rather than what you or
              someone else would like me to have said, is annoying. Actually, no I am
              not. I find it annoying to have words put in my mouth and ideas that I
              have no truck with ascribed to me.

              I strongly suggest you follow your own advice and follow the evidence where it leads.

              Where, do you maintain, have I mixed theology and science? I have disagreed with you that science and religion should always be separate and have provided evidence. spanning several centuries, of scientists who were also clerics. How is that entangling theology with anything?

              “The people being ridiculed here” – Maybe you should read a few more posts. ALL religion and religious people are being ridiculed by the majority of posters on this thread – there is no discrimination. They wouldn’t recognise a proper scientific theory and the conduct of scientific method if it smacked them in the face – and I fear your posts indicate that you are following the same path: leaping to conclusions and refusing to budge, even when the route of investigation is handed to you.

              Why mention Fred Hoyle? Because he clung on to an idea that had long been shown to be wrong – I mentioned Steady State and you have added Darwinian evolution, which I would not disagree with.

              The reason why Hoyle clung on to Steady State – ultimately, to the detriment of his own reputation although he was rather influential for some while – was because of his philosophical alignment. He was a Left-social democrat, verging on Communist, and the Communist Party so hated the fact that it was a Catholic priest that had come up with Big Bang that it remained ideologically opposed to it far beyond the point of reason. He clung onto what was, in effect, faith-led dogma, in the face of all evidence that he was wrong.

              Just goes to prove – diehard atheist scientists can be ignorant, hidebound fools enslaved to dogma, as much as anyone they accuse of it. He was as bad as any of the Tweeters reproduced above.

              Anyway, if you can come up with any examples where I have enmeshed theology with anything, rather than merely pointing out that there have been numerous scientists down the ages who were also religious, thus challenging the idea that science and religion are always separate and incompatible, then by all means refer me to my quote. That’s MY quote, not what you might think someone else said on my behalf.

            • Diogo

              Again, science and religion are incompatible. They are two parallel interpretation of the universe that can co-exist in your mind very strongly. Moreover, darwinian and big bang theories are examples how the notion of god is superfluous. But, I have nothing against people attributing to “god” phenomenon that science have not yet explained. People are hardwired to do that. I’d rather say “I don’t know”.

            • Churchlady320

              I think you will find that many now exploring quantum physics are people of faith. They are perfectly open to discovering whatever IS to be discovered, but it also is an exciting investigation into a very new way of learning what we now call the metaphysical. Of COURSE it is science and the beliefs and non beliefs are irrelevant, but the quest for discovering there is more than meets the eye is very energizing to those who never needed a Big Guy in the Sky type of faith but do think there is something beyond the material. This may well explain a lot of that. All to the good, and it’s not scary to anyone.

            • Diogo

              No, no, no, no. Present the evidences my churchlady. 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (top American scientists) and similar number in UK do not have faith in “god”. One of the reasons for that is that they, just like me, think the magnificent discoveries, such as Darwinian evolution and Big Bang, make the idea of supernatural god superfluous. This will keep going as science keep providing the answers to our most fundamental questions.
              I am sorry, but when you say “very new way of learning what we now call the metaphysical”, scientists like Feynman and Sagan are laughing at your face. Science is about empirical research, hypothesis, experimentation, measurements, theories. How metaphysical can be formulated using the scientific method?
              Where are your evidences for “but do think there is something beyond the material”? Don’t you think it is as stupid as saying “think there is a flying spaghetti monster or the tooth-fairy going around somewhere”?
              I think you are the scary one because you cannot simple gave up the stupid and nonsense idea that there is no heaven, afterlife, or supernatural creature looking after us. We are here by ourselves and that is it, face the reality as it is and follow the evidences wherever it leads.

      • Churchlady320

        The RW fundamentalists would NEVER accept the word of a Catholic.
        But let’s not suppose that ALL the atrocities are from religion. Science has had its share at least from the 19th century on. A Bomb. Tuskeegee experiment. Zyclon B. Mengele. Just because we dislike them, we cannot ignore the profound role science had in finding new and improved ways to do harm when applied. No side is without major human arrogance that has led to abuses.
        It is true that religion and science could work in tandem because they ask very different questions – or should. One hopes that we can unpack those concerns and find some kind of maturity in both.

        • Diogo

          Hey Churchlady 320, I have one quote for you: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be
          silent”. Since I abominate religion (Fuck god and jesus) and reply your question.
          At least, RW fundies are not hypocritical as the catholic since they do not go around cherry-picking the supposed-to-be sacred and supposed-to-be literally interpreted christian scripture. It is not the word of catholics they should accept, but the scientific community’s.
          I just laugh when people claim that atrocities like Tuskegee were made because of a scientific mentality. When you say “science had in finding new and improved ways to do harm”, you are dishonest and ignorant because human being is capable of evil things and capable of usurping the scientific method. Don’t you think science have allowed that million of lives to be saved? Who is responsible for a dramatic decrease on infant mortality and higher life expectancy? Religious are major community that behaves as a parasite restraining the development and popularization of science to improve our lives (e.g., contraception, stem cell research, stupid creationist teaching, institutionalized persecution on scientists such as Galileo, etc.).
          I am impressed crapholic church is the only business to keep its clients with a department of child prostitution and human barbecue (offline for now).

    • Joseph H.

      Yes……we are antichristian because we wanted answers to lifes big questions, and found some that didn’t involve your gods. Yet, even after we find answers, we continue looking for a better understanding of the truth. That is science

      • RuariJM

        In case you missed it above…

        Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic and these posters (14 of them… out
        of an audience of how many?) – or others like them – often declare that
        the Pope is the AntiChrist.

        Allow me also to mention Rev Gregor Mendel (father of
        genetics), the Rev Pavlov (father of psychology), the Cambridge graduate
        in Divinity, Isaac Newton (the father of modern physics, as well as
        decimal currency); and others such as Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi,
        Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Bernard Bolzano, Francesco Maria
        Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher
        Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli,
        William of Ockham (the razor guy), etc, etc.

        The Jesuits led the world in the study of earthquakes – they devised
        and developed seismology. The Order has also been described as “the
        single most important contributor to experimental physics in the
        seventeenth century.” By the eighteenth century the Jesuits had
        “contributed to the
        development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting
        telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as
        magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before
        anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s
        surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorised about
        the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical
        possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the
        wave-like nature of light (Jonathan Wright, “God’s Soldiers”).

        That’s just the Jesuits and a few others.

        To anyone who was unaware of that and shoots their mouth of about
        ‘ignorance’, maybe a while spent studying oneself in the mirror and
        reflecting on whence came the knowledge on which the modern world is
        based would be a good idea.

    • Barry Evans

      How do all of these braindead wazocks even manage to dress themselves in the morning? 0o Seriously, they’re as thick as shit.

      And it’s Anti-Christian agenda… Man, talk about paranoia and a persecution complex. They really are easy to rile up, aren’t they?

    • Matt

      I agree with you– however, when you said the bible was written by “people who lacked the imagination to even realize they were only inhabiting about 2% of the entire earth,” you’d already lost me. Imagination is not what produces fact.. It actually is quite the other way around. It was imagination that created what I believe to be a beautiful part of human history; a time when myth and wonder moved and mystified nearly everyone (remember, organized religion was only one type of worldview). Unfortunately, these myths still somehow exist for most of our species, even though they’ve been proven impossible a long time ago. Regardless, taking screenshots of their tweets and laughing at them doesn’t seem to be convincing them otherwise… But if it was an atheist circle-jerk you were going for, good job. You’re a wonderful journalist.

      • SecludedCompound

        Well, it shames some people into not accepting stupid things as truth; that’s a start.

        • Matt

          I’ve never met a Christian that came to realize the truth by getting made fun of. In fact, back when I was a Christian in high school, it took the generosity of my now best friend for me to even listen to his side seriously… Most encounters I had had with atheists prior had been no better than the encounters I have with Christians now.

          • Marc-André Jutras

            Science, unlike religion, doesn’t ask people to “convert” others. Therefore, we can make fun of stupid people. :) In science, believe or not into something doesn’t make it more or less true.

            • RuariJM

              Like your apparent belief that it is impossible for someone to be both a Christian and a scientist, for example?

              It doesn’t matter how hard you cling onto that belief, it will not make it true.

            • Marc-André Jutras

              What are you talking about? I think it’s totally possible to be both Christian and scientist. However, you’ll have to be open minded on one side or the other. For example, you may have to not take by the word everything in a religious text. If say, you see the Genesis as a parable for the universe’s creation.

              Science does not prove or disprove God’s existence and does not wish to.

    • cliveklg

      “5.8 million viewers for the hour” Given Fox news network at its peak times only pulls a million viewers, that is pretty respectable.

      I suspect if it were on a channel other than Fox, it would do much better.

    • bob

      Next thing you know, they’ll find out that the world is not flat and the sun doesn’t orbit the earth. What will they do then?

    • BitterTech

      6000 years old, guys. They think it’s only 6000 years old. Nuff said.

    • Christopher Martin

      Our useless, lying, worthless, and essentially untrustable prez was the only thing on that show I didn’t like.

      • cuthbert51

        You’re just as bad as any of the people posted in this article.

    • Pugiron

      Religion = Stupid. if you disagree, you’re just too stupid to understand. have your juice box and your nap.

      • Paddy Kelly

        Disagree. And not constructive. Religion isn’t the problem. Religion is fascinating is many ways. Allowing your mind to stop working is the problem. Being STUPID is the problem.

        • cuthbert51

          What is fascinating about religion? I can accept that people have religious beliefs, but it isn’t fascinating that people have stubborn beliefs not grounded in reality.

          • RuariJM

            All you do, cuthbert, is illustrate the vast abyss of emptiness that is your knowledge of religion.

            Where do you think the very concept of human rights came from?

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Are you trying to suggest that the concept of human rights ONLY came from religion? Do you feel ethics only come/can only come from religion?

            • RuariJM

              Are you labouring under the misapprehension that the concept of human rights is a recent phenomenon?

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              No absolutely not. I’ve heard many people claim that ethics can ONLY result from the rules imposed via religions. I think that there can be no “human rights” without the underpinnings of ethics first. And ethics have come from both religious AND non-religious sources back to the beginnings of written law (with Hammurabi in fact).

            • RuariJM

              You will have to expand on that. Whereabouts did Hammurabai lay down the equality of all before the law; the status of women as equals; the outlawing of chattelry; suppression of concubinage; the right to life – just for starters?

              Did ancient Babylon move onto to outlaw slavery, on pain of excommunication, exile or anything similar?

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              No I did not say that. The earliest written evidence of the development of ethics is Hammurabi’s reform of “an eye for an eye”. Then there are the ancient Greeks and the writings of Plato, etc, etc. I taught ethics at a major university to undergraduates. I do actually know what I am talking about. But I’m not going to bother. You don’t want an honest discussion of these things. You just want to be a condescending prick while defending your religious beliefs. You are a waste of time.

            • RuariJM

              ” I do actually know what I am talking about.”

              You do a remarkably good impression of not doing.

              But I’m willing to give it a shot – by all means quote the Hammurabai texts that you refer to. Not assertion, if you would be so kind: chapter and verse.

        • RuariJM

          Like Pugiron, you mean?

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Well, you weren’t able to keep your tone so nice here were you? Passionate argument can tend to degenerate because of emotions. But you claim to be above it all.

            • RuariJM

              I think you are allowing your emotions to get the better of you, ma’am.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Now you want to call me ma’am? Too little, too late.

            • RuariJM

              I hope you don’t think I meant it as a sign of respect.

              It was sarcastic.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Sarcasm doesn’t come across really well on the Internet, particularly poorly done sarcasm. Where I am from ma’am is mostly used as a term of respect. If you’re point was to demean me by calling me ma’am you failed miserably. I was going to engage in some civil discourse with you about the origin of ethics and human rights but apparently you want to continue to be a jerk. Suit yourself.

            • RuariJM

              “Sarcasm doesn’t come across really well on the Internet,…”

              I guess it is a problem in the absence of the wherewithal to understand it.

              btw – do you know what ‘Pentateuch’ means?

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Nope, just your inability to communicate sarcasm in writing. As for Pentateuch, you truly think I know nothing. FFS Penta meaning five and teuchs meaning volumes. As I said elsewhere, you’re a waste of time.

            • RuariJM

              “…you truly think I know nothing”

              “Did you notice the Moses quote and how he supposedly wrote about
              Creation. I know my memory is getting worse as I get older but I’m
              pretty darn sure he didn’t write Genesis.”

              Yes, I must confess I did get that impression. Based on that and other statements from you, I hope you didn’t teach university classes for long.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Oh, you’re still here? I truly don’t care what you think about me and I’m not going to waste more time in a pissing contest with you about who knows more.

              It’s incredibly ironic that you started out by criticizing me for something that I said that is demonstrably true. There is no archaeological evidence that Moses ever actually existed or that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Furthermore, it’s doubtful that a man could write about his own death but according to you and other Bible fanatics……he was able to do just that. Furthermore, you then got on my case about insulting religious people and then proceeded to insult me repeatedly. Pot calling the kettle there. You lost the argument the minute you abandoned the moral high ground in this conversation.

              You’re a religious troll who likes to come to sites that disagree with you and then attempt to insult and belittle the people that post there. I have never, nor would I ever, go to a site where religious people discuss religious things and troll them the way you have here. You know why? Because I totally accept that they can believe whatever they want. But I reserve the right to say they’re dumb for denying the mountain of evidence that says they’re wrong on a site where people of like mind hang out. It’s like taking a piss on someone’s lawn. It’s childish and I don’t do it. So congratulations on winning the award for most childish behavior. I really should have never tried to discuss anything rational with you in the first place. I keep forgetting that with trolls the game is always rigged and that they don’t want to have an honest intellectual discourse. They just want to be assholes and ruin everyone else’s fun.

              You should take your sanctimonious certitude to a site where religious people discuss the totally fantastical stories of the Bible as if they were the actual word of God and discuss idiotic things like the Earth being 6,000 years old and debate things like what kind of underwear non-existent people wore in the Old Testament. Did Moses wear boxers or was he tighty whities kind of guy? That’s the perfect level of interaction for one such as you.

            • RuariJM

              No Hammurabai references, then?

              It’s OK, I’m not disappointed – I didn’t really expect any. From you.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              LOL, nice try, still not biting.

    • John Buchanan

      I am a longtime and devout Christian. But my existence and my faith are more of a mystery to me than a set of “facts.” And my “beliefs” are just that — subjective things that I believe or think on my own — in other words, subjective, not objective.These right-wing “Christians” are just NUTS. Delusional. And they do God or Jesus no favor by being morons.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      What strikes me when looking at these Tweets is the use of phrases like “anti-religious propaganda” or “anti-Christian agenda”. They really buy into their victimhood status don’t they? There is no conspiracy or agenda here. If someone did a documentary explaining the creation myths from different cultures throughout history, would that be “anti-christian” or “anti-religious”? No, it’s history and its simply knowledge. But the scientific explanation of creation THAT gets their panties in a twist.

      • mobycat

        Bill Maher touched on it in Religulous.

    • dadumdee

      It’s hilarious when these zealots use inaccurate religious dogma to justify their fairytales. Sorry Judy T, but the Bible’s creation story does not include Christ (hint: you’re not even in the right Testament).

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Did you notice the Moses quote and how he supposedly wrote about Creation. I know my memory is getting worse as I get older but I’m pretty darn sure he didn’t write Genesis.

        • Bernard Rieux

          The longstanding Christian (and I think Jewish—perhaps Muslim as well?) notion is that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. I don’t buy it any more than you do, but it is a widely accepted religious belief.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Oh, I never knew that! I guess “The more you know!”

            • D_C_Wilson

              Yep. Many believe Moses wrote the first five books in the OT, including the passage that describes his death and burial.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Now THAT was a funny ass comment. /bows to DC

        • RuariJM

          In that case, IrishGrrrl, I have to ask when you last actually opened a Bible, if ever? It is a good idea to have some knowledge of that which you wish to criticise or ridicule – otherwise, you run the risk of making yourself look like an ignorant, prating fool.

          The title of the first book of the Old Testament is “The First Book of Moses, called Genesis”.

          Did he personally write every word? Well, proper grown-ups (who have taken the time to study the subject) think it’s unlikely and also tend to the opinion that he didn’t write the rest of the Pentateuch, either.

          However, as the person accredited with being the Lawgiver and bringing 12 disputatious tribes together and building a kind of unity among them – in particular, in devising regulations to end feuding and endless murder by getting agreement on proportionality in punishments – he did a pretty remarkable job.

          The Law devised and described in the Old Testament is the first example we have of a system of regulation that treated all as equal before the law. Claims may be made for other societies but there is nowhere near the evidence there is for the Mosaic Jews.

          Anyway, as all this new information may have given you a headache, I’ll leave you to absorb it, in the hope that you might even go out and find out some more before making public statements like that again.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            I was raised Southern Baptist and they like to pick and choose what they taught us. What else I know I learned on my own, picking stuff up in bits and pieces–and I thought about it last night and I do vaguely recall being told somewhere along the line that Moses was thought to have written the Pentateuch. In truth the last time I picked up a Bible I was probably 10 or 11 years old….so that’s over 30 years ago…which is appropriate because the Bible is full of fairy tales anyway. In any case my brain holds quite a lot of information and this was one bit I had forgotten, so mea culpa.

            Now to address your tone. I have no problem whatsoever with being corrected (if you look further in this thread you will see that indeed someone did correct me in a polite manner, and I good naturedly, admitted the mistake). There was no need to be an asshole and a pendantic asshole at that.

            • RuariJM

              I am not sure that someone who says “However, I was correct in fact since Moses didn’t frigging exist…” “Now THAT was a funny ass comment.” “Anybody too stoopid for technology does not have to right to keep technology.” has really got any right to criticise the tone adopted by someone else.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Big difference between making a generalized joke versus correcting a particular individual on a very specific statement, don’t you think?

    • Tena Hollingsworth

      O the irony – I guess the christians just decided to ignore the whole Giordano Bruno segment – where the christians burned Bruno alive because he had a brain and used it.

      • AnnieH

        I think that’s the part they see as anti-christian propaganda. They are Bruno deniers!

      • Thomas S.

        That part was BS. I’m atheist and a scientist, but that segment definitely had a propaganda element to it. The Disney villain priests, the image of Bruno as a poor isolated wanderer, getting food and books thrown at him as he tries to enlighten the scientists of the day…

        The problem is, none of that is true. Look up the guy, that’s not how it went down at all. Not to mention he didn’t figure it all out because “he had a brain and used it,” it was literally a lucky guess inspired by reading well known heliocentric ideas. These ideas were also last and smallest on the list of his accused crimes.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of religion, but that portrayal was misleading and factually inaccurate. He was murdered by a closed-minded dogmatic church, but he was no martyr for science. Carl Sagan would have hated that part, in my opinion.

        I loved the rest of the episode though and will definitely continue watching. Just wish it was going for a bit less style at the expense of accuracy.

        • Tena Hollingsworth

          I beg your pardon but you are wrong. Go to Rome and see the statue of Bruno there. They burned him at the stake because he was espousing Epicurean philosophy that was based on atomism. It was dangerous to the church because it clashed with both the Trinity and the theology of the host being the actual blood and body of Christ.

          It’s very close to how it went down in fact. It all arose after Poggio Braccionlini found the lost manuscript of De Rerum Natura by Lucretius and Bruno read it.

          You are wrong – The show as correct and so was I.

          • Thomas S.

            Again, I’m not arguing that he was not murdered by the church because his ideas were dangerous to them. That is true. My point is that he was not a scientist. His cosmological beliehttp://galileo.rice.edu/chr/bruno.htmls were based on his personal views of God, not science. They went beyond scientifically sound principles of the day. He did not attempt to justify them with evidence, but with theological arguments. He was a free thinker, but not a scientist. The show even says this!

            He was not an unemployed vagrant, as the cartoon described. He held many lecturer positions throughout Europe. Another inaccuracy was that the cartoon made it seem as if he returned to Italy because he had nowhere else to go, but in fact he returned because he was offers a job.

            Anyway, I just wish they had used someone who was an actual scientist using the scientific method of tested hypothesis based on observation. Here’s some info supporting my comments:

        • Travoltron

          I’m guessing that was Seth MacFarlane’s contribution to the show. I’m hoping they don’t have have a little animated diversion during every episode.

        • anon1157

          The show never portrayed him as a “martyr for science”, they specifically said that Bruno had a “lucky guess”. The point is that the catholic church killed someone for entertaining thoughts that didn’t align with what they wanted. So no, there was no propaganda, no “misleading” and it was NOT factually inaccurate.

    • William Carr

      The Enlightened version of God is that he made the Universe and like any good builder, made it to work whether he was propping it up or not.

      The tragedy is that the “fundies” can’t understand; Science reveals the Laws of Nature, it doesn’t disprove the Biblical account.

      God said “Let there be Light”…. Science says there was a sudden blast of Light coming from a pinpoint smaller than an atom, that contained all the unthinkable amount of Energy in the Universe today.

      That “photon soup” was so powerful and so hot, that in the first fraction of a second, you could have tossed Mount Everest into it and it would have boiled away.

      Now, I see no conflict here.

      Genesis goes on to say God divided the Firmament above from the Firmament below… that’s the formation of the Planet Earth.

      Again, no conflict.

      Genesis says God set the Moon in the sky; Science says the proto-Moon slammed into the proto-Earth, clung, then ripped off a big chunk and spun up into orbit.

      Again, no conflict.

      The only conflict comes much later when the Hebrew myth of Adam comes in.

      That’s pretty late in the game and not worth really worrying about.

      Some people will persist in believing Adam was made out of clay, others are smart enough to realize that’s not how you make a living organism.

      • Bernard Rieux

        The Enlightened version of God is that he made the Universe and like any good builder, made it to work whether he was propping it up or not.

        That’s your “version of God.” Calling it “Enlightened” is just kissing your own rear end.

        [T]he “fundies” can’t understand; Science reveals the Laws of Nature, it doesn’t disprove the Biblical account.

        Another possibility is that they understand all too well that there are plenty of conflicts between “the Biblical account” and what “Science reveals” (i.e., reality); those believers just aren’t willing to make the (ahem) arguable moves you are in order to reconcile the two sources. Notwithstanding your allegation, the dispute is clearly not based on something that conservative believers do or do not “understand”; it’s a perfectly comprehensible position regarding Biblical exegesis.

        Now, I see no conflict here.

        You’re absurdly cherry-picking passages. Given an honest reading, no, Genesis 1 does not line up with reality.

        The only conflict comes much later when the Hebrew myth of Adam comes in.

        Stuff and nonsense. As merely one example among many, Genesis 1 has plants (indeed grasses and fruit) being created before the moon and stars—which is, in turn, before “the Hebrew myth of Adam comes in.”

        So your assertion that “[t]he only conflict comes much later when the Hebrew myth of Adam comes in” is what we’d call a lie. Why does your exegesis require such blatant dishonesty?

        As Myers writes, in the entry linked above:

        [T]here is no way to line up Genesis with any modern, scientific history of the universe. Why, it looks to me like raw guesswork building on a Middle Eastern oral and written tradition that had no privileged information about cosmology at all!

        You’re welcome to twist the Biblical text and shove in as much hindsight bias as you’d like. It’s just that neither conservative believers nor non-believers are obligated to regard your machinations as reasonable or worthy of respectful attention. Picking an outcome (scientific fact, humane treatment of sexual minorities, etc.) and then figuring out how one can massage ancient mythology to be consistent with that outcome may seem “Enlightened” to you, but many of us regard it as simply disingenuous and dishonest.

        • RuariJM

          You really are determined to stick to your beliefs even in the face of all evidence to the contrary, aren’t you, Bernard?

      • anon1157

        It’s full of conflict. The Bible says that the earth was created in 7 days. And since we know evolution is true the story of Adam and Eve is fiction and therefore there is no sin and therefore Christ couldn’t have “died” for any original “sin” that never happened and therefore there’s no “saving” that needed to be done…and now what do we have?

    • cipher

      These people are the reason the rest of the developed world looks upon us, justifiably, with derision. They’ve made us an international laughing stock.

      We allow them to continue to vote, hold office and reproduce at our peril.

      • Jesse James Richard

        Not just hold office. Run the government.

        • Marc-André Jutras

          Even worst… It will take centuries before an elected president will be able to say he is not christian.

    • Aaron Litz

      “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking
      up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself
      in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly,
      doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to
      have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in
      the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller
      and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s
      going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was
      built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather
      by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch
      out for.”

      -Douglas Adams

      “If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.”
      -HP Lovecraft

      “I am disillusioned enough to know that no man’s opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he’s talking about.”
      -HP Lovecraft

      • mellowjohn

        and a happy douglas adams birthday to all.

        “In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad idea.” –Douglas Adams

        • William Carr

          If it wasn’t for Chocolate, I’d be forced to agree with that position.

    • Razor

      I love the guy using “Cosmos is on TV, wrestling is on TV, so Cosmos is fake” logic. First off, I can actually *see* wrestling, so it’s more real than religion… also, can we start applying this logic to Fox News? They’re basically the pro wrestling equivalent of news anyway.

    • formerlywhatithink

      New Rule (don’t sue me Bill):

      If you don’t believe in science, you are not allowed to use what science has created to denounce science.

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Now THIS is an awesome idea. Anybody too stoopid for technology does not have to right to keep technology.

        • StoyanDeckoff

          I am amazed that all these people have the capacity to grasp the idea of writing, let alone using a PC or phone…

      • Diogo

        Very good. But, do not worry “fundies” because, for example, you will be allowed to fly through my airline company. In our company, our planes are guided by top-notch GPS based on the combination of flat-earth geocentric model and intelligent falling theory. Be sure, you will have a safe flight… to heaven.

        • Bob White

          Perfect!

      • Elvis of Dallas Dot Com

        I think that was one of his new rules, maybe multiple times ;-)

        Of course, if the bible’s rules were followed, there would be no interest at banks. I’d appreciate it if we could have the most pious among us advocate that more than be worried about who each person has sex with… LuLz

        • a_narwhal

          Funny seeing you here! Arnt these just the best? I just HAD to read them to Stephen! lulz

          • Elvis of Dallas Dot Com

            LOL ;-)

      • Kade Krutsinger

        I like this idea. We should do it

      • Acey916

        I agree 100%!! If you dont believe or even try to understand the basic elementary grade sciences then SHUT THE BLEEP UP!!! AND QUIT USING TECHNOLOGY!!

      • Scott

        Here here.

      • Niall Hutton

        Creationists, they’d probably claim that God created the internet as well as computers before saying science did.

    • Frederic Poag

      Just gonna leave this here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo

      • William Carr

        Mountain Dew IS the best soda ever made.

        Green River comes pretty close though.

        • Robert Scalzi

          No dude, Brawndo is the Best soda ever – it has electrolytes

          • http://www.thepixelpuse.com/ Aj Meadows

            It’s what plants crave.

    • villemar

      Boy the Obama intro just drove the right wing bugfuck crazy. So many butthurt crybaby assholes whining and promising not to watch that I felt obliged to point out to them that this show really isn’t for them. They have plenty of other entertainment options ,from their inbred hillbilly Duck show or Honey Boo Boo or Hee Haw reruns. I kind of want Obama to introduce every good show to mark our territory. Right wing bumblefucks shouldn’t have anything nice and if an Obama intro is enough to dissuade them then I’m all for it.

      • Michelle

        “I kind of want Obama to introduce every good show to mark our territory”

        People say this all the time, but I literally did just spit coffee everywhere reading this. Thank you. Totally worth it.

      • JozefAL

        Wouldn’t it be more interesting if Obama introduced more of THEIR shows, like “Dick Dynutsy?”

        (FWIW, I wouldn’t be quite so hard on “Honey Boo Boo”–at least THAT family doesn’t have a problem with their gay member and seems to want him to be just as happy as he can, however that might be.)

        • Bitley Chilton

          That family just has so much gas….

        • danny4572

          So it’s all fine as long as gay is accepted? Heterophobic much? ;)

      • GRSousa

        Come on now, no need to roll “Hee Haw” up with all those other shows.

        • Michael Corry

          I was just going to say the same thing. Hee Haw was actually very entertaining, and while it had a country-folk appearance, it wasn’t willfully stupid or ignorant.

      • JunkChuck

        This might be my favorite post ever.

      • Elvis of Dallas Dot Com

        Living in the deep south (and rural to boot!), I’ve been surprised to hear the people that I know are anything but followers of their proclaimed faiths worry that Obama isn’t religious enough. For all the things I disagree with O on (ummm all the stuff that is either Bush-light or Bush-times-ten), the anti-cult of personality is truly disturbing. I suspect the only thing that would make some people hate the president more is if he walked into one of those “too catch a predator” houses… looking for a teen boy! :-P

        • Brian

          Like a priest or something?

          • Elvis of Dallas Dot Com

            I don’t think priests had to go to those houses. They had a steady supply of lazy/trusting parents delivering the boys.

          • RuariJM

            More likely to be a scout leader or a teacher. Or an ‘uncle’.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Any position of trust and authority over children is sought by child molesters….scout leader, teacher, youth minister, priest. The more trust placed in the position, the more control and less likelihood of being caught….it doesn’t take as much effort to become a scout leader or teacher as it does to be a priest. But considering how many priests molested kids over the years, a whole heck of a log ot them sure worked very, very hard at obtaining that very powerful position of trust. Are you trying to defend the priests and the Catholic Church by saying, ‘well other professions do it too’?

            • RuariJM

              What that has to do with knowing very little about mainstream religion, its ideas and the role of science I know not – except that it seems to be a kind of Godwin’s Law (soon as someone comes up with an inconvenient truth that shows up the ignorance of someone slagging religion off, they will revert to sexual abuse).

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              You’re the one who jumped in and said something about abusers being more likely to be a non-priest. You joined in that sub-thread here. I was just countering your point.

            • RuariJM

              I think you should look just above my post. It was in reply to someone who calls himself Brian.

              Can you see that far up?

        • jumblejunk

          Yeah, being from “there,” that was the biggest thing to push me away from Christianity at an early age. The hypocrisy is so thick, well, they don’t even need all that butter to clog up their hearts.

          /Jesus sounds like he would have been a cool guy. And, in my whole life surrounded by them, I knew, maybe, 2 Christians who actually attempted to emulate him. The rest just used that book to uphold the social bias they had built from the parts of it they could use to justify their nastiness.

          • Elvis of Dallas Dot Com

            I’ve been more fortunate, as I have met many Christians who *actually* believe in the “values” instead of the dogma and the constant judging of others. It’s sad how many people claim to be religious yet fail to demonstrate the values. Many are walking advertisements NOT to join them.

            Down here in the south it’s amazing how often you are cut off by a speeding asshat and as they run in front of you the Jesus fish on their truck becomes visible.

            • jumblejunk

              Ha. Yeah, sounds about right.

              I’m glad you’ve met more than me. It has been a long time since I went back, and I’ve always figured there were pockets that are better (or worse) -because it’s people we’re talking about and that’s how we are.

              You know, if they could (and some do, and I want to thank anyone like that) understand science doesn’t have to threaten how they feel about their god, could keep their personal beliefs off of me by leaving religion out of laws, and just tried to love everyone like their teacher wanted; I think we’d all coexist pretty beautifully. But to lash out at NdT, how rapidly blind do you have to be? The man is nothing but pure awesome ;)

            • Elvis of Dallas Dot Com

              I’m with you my friend, what people want to believe is none of my business as long as it doesn’t impact me. As an old school nerd (programming at 9 or 10 on the TRS-80), I always knew that one day even total idiots would use computers regularly. It isn’t that the spread of technology happened more quickly than I expected, but I am sad that it is used to spread stupidity far more effectively than knowledge.

            • Sean

              Easy guys, I know this is a socially acceptable bigotry but let’s try not to spread hate here, some of this is borderline. I don’t condone burning people at the stake or lobbing off heads in the name of Allah. There are plenty of Christians that don’t believe in the bible literally. I’m sorry you run into people that do that and offend you, but don’t paint us all with such a broad brush. Remember, there are a-holes from all walks of life. I was NOT offended by Cosmos – I loved it. I believe in proven science, I follow the Christian philosophy, and I’m a computer programmer too. You might even want to have a beer and hang out with me, I know that sounds unbelievable but have a little faith. Peace. :)

      • John Hewitt

        I didn’t see the start. Did Obama actually do the intro? Or did they guy think NDT was Obama because he’s black?

        • villemar

          Haha that’s funny…I’m sure a few herpaderps mistook NDT for PBO. No, he actually did do an intro for the series premiere. I caught it a day late so I missed it.

      • Bob White

        Come on now… not all conservatives are inbred hillbilly bumblefucks, watching Duck Dynasty. Though, I have to admit… it’s getting harder and harder to call myself a conservative lately.

        Maybe… Independent? Libertarian?

        In any case… the cosmos is a part of all of us, or rather, we’re all a part of the cosmos. It’s no one’s “territory”.

    • http://josephg.tumblr.com JosephG

      What a fucking bunch of brainless cunts om”g”

      • Bernard Rieux

        That’s disgusting misogyny. Take that shameful garbage elsewhere.

        • Diogo

          Bernard, you seem like the Inquisition restraining and whining about every single comment that ridicules the non-sense and stupidity of those that blindly deny science’s achievements. I have just one quote for you: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. – Thomas Jefferson”. And another one, “A little bit of mockery is refreshing”.

        • La Joya

          Bernard – seriously? Shameful misogyny? For using a swear word? I’m a woman and a feminist. Some people are c*nts. Some people are c*cks or dicks. People who think a tv show celebrating the wonder of the universe is part of an anti creation militant agenda are the cause for concern here. Not people with potty mouths.

    • silhouete2

      Why is it that some religious people just can’t accept the fact that it is entirely possible that God started the ball rolling–and it evolved from there. The problem isn’t with a disparity between religion and science. I am a very religious person and have no problem marrying the two together. The problem is that a certain “bible thumping” version of Christians–who take everything in the Bible literally–can’t deal with stuff like this. If you do that–you have to change the perception of reality–and call shenanigans on science. It used to work in the old days–but it can’t work now.

      • Bernard Rieux

        Why is it that some religious people just can’t accept the fact that it is entirely possible that God started the ball rolling–and it evolved from there.

        Plenty of religious people “just can’t accept that” explanation because it is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with the text of the Bible, not to mention with the concept of an omnibenevolent god. 4.6 billion years of brutal evolution—in which overwhelming suffering and death is an inevitable byproduct—squares very poorly with Genesis, and it is very difficult to understand how a loving deity could have designed (or even tolerated) it.

        (On what basis do you scorn “tak[ing] everything in the Bible literally”? Does religious faith not give religious adherents every right to believe that the deity they worship communicated, in clear terms, in their holy books? Do you take kindly to attempts to sneer at your religious beliefs in that fashion?)

        Meanwhile, from a secular scientific worldview, it is difficult to understand what possible evidentiary basis there could be for concluding “that God started the ball rolling.” There is no need in physics or biology (or any other realm of scientific endeavor) for a deity to have “started” anything—so why would anyone trying to conform her beliefs to reality dream of accepting such a thing? (“[I]t is entirely possible”—really? How do you figure? Is it any more “possible” than the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus? Why should anyone accept the hypothesis you suggest, rather than those two?)

        It seems to me that the “God started the ball rolling–and it evolved from there” position stems entirely from a conclusion-first-then-reasoning attempt to preserve a baseline theistic belief without bothering to pay any serious attention to either Biblical religion or scientific inquiry. But so blatantly attempting to have it both ways just makes no sense: if religious faith is a worthwhile endeavor, then it’s difficult to see what problem there could possibly be with going whole hog and declaring, based on faith, that the Bible disproves Darwin. If, on the other hand, we ought to proportion our beliefs to the evidence, as science requires, the whole notion of a deity “start[ing a] ball rolling” is a baseless flight of fancy. Trying to split the difference just means you dishonor both faith and science.

        • William Carr

          You missed the ENTIRE point.

          You said there’s no need in Physics or Biology for a diety.

          But… and I hope you’re smacking yourself in the face at this point… the LAWS of Physics and Chemistry didn’t HAVE to be what they are.

          The Multiverse theory suggests that in some Universes Matter itself wouldn’t exist, or galaxies wouldn’t form.

          Everything in this Universe is precisely suited for life to develop.

          For example, if the charge balance between electrons and protons weren’t identical within (IIRC) one part in 10^31st … that’s thirty zeroes followed by a 1…. atoms wouldn’t be stable and would fly apart instead of persisting.

          Now, that’s just one example, there’s also hydrogen bonding. That’s why ice forms at the top of lakes and floats instead of sinking, until the entire lake is frozen and all the life forms die.

          This doesn’t PROVE there’s a Diety with a green thumb manipulating Physics so he can grow sunflowers and Rainbow Trout.

          It COULD all be a gigantic string of coincidences, and we’re only here because of an unlikely run of luck.

          Maybe there’s a hundred billion empty Universes where something always went wrong, and the chain of Life was broken.

          But we don’t know.

          That’s the thing; we can’t falsify the argument, so we’ll never know one way or another.

          Part of Science is admitting some questions can’t be answered. But it doesn’t mean asking them is wrong.

          • Bernard Rieux

            You missed the ENTIRE point.

            Hardly. I just recognized that “the point” is irrational and founded on ignorance.

            But… and I hope you’re smacking yourself in the face at this point… the LAWS of Physics and Chemistry didn’t HAVE to be what they are.

            You don’t know that. You have no idea whether “the LAWS of Physics and Chemistry” are even capable of being other than what they are. You have no basis to assert anything of the kind.

            The Multiverse theory suggests that in some Universes Matter itself wouldn’t exist, or galaxies wouldn’t form.

            Indeed! Which explains why we don’t live in any of those universes.

            (How bizarre; what you call “The Multiverse theory” is one prominent reason why your caviling about “the LAWS of Physics and Chemistry [not] HAV[ING] to be what they are” is irrelevant nonsense. Why would anyone familiar with that theory post such silliness?)

            Everything in this Universe is precisely suited for life to develop.

            False, indeed nonsensical. And—as the very “theory” you cite demonstrates!—it’s irrelevant to the point you are confusedly trying to make.

            This doesn’t PROVE there’s a Diety with a green thumb manipulating Physics so he can grow sunflowers and Rainbow Trout.

            Of course not. It doesn’t even imply anything to anyone who does not suffer from your elementary misconceptions about probability.

            It COULD all be a gigantic string of coincidences, and we’re only here because of an unlikely run of luck.

            And it COULD be (indeed very possibly is) the case that the factors you gesture at are not a “run of luck” at all, because no other cosmological constants are even actually possible.

            The “fine-tuning” argument you are pushing here is founded on nothing more than ignorance. Physicists—who happen to be the most atheistic profession in the world—reject it in roughly the same numbers as biologists reject creationism.

            I understand that nonsense about cosmological constants may make you feel more comfortable with your theological flights of fancy, but they do nothing to substantiate a secular case for deities.

            That’s the thing; we can’t falsify the argument, so we’ll never know one way or another.

            Indeed. The same is true for the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and for Norse, Roman, and Greek gods. The question is why you think anyone should take your religious lucubrations more seriously than we take those ones.

            Part of Science is admitting some questions can’t be answered. But it doesn’t mean asking them is wrong.

            What a laughable persecution complex. No one is disputing that “some questions can’t be answered,” and assuredly no one claims that “asking them is wrong.” But your pretense that this disagreement is about religious people asking questions is dishonest in the extreme. Theism posits an answer to specific questions; it doesn’t “ask” them. And, not incidentally, that answer is entirely unfounded in evidence or sound reasoning.

            Science does in fact take a position on accepting propositions—such as the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny—that lack any basis in evidence. That position is that it is improper to accept such propositions. Religious apologists’ attempts to dance around that reality can be amusing, but they don’t actually get you anywhere.

            • William Carr

              I’m going to go with the theory that you just haven’t read up on the subject.

              That would explain why you don’t know about the “different Universes might have different laws” concept.

              “You have no idea whether “the LAWS of Physics and Chemistry” are even capable of being other than what they are.”

              You have no basis to insist they can only BE what they are locally.

              “How bizarre; what you call “The Multiverse theory” is one prominent reason why your caviling about “the LAWS of Physics and Chemistry [not] HAV[ING] to be what they are” is irrelevant nonsense.”

              Okay, I went over it twice. Apart from the obvious technique of insisting you’re right and your opponent is wrong, I can’t parse this at all.

              But then that’s all you had in mind, wasn’t it?

              The Multiverse Theory clearly shows that not all Universes HAVE to have identical laws to our own.

              (And I have a sneaking suspicion the Multiverse Theory might explain the missing “Dark” matter.)

              “But your pretense that this disagreement is about religious people asking questions is dishonest in the extreme. Theism posits an answer to specific questions; it doesn’t “ask” them. ”

              No, Religions ask questions like everybody else.

              (You can’t posit an ANSWER without first asking the Question, and I’m a bit disappointed you’d say that in a bid for a quick debate point… it’s weak. But not surprising.)

              Religious people don’t use the Scientific Method like the rest of us, though.

              And they tend to reply on “inspiration” for their answers.

              My point was basically that Religion should go it’s way, and we’ll go ours, and agree to disagree.

              But there is a surprising amount of overlap here and there.

            • Bernard Rieux

              I’m going to go with the theory that you just haven’t read up on the subject.

              As I demonstrated with my cite to Stenger (apparently you missed it), I have in fact read extensively “on the subject.” Meanwhile, it is clear that you are singularly clueless about it—not that that stops you from blathering.

              That would explain why you don’t know about the “different Universes might have different laws” concept.

              Mindless nonsense. I know plenty about multiverse theory. One thing I know is that it renders your ignorant invocations of the Fine-Tuning Argument absurd.

              Presuming a multiverse with varying cosmological constants in separate universes, the existence of life in one universe (this one) cannot provide evidence of a creator. Thus the multiverse theory, if it is correct, refutes the Fine-Tuning Argument. The fact that you cited both without recognizing that one refuted the other is a clear indication that you are deeply ignorant and confused on these topics.

              You have no idea whether “the LAWS of Physics and Chemistry” are even capable of being other than what they are.You have no basis to insist they can only BE what they are locally.

              That’s a laughable non sequitur: I have never “insisted” anything of the kind. The point—which you bizarrely missed—is that your argument requires you to assume that cosmological constants can have any other values than they have in our universe. But you have no basis to assert that that is true. Ergo your argument is logically unsound.

              It seems that a basic problem here may be your unfamiliarity with the basic principles of logic. Responding to a very ordinary criticism of the postulates your argument rests on with a non sequitur about “insist[ing that constants] can only BE what they are locally” demonstrates a deep-seated kind of cluelessness about how logic works.

              How bizarre; what you call “The Multiverse theory” is one prominent reason why your caviling about “the LAWS of Physics and Chemistry [not] HAV[ING] to be what they are” is irrelevant nonsense.”

              Okay, I went over it twice. Apart from the obvious technique of insisting you’re right and your opponent is wrong, I can’t parse this at all.

              I’m afraid I can’t help it if your literacy level is poor. Maybe you should ask someone else to read it and then explain it to you.

              But your pretense that this disagreement is about religious people asking questions is dishonest in the extreme. Theism posits an answer to specific questions; it doesn’t “ask” them. “

              No, Religions ask questions like everybody else.

              Your infelicity with language is incredible. “Religions” are not a “body”; they are belief systems. And I didn’t reference “religions,” I referenced theism.

              (You can’t posit an ANSWER without first asking the Question,

              Laughable sophistry. Theism is the belief in god(s). It is irrelevant to the matters being discussed whether “questions” are involved; the substance of that belief—the affirmative existence of one or more deities—is, inescapably, an “answer.”

              Your references to “questions” are silly hand-waving with no purpose but distracting attention from the gaping holes in your logic.

              You can mount all the distracting blather you’d like, but the indisputable fact remains that religions purport to answer certain questions. The answers they provide—or at least the ones that are unique to religion, as opposed to borrowed from more responsible thought processes—are uniformly unfounded and irrational. That, and not irrelevant silliness about “asking questions,” is what is relevant about religions in this context.

              and I’m a bit disappointed you’d say that in a bid for a quick debate point… it’s weak.

              Aww. You don’t like losing arguments, do you?

            • David L.

              Bernard, you’re absolutely right in everything you’ve written; but c’mon, it’d be much easier on the eyes without the condescending ad hominem attacks. As I’ve said, your points about the Multiverse Theory (and everything else) are pretty much spot-on, but a little less arrogance could maybe drive them home better. Just my two cents.

            • Christopher Foxx

              William Carr: You missed the ENTIRE point.
              Bernard Rieux: Hardly. I just recognized that “the point” is irrational and founded on ignorance.

              Oh, the irony.

            • Bernard Rieux

              Oh, the irony.

              And your argument is….

          • Christopher Foxx

            Part of Science is admitting some questions can’t be answered.

            That’s a key part, and the clearest distinction between people who are comfortable with science and those who resort to religion.

            Basic human nature: unknowns can be scary. But they exist.

            Some folks are able to handle that. They’re able to say “OK, some answers we don’t have (yet). To some questions all we have for an answer is “I don’t know.” ”

            While others can’t stand it. They have to have answers, have to have a fully understandable (i.e., controllable and non-scary) universe. So they make up explanations. Lightning is cast by Zeus, earthquakes are caused by Loki and rainbows didn’t exist before the flood.

            • Bernard Rieux

              While others can’t stand it. They have to have answers, have to have a fully understandable (i.e., controllable and non-scary) universe. So they make up explanations. Lightning is cast by Zeus, earthquakes are caused by Loki and rainbows didn’t exist before the flood.

              And God created the world. And Jesus will forgive our sins (or not) after we die. And both of them underwrite the correct principles of goodness, justice, and love.

              Sure; sounds like a plausible theory of the origins of religious belief to me.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Plenty of religious people “just can’t accept that” explanation because it is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with the text of the Bible, not to mention with the concept of an omnibenevolent god.

          A thinking person, a person making good use of the gift that God gave them (the intelligence that sets us apart from other animals) would ponder that. And wonder if maybe the Bible isn’t intended to be taken literally.

          • Bernard Rieux

            A thinking person, a person making good use of the gift that God gave them (the intelligence that sets us apart from other animals) would ponder that.

            …Okay. Very, very large numbers of “person”s have indeed “ponder[ed] that” and concluded either (1) that their commitment to God and His Truth precluded acceptance of unguided evolution or (2) that their commitment to reason and justice precluded acceptance of the ugliness, backwardness, and inhumanity that suffuses the Bible and the religion(s) based on it. Are we therefore, according to you, not “thinking person”s?

            And wonder if maybe the Bible isn’t intended to be taken literally.

            As I’ve referenced elsewhere on this thread, a very large number of people believe, as a matter of their religious faith, that the deity they worship communicated, in clear terms, in their holy books. Is it your position that that faith-belief is illegitimate?

            • JozefAL

              It’s JUST as “illegitimate” as the holy books written by the Sumerians or the Egyptians. The Sumerians had a “faith-belief” in their deities and the Egyptians had a similar “faith-belief” in theirs. Yet, show me a SINGLE fundamentalist Christian who considers the Sumerian and Egyptian gods (to say nothing of the Norse gods or Olympians) are anything but myths or pure hokum. Further, show me the fundamentalist who believe the deities revered by the hundreds of millions of Hindus and Shintoists are “legitimate,” despite those peoples’ “faith-belief” in them.

            • Bernard Rieux

              It’s JUST as “illegitimate” as the holy books written by the Sumerians or the Egyptians.

              I didn’t think so previously (because of your odd reference to “Yeshua the Teacher” upthread), but now I suspect that you and I might simply be in heated agreement. Like you, I find the Bible just as “illegitimate” as other compendia of ancient mythology. I dissent from conservative religion primarily because it’s religion—because I regard religious faith as fundamentally unsound, indeed pernicious. My focus on this thread has largely been liberal believers’ (and apologists’) hypocrisy on that and some related points, not a ground-up defense of conservative belief.

              I do think that, given the postulates that liberal religion is forced to concede, conservative religion is effectively unassailable. But if one does not accept or attempt to defend said postulates (and it appears that you don’t), it’s not terribly difficult to refute at all.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Didn’t you claim to be an atheist? Then why are you defending the fundies belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Am I missing something here?

            • Bernard Rieux

              Because, in addition to being an atheist, I am also committed to reason, integrity, and honesty. And quite clearly some liberal believers (and/or apologists for liberal religious belief) on this thread have attacked conservative religion and one or more of its adherents on grounds that are alternatively ignorant, hypocritical, and irrational.

              Liberal attacks on conservatives can still be wrong. That hardly means that conservatism is right.

            • Diogo

              Conservative religion rhymes with hypocrisy and irrationality. The so-called conservative religious have, in practice, ignored the wicked or non-sense parts of the christian scriptures for convenience or they do not really put into practice what it is stated there. For me, this is hypocrisy. And it is irrational because if you think one or more parts of the christian scripture are wrong or non-sense so that they can be ignored, why not think the whole thing is man-made and, therefore, there is nothing divine about it?

            • David L.

              I agree with a lot of the underpinnings of your POV; Sam Harris, Hitch or Dawkins have said similar stuff about the incoherence and dangers of ‘liberal’ or ‘moderate’ believers. Frankly, seeing how liberal believers also cherry-pick and contort their faith to make it somewhat more reconcilable with reality can be a bit depressing (it looks like a tough internal struggle filled with intellectual gymnastics and logical contradictions). Not to mention the legitimacy they indirectly provide to the ones who actually take their Holy Scripture seriously.

              That being said, I’d rather live in a country filled with open-minded, tolerant, neighbourly, science-accepting Christians than in a theocracy controlled by the psychotic authoritarian bigots on the extremist fringe (same would apply to living in Turkey compared to Afghanistan under the Taliban). And I’d add that you’re wrongly assuming that fundamentalists are 100% coherent and/or committed to integrity/honesty; there’s basically no one on Earth who is absolutely consequent with their sect because a) religions (like totalitarian regimes) demand the absolutely impossible by dominating the minds of individuals and supressing human nature (stuff like not having ‘lustful thoughts’ or ‘coveting other people’s possessions’), and b) the sacred texts are constantly self-contradictory in their precepts and rules (http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm).

              Name me one person (including priests, saints, martyrs and holy men) who has lived the totality of his/her life in complete and absolute accordance with every single tenet of judaism, christianity or islam. It’s basically impossible to do so.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              When I was a kid and remember starting to go to Church, around age 6, I will never forget the first time someone told me about the 10 commandments and the other expectations that were supposed to go along with being a good Christian. My first thought was “How in the heck can anybody comply with all that?!?” By the time I was 12 I decided that God must be an asshole to make us so flawed and then expect us to be so perfect. Seemed like (what I now know is) planned obsolescence. ;) Needless to say, I never looked back.

            • Christopher Foxx

              Okay. Very, very large numbers of “person”s have indeed “ponder[ed] that” and concluded either (1) that their commitment to God and His Truth precluded acceptance of unguided evolution …. Are we therefore, according to you, not “thinking person”s?

              (1) The number of people who have committed to a thing has nothing to do with how factually true that thing is. Millions of people were committed to believing in the gods of pre-Christian Rome, but reality remains that the sun’s apparent motion across the sky is the result of the Earth’s spin, and not because it’s pulled in Apollo’s chariot.

              (2) Folks who instead insist on believing there is something uniquely special about a particular set of ancient writings that makes them Truth and therefore disregard demonstrable reality are not using their intelligence. Someone who is so committed to a particular belief that they insist on rejecting scientific evidence just so they can continue to hold that belief is, as you put it, “not thinking”.

              a very large number of people believe, as a matter of their religious faith, that the deity they worship communicated, in clear terms, in their holy books. Is it your position that that faith-belief is illegitimate?

              Again, numbers are irrelevant. If you have to keep bolstering your argument by relying on some supposed critical mass of people, you should re-consider your argument. Numbers does not confer legitimacy.

              I don’t know what you mean by “faith-belief” and am not going to get pulled into a distraction of symantics. My position is that those who accept as truth things which are demonstrably not true are deluding themselves and not “thinking”. Are not critically evaluating things and coming to reasonable conclusions. Rather they are purposefully not thinking and that, therefore, do not have any actual conclusions. Rather they have some beliefs that are not supportable and, yes, not valid.

    • Temmere

      We are “fearfully… made”? What in the world does that even mean?

      • silhouete2

        Good question—I have no clue. I’m a Christian myself–but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It implies that God was fearful when He made us. Makes no sense at all. But then–considering the source……

        • Bernard Rieux

          Sigh.

          Peters is obviously paraphrasing verse 14 of Psalm 139:

          O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.

          Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

          Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.

          For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.

          Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

          Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

          Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

          If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

          If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

          Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

          If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

          Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

          For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

          I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

          Isn’t it a little embarrassing that (1) you sneered an insult at a conservative believer (“consider the source”) without realizing that he was quoting the very scriptures of your own claimed religion and (2) you needed an atheist to point that out to you?

          It’s a little depressing how frequently liberal believers who slime conservative ones are seriously ignorant about their own damned religion. “Consider the source” indeed: say what you’d like about fundamentalists, but their comprehension of their scripture and doctrine is usually pretty solid.

          • Sabyen91

            “Don’t you think you owe Mr. Peters an apology?”

            Mr. Peters is a dumbass and fundy comprehension of scripture is awful. If it weren’t they would be following more than one law of Leviticus.

            • William Carr

              Betcha they eat pork, have tattoos, eat fish without scales, and wear clothes made from two different kinds of fabric.

              But nobody in his right mind re-marries his ex-wife, so they’re safe there.

            • Bernard Rieux

              Betcha they eat pork, have tattoos, eat fish without scales, and wear clothes made from two different kinds of fabric.

              So, we’ll chalk you up as entirely ignorant of the Christian basis—both in the New Testament and in church doctrine since—for setting aside those Old Testament strictures?

              Okay. Objection that utterly fails to take account of opponent’s position noted.

            • JozefAL

              Sorry, Bernard, but Yeshua the Teacher NEVER said that the Law (all the commandments issued in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy) had been negated. His whole “fulfill [the Law]” comment had nothing to do with letting His followers break the existing laws.

              It was PAUL who decided that it was okay to eat pork if it meant you didn’t starve. And I don’t remember the last time that “church doctrine” was issued by Yeshua. EVERY LAST PIECE of “church doctrine” is completely MAN-made. (And just remember that Paul NEVER met Yeshua, NEVER spoke with Yeshua. His ONLY contact with Yeshua was persecuting HIS followers and then having an “experience” while going to persecute more. Plus, the Bible is the ONLY source of Paul’s life–and guess who wrote most of that “biography?” There’s no firm evidence that what Paul and the Bible say about Paul is real.)

            • Bernard Rieux

              Yeshua the Teacher NEVER said that the Law (all the commandments issued in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy) had been negated.

              Er… and where did I assert otherwise? You seem to have me confused with someone else.

              His whole “fulfill [the Law]” comment had nothing to do with letting His followers break the existing laws.

              Sure; that’s how I read that as well. (FWIW, as you may recognize, that presents a serious problem for the allegations made by numerous liberals that the Gospels present no problems for the notion that same-sex love and romantic relationships should be accepted and celebrated by human society.) What makes you think I disagree with you about that passage?

              It was PAUL who decided that it was okay to eat pork if it meant you didn’t starve.

              Yes, indeed. Again, what in the world leads you to believe that I disagree with those statements?

              Some number of million people believe, as an element of their religious faith, that Paul’s declarations on this point (as well as most or everything else contained in the Bible) is inspired, “God-breathed,” and/or inerrant. Is it your position that those faith-beliefs are illegitimate? Why?

              EVERY LAST PIECE of “church doctrine” is completely MAN-made.

              Says you. (And me, as it happens—but I suspect we arrive at those conclusions from very different directions.)

              Again, millions of people believe, on the grounds of their religious faith, that that doctrine that you consider “MAN-made” was in fact inspired by God. On what grounds do you dispute them?

              And I don’t remember the last time that “church doctrine” was issued by Yeshua.

              Really? So, say, “love thy neighbor” isn’t church doctrine? I guess that does make things a little simpler….

              There’s no firm evidence that what Paul and the Bible say about Paul is real.

              “No firm evidence,” eh? Wow! That, uh, sounds frightening!

              Well, then it’s a good thing that that’s the one and only thing in the Bible, and the sole thing that two billion or so Christians believe, that has “no firm evidence” behind it. It’s an awfully good thing that Paul’s statements in his epistles are the only dubious ideas in the entire millennia-old belief system; can you imagine what a nightmare it would be if, say, every religious belief (qua religious belief) in the world shared that status? Yikes! What a nightmare that would be!

            • SecludedCompound

              Yeah, you basically used the exact argument he was referring to, and that every fundamentalist uses. That you weren’t very prepared to respond to how faulty it is kind of shows the caliber of your understanding of your own religion.

            • http://cendax.wordpress.com/ Norbrook

              In which case, they should stop quoting Leviticus as their justification for whatever particular stance they’re spouting. I’m particularly fond of the one they ignore in that chapter, you know, about welcoming foreigners into your country?

            • SecludedCompound

              Except for where Christ himself said that he didn’t. I mean it’s nice of the church to do it for him to try to exorcise one of the more obvious faults of a rather slapdash collection of Bedouin hand-me-down tales, but they really should have tried to be a little more consistent.

            • Bernard Rieux

              So… the principle of Christian charity (not to mention the prohibition on bearing false witness) goes out the window once you’ve identified your target as a “fundy” and a “dumbass”? How odd.

              silhouete2 posted a sneering insult directed at Peters that was actually founded on nothing more than the fact that Peters knows the Bible better than silhouete2 does. Your piling on the empty insults does nothing to make silhouete2‘s behavior any less embarrassing.

              I’m neither a Christian nor a conservative, and (given the context provided by the OP) it seems rather likely that Peters is a generally ignorant and bigoted man. Nonetheless, it’s fairly blatant that your attacks on him, like silhouete2‘s, are based on unthinking tribalism rather than an actual evaluation of his position. Regardless of the irrelevant ad hominem statements you can make about Peters, supporting silhouete2‘s insults directed at him is hardly a principled stand.

              Finally, “fundy comprehension of scripture” is in fact, as I said, quite good—notwithstanding the thoroughgoing denial maintained by too many liberals regarding the prodigious amount of Biblical support that exists for fundamentalist nastiness, and indeed for horrific inhumanity in general. You can keep telling yourself that “one poorly translated law of Leviticus” is the only Scripture that exists underwriting ugly fundamentalism; it only makes you laughably wrong. That notion is just another form of the mistake silhouete2 made: sliming conservative Christians for supporting ideas that you’re either too (1) ignorant, (2) blinkered, and/or (3) invested in tribal allegiance to recognize are thoroughly Biblical.

            • William Carr

              The error you make is a common one.

              Conflating “Christianity” with the fundies. They’re not “Christian”.

              If they were, they’d be out doing Christ’s work; feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick; or at least voting in favor of Government programs that accomplish those goals.

              Instead, they read the Old Testament, worship Jehovah, and writhe in ecstasy while reading the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.

              We have a sharp divide in terms of who “Christians” follow.

              There’s the “Old Testament Fundies” that worship Jehovah and follow Paul the Apostle, and there’s the “New Testament Christians” that follow Christ.

              Any time you try to make a generalization that ignores this fact, you’re going to come to false conclusions about what “Christianity” is really about.

            • Bernard Rieux

              Conflating “Christianity” with the fundies. They’re not “Christian”.

              That’s blindly arrogant tribalistic nonsense. “The fundies” believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died for their sins. That makes them Christian regardless of whatever self-serving nonsense you tell yourself about how you’re superior to them.

              If they were, they’d be out doing Christ’s work; feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick; or at least voting in favor of Government programs that accomplish those goals.

              Again, that’s self-serving ad hoc silliness.. Your idiosyncratic interpretation of Christianity (including the notion that “doing Christ’s work” requires voting the way you do) does not in fact define Christianity, and no one is required to accept your arrogant declarations about religious taxonomy.

              There’s the “Old Testament Fundies” that worship Jehovah and follow Paul the Apostle, and there’s the “New Testament Christians” that follow Christ.

              That is your allegation, and it is a seriously dubious one. There is plenty of Gospel basis to conclude that fundamentalists “follow Christ” far more assiduously than liberal believers do.

              Your partisan interpretation of the Bible is neither authoritative nor binding on anyone else. Your pretensions are simply absurd.

              Any time you try to make a generalization that ignores this fact, you’re going to come to false conclusions about what “Christianity” is really about.

              No one analyzing Christianity, as it manifests in the real world we live in, is obligated to accept your arrogant dogmas about who are Real Christians and who aren’t. You can tell yourself whatever sweet tales you’d like “about what “Christianity” is really about”; none of your declarations change the reality on the ground—or, as it happens, in the texts, Biblical and otherwise.

              In short, Christianity isn’t what you say it is, just because you say it is.

            • Christopher Foxx

              “The fundies” believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died for their sins. That makes them Christian

              And voting to end programs that feed and clothe the poor, what does that make them?

              In your reply to William Carr you are purposefully ignoring the point he made.

            • Bernard Rieux

              And voting to end programs that feed and clothe the poor, what does that make them?

              Er… Republican? Inhumane? Heartless? Cruel?

              Are you suggesting that it is impossible for a person with any of those characteristics to be a Christian? What basis, other than self-serving dogma and/or unexamined supremacism, could you have for that notion? Christianity is a belief system, not a moral status. In a secular debate in which the legitimacy of religious belief(s) is very much at issue, you cannot simply presuppose that only good people can be Christians. That’s nothing but dogmatic prejudice.

              In your reply to William Carr you are purposefully ignoring the point he made.

              No, I have refuted the (confused) points he made.

              Given that you disagree, you are welcome to cite some point of his that you contend I am “purposefully ignoring.” Let’s see it.

            • Sean Richardson

              “Conflating “Christianity” with the fundies. They’re not “Christian”.”

              Wait, which side of this are the true Scotsmen?

            • ssj

              Odin, I’m guessing. Or perhaps the gods the Druids worshipped.

            • William Carr

              On second glance, I think you don’t understand what “Christian Charity” is, or what “bearing false witness” is either.

              Charity is not a requirement to be polite to the stupid.

              It’s a requirement to help those less fortunate.

              Bearing False Witness only applies in a Court of Law.

              Neither applies here.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Fundies ability to recite scripture is epic. They’re actual understanding of it’s context, it’s meaning and doctrine are not. And that’s the problem.

              Furthermore, if you’re an atheist why are you saying that anyone should HAVE to know ALL of the Bible in order to criticize someone else. The modern evangelical definition of a Christian is technically “someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their savior”…that’s it. No knowledge of the Bible is necessary and no need to actually follow The Golden Rule. We may all want them to, but that doesn’t mean they do.

            • Bernard Rieux

              Fundies ability to recite scripture is epic. They’re actual understanding of it’s context, it’s meaning and doctrine are not.

              Sometimes, sure. Other “fundies” have a very thorough understanding of context, meaning, doctrine—certainly vastly better than a huge number of liberals I know.

              What touched off this exchange was the insults silhouete2, a professed Christian, directed at Peters for tweeting something that silhouete2 declared “[m]akes no sense at all”—when in fact what Peters was tweeting was a reference to a relevant passage (and a not-at-all-theologically-contentious one) from the Bible.

              Peters’ tweet was entirely on-point, even in “[its] context, [its] meaning,” and its implicit “doctrine.” As a result, silhouete2‘s insult was outrageously inappropriate; (s)he slammed Peters for not making sense, in blithe ignorance of the fact that it was the Bible’s language (s)he was actually attacking.

              Do you not see the blatant tribalist chest-thumping in silhouete2‘s comment and the subsequent defenses of it here? Yes, yes, I get it: “hurr, hurr, fundies bad”—but is that seriously a justification for sliming any and every one of them, even when the (apparently liberal) originator of the slime has no idea what (s)he’s talking about—and is in fact sliming a Psalm without realizing it?

              Furthermore, if you’re an atheist why are you saying that anyone should HAVE to know ALL of the Bible in order to criticize someone else.

              I haven’t said anything of the kind. I’ve merely pointed out how foolish it is for a self-professed Christian to attack some undesirable flavor of Christian for an offense (here, “not making any sense”) that is actually the direct “fault” of the Bible.

              I have this crazy idea that everyone, including fundamentalists, has the right to have their ideas treated honestly and fairly. silhouete2‘s attack on Peters clearly failed to live up to that standard. Do you seriously disagree? Do you dispute that his/her attacks on Peters are embarrassing?

              The modern evangelical definition of a Christian is technically “someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their savior”…that’s it. No knowledge of the Bible is necessary and no need to actually follow The Golden Rule. We may all want them to, but that doesn’t mean they do.

              No dispute here! And you’re very, very welcome to criticize those stances (or moral failures, etc.) to your heart’s content. You clearly are proceeding from a far greater base of understanding than silhouete2 was.

              I just submit that ignorant insults like his/hers are objectionable, no matter whom they’re directed at—and that tribalistic defenses of those insults, implying that it’s perfectly acceptable to insult conservative believers on any grounds, no matter how ignorant or hypocritical, are embarrassing in themselves.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Do you not see the blatant tribalist chest-thumping in silhouete2’s comment and the subsequent defenses of it here?

              Sure I do. I just don’t think that’s the most important thing to focus on. Furthermore, I have my own bias in this…I think anyone who quotes the KJV is full of it….it being such a poor translation of the originals in the first place. Dollars to donuts the original Greek word was “awesome” but the KJV interpreted that as “fearful”. All that in mind, I think your point was trivial and if you really felt compelled to make it you did so in a very negative way. To expect the average Christian to know such passages in the Bible is a little much. And I say this having been raised Southern Baptist and having read the Bible through at least twice before I was 12 years old. I myself don’t remember a ton of that stuff.

              The other thing that struck me about your response is the use of “embarrassing”. “silhouete2″ doesn’t represent you or liberals in general–why do you feel that she does? I don’t understand why you would be embarrassed by her statement. Again, a gentler correction might have gone a lot farther to educate silhouete2 and to stay focused on what is important, which should be responding to the tweets above. And FWIW you might not be embroiled in the lengthy arguments that I see spawning below.

            • Bernard Rieux

              Do you not see the blatant tribalist chest-thumping in silhouete2’s comment and the subsequent defenses of it here?

              Sure I do. I just don’t think that’s the most important thing to focus on.

              Then I submit that you’re allowing your own tribal loyalties to overcome your ethics. I think it’s wrong to treat people the way silhouete2 and some of his/her defenders treated Peters.

              Furthermore, I have my own bias in this…I think anyone who quotes the KJV is full of it….it being such a poor translation of the originals in the first place. Dollars to donuts the original Greek word was “awesome” but the KJV interpreted that as “fearful”.

              Sweet! Biblical criticism—that would have made a great reply to Peters! Doesn’t it stink that we got ignorant “hurr, hurr, fundie is stupid” crap instead?

              I think your point was trivial and if you really felt compelled to make it you did so in a very negative way.

              Your concern is noted. Obviously we have different interests and different aims in this forum. I’ll go my way, and you’ll go yours.

              To expect the average Christian to know such passages in the Bible is a little much.

              Again, I don’t. I just think it’s not too much to ask that people (especially liberals, from whom we ought to expect much) not launch slime from a position of ignorance. FFS, how difficult is it to Google “fearfully made” before sneering at Peters for using those words?

              The other thing that struck me about your response is the use of “embarrassing”. “silhouete2″ doesn’t represent you or liberals in general–why do you feel that she does?

              Oh, goodness. (S)he’s a human being. So is Peters. All of us deserve to be treated honestly. And the embarrassment I was mainly referencing was silhouete2‘s own, or perhaps liberal Christians’ more generally; I certainly do not take responsibility for what (s)he posted.

              FWIW you might not be embroiled in the lengthy arguments that I see spawning below.

              I’m perfectly happy with those arguments. There are a whole lot of common misconceptions and fallacies getting battered down there. It’s fun, and I promise it’s plenty educational for a lot of folks. Moving the Overton Window has plenty of value for a lot of us.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              Well struck and fair enough

            • Andy Lucy

              While I agree with you regarding the accuracy of the KJV translation, the Hebrew phrase in question from Psalms 139:14 (“נרָ את”) does actually translate to “ones-being-fearful,” but that term usually indicates reverence and respect, not fear in the sense which we normally interpret it. Just a point of clarification.

            • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

              The current meaning of awesome is like “impressive”. The original meaning of awesome did use fear as part of its definition…”inspiring an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, or fear; causing or inducing awe”. Thus Moses would have been in awe of the talking, burning bush (I always presumed he was pants wetting afraid of it….I know I would be afraid, particularly if I hadn’t dropped any acid that morning). Or several thousands of years ago, man would have been in awe of the power of God to create our very complicated bodies and the world around us and recognize that level of power is a fearsome thing.

              There is also the concept that the body itself is fearsome in that is was and is considered a source of sin…”sins of the flesh”…I could definitely see the old Hebrew, patriarchal society being afraid of the temptations of the flesh…after all, every patriarchal culture wants it’s women to be chaste (or complete sluts…she can never be both or in between). And her body is to be feared.

              (sorry I’m being pedantic, I just love etymology)

            • Andy Lucy

              Don’t be sorry… philology and historical linguistics are fun subjects! ;)

            • SecludedCompound

              But Jesus replaced the old law, donchyaknow, except where he said that he didn’t.

            • Sabyen91

              Yeah, when it is convenient to justify bigotry they say he didn’t come to replace the old law and when they want to distance themselves from certain parts of the OT he did…

      • Bernard Rieux

        It’s Peters’ reference to Psalm 139:14, in which the psalmist praises God’s “marvellous” work in creating him. “Fearfully” is the kind of poetic language that one finds in the KJV—especially in Psalms and a few other books.

      • Badgerite

        ?????

      • SecludedCompound

        Basically that we should be in awe of God’s creation.

        Sorry. I had an evangelical cultist upbringing so you wouldn’ t have to.

      • Shannon Hubbell

        I was wondering the same thing.

      • Ephesians4

        “Fearfully….made” declares that we are made with reverence or respect to God.

        P.S. Christians are not anti-science. Christians love science and respect all forms of science because it is our belief that God created all things, including science. It is our belief that God set the world in motion. It is also apart of our belief that nature is one of God’s revelations of Himself. Therefore, we cannot be against nature or science; rather, many Christian scientists purpose themselves to encountering God and discovering more about God through the sciences.

        • David L.

          With all due respect, my brain can’t in any way comprehend how a supernatural entity can ‘create’ science.

          Science is natural philosophy, it’s human beings observing their environment.

          I know where you’re coming from in your position about science vis-a-vis religion, but it just won’t fit in my mind that you can reconcile the cognitive dissonance between naturalistic observable theoretical models of reality with the mythology of a Bronze-Age local subsect in the Middle East (myths as radically unrelated to our modern societal context as possible).

          If you said you were some kind of Spinoza-like deist or pantheist who recognizes a certain divine aspect in all of Nature, I could maybe understand (a bit better); but since your disqus name is a reference to a passage of the bible, which — and again please don’t take this as a personal insult — I find especially revolting (Ephesians 4 starts off with “I, the prisoner of the Lord..” Who wants to voluntarily be a prisoner of a lord, dictator or master? The levels of indoctrination required for a human being to accept such a pathetic existence I find pretty terrifying. If you substitute ‘God,’ ‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’ in that chapter for the words ‘Kim Il-sung’ or ‘Papa Stalin’ you’ll see what I mean), I guess you’re pretty sure that there is just “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

          Oh well. I’m glad you at least don’t negate scientific facts. I guess it’s better to have ‘rational’ Christians than ignorant dumbfuck Christians.

    • http://www.dlancystreet.com reginahny

      I’m on my Smartphone Tweeting across the internet that Science is ungodly — oh hold on a sec, my GPS just told me to turn left — anyway gotta run, just going into a 3D movie. In Christ Jesus’ name…

      • doug r

        Your GPS is witchcraft, you know-because the earth is flat.

        • jumblejunk

          Well, jokes on him, the map on his GPS is flat too. How could that thing even work if the earth wasn’t flat? #JESUS!

          • Juliho Castillo

            The earth is only locally flat, but globally spherical. It’s only a geometric approximation.

            • verxix

              Next thing you’ll be telling me is that we can find the slope of a curve at any point… Differential calculus is the Devil’s tool!

            • jumblejunk

              I see that growing up around uber christians gave my joke the flavor of too much realness.

            • Michael Snyder

              Locally flat?
              Someone explain this one to me…

            • Bronek Hart

              My guess is that “locally flat” translates to small sample size. If you consider only a small area like a GPS does, it would appear as though it is flat, much the same way that filling a glass with ocean water would show you there are no fish in the ocean.

            • Nick J-s

              “locally flat” because the earth’s curvature is so low that an area of a square mile only deviates by a fraction of a percent from a truly flat plane, local irregularities notwithstanding

            • Michael Snyder

              GPS doesnt consider only small areas for one. Two, GPS is calculating points on the planet, which is a Sphere.
              What distances would be “flat” as you claim? 10 feet? 1 Mile? 50 miles?
              Every amount of distance you travel on the planet results in some kind of curve, no matter how small. Some features such as hills on mountains can keep you at the same elevation, or even rise up to a a point, but there isnt a “magic” distance that you would be able to travel on the planet, look at the results and then say “see it was flat!”. The curve is always measurable.

            • Bronek Hart

              Always measurable sure, but there is no noticeable difference. If one observes only a small area, one would believe the Earth was flat. See fish example.

            • Bob White

              And, there in lies the issue… fundamentalists look no further than they can see; one square mile.

            • Ascdren

              Jesus. …… there explained

          • Sparklepony420

            lol’d at #JESUS!

        • somesanityplease

          Oh, that’s new. I didn’t know the Bible said the earth was flat.

          • danny4572

            Late reply, but it describes the Earth as a flat square. Apparently, the Earth has four corners that can be seen from a tree.

    • feloniousgrammar

      I’ll never understand why they worship such a simple-minded and fickle yahoo of a god. Wouldn’t a god be— oh, I don’t know— like so godlike that humans could not comprehend it? Their God- – let’s call him “Bob”, is not impressive much less awe inspiring.

      • Badgerite

        Our Lord Bob? I like it. Kinda folksy. Has the human touch.
        But your point it well taken. They make ‘God’ so small, one can hardly see him/her.

      • Aaron Litz

        J. R. “Bob” Dobbs!

        • captkurt

          Praise Bob!

          • StoyanDeckoff

            and thats how a religion was born ;)

            • Floopa Bambers

              The bible says that God created everything in seven days.
              The bible says that God created the sun on the fourth day.
              So how were the first three days measured as days?

            • Drew

              … fantastic. Let me use that? Destroy the minds of my local idiots?

          • Bob White

            Heck yeah… now that’s something I can get behind! Where’s my collection basket?

      • Jacob Nordin

        So you too have found salvation in our Lord Bob? In my blog I once wrote this about the Universe:
        “Let us give this wonderful network of power a name… It can be anything: Pac-man, God or even Bob…”

      • Bartow R.

        “Your god is too small.”
        – Neil DeGrasse Tyson via “Cosmos”

      • Terry Wyatt

        Praise Bob. #churchofthesubgenius

      • Bob Dobalina

        You have to keep in mind the “In God’s image” thing, all these “Kristians” want desperately for THEIR God to be as ignorant, myopic, and xenophobic as they, themselves are. The Taliban has nothing on the lot of them.

      • Bitley Chilton

        I suspect that would be “Robert” to you heathens…:-)