Cosmos with Neil De Grasse Tyson Premieres Tonight

[Alex K]

But it's unfair history if you don't mention stalin and the evil atheists!!!

[Esquilax]

I find that most atheists are just as bad as most theist at failing at identifying when they are being fed an agenda.

And I am not saying there is something wrong about pushing an agenda...even if you employ undertones to do it. Persuasion is how we grow. What is wrong...what is sad really.....is for a reasonably bright person to not recognize it.

I see it as more of a side effect than an outright agenda though; it just so happens that fostering a healthy respect for science and facts and learning overlaps with fostering disrespect for religious fantasies. Scientists aren't anti-religion any more than firemen are anti-fire.

They're anti-ignorance and anti-burning to death, respectively. You're just sour because your chosen belief system uses the former regularly, and is known to have used the latter in the past to get its way. These damn secular ideals are taking your toys away!

[pocaracas]

How to tell the tale of Galileo without mentioning those who wished the Earth to be at the center of the Universe and would have killed Galileo if he kept on divulging his findings?
How to tell the tale of Darwin without mentioning those who wished that all living beings had been created as they are now and would have killed Darwin if he had been born a few hundreds of years earlier?
How to tell the tale of Bohr without mentioning Einstein's refusal to accept the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena?

How to tell the tale of scientific discovery without mentioning all those in power who opposed the discoveries that came forward through observation and reason and trial and error and careful mathematics and excruciating peer review?

[DarkHorse]

I just watched the first episode (a bit late, I know), and being new to this world of Science and Cosmology, I found it informative and enlightening. Looking forward to episode 2, when I have time to watch again.

[Faith No More]

They're anti-ignorance and anti-burning to death, respectively. You're just sour because your chosen belief system uses the former regularly, and is known to have used the latter in the past to get its way. These damn secular ideals are taking your toys away!

You see, this is what truly irks me. Religious people see an attack on ignorance as an attack on their religious belief, but none of them are aware enough to understand that that should be a problem for them.

Getting butthurt from people pointing out that your shit doesn't work should be a wake up call.

[Clueless Morgan]

The poster who claimed the show was about making people excited by science is wrong because it is obvious there is a second motive.

As the originator of the post that got Heywood into a tizzy, I suggest he read it again. I've provided it below so he has no excuse for not rereading it with the relevant sentence bolded:

For contextual reference beyond this post, it's post #104 on page 11 of this thread.

The entire point of Cosmos is not to educate people that are already geeks of science. Just like the original series its intent is to introduce people into how exciting and wonderful science is.

It's going for converts. It's not an advanced class for the already converted.

I agree. I think the show is more about getting people excited about science and interested in learning more rather than educating people who already know quite a bit about science.

I think it'll be more of an overview show, touching on some areas more in depth (like the evolution of the eye) as examples of the broader topic under discussion. I also get the feeling their trying to cover a lot of ground - talking about not only how the sciences affect us here on Earth, but also tying it to the exploration of the universe and what possibilities that field holds for research of other stellar and planetary objects.

Heywood's post replying to me is as follows:
Post #111 on page 12.

The show has obvious anti-religion undertones so there is more on the agenda then trying to get people excited by science.

Now let's revisit Heywood's post claiming that I was wrong, wrong, WRONG!! when I said what I said:

The poster who claimed the show was about making people excited by science is wrong because it is obvious there is a second motive.

NEVER in my original post did I imply that what I said was the only purpose for the show. Scroll up in this post and reread it, Heywood. Then go back and read the handful of posts before mine to get an idea about what we were talking about.

The conversation taking place in thread at the time I made that post was about the content of the show being very introductory and rather simplistic and how some posters seemed disappointed that there was "not really any advanced science going on" (See Napoléon's post, #100 on page 10, he goes on to concede that the show seems aimed at families and children).

What I said was that I thought that the point of the show was more about getting people excited about science than teaching already scientifically literate people about science.

So, Heywood, when exactly did I say that my post represented the only purpose of the show as you claim I do?


And theists accuse atheists of reading shit out of context... Fuckin'-A

[Rampant.A.I.]

Obvious anti-religion undertones? Wanna point those out? All I saw was facts.

Are you suggesting facts cannot be used to convey an anti-religious message?

Are you saying facts should be suppressed or changed so they're not anti-religious?

---

True, they might end up like the theists.

I find that most atheists are just as bad as most theist at failing at identifying when they are being fed an agenda.

And I am not saying there is something wrong about pushing an agenda...even if you employ undertones to do it. Persuasion is how we grow. What is wrong...what is sad really.....is for a reasonably bright person to not recognize it.

What exactly in your view would make relating history and scientific facts less "agenda-pushing"?

Making excuses for religious views? Giving AiG equal airtime to the science content on Cosmos?

Isn't it funny the only people crying about "an agenda" are upset their particular brand of lies aren't being presented alongside facts as "alternative facts"?

[Heywood]

Are you suggesting facts cannot be used to convey an anti-religious message?

Are you saying facts should be suppressed or changed so they're not anti-religious?

---

I find that most atheists are just as bad as most theist at failing at identifying when they are being fed an agenda.

And I am not saying there is something wrong about pushing an agenda...even if you employ undertones to do it. Persuasion is how we grow. What is wrong...what is sad really.....is for a reasonably bright person to not recognize it.

What exactly in your view would make relating history and scientific facts less "agenda-pushing"?

Making excuses for religious views? Giving AiG equal airtime to the science content on Cosmos?

Isn't it funny the only people crying about "an agenda" are upset their particular brand of lies aren't being presented alongside facts as "alternative facts"?

Look, for the umpteenth time...I don't have a problem with agendas or undertones. I have a problem with people who don't realize they are being fed one. Those people are stupid or lazy.

If you want to get people excited about science. Do a show about science. If you want to get people excited about science and disgusted with religion....do a show like Cosmos which is about science and critical of religion.

---

As the originator of the post that got Heywood into a tizzy, I suggest he read it again.....blah....blah...blah

If I misrepresented your position I am sorry.

[Bad Writer]

Cosmos is a show about distinguishing fact from fiction. It's not our fault most of that fiction comes from the mouths of theists.

[Minimalist]

Why is god so inept that he needs a clown like you to represent his interests?