hopefully he'll get internet back in the next few days so we can watch stuff
I'd suggest that one of you trip by the library for a couple of hours and download whatever you'd like to watch, but I'm not sure if that would be feasible.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I wouldn't mind AU reading me The Hundred and One Dalmatians, actually
Calica said:you're right. how dare atheists be proud of their beliefs. if you're religious, it's a-ok to celebrate the things you believe in, but no god? that's just wrong, and you should be ashamed also how dare you celebrate someone who believed weird things. if you're an atheist, only being absolutely perfect is allowed. conservapedia said so
But atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of belief. By default it's something uncelebrateable. Antitheism is a belief, as is particularly emphatic secularism, or, hell, veneration of a particular scientific figure. But atheism in and of itself isn't a belief and as such can't really be celebrated. Like, what holiday can you make out of simply "No god?" I mean, I guess there's "Yay, people doing things of their own accord," but that isn't inherently atheistic in nature nor is it a belief inherent to atheism, in that under an atheistic system of beliefs the viewpoint that, as a counterpoint, everything is a result of predetermined genetic destiny (being that even if nature makes a smaller portion of identity than nurture, nurture is still informed by other people's nature) can just as well be derived from the (lack of) belief.
you're right. how dare atheists be proud of their beliefs. if you're religious, it's a-ok to celebrate the things you believe in, but no god? that's just wrong, and you should be ashamed
also how dare you celebrate someone who believed weird things. if you're an atheist, only being absolutely perfect is allowed. conservapedia said so
But atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of belief. By default it's something uncelebrateable. Antitheism is a belief, as is particularly emphatic secularism, or, hell, veneration of a particular scientific figure. But atheism in and of itself isn't a belief and as such can't really be celebrated. Like, what holiday can you make out of simply "No god?" I mean, I guess there's "Yay, people doing things of their own accord," but that isn't inherently atheistic in nature nor is it a belief inherent to atheism, in that under an atheistic system of beliefs the viewpoint that, as a counterpoint, everything is a result of predetermined genetic destiny (being that even if nature makes a smaller portion of identity than nurture, nurture is still informed by other people's nature) can just as well be derived from the (lack of) belief.
It's an identity. You can celebrate an identity.
Also, a lot of atheists believe in secular humanism, which i can understand wanting to celebrate.
When asked during a question session at the University of Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded: "Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of all religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[46][47]:341 In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So what people are really after is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I had to find a word that came closest, I would say agnostic ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[48] During the interview "Called by the Universe: A conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson" in 2009, Tyson said: "I can't agree to the claims by atheists that I'm one of that community. I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care."[49]
Hm... i can understand feeling that way (why should disbelief in God mean you have to be part of a 'community'?), but to my mind, if you don't actually believe in God or gods, then you're atheist by definition. Agnostic is kind of a different thing that overlaps with it, it's like, the position that we don't or can't know, as opposed to being convinced that atheism must be absolutely true.
Not that it matters i guess, i'm not about to tell anyone what they can or can't call themselves, but it sounds like he is an atheist.
i watched a video once where they spoke together. Tyson seemed to know a ton of things besides astrophysics and was easily the more entertaining speaker. Dawkins seemed kind of in awe of him.
Also there was that baffling interview he gave where he said asking too many questions about epistemological foundations leads to nihilism, which is a strange position for a scientist to take at the very least.
I'm not sure where people get the idea of philosophy as the practice where people smoke weed and come up with armchair ideas as to what goes on in black holes
I don't think most people actually know much about philosophy, nor do they know anyone who studies it, so the isolation lets the stereotypes just perpetuate ad infinitum.
It doesn't help that even basic philosophy is pretty complex, so it's not really something you can teach in say, grade school, to give everyone a basic understanding of it.
But honestly this is just the sort of thing that bugs me about discussion about Tyson, he's not a philosopher nor a philosophy student, so him having a poor understanding of philosophy is completely expected.
I think the idea of a renaissance man who knows something about everything is still alive in a time where that's basically impossible. So people ask scientific experts about things they're not experts in, and they give answers because hey, it's an interview why not, and then dumbasses take it as gospel.
I think the idea of a renaissance man who knows something about everything is still alive in a time where that's basically impossible. So people ask scientific experts about things they're not experts in, and they give answers because hey, it's an interview why not, and then dumbasses take it as gospel.
You can't even trust scientists to know much about fields of science they haven't studied.
Astrophysics and virology have little in common, for example.
Comments
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
You need a WB shield cap
also how dare you celebrate someone who believed weird things. if you're an atheist, only being absolutely perfect is allowed. conservapedia said so
But atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of belief. By default it's something uncelebrateable. Antitheism is a belief, as is particularly emphatic secularism, or, hell, veneration of a particular scientific figure. But atheism in and of itself isn't a belief and as such can't really be celebrated. Like, what holiday can you make out of simply "No god?" I mean, I guess there's "Yay, people doing things of their own accord," but that isn't inherently atheistic in nature nor is it a belief inherent to atheism, in that under an atheistic system of beliefs the viewpoint that, as a counterpoint, everything is a result of predetermined genetic destiny (being that even if nature makes a smaller portion of identity than nurture, nurture is still informed by other people's nature) can just as well be derived from the (lack of) belief.
Also, a lot of atheists believe in secular humanism, which i can understand wanting to celebrate.
i feel like i need to point this out in case it hasnt been earlier
Hm... i can understand feeling that way (why should disbelief in God mean you have to be part of a 'community'?), but to my mind, if you don't actually believe in God or gods, then you're atheist by definition. Agnostic is kind of a different thing that overlaps with it, it's like, the position that we don't or can't know, as opposed to being convinced that atheism must be absolutely true.
Not that it matters i guess, i'm not about to tell anyone what they can or can't call themselves, but it sounds like he is an atheist.
Was it one of those sceptic-as-boogieman type things?
Here.
Which is to say, now your problems are your fault, not the software's.