A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #311  
Old October 15th 18, 07:48 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:27:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:37:47 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel

wrote:

Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an

ancient ET
civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist

should cast
doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position.


And I find that position bizarre and untenable. It might cast doubt

in any honest
mind that the sort-of theism with these aliens replacing God is

unviable, but it
doesn't make atheism unviable, since even if the aliens exist,

there's no reason
to think it particularly likely that they're interfering with us.


Expecting such an extraterrestrial civilization to frequently visit
the Earth would be like expecting the pope, Madonna, and other world
celebrities to frequently visit the block where you live.
  #312  
Old October 15th 18, 08:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
A lot of churches interpret scripture in different ways and as

a result
make up their own doctrine.


That is indeed a problem inherent in any religion, or any

ideology
making absolute claims...


This is true of MOST religions, but not all. The development of

Christiani=
ty
had minimal ideology and grew "precept by precept; line upon line."

At fir=
st,
it was only to "the house of Israel" then Peter had a vision

concerning
Cornelius. Then there was the matter of circumcision for the

gentiles, etc=

By the time of the Council of Nice in 325 AD there were two major

divisions
espousing different beliefs about the Godhead, both wrong. Thus it

ceased
to be the faith taught in the first century. This was predicted by

Paul.

This is typical for any religion which grows big: first there is
unity, but later it will split into several mutually competing and
perhaps even fighting fractions. Remember the crusades fought by the
Catholics? They mostly fought against the Orthodoxes. For instance
the crusades brought so moäunh damage to the city pf Constantinople,
weakening the city so much that it later became much easier for the
Muslims to conquer that city.


I suppose you will agree with this;


"God is an extraterrestrial civilization much more advanced than
ours, and Erich von Däniken is his prophet." :-)


Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an

ancient ET
civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist should

cast
doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position.


Atheism is not disbelief in naturally occurring advanced
civilizations. Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural, e.g.
disbelief in a creature creating an entire universe just by saying a
few words, as described in Genesis.


Of course, most believe that we will be "spirits" living in a

"spiritual
heaven" but they conveniently forget that Jesus had a PHYSICAL body

when
he appeared after his resurrection, and so will we if we will be

"like Him"=

If so, that physical body didn't obey the law of gravity, or else
Jesus would have been unable to ascend up to the sky as described in
the Bible.
  #313  
Old October 15th 18, 10:57 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 15/10/2018 05:03, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:27:31 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:37:47 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an ancient ET
civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist should cast
doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position.


And I find that position bizarre and untenable.


That's YOUR prejudiced position :-)


They only have God like powers in comparison to our present technology.

There are also potentially quite a lot of them too so you have at a
stroke increased, N, the number of deities in the universe to a few
billion or whatever their population grew to be as they colonised the
galaxy (if interstellar travel is actually possible - which I doubt).

Or do you also want to invoke some "Highlander" rule that means that
there can only be one FXQueen's "Princes of the Universe" theme/FX.

I thought you claimed to be a monotheist.

It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these
aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable,
since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly
likely that they're interfering with us.

John Savard


That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe
aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are?


I expect if they existed they would be supremely indifferent to us.
In much the same was as we might look down on an amoeba.

They would be more interested in their own peer group of civilisations
that have full interstellar travel capabilities (if that is possible).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #314  
Old October 15th 18, 01:26 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 1:09:08 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

A lot of churches interpret scripture in different ways and as a result
make up their own doctrine.

That is indeed a problem inherent in any religion, or any ideology
making absolute claims...


This is true of MOST religions, but not all. The development of
Christianity had minimal ideology and grew "precept by precept; line upon
line." At first, it was only to "the house of Israel" then Peter had a
vision concerning Cornelius. Then there was the matter of circumcision
for the gentiles, etc.

By the time of the Council of Nice in 325 AD there were two major divisions
espousing different beliefs about the Godhead, both wrong. Thus it ceased
to be the faith taught in the first century. This was predicted by Paul.


This is typical for any religion which grows big: first there is
unity, but later it will split into several mutually competing and
perhaps even fighting fractions. Remember the crusades fought by the
Catholics? They mostly fought against the Orthodoxes. For instance
the crusades brought so moäunh damage to the city pf Constantinople,
weakening the city so much that it later became much easier for the
Muslims to conquer that city.


It's typical of any organization that doesn't have coherent leadership.
Corporations have CEOs that provide that and still are able to grow and
develop in a coherent manner. The Apostles provided that for the Christian
Church, but they were killed, leaving one, John, in banishment.

I suppose you will agree with this;

"God is an extraterrestrial civilization much more advanced than
ours, and Erich von Däniken is his prophet." :-)


Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an ancient ET
civilization having godlike powers may quite probably exist should cast
doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable position.


Atheism is not disbelief in naturally occurring advanced civilizations.
Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural, e.g. disbelief in a creature
creating an entire universe just by saying a few words, as described in
Genesis.


Atheism ASSERTS there is no God or gods. There are several variations in
beliefs about God. Some believe in God but deny He has a personal interest
in humans. Some believe He created the universe and then cut out. Some
believe He is outside the universe, others that He is part of it. Christians,
Muslims and Jews believe He has a personal interest in humans. Agnostics
are just uncertain about the whole issue.

I don't believe all it took was a few words to create the universe but I'm
not an atheist, so YOUR assertion is wrong.

Of course, most believe that we will be "spirits" living in a "spiritual
heaven" but they conveniently forget that Jesus had a PHYSICAL body when
he appeared after his resurrection, and so will we if we will be "like
Him"


If so, that physical body didn't obey the law of gravity, or else
Jesus would have been unable to ascend up to the sky as described in
the Bible.


Airplanes and rockets don't obey "the law of gravity" in your limited
definition either, have physical attribute, and are able to "ascend up to
the sky. We understand the principles involved so it's not "supernatural."
Appealing to anything we don't understand as supernatural is a poor
argument.
  #315  
Old October 15th 18, 01:37 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 3:57:04 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 15/10/2018 05:03, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:27:31 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:37:47 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Do I have to repeat my thesis AGAIN? That the possibility of an
ancient ET civilization having godlike powers may quite probably
exist should cast doubt in any honest mind that atheism is a viable
position.

And I find that position bizarre and untenable.


That's YOUR prejudiced position :-)


They only have God like powers in comparison to our present technology.


So why can't that be true of God, too?

There are also potentially quite a lot of them too so you have at a
stroke increased, N, the number of deities in the universe to a few
billion or whatever their population grew to be as they colonised the
galaxy (if interstellar travel is actually possible - which I doubt).

Or do you also want to invoke some "Highlander" rule that means that
there can only be one FXQueen's "Princes of the Universe" theme/FX.

I thought you claimed to be a monotheist.


I don't know why you should think that :-)

It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these
aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable,
since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly
likely that they're interfering with us.

John Savard


That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe
aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are?


I expect if they existed they would be supremely indifferent to us.
In much the same was as we might look down on an amoeba.

They would be more interested in their own peer group of civilisations
that have full interstellar travel capabilities (if that is possible).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


That's a conclusion based upon our own proclivities. Suppose intelligent
life is indeed very rare, as some here have asserted, but suppose one
developed early in the universe and have seeded other worlds throughout
the universe. In that case we would be their children and they would
have a specific interest in our development.
  #316  
Old October 15th 18, 02:05 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 05:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
That's a conclusion based upon our own proclivities. Suppose

intelligent
life is indeed very rare, as some here have asserted, but suppose

one
developed early in the universe and have seeded other worlds

throughout
the universe. In that case we would be their children and they

would
have a specific interest in our development.


You are arguing for that the universe has only one single
civilization more advanced than us? That is as probable as if we
humans were the only technological civilization on the universe. If
there are more advanced civilizations than us, it is very likely that
they exist in much larger numbers than just one single such
civilization.

And if they exist in larger numbers, and if we perceive them as gods,
then the monotheistic Christian worldview fails. Then the pantheon of
ancient Roman and Greek gods would be a somewhat less inaccurate
worldview.
  #317  
Old October 15th 18, 02:29 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 7:05:13 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 05:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

That's a conclusion based upon our own proclivities. Suppose intelligent
life is indeed very rare, as some here have asserted, but suppose one
developed early in the universe and have seeded other worlds throughout
the universe. In that case we would be their children and they would
have a specific interest in our development.


You are arguing for that the universe has only one single
civilization more advanced than us?


I said "suppose" -- it's a possibility.

That is as probable as if we humans were the only technological civilization
on the universe.


Some here have advocated that.

If there are more advanced civilizations than us, it is very likely that
they exist in much larger numbers than just one single such civilization.


I'm talking about BILLION-year-older. We're not that advanced.

And if they exist in larger numbers, and if we perceive them as gods,
then the monotheistic Christian worldview fails.


Neither Christianity nor Judaism is monotheistic in the sense you're using.

Then the pantheon of ancient Roman and Greek gods would be a somewhat less
inaccurate worldview.


Not at all. Those gods were often at odds with each other whereas Christianity
has complete agreement among them.
  #318  
Old October 15th 18, 06:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:03:44 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:27:31 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:


It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these
aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable,
since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly
likely that they're interfering with us.


That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe
aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are?


Rather than assuming anything, I just note that when I look out of the window, I
don't see flying saucers bringing CARE packages. So either advanced aliens don't
exist, or they're bound by the speed of light, and so they don't know we exist,
or any number of other explanations.

The premises of yours that I have difficulty with are not the existence of advanced aliens, or that they might be charitably inclined towards us.

No, what I find difficult to believe is:

- that advanced aliens would find setting up religious belief systems on Earth
to be the best or most appropriate way to contribute to our development, and

- that the Bible is a sufficiently impressive document that it demands an
explanation - if not the one it offers, of a supernatural Deity, at least
advanced aliens faking it - other than being a collection of myths, rumors, and
legends packaged up by later priesthoods to make it a better tool for
controlling and manipulating the masses.

My rejection of these premises may be a prejudice on my part, but I find it
rather more reasonable, and requiring less in the way of far-reaching
assumptions, than the viewpoint you are appearing to advocate.

John Savard
  #319  
Old October 15th 18, 08:26 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 15/10/2018 13:37, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 3:57:04 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 15/10/2018 05:03, Gary Harnagel wrote:

That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe
aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are?


I expect if they existed they would be supremely indifferent to us.
In much the same was as we might look down on an amoeba.

They would be more interested in their own peer group of civilisations
that have full interstellar travel capabilities (if that is possible).


That's a conclusion based upon our own proclivities. Suppose intelligent
life is indeed very rare, as some here have asserted, but suppose one
developed early in the universe and have seeded other worlds throughout
the universe. In that case we would be their children and they would
have a specific interest in our development.


I could just about accept that if they really were Gods and were able to
truly play God then we are actually resident in a simulated universe of
their making and that they prefer to watch the ones with interesting
emergent behaviour. I see no evidence at all that they do any meddling.

Multiverse theory permits an infinite universe to sample all parameters
with only the interesting ones ever getting to more complex phases.

ISTR a conjecture that iff it proves possible to build a non-trivial
quantum computer in this universe it considerably shortens the odds that
we are actually inside a simulation in someone else's hyper computer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #320  
Old October 15th 18, 08:29 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:48:25 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:03:44 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:27:31 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

It might cast doubt in any honest mind that the sort-of theism with these
aliens replacing God is unviable, but it doesn't make atheism unviable,
since even if the aliens exist, there's no reason to think it particularly
likely that they're interfering with us.


That's an assumption from a parochial perspective. Why would you believe
aliens billions of years ahead of us would be as self-centered as we are?


Rather than assuming anything, I just note that when I look out of the
window, I don't see flying saucers bringing CARE packages. So either
advanced aliens don't exist, or they're bound by the speed of light, and
so they don't know we exist,


False dichotomy.

or any number of other explanations.


Rather than assume some other explanations, why not assume that they don't
want to destroy our civilization like Europeans destroyed civilizations in
the New World?

The premises of yours that I have difficulty with are not the existence of
advanced aliens, or that they might be charitably inclined towards us.

No, what I find difficult to believe is:

- that advanced aliens would find setting up religious belief systems on
Earth to be the best or most appropriate way to contribute to our development,
and

- that the Bible is a sufficiently impressive document that it demands an
explanation - if not the one it offers, of a supernatural Deity, at least
advanced aliens faking it - other than being a collection of myths, rumors,
and legends packaged up by later priesthoods to make it a better tool for
controlling and manipulating the masses.


I don't think the Bible and religious experience can be explained so easily.

My rejection of these premises may be a prejudice on my part, but I find it
rather more reasonable, and requiring less in the way of far-reaching
assumptions, than the viewpoint you are appearing to advocate.

John Savard


So many, many people have had religious experiences that haven't been promoted
by "priesthoods." These range from the Fatima and Lourdes accounts to Akiane
Kramarek, Colton Burpo and a host of near-death reports.

Atheists would claim these are all hoaxes, misunderstandings or mental
aberrations, but these were all apparently normal people. To cover all
these bases they would need several different explanations (i.e., excuses),
so why invent several when one answers them all (i.e., God really does
exist and interacts with people). Occam's Razor, you know.

This point applies whether or not He exists in a benevolent ET civilization.
As I pointed out to Paul, Christianity requires that the latter exists
because the goal is to become like Him and dwell with Him forever, although
most so-called Christians would deny that it exists in a physical state.
Many of them would also deny that the earth is 4.5 billion years old in a
14-billion-year-old universe. But if they accept the ages given by science,
they MUST conclude that either WE are Johnny-come-lately or God was sitting
around twiddling His thumbs for 9 billion years.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.