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

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 06:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 4:11:07 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

So you say? Well, if so, point me to one single planet besides
the Earth known to have intelligent life. I'm waiting...

Point to one single piece of evidence that refutes intelligence
in
our galaxy.

Your failure to provide the evidence I asked for noted. And here
you
also used the flawed argument "since you cannot disproved me,
must
be right".

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I presented probabilities that are almost certainty that
civilizations
exist in the universe billions of years older than ours, and you
(dishonestly) prattle about "evidence."

Exactly what do you mean with "the universe billions of years old er
than our universe"?

I object to your conclusion "almost certainly" when there are no
known positive cases. Yes, you exclude the Earth since it does not
reside in any universe billions of years older than our universe....


Intelligent life exists on at least one place in our galaxy: here
on
Earth. It may exist elsewhere too but we know nothing about that.

We DO have brains that can THINK. We deal with probabilities daily
much
less certain than the probability of advanced civilizations.

You should read Aristotle's writings about nature as an example of
how erroneous conclusions a brain that THINKS can produce in the
absence of evidence. Such thinking is mostly wishful thinking.


Your false claim was that all Christian deities live in
harmony,
without making any exceptopn for Satan.

Isn't Satan supposed to be a fallen angel? Are angels not
deities?

If Satan isn't a deity it must be a mortal biological creature.
If
so, Satan must be dead by now since it lived thousands of years
ago.


False dichotomy. Are angels "deities"? Were they created? Who
created
them? What about "spirits"?

All these are supernatural deities with supposedly supernatural
powers...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:30:06 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:07:01 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Do really everyone have to be an "evenist" or an "oddist"? If not,
why do everyone have to be a theist or an atheist? Why exclude the
alternative of refraining from choosing a belief here?

Because we don't choose beliefs.

OK, so our beliefs are somehow predetetmined then. But why would that
exclude the third alternative "not decided" or "none of the other
alternatives" or "no opinion"?

It doesn't. But it's extremely unlikely that an even marginally
informed, marginally reflective person would arrive at such a
position. Those are positions from ignorance, given the wealth of
evidence and information that is available.

A person can test whether they are free to be inspired and inspiring or under the constraints of a dour subculture.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

A free person would find a planet with a zero degree inclination and a pivoting circle of illumination repulsive and say as much while those who support such a notion can't feel anything.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:47:01 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:30:06 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:07:01 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Do really everyone have to be an "evenist" or an "oddist"? If
not,
why do everyone have to be a theist or an atheist? Why exclude
the
alternative of refraining from choosing a belief here?

Because we don't choose beliefs.

OK, so our beliefs are somehow predetetmined then. But why would
that
exclude the third alternative "not decided" or "none of the other
alternatives" or "no opinion"?

It doesn't. But it's extremely unlikely that an even marginally
informed, marginally reflective person would arrive at such a
position. Those are positions from ignorance, given the wealth of
evidence and information that is available.

You seem to believe that the decision of whether to be an atheist or
not is an intellectual decision. Mostly it isn't, it is much more an
emotiomal decision. t is easy for someone living a calm and secure
life to become an atheist. t is much harder for someone living a
restless and unsecure life, for instance soldiers in war. If the
soldier gets woundef in battle the probability of him becoming
religious rises further. And that does not make him semi-retarded,
people react that way. You too would do that.

I am Catholic by culture and upbringing but the transition to Christian was not an individual decision nor can it ever be -

"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or of human desire, but born of God." John

'Born of God' defies description because the mind is unable to fill the experience and so the journey begins to put the individual in relation to creation and especially through humanity productivity and creativity.

Despite the puffed-up nature of many here whether they call themselves atheists,agnostics, whatever - they are a product of decisions made by the Catholic Church as long as they maintain an empirical view of astronomy/terrestrial sciences. The Galileo affair specifically created the empirical subculture with all its hopeless chanting at the celestial arena so, until the Church recognises the technical and historical details which surrounded the emergence of a Sun centered system, the noise from empiricists will just grow louder.

Astronomy is safe but obscured by people who have no real feeling for the heritage we inherited from antiquity but thankfully that is now changing.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 20:23:19 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:47:01 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:30:06 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:07:01 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Do really everyone have to be an "evenist" or an "oddist"? If
not,
why do everyone have to be a theist or an atheist? Why exclude
the
alternative of refraining from choosing a belief here?

Because we don't choose beliefs.

OK, so our beliefs are somehow predetetmined then. But why would
that
exclude the third alternative "not decided" or "none of the other
alternatives" or "no opinion"?

It doesn't. But it's extremely unlikely that an even marginally
informed, marginally reflective person would arrive at such a
position. Those are positions from ignorance, given the wealth of
evidence and information that is available.

You seem to believe that the decision of whether to be an atheist or
not is an intellectual decision. Mostly it isn't, it is much more an
emotiomal decision.

I'm not assuming it's an intellectual decision at all. It is an
intellectual decision to learn critical thinking and apply it, which
naturally leads one to become an atheist. But I make no supposition as
to the nature or quality of the evidence involved in reaching some
state of belief. It may be academic, it may be emotional, it may be
programmed childhood dogma. The point is, in our culture we are all
exposed to some combination of these, and that makes it extremely
unlikely that anybody can honestly have no opinion at all on the
question of the existence of gods.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:42:44 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 20:23:19 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:47:01 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:30:06 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:07:01 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Do really everyone have to be an "evenist" or an "oddist"?
If
not,
why do everyone have to be a theist or an atheist? Why
exclude
the
alternative of refraining from choosing a belief here?

Because we don't choose beliefs.

OK, so our beliefs are somehow predetetmined then. But why
would
that
exclude the third alternative "not decided" or "none of the
other
alternatives" or "no opinion"?

It doesn't. But it's extremely unlikely that an even marginally
informed, marginally reflective person would arrive at such a
position. Those are positions from ignorance, given the wealth of
evidence and information that is available.

You seem to believe that the decision of whether to be an atheist
or
not is an intellectual decision. Mostly it isn't, it is much more
an
emotiomal decision.

I'm not assuming it's an intellectual decision at all. It is an
intellectual decision to learn critical thinking and apply it, which
naturally leads one to become an atheist. But I make no supposition
as
to the nature or quality of the evidence involved in reaching some
state of belief. It may be academic, it may be emotional, it may be
programmed childhood dogma. The point is, in our culture we are all
exposed to some combination of these, and that makes it extremely
unlikely that anybody can honestly have no opinion at all on the
question of the existence of gods.

Why is it unlikely to have no opinion about something you've realized
is unknowable?

Compared to that bowl with sand and the question about whether the
number of grains of sand in that bowl is an even number or an odd
number. That too is, in practice, unknowable, and it would be quite
natural to have no opinion about that.

For those who have realized that the question about the existence or
nonexistence of deities also is unknowable it would be just as
natural to have no opinion about that question. After all, your
opinion about it would say something about you but not anything about
our universe.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:03:48 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

I'm not assuming it's an intellectual decision at all. It is an
intellectual decision to learn critical thinking and apply it, which
naturally leads one to become an atheist. But I make no supposition
as
to the nature or quality of the evidence involved in reaching some
state of belief. It may be academic, it may be emotional, it may be
programmed childhood dogma. The point is, in our culture we are all
exposed to some combination of these, and that makes it extremely
unlikely that anybody can honestly have no opinion at all on the
question of the existence of gods.

Why is it unlikely to have no opinion about something you've realized
is unknowable?

Why should knowability influence opinion? I think it is likely that
the true nature of reality, the underlying "why" of universal laws are
unknowable. It does not stop me from believing with high confidence
that the mechanisms we can observe accurately describe these things.
Theologically, I can easily argue that the existence of gods is likely
unknowable (unless they reveal themselves), but nevertheless believe,
on the face of the available evidence, that they do not exist.

Compared to that bowl with sand and the question about whether the
number of grains of sand in that bowl is an even number or an odd
number. That too is, in practice, unknowable, and it would be quite
natural to have no opinion about that.

The answer in that case is perfectly knowable. I can count the grains
and know for certain. I cannot examine the Universe for a god that has
the power to hide itself.

For those who have realized that the question about the existence or
nonexistence of deities also is unknowable it would be just as
natural to have no opinion about that question. After all, your
opinion about it would say something about you but not anything about
our universe.

I've certainly never met anybody who had no opinion on the question of
gods. Pretty much for the same reason I've never met anybody with no
opinion on the shape of the Earth. Nobody is that poorly informed on
either issue.

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 8:43:48 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 06:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 4:11:07 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Your failure to provide the evidence I asked for noted. And here
you also used the flawed argument "since you cannot disproved me,
must be right".

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I presented probabilities that are almost certainty that civilizations
exist in the universe billions of years older than ours, and you
(dishonestly) prattle about "evidence."

Exactly what do you mean with "the universe billions of years old er
than our universe"?

The antecedent to "ours" is "civilization" not "universe."

I object to your conclusion "almost certainly" when there are no
known positive cases.

Reject all you want, but that's just your biases and prejudices speaking.
Anyone with a grasp of probability theory and no preconceived notions
would disagree with you.

Intelligent life exists on at least one place in our galaxy: here
on Earth. It may exist elsewhere too but we know nothing about that.

We DO have brains that can THINK. We deal with probabilities daily
much less certain than the probability of advanced civilizations.

You should read Aristotle's writings about nature as an example of
how erroneous conclusions a brain that THINKS can produce in the
absence of evidence. Such thinking is mostly wishful thinking.

Aristotle didn't have probability theory to guide him.

Isn't Satan supposed to be a fallen angel? Are angels not
deities?

If Satan isn't a deity it must be a mortal biological creature.
If so, Satan must be dead by now since it lived thousands of
years ago.

False dichotomy. Are angels "deities"? Were they created? Who
created them? What about "spirits"?

All these are supernatural deities with supposedly supernatural
powers...

Nope. You failed to copy the scriptural evidence I listed to promote
your preconceived notions.

"the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh" -- Numbers 27:16

"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison"
-- 1 Peter 3:19

The next line I didn't list explains that the spirits referred to
were disobedient in the time of Noah. From this it is clear that after
death they became disembodied spirits who weren't "deities" since they
had to be preached to.

And YOU have a particular definition of "supernatural" that apparently
means "anything that physics hasn't encountered/detected." I reject
that definition :-)

There's a LOT of evidence that our own spirits exist, but it's mostly
anecdotal (I say MOSTLY but not ALL).

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:52:39 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:
FYI: I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic.

I don't believe you. And what you've said is still an
expression of religious faith.

Fine with me - you can have whatever religious faith you wish.

As can you, which is a good thing for you.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.