• Agonizer / Text / Put The Scales Back In Front Of Your Eyes

Creationists Watch ‘Cosmos,’ Emit Billions And Billions Of Sad Words

jesuscried

Creationists Watch 'Cosmos,' Emit Billions And Billions Of Sad Words

We must be reaching some sort of event horizon where evangelicals will participate in no culture whatsoever and will stop whining about it, right? Please? Today brings us the inevitable news that watching “Cosmos” — a show that is (thank god) aggressively up front about explaining evolution — made creationists and fellow travelers SO MAD.

Some of the poor souls oppressed by Neil deGrasse Tyson’s return to the promised land first pioneered by Carl Sagan took to Twitter with their predictable grumblings. My favorite: “Dear #cosmos, the origin of the universe actually is not mysterious. God had Moses write about it in the #Bible. You should read it sometime.”

OOH, SNAP! YA BURNT, SCIENCE!

Seriously, the airing of “Cosmos” was bound to be a vector, a veritably irresistible magnetic force, to conservative doofuses everywhere that refuse to believe in science because their skygod tells them not to and haha they are totally letting the car run all night in the garage just to show those hippy dippy environmentalists what is what. Oh, also too, they’re tired of having Obama rammed down their throat.

If there was any doubt that the rebooted Cosmos series, which premiered last night, would be politically charged and have a materialistic ideological message, consider what viewers saw in its first 60 seconds. The initial opening featured President Obama, with the Presidential Seal in the background, giving a statement endorsing the new series, praising “the spirit of discovery that Carl Sagan captured in the original Cosmos.” That’s not necessarily bad, except for what happened next. Immediately following President Obama’s endorsement, the show replayed Carl Sagan’s famous materialistic credo from the opening of the original Cosmos series, stating: “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

And where else would those words go? They were, after all, the first words Sagan said in the original series, and the whole point of the opening shot — Neil deGrasse Tyson at the same bluff over the Pacific — was to tie the new series to the old.

Dear Christian conservatives: we are sorry that your version of the skygod is so fragile that even speaking about the cosmos somehow negates the existence of your skygod or murders your skygod or whatevs. Plenty of people find room enough in their brains to love science AND a skygod, but your brains clearly aren’t big enough.

Did their breathless terrified prose get dumber? Haha of course it did.

Does it violate the separation of church and state for the President of the United States to be portrayed seemingly officially endorsing Sagan’s materialistic philosophy?

Nope. Next question.

Is this what President Obama intended when he promised in his first inaugural address to “restore science to its rightful place”?

Maybe. Sure. Why not? Most of us that are not you are actually pretty cool with science being all prominent and shit.

Or did the president simply give a general endorsement of the series, and the producers of Cosmos positioned it so as to appear that he endorsed Sagan’s atheistic worldview?

Perhaps you need to stop having such a simultaneously dim and paranoid view of human nature. Bamz’ appearance rolled right into the Sagan opening because a team of people at FOX went “hey, wouldn’t it be cool to have Obama talk and then go all retro with the O.G. Carl Sagan stuff before Neil comes out?” And then other people at FOX said “yes, let us do that, because then many people will watch and we love money.” See? No secret atheist agenda there. Feel better? Probably not, but we don’t care.

[Salon/Evolution News]

You may also like...

  • Obama basically endorsing a commercial tv show was kind of surprising. Show is great, though.

    • Shanasmiles

      It’s a public broadcasting production, that means it is paid for by tax deductible private donations and in small part by direct infusion of funds from federally collected taxes. Endorsing Cosmos is quite different, but it isn’t particularly commercial (like if the President endorsed True Detective on HBO). HOWEVER, you bring to mind an excellent book I read years ago about presidential endorsements of products! (Aren’t I the life of the party?) many presidents have endorsed Novels, plays, grooming products, medicine, etc. if you’re interested, google it sometime…I enjoy curiosities of American history 🙂

      • unclemike

        Are you sure it’s funded that way? I thought it was Seth MacFarlane and Fox.

        • SullivanSt

          You are correct. The Sagan series was PBS, the new one is Fox.

        • Shanasmiles

          You’re right! It was my mistaken assumption that this cosmos was funded the same way as the original.

      • xMatt

        It’s probably not as strange that he endorsed something, just more strange what he is endorsing. He claims to be a Christian and endorses a show that criticizes Christianity and encourages people to reject religion. Makes you go hmmmm. Same reaction I would have if he starts endorsing a show that encourages people to pollute when he claims to be a big environmentalist.

        • doktorzoom

          Excuse me? Where does Cosmos “encourage people to reject religion”? The Giordano Bruno story in the first episode, flawed though it is, doesn’t say anything about rejecting religion — it does, however, say that ideas should be tested, and if found wanting, like the dogmatic insistence on geocentrism, those particular disproven ideas should be rejected. If you can point to a single moment in either the 1980 or 2014 version of Cosmos that says “please reject your religion, for it is false,” I’d love to see it.

          • xMatt

            I’m not the one claiming this… a bunch of athiests quoted in a Washington Post article are. From the article: “Among this group, many credit Sagan and the original “Cosmos” with instilling in them skepticism of the supernatural and a sense of wonder about the universe. Both, they say, encouraged their rejection of institutional religion.”

          • doktorzoom

            Please pay attention to your own comments. You wrote, of Barack Obama, “He claims to be a Christian and endorses a show that criticizes Christianity and encourages people to reject religion.”That’s you, calling Cosmos a show that criticizes Christianity and encourages pepole to reject religion. It is not you saying that Barack Obama endorses a show that a bunch of atheists in the Washington Post say criticizes religion, etc.

          • xMatt

            How is this not making sense to you?Did you watch the show? It clearly criticizes religion, specifically Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Christians and Atheists seem to agree about this point. Not sure why you aren’t coming to that same conclusion.Yes, it is ME calling Cosmos a show that criticizes…… I just referenced the recent Washington Post article to back up my claim. And Obama is endorsing it. Just makes you wonder what he believes on the subject of the origin of the universe.

          • $73376667

            Both Christians and Atheists seem to agree about this point.

            Both have an axe to grind, what’s your point?

          • xMatt

            If opposing groups come to the same conclusion, seems to offer it at least a little more validity. He was questioning what I said about the show.

          • $73376667

            The two sides in question will agree to argue about something simply because they want to fight. There is enough passion and vitriol among the two that their “agreement” to have an internet flame war about something says nothing about the merits of the underlying assertion. Saying that “Evangelicals and atheists agree that Cosmos is worth fighting over” is like saying “Communists and capitalists agree that Southeast Asia is worth fighting over.”

          • xMatt

            That’s the thing, my point isn’t that they’re agreeing to argue over the show, my point is that the two opposing sides came to the same conclusion about the show…. that it encourages people to question religion. Based on all the religious bashing going on here after people watched the show, it’s not hard to draw that same conclusion. I just posted the newspaper article to back up the same claim as well. Haven’t watched the 2nd episode yet, it’s on my DVR, so I don’t know if the anti-religious message is as obvious in the 2nd one yet. How the religious people were drawn in the cartoons in the first episode were so bad it was ridiculous. They looked like evil villains out of some kids cartoon. Even had the deep/evil voices to go along with the look.

        • Brian

          Theories about Obama being an atheist aside, I’m guessing he endorsed it because science and scientific advancements are good for the American economy, and getting people interested in science — like by watching Cosmos — is a good way to help increase the potential future crop of American scientists.So his endorsement is an attempt, I’m guessing, to help future American security.

      • But it’s not on PBS, it’s on Fox.There are commercials.

        • Shanasmiles

          My bad! I made an erroneous assumption that the same funding was behind the new version as the original. You’re right! That is more peculiar. Is it considered an endorsement when the president appears on a show? In some way that indicates that he isn’t opposed. 🙂

  • KittySoft Paws Rolufs

    “Most of us that are not you are actually pretty cool with science being all prominent and shit.”Amen!!

  • BaldarTFlagass

    I think the Muslims did a fatwa on Tyson, too. Or was that the Noah movie I’m thinking of?

  • Brian Harris

    I love money too!

  • James Donnaught
    • dorquemada

      Great read, thank you!

  • Beowoof14

    Oh damn there go those facts again, getting all up in your mythology

  • SullivanSt

    Did it violate the Establishment clause when numerous past Presidents explicitly officially endorsed Christianity?

    • Raylusk

      Nope there is not violation for expressing an opinion. There is however a violation for legislation that implements Christian morality on the rest of us. That’s what these rw idiots don’t seem to understand.

      • xMatt

        Neither is a violation. The sole purpose of the establishment clause is to prevent the US equivalent of the official “church of England.” The fact that Christian morality and our laws overlap doesn’t break the clause. Just because Christians think, for example, that murder is a sin, doesn’t prevent us from being able to make murder illegal.

        • SullivanSt

          Seeing murder as bad vastly predates Christianity, and is agreed on by every major religion, and also secular humanists and other atheists. It’s not “Christian morality”.You need to brush up on your Supreme Court case law, because it would certainly be unconstitutional to, say, pass a law allowing you to take your kid to the elders at the city wall and have him stoned to death for disrespecting you, despite the Bible saying it.

          • xMatt

            The point is, that in the US, it DOESN’T MATTER whether the moral laws we pass originated in the Bible or not. We get to vote on them, and pass (or not pass them) regardless of where the idea came from (or how old it is). The only thing that the separation of church and state prevents us from doing is forming a formal religion that the government forces on us. Obviously based on how many “moral laws” that have been completely constitutional as well as being passed by our founding fathers and all our politicians since then that overlap with so called “Christian morality,” it doesn’t seem to be an issue. Fact is, government “forces us” to do things we don’t like and don’t necessarily agree with all the time. I just find it ironic that the same people who complain about being forced to follow “Christian laws,” have zero problem forcing others to follow, for example, “environmentalist laws.” Both sets of rules are the government forcing people to do something they don’t necessarily want to do…. it the name of the “greater good.”The key word in what I said though is “overlap.” I agree, it would be wrong to pass a law solely on the basis of “the Bible says so.”

          • SullivanSt

            Off the top of my head, Loving vs Virginia, Griswold vs Connecticut, Roe vs Wade, Romer vs Evans and Lawrence vs Texas all lay the lie to your constitutional claims.”Christian laws” are about behaviors that don’t affect anyone who didn’t consent to participate in them, like getting a blowjob, or getting married. Environmental laws are about behaviors that affect large numbers of people without them even knowing what’s happening much less consenting to them. They are categorically different.

          • xMatt

            Any of those cases could be argued with or without religious arguments. My point isn’t whether or not people and politicians use religious beliefs to pass laws (THEY DO!). My point is that you cannot dismiss a belief just because it is or isn’t religious. Roe v Wade can easily be argued against from a purely secular view. Protect fertilized human eggs in the same way we protect fertilized sea turtle eggs. Or on the same basis you use for environmentalism… it affects large numbers of people without their consent (the baby). Purely secular people reject 3rd trimester abortions. The list goes on. You could go through every one of those so called “Christian laws” that you reject and find some basis outside of the Bible to be for or against them. My point is that me voting based on my religious beliefs is no more or less valid than you voting on your personal beliefs (wherever they came from.)

          • Nate Doty

            ::sigh::A fertilized egg is not a baby, unless you enter into account personal belief of a divine spark of humanity at the moment of conception (which gets kind of messy when you take into account things like twinning and, even more so, fusion but alas).Aside from nit-picking, I do generally agree that from a legal standpoint a religious belief is just a subset of other personal beliefs. I believe this particular argument is touchy because many religious folks have a hard time finding good reasons outside of personal (likely religiously based) ones to stand in the way of things like gay marriage or abortion. I personally believe (there’s that word again) that this strife is coming from the fact that, in previous generations in America, much easier for Christian morals to reign supreme. Presently, they are now being challenged by increasing numbers of more vocal non-Christians and ::gasp:: atheists and agnostics who simply don’t share the same foundation of belief and therefore don’t hold sacred the same rules.

          • Kelly Lewis-Walls

            Matt, I just want to clarify something: “The only thing that the separation of church and state prevents us from doing is forming a formal religion that the government forces on us.”This is 100% false. There is so much case law involving Free Exercise, Free Speech, the Establishment Clause, that I am not sure how you even developed this notion. These laws/rights exist so that one religion or belief system is not shown preference over another. When a sect acts in a manner that is exclusive to the point of non safety for its participants, the separation of church and state allows the government to step in (Kiryas v. Grumet) But that is just one tiny part of it. These laws also exist so that sects are not given the ability to make decisions that should only reside with public legislative authorities (Larkin v. Grendel’s Den). The REAL reason separation between church and state exists can be gleaned from Madison’s Remonstrance, which I suggest you read before making any more blanket statements.

          • xMatt

            You’re right, there are tons of legal cases that have extended and changed the establishment clause. I think I should have better stated, “the original intention of the establishment clause was….” But since then, things have changed and continue to change. I’ve seen locally in my town people using the establishment clause to prevent local politicians from praying before a meeting. Which is ironic since they open congress with a prayer. I don’t think that was the original intention. But yes, I’d say you’re correct in stating that my blanket statement as written is false.

          • xMatt

            While we probably disagree on personal beliefs, it seems you understand the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

          • SullivanSt

            The protected species of turtle are highly endangered. There as 6.5 billion humans and the population is growing rapidly. We are very, very far from endangered by anything but our own stupidity and chutzpah. Again, categorical difference. You seem to be having enormous difficulty with comparisons.All of the laws that were struck down were motivated and defended largely on religious grounds. All failed. That’s the damn point – you’re simply wrong to claim that it’s ok to enact religious morality, it gets struck down over and over and over.Roe vs Wade explicitly allowed for 3rd trimester restrictions, and yes some secularists do support such restrictions, as long as there are exceptions for maternal health. And here’s where the detail again rejects the possibility of religious legislation. The religious want no exception for maternal health. Roe vs Wade requires such an exception. Secularists do too, because we reject the notion, enshrined in Catholic catechism and repeated by other denominations, that when a non viable fetus is threatening the life of the mother, two deaths are better than one.Your point to now never had a damn thing to do with electoral voting. I’ll take your blatant goalpost shifting as an admission of defeat.

          • xMatt

            Sorry, from a purely secular humanist point of view:Human > Turtle. From an purely secular evolutionary point of view…. who cares if they go extinct? That’s part of the natural order. Survival of the fittest. From a legal point of view: Human > Turtle.So why do fertilized turtle eggs get better treatment legally than fertilized human eggs?Again, don’t feel the need to try to answer this question. My point isn’t to start an abortion debate. My point is to show that there are logical reasons to argue about it from a moral and legal standpoint without mentioning the Bible or any other religious text.

          • SullivanSt

            From a purely secularist point of view, the notion that human > turtle is mere tribalism.From a long term human survival point of view, biodiversity is important and should be preserved, especially when it’s human activity and its environmental effects that are threatening extinctions.From a legal point of view you seem deeply confused. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that turtle > human and that human > turtle. You made the first claim first, which means that were this court and you attempted to make the second claim I’d cry out “objection, estoppel”, and the judge would sustain, preventing you from arguing against what you had already argued.

          • xMatt

            I’m arguing that there’s hypocrisy in the law. Not surprising though. Our legal system is filled with it. Double murder for killing a pregnant woman? Hypocritical. Why is one drug legal, then another less powerful, less dangerous drug illegal? Hypocritical. Why is “gambling” illegal, but lottery legal? Hypocritical. But you’re still getting off on tangents. Back to the point at hand: Religious moral beliefs and secular moral beliefs can and do overlap in our legal system… and that’s ok. As long as something is legal or legal for reasons OTHER than purely religious ones, they can be justified in our courts. And I think that there are plenty of non-religious arguments to be made in the cases that were listed. I was just giving some examples. If you want to talk turtles some more, I don’t think that sea turtles are really necessary for long term human survival. Do I think we should smash and eat endangered species eggs? NO. But not for religious or humanist reasons…. just simply because I think it would be sad if we needlessly killed off a species. And to vote one way in the matter… sometimes emotions are plenty. I just think that humans deserve that same level of protection.

          • splashy79

            Fertilized human eggs need a female to live in until developed enough to be born. If that female does not want it there, then she should have the right to refuse it, just as she would have the right to refuse to be hooked up to someone else to give them blood for 9 months, or give other parts of her body, to keep them alive. No one is required to do it for a born person.Therefore your comparison is flawed.

          • xMatt

            The point wasn’t to get into a debate about abortion. The point was that it CAN BE ARGUED WITHOUT RELIGION! Back to the idea that it doesn’t matter if secular morality and religious morality overlap when it comes to laws. But if you want to know a few reasons why your comparison and logic are flawed on the abortion subject, here’s a list (that has nothing to do with religion as well):1. You’re assuming that the relationship between a mother and child is no more significant than a stranger. No one expects you to Feed, bathe, change the diapers, etc. of a stranger. You are responsible for your own kids. And YOU ARE responsible for your “born kids.” 2. Aside from the rare (less than 2% of abortions) rape cases, the baby isn’t “forced” on the mother, it’s the result of an intentional act. 3. Your analogy of a blood transfusion doesn’t strengthen your moral position, it weakens it. How did that person get sick? If YOU made them sick and the only way to save them was to be hooked to you for 9 months, yeah, you might have a moral obligation. Same goes for the baby. You (98% of the time) put it there. 4. You’re ignoring natural order. The baby isn’t a parasite or intruder, it’s supposed to be there. The proper place for an unborn baby is in the mother’s womb. 5. Your argument is flawed because it would require you to support abortion at every stage of pregnancy. You could even extend it to abandoning your children after they’re born (so you’re not “forced” to give up your live for them).There’s plenty more…. but again, this isn’t an abortion argument. Just trying to point out again that none of these logical arguments have anything to do with religion.

        • Raylusk

          No it isn’t just to prevent our Government from establishing an official religion. It is to make sure our government doesn’t do things that make one religion more important than another in the view of the government. The reason murder is against the law has nothing to do with morality our Christian views. It has everything to do with no one has the right to deprive someone else of their right to life with out justification. Over the years we as a society have defined what is a justifiable reason and what isn’t. Our Constitution was written so that any laws passed that infringe and individuals rights need to have a justification for society that outweighs that persons rights. When we hear our politicians say that a law must be passed because it is a sin that is when they have overstepped their bounds and if enough politicians express this view before passing legislation that makes the legislation clearly unconstitutional. Sin is not a constitutional reason for passing any law.

          • xMatt

            You’re right, “sin” isn’t a constitutional reason for passing a law. However it’s also not a reason to not pass it. If enough people in this country think that something is “wrong” and should be illegal, it doesn’t really matter (from a legal standpoint) why they came to that conclusion. Just for an example. Some people think cocaine should be illegal because a book told them drugs are bad. Other people think it’s bad for society. Others think it’s bad for kids, etc. If enough people agree…. laws get passed. The problem comes when people either 1. only try to pass the laws because of a religion, or 2. only try to oppose the laws because of a lack of belief in the region. In the end, people tend to vote based on their own personal values and beliefs. I think that’s fine, and don’t think it matters if their belief system in that case is from a religion book a secular book, or just made up from personal experiences. I may critique certain beliefs if they’re illogical, but outside of that, none are less valid from a legal standpoint. FWIW, the founding fathers and the guys who came up with the Establishment clause were MOSTLY Christians who passed MANY laws based on their personal beliefs on what was and wasn’t a sin. Politicians absolutely are allowed to be religious and vote based on their beliefs. It’s the government as a whole that cannot force a single religion.

      • SullivanSt

        I know that, was just pointing out the hypocrisy in people who voted for Bush and idolize Reagan suddenly getting their knickers in a twist just because it happens not to be their religion they perceive to be getting an endorsement.

        • Raylusk

          Sorry about that sometimes when I write things don’t come out as intended. I was agreeing with you.

  • Guest

    So, lemme get this straight;the word ‘cosmos’ gets defined as “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be” and the religiots get all pouty. Does that mean they finally admit their God is not included anywhere in all that is, or ever was, or ever will be? Gee, I just KNEW there was a reason their ideology was debilitatingly limited to BELIEF.It’s weird to me that these cosmically paranoid, superstitious, sycophantic jackasses, who can’t do anything more than desperately make-believe that life is meaningful, somehow hijacked the title ‘faithful’ when the whole core concept of beliefism is an unwarranted distrust of one’s own existence and a bizzare regard for self-deceit as the exclusive path to truth; belief seems pretty damn faithLESS, if you ask me.As a genuine admirer of reality, I gotta say;I just don’t have enough faithlessness to be a christian.

  • Anomalous Hominid

    So, lemme get this straight…the word ‘cosmos’ gets defined as “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be”, and the religiots get all pouty because they feel left out?; does that mean they finally admit their “God” is not included anywhere in all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?Gee, I just KNEW there was a reason their ideology was debilitatingly limited to BELIEF.Quite frankly it’s nonsense to me that such cosmically paranoid, superstitious, self-deluding, sycophantic jackasses, who feel they can’t do anything more than desperately MAKE-BELIEVE that life is meaningful, somehow hijacked the title ‘faithful’ when the whole core concept of beliefism is basically an unwarranted distrust of one’s own existence coupled with a bizarre regard for self-deceit as the exclusive path to truth; belief seems pretty damn faithLESS, if you ask me.As a genuine admirer of plain ol’ ordinary everyday reality, I gotta say;I just don’t have enough faithlessness to be a christian.

    • xMatt

      You’re right about one thing. It definitely takes more faith to believe that all of existence came from an infinitely small, infinitely dense point with an infinite amount of energy that always existed and accidentally exploded while violating every law of physics we believe in today in order to result in us than to believe that a supernatural power exists with the ability to break and make the laws of physics.I do find It interesting that you somehow “admire” reality while at the same time proclaim it all meaningless and arbitrary. Seems like a conflict of views. I’m betting you don’t find your life or the lives of those around you so meaningless when something happens to alter or end those lives.

      • Franklin Bacon

        The issue leads to infinite regress. The religious folks never admit that their god thingy had to come from somewhere, but the scientists don’t claim to know where their big bang thingy came from. Assumption is that it is natural, unlike the unknown god thingy.

        • Raylusk

          Perfect reply. Great job.

        • xMatt

          Except that there’s one problem. The belief in God allows for the impossible and belief there is no supernatural keeps the impossible impossible. There are definitely two different groups of “big bang scientists.” Those that say, “I’m not sure where it came from,” and those that say, “I’m not sure, but it definitely wasn’t God.”

          • Shanasmiles

            The mere belief in god does NOT make supernatural impossibilities come true. That is a ridiculously pedantic statement bereft of logic. Scientists do not make anything impossible. We determine he probability of any particular event to approach zero based on current evidence and understanding. And that’s the key. As the understanding deepens and the evidence accumulates, the probabilities change. Science doesn’t disprove god. It cannot empirically test the phenomenon. Many scientists currently believe the probability of a god is a non-zero number. I have a PhD in molecular biology and I’m one of the minority (but growing) number of scientists who don’t believe in any god. Most do.

          • Shanasmiles

            *i couldn’t edit for some reason* But their belief doesn’t make them bad scientists…I won’t venture to guess what they believe, but I have personally reviewed the work of many scientists of diverse backgrounds and there doesn’t appear to be a correlation between belief and ability. These things aren’t diametrically opposed…they can, and should coexist. I, as a scientist, am not interested in calling anyone away from their god. I’m interested in helping people to improve their lives so that they can believe whatever they want, say whatever they need, and do whatever they are determined for as long as possible.

          • xMatt

            It is ridiculous. It’s also not what I said. “Allows for the possibility of” is not the same as “proves.” And for me, it takes less faith to believe in the likelihood of a supernatural creator than it does for me to believe in the likelihood of something from nothing, or always everything, or infinite possibility, etc. If all I go by is what we currently know and understand about science, existence, and what we can observe and understand….. I can’t explain it without the supernatural. But that doesn’t keep me from being interested in science and discovery. Quite the opposite. I find it all incredibly interesting and think we should keep trying to understand the universe around us. But if you go by probability and statistics, the probability of us all existing without an external force and pretty much the probability of almost anything we can measure in nature approaches zero. But with this TV series, it’s not just “probability” I have issues with, it’s impossibility. When they say things like “the entire mass of the universe fit into a space the size of an atom.” While it sounds cool, I’ll categorize that one as impossible until they can prove anything even remotely close to that is observable in the known universe even in theory.

          • SullivanSt

            Problem is, belief in a creator doesn’t answer a single question about the origin of the universe, it simply replaces them with the same questions about the origin of the creator. You only get around that by saying you’re not allowed to ask those questions of the creator. Why not cut out a step and say you’re not allowed to ask them of the universe, and stay on the right side of Occam’s Razor?

          • xMatt

            I don’t see it that way. To me the logical proof goes something like this:You can’t get something from nothing. Something exists. Something else must exist that can make something from nothing and exists in an of itself. That’s God. I have a harder time believing the universe and matter itself has the supernatural ability to create itself. And if somehow it did…. that’s God. It goes along with the intelligent design proof.

          • SullivanSt

            That’s fucking hilarious. ID “proof”. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!You might want to go look up the definition of supernatural, because the way you just used it is completely nonsensical.And again, there is no “before” the Big Bang. Therefore there’s no transition from there being nothing to there being something.Plus you have still emphatically failed to even acknowledge the question of how God came to exist, which is at least as hard a question as how the universe came to exist without God, really much more so.

          • xMatt

            Never heard of a logical proof before? Not sure why that concept is so funny. They go something like this:All german shepherds are dogs. Spot is a german shepherd. Therefore Spot is a dog. “Proofs” are different than the way you’re ridiculing the word “proof.” By definition, God always existed. Self-existent being. Would have to be. I don’t understand why you’re so certain there was “nothing before the big bang.” Perfectly fine with everything coming from nothing? That takes a lot of faith. Most scientists seem to have varying theories on what was “before” the big bang. Just not sure why you seem so certain.

          • SullivanSt

            Oh and by the way, black holes are also known as singularities, because the theory (general relativity, it’s held up pretty damn well under observation) is that while their event horizons are macroscopic, the actual mass-energy is concentrated into an infinitesimal point. Much like the initial singularity. So nuts to your claim of “impossible”.

          • Shanasmiles

            Didnt take calculus did you? Approaching zero means that it is unlikely but not impossible. All life is a stochastic event born of a series of improbable outcomes due to the entropy effect. Your issue with the contraction of matter has been addressed in several theories… Also, why does it really matter? Even if the big bang were proven absolutely, that doesnt mean you cant believe in god or the supernatural. The bible says god made everything, it didnt give a detailed description of exactly how everything was made. In fact Romans 11:33 says; Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! Your estimations of the impossible lack the gravitas to convince me of your unsupported hypothesis. I understand your point, but you are over your head when it comes to making a cogent, logic based argument.

          • xMatt

            You have to understand, I’m not arguing against the big bang. I’m just saying it didn’t happen all by itself and many things aren’t “approaching zero” as you state, they’re just plain impossible as they break the laws of physics and logic. Took plenty of calculus back in school, I understand limits just fine.

          • Deleted

            This post was deleted.

          • xMatt

            Of course not, but it breaks the ones we DO understand and have been discovered.

          • Brian

            That’s an interesting perspective. I haven’t run into Christians who would say “I’m not sure where it came from,” but rather “I’m sure it was god.” Now, they might, if pressed, say they don’t know the specifics of how it happened, but they definitely know it came from god.

          • xMatt

            Well, kinda by definition, Christians would have to believe in God. But they believe by faith not certainty. Faith is definitely a tricky subject, but pretty common even in people who don’t believe in God. Faith exists in something as simple as sitting in a chair. You have faith the chair will support you, faith in those who constructed it, etc. Scientists put faith in what they observe, faith that things are constant (even if we don’t understand them, like gravity) etc. The world is filled with uncertainty. Nothing wrong with having a little faith in the unknown. My purpose for posting here isn’t to try to convince anyone of the existence of God. Only to convince people that there are perfectly logical reasons for believing God (or a supernatural power) exists.

          • Deleted

            This post was deleted.

          • xMatt

            Do you believe in morality? Right and wrong?I’m betting most of your ideals are pretty steeped in tradition. Of course any rational adult will look at those traditional beliefs and deem them accurate or not for themselves. I’ve never met a religious adult who rationalizes their beliefs based on what their parents thought.

        • Nate Doty

          xMatt you seem to have a good head on your shoulders but you also seem to be missing some important points. What constitutes ‘proof’ in your mind? 100% certainty? Then please feel free to stop believing that your computer will function as it is designed to, that your cell phone will correctly talk to the satellites, and that general medical practices are likely to improve your health.Contrary to popular opinion, science does not by that definition prove anything. As Shanasmiles was correct to point out, the scientific process aims to reduce uncertainty to commonly accepted statistically meaningful levels. Everything from chemical reactions to electromagnetics to astrophysics and yes, even biology (to an arguably lesser extend) are fields governed by “laws” that are generally accepted as being pretty darn likely to work the way we think they will. If they were less likely to work than they are (exceedingly close to but not exactly 100%) then your GPS would never have a clue where you are. Models that are not effectively predictive are not good models and – like organisms not well suited to their environment – do not persist, do not evolve, and are discarded.Frankly, any scientist who would say “I’m not sure, but it Definitely wasn’t God” isn’t particularly in line with the scientific process.

      • SullivanSt

        No, scientists do not believe the initial singularity “always existed”. We believe that in this universe there is no such thing as “before” the Big Bang. It’s a geometry thing. The universe is not Euclidean, and that applies to time as well as space.

        • xMatt

          There are plenty of scientists that believe in some form of infinite universe. Expansion then contraction in an infinite loop. The theory being the “big bang” is just the most recent of many. Just another theory to add to the list. My point was only it’s not something I believe.

          • SullivanSt

            The expansion/collapse model was something that a large number of scientists used to believe was a possible, though untestable, hypothesis, but of note is that under that model, the initial singularity did not “always exist”. Also of note is that that model involved an infinite number of big bangs.It is no longer widely thought possible, because the current consensus is that this universe will end not in a “Big Crunch” but in a “Big Freeze”, in other words it will continue expanding until the energy in the universe is so diffuse it will approach absolute zero temperature.The alternative theories that did not involve a Big Bang have been fringe views since Edwin Hubble – his adherence to steady state theory very likely cost Fred Hoyle a Nobel prize and tainted his legacy despite a lot of his other work being ground breaking and correct. He’s now seen in astrophysics circles as that guy who remained stubbornly wrong for decades.

          • xMatt

            Fringe theories yes, but pretty interesting nonetheless. Just not necessarily ones I believe. It seems like in many of the theories, there’s a bit of conflict between which is stronger, entropy or gravity. I don’t know if I’ve read it stated this way specifically, but it seems like gravity is more powerful than anything. If light, time, and pretty much nothing can escape gravity, I still get stuck on the whole big bang thing. With an infinite force of gravity, how would anything ever spread out? Not looking for an answer, just one of those thoughts that keeps you up at night…. like thinking about what the universe is expanding into.

      • Haribo Lector

        It takes no faith at all to believe what scientists believe; that we don’t really know how the universe came to be.

        • xMatt

          This answer I am perfectly fine with. It takes no faith to say, “I don’t know.” And that’s a perfectly fine conclusion to come to (probably the most common one too). It’s the people who pretend they know exactly what happened and just insult anyone who thinks differently that I have issues with. For me, I see creation as intelligent design with an intelligent designer. Others see randomness. Both are possible. If you find a working watch in the middle of the desert, is it possible that after millions of years it was randomly assembled by nature? Sure. But I think that takes more faith than to believe that someone built it. And the 3rd option is to say, “I don’t know how the watch came to be.” That’s the one that requires no faith.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            On the contrary it takes a good deal of faith to be honest and say “I don’t know”, and it takes a good deal of faithLESSNESS to cling to make-believing that make-believe is secretly the real.

      • Anomalous Hominid

        I never proclaimed reality meaningless or arbitrary. I don’t see where you got that idiotic notion nor do I appreciate you trying to put it in my mouth. In fact plain ol’ ordinary everyday reality is so self-evidently profound and divine in my estimation that I do not suffer from the faithlessness required to make-believe that make-believe is secretly the real real, or that Jesus will rescue me from having been born or any other such extraneous nonsense. Perhaps you should re-read my initial comment, as it’s meaning has clearly eluded you.

        • xMatt

          What’s the point of re-reading it?it’s basically just a long list of insults. Ad hominem. Pretty pointless in an intellectual debate.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            Okay I’ll say this AGAIN, since you’re clearly either too willfully obtuse or too indoctrinated to grasp it the first time:I never proclaimed reality meaningless or arbitrary. I don’t see where you got that idiotic notion nor do I appreciate you trying to put it in my mouth. In fact plain ol’ ordinary everyday reality is so self-evidently profound and divine in my estimation that I do not suffer from the faithlessness required to make-believe that make-believe is secretly the real real, or that Jesus will rescue me from having been born or any other such extraneous nonsense.

          • xMatt

            You really don’t understand how I would read your comment as saying life is meaningless?You called people ignorant jackasses for make-believing life is meaningful. You didn’t explain until LATER that you find meaning in other things.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            Ya, I find plenty of significance in “other things”…like REALITY! PLAIN OL’ ASTOUNDINGLY ORDINARY UNEMBELLISHED SELF-EVIDENTLY PROFOUND EVERYDAY REALITY! The LAST place any make-believer would ever bother to look, LoL! If you could see past the insipid picture your sad silly little cult painted on the back of your eyelids you could’ve readily ascertained the implied contrast from the initial comment, or for that matter from the dozen or so iterations of the same concept that followed.Anyone who has to resort to a reliance on make-believe to lend a sense of meaning to life is obviously too faithlessly dismissive and distrustful to find it in REALITY.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            Of course, all belief-systems are specifically designed to KILL FAITH in order to render people susceptible to the empty threats and matching promises which keep them enslaved to the theocracy.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            I’ll give you one thing, I was harsh to call adherents of beliefism jackasses – they’re really more like…. dupes. They’re just unwitting victims, trapped in a web of self-deceit masquerading as virtue, because their cult keeps them too faithless, scared and ignorant to realize that make-believe is unnecessary, and even detrimental, for establishing a proper appreciation of their own existence.

          • xMatt

            Is it truly unnecessary though? Talk to a few people who’ve completely changed their lives around because of their faith in God and ask them that same question. Even if they’re putting their faith into nothing, it was enough to give them meaning and a reason to change things for the better. Or people that dedicate their lives to missions work. They’re helping people because they think God told them to. Is that so wrong?Sure there are people that use faith as an excuse to treat others poorly (which ironically goes completely AGAINST everything the Bible says). But I wouldn’t blame religion for that. Bible says to love your neighbor and yet plenty of Christians don’t. That’s not the Bible’s fault. The message is good, it’s men who are flawed. If people feel the need to treat others better because they call themselves Christians…. I’d say that’s GREAT for society. And if you’ve spent any time in any Christian organization, you’ll find that people typically are nicer to each other there.

      • Anomalous Hominid

        What I am saying is if someone has to MAKE-BELIEVE that life is meaningful they obviously come to that pathetic and futile last-resort by way of trying to cope with presuming it’s NOT. Beliefism requires faithlessness.

      • Anomalous Hominid

        The fact that you IMAGINE I proclaimed life meaningless shows that you think meaning can only possibly be found through make-believe, which is an absurd and faithless predicament.

        • xMatt

          You said a bunch of insults, then said we “desperately make-believe that life is meaningful.”Seemed pretty clear that you were personally saying that life is meaningless. Or did I misunderstand and you consider yourself just another (in your words) cosmically paranoid, superstitious, self-deluding, sycophantic jackass who make-believes that life is meaningful?

          • Guest

            If you have to resort to MAKE-BELIEVING that life is meaningful, it’s because you dismiss the possibility of finding plain ol’ ordinary unembellished REALITY as meaningful. Belief is an act of FAITHLESSNESS.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            If you have to resort to MAKE-BELIEVE to assign meaning to lifeit’s only because you dismiss the possibility of finding sufficient meaning in plain ol’ ordinary unembellished everyday REALITY. Belief is an act of FAITHLESSNESS.

      • Anomalous Hominid

        Just because YOU feel like reality is meaningless and therefore have to resort to make-believe does not mean that everyone else is so faithlessly dismissive of plain ol’ ordinary unembellished everyday reality. Personally, I have a realistic definition of divine, but I’m almost certain that it will be impossible for you to fathom such a concept.

      • Anomalous Hominid

        “I’m betting you don’t find your life or the lives of those around you so meaningless when something happens to alter or end those lives.”And here you’re basically saying that you hope my loved ones suffer or die so I’ll be sorry I’m not in your stupid cult? You’re disgusting. You are further proof that Jesus is bad for people.

      • Anomalous Hominid

        Your ad hoc creator is just a contrivance motivated by clinging to a game of make-believe in the name of a desire to console petty ignorant fears arising from a misguided distrust of existing taught to you by the cult’s empty threats and matching promises. Existence is self-evidently self-existent, no extraneous supernatural agency required.

      • Anomalous Hominid

        Underlying any religious belief is the presumption of the Unremarkable Accidental Clockwork Dispassionately Assembled By Happenstance and Having Nothing To Do With Itself Model of the Universe, that’s why they have to rely on the seeking of meaning and purpose in MAKE-BELIEVE, because they refuse to see any in plain ol’ ordinary unembellished everyday reality. In other words, they’re just faithless, ungrateful brats.

  • JParkerSD46

    Haven’t had a chance to see this yet…oh, DVR, how we love you because SCIENCE! I know this series won’t change, or even open, the minds of creationists. My guess is they’ll bitch and scream ad nauseam about it while never watching a minute of it. And if their poor little heads ‘splode because of it, ha ha. It will save them from ever having to be exposed to any more of Disney’s attempts to turn all our kids into gays.

    • xMatt

      Personally I found it interesting, but a little cheesy. I find it sad that you believe that “Christian” and “scientist” can’t go together. You’re trying to continue a war between the two that should’ve ended hundreds of years ago.

      • scipio1

        Um religion = unverifiable fables while science = verifiable theories. Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Concern Troll.

        • xMatt

          You must not have watched the show. It was filled with unverifiable theories. Interesting theories…. just many unproven and pretty much impossible to prove.

          • scipio1

            Please read up on the difference between a theory and a hypothesis within the scientific method. Your ghost stories have no place in science.

          • xMatt

            Sounds like you need to read more yourself. You said these things are verifiable. They’re many in the show that aren’t.

          • James Donnaught

            Unproven (science) ≠ unverifiable (religion)Fundamental error. No points for you.

      • doktorzoom

        In that case, could you have a word with Paul Broun and other members of the House Science Committee who believe that evolution and astronomy (and geology and any other science that contradicts a 6000-year-old Earth) constitute “lies from the pit of Hell?

        • xMatt

          No thanks. I don’t agree with or represent them.

  • Warpde

    That heartless soul.Degrading the Sagan “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be”without a Kitty pic link.Oh! The humanity……….Scrolling up to the kitty in black, on the left, looking all nicey nicefor comfort.

  • Shanasmiles

    So they can’t handle even the mention of an atheist, much less a line of his philosophy BUT we are supposed to be happy with their radical WASP Jesus-ifying of science, education, the environment, government, sex, humanity, and pretty much anything their prayer breakfast intoxicated brains latch onto.

    • xMatt

      Who’s “they” and “we?”Because if the “we” is you, you don’t sound very happy.

      • Shanasmiles

        Read the article. It references “we” & “they” throughout. I’m happy. I’m not happy with everything but que sera.

        • xMatt

          It’s hard to criticize someone else for being unhappy while being unhappy yourself about pretty much the same thing. Although I guess it’s not that hard since it’s so common. The faults we find in others tend to be similar to our own faults. A person who cuts other people off while driving is likely to be more angry than average when he/she gets cut off themselves. Human nature I guess.

          • Shanasmiles

            Um..ok. Are you saying that I criticized you or that you criticized me? Lol. Because I feel neither happened. I answered your question and addressed your concern for me. 🙂 that’s sweet of you to be concerned with my happiness.

          • xMatt

            Neither. Just a comment on you saying “they can’t handle…. but we’re supposed to be happy with….”My point is that it appears that neither you nor “they” can handle opposing views without getting upset.

          • Shanasmiles

            Im not upset… AND Im not resistant to opposing views… the issue here is fact versus belief. Its fine to believe whatever you want, but to attempt to force everyone to live at the standard of your particular belief is not conducive to technological or societal advancement. For instance, I dont demand that creationists eschew their religious beliefs and cling to scientific theory. They can continue believing the earth is 6k years old, but I also do not think that their beliefs should be considered a valid scientific argument and hold the same weight and importance as empirically tested observations. How does it bolster religion to impede science and education? It doesnt. If religion and god are so fragile that they are harmed by the mention of science, maybe the believers lack faith. Religion requires unshakeable belief in the unknowable. Science considers questions, develops answers through experimentation and consensus, and if the information goes in a different direction, so goes science. Science and scientists arent trying to destroy religion, they just want to keep the two fields in their proper places. Science isnt about disproving god, its about answering questions we have regarding our world, our universe, and our lives. Religion isnt a tool to dismantle science, it is a guideline for life and a ray of hope for many. It is the celebrity scientists lowering the level of the conversation and distracting from real problems that science could address by making a spectacle of arguing finite points with people who cannot be persuaded. And it is the religious zealots who are harming their own futures by impeding science out of a misguided attempt to defend an omnipotent god. Rather than trolling about looking for angry, upset, unhappy people to weakly insult, you could read more, think more, and contribute meaning to the world. You obviously use science and technology for your own benefit (You are on a computer), why deny science to other believers?

          • Deleted

            This post was deleted.

  • ChuckD

    Obama has no problem playing both sides. He will roll out his Christian beliefs when it suits him. Don’t confuse politics and true convictions.

  • Hadrian Embalsado

    Can’t wait for the second episode and the 2nd butthurt sessions of Creationists.

  • Klem Johansen

    Half the country is doing a rendition of Phil Hartman’s Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. “I’m not a fancy scientist or some kind of brainiac who’s read a book or grasped even the slightest concept of the scientific method. I’m just a humble caveman recently unfrozen and now so amazed by the world around me! Of course, the ultimate question of the origin of the universe comes down to the first few lines of a book written anonymously a few thousand years ago. Verifiable facts are scary. Also fire is the most interesting thing I have ever seen. Have you ever just looked at it?”

    • ZorakHendrix

      “Phil Hartman’s Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.” Oh. My. No. God. That guy was sooo funny! And what a classic skit. I miss Phil, but thanks for sharing.

  • I just can’t understand why they have to feel so insanely threatened. Why can’t evolution just be the way God creates life? That’s the way my parents explained it to me when I was a kid. I’m cool with it. Then again, I’ve spent exactly zero percent of my life believing in a talking snake.

    • Deleted

      This post was deleted.

    • SullivanSt

      They seem to have remarkably little faith in their faith, as if they are afraid it might dissolve if they are confronted with the simple fact that other world views exist, and some of them might actually do a better job of explaining the world as we find it.

      • James Donnaught

        Insulating people from real-world information is essential to the survival of any cult. This is why the fundies have their own entertainment, media, and “news” channels, indoctrinate the faithful with the notion that everything else they hear is lies, and do their utmost to ban problemmatic books and limit internet access – especially for the kids, who have a tendency to learn stuff.

    • xMatt

      It absolutely can be that way. Personally I see science exploration as just us figuring how God did it. If you believe Google: 46% of Americans believe in creationism, 32% believe in theistic evolution, and 15% believe in evolution without divine intervention.The only thing I don’t like about that poll is it’s specifically talking about human evolution. I imagine there are a few that would believe in the Adam and Eve story but would be ok with evolution for animals. Microevolution is pretty easy to prove. It’s the macroevolution that gets me hung up. I see some evidence of it, I’m just not entirely sold on the concept yet. If we can find fossils for the last millions of years, it should be clearer in my mind. There would be no “missing links,” because EVERYTHING would be a link. No matter what you dig up, you’d find a link to something else as well as all the “failed experiments” that evolution would create. Instead I see a bunch of similar, but distinct species. Small horse to bigger horse? That’s microevolution. Fish to human? That’s where I get lost.

      • Nate Doty

        If you’re curious or lost, take a class. If you can wrap your head around small horse to bigger horse, whatever that means, why not the series of small changes that, in a vast oversimplification, went fish to air-tolerant fish to air breathing fish to amphibian to amphibianish reptile to warmish blood reptile to mammalish reptile to mammal? From there it’s just a series of even less extreme steps to primates.There are plenty of failed experiments. Everything we dig up that isn’t extant is a failed experiment. If they weren’t, they would have continued to be the best organism in their niche and be alive today. This micro/macro distinction is just a justification for what we can observe over generations, I’ll be generous and say the thousands of years of recorded history even, and the vastness of time that is the evolutionary scale – many thousands of thousands of years.Thanks for being one of the open minded ones for whom science is not a threat, but if you can believe in the scientific process that backs microevolution just widen the scope – the same process supports macro. It isn’t just fossils – computational genomics provides vast quantities of supporting data as well.

        • xMatt

          Definitely taken the classes, read the books, been to the museums, etc. Just like I said, not completely sold on our current understanding of the process. Sometimes it feels a bit…. too simplified. Sometimes observation is misleading. It’s skepticism that keeps us trying to discover things. If we quit at observation, we’d still think flies come from rotting meat. Many times it’s the things we’re unable to observe that mean the most.

          • Deleted

            This post was deleted.

    • Kohoutek

      Because if you don’t believe in the talking snake, you will not believe in the WhoreofBabylon666JesusisComingwithanAK47GodGodGod, and you will instead fall into a morass of Obamarama happy fun liberalism with diversity sprinkles on top, and the Dominionists will have neither their Christian Nation nor the IDists’ Wedge Strategy, and everyone will get vaccinated instead of screaming, “Why?”At least that is my distillation of the shifting “slippery slopes” yelled out by Morris, Ham, Dembski, Gish, Behe, and other assorted creationists/warmed-over-creationist-IDists since the McLean v. Arkansas Trial of 1982, when I really became involved in this phony “debate on evolution.”Shorter answer: whoever rewrites the past controls the future, and creationists are losing the battle to make everyone fearful of the future so that we cough up our hard-earned dollars for their fear broadcasts. If you think that creationism is not about money, think again.

  • Malana Renee Smith

    Time dilation theory(in God’s eyes a few tHousand or more years= 1 day to us because of different perceptions). Plus the idea that evolution has literally just reinforced the thousands of years old first chapter of Genesis when the earth is described as being a molten ball of lava that then became immersed in water, then land was formed, then vegetation, then the creatures of the water and air, then terrestrial animals and LASTLY, HUMANS? WOW! People back in the day must have been truly intelligent to make up the origin of the earth and depict it perfectly as science would predict it later on. No- God told them and science is just proving what our God told us thousands of years ago. Time to move on and focus on the real reason we even exist on this earth: to live our God with all we are and, just as importantly, love our neighbor as ourselves.

    • Nate Doty

      Your religion is not the only one with a creation story that happens to line up, in loose and general terms, with scientific theory. Please provide a stronger argument for why this makes your belief exclusively correct.Which translation of the Bible are you using for your Genesis 1 lava argument? None that I have studied have mentioned anything close to lava – they usually start with ‘void’ and water and darkness. there is also weakness in your argument in that plants would come before the sun, moon and the rest of the stars.Of course, in your worldview God’s power is truly infinite so of course I cannot stipulate that He could not have done it in whatever order he saw fit – such God plants would have no need for sunlight I suppose. However, you cannot build an argument that has it both ways. My science cannot touch your faith, what you believe is your business. But if you are going to appeal to logic at all, you cannot pick and choose what logic you use.

    • Haribo Lector

      What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the Earth is made of the bones of the giant Pangu.

    • Kyle Rutherford

      Ahem. Is that why in the bible the sun is created on the fourth day while vegetation is created on the 3rd day?

      • doktorzoom

        And of course the day and the night come into existence before the Sun.

    • alysdexia

      The relativistic time verse was grounded on a mistranslation: http://www.quora.com/Religion/Can-anybody-show-me-one-scientific-error-in-the-quran-that-cannot-be-defended-anyway/answer/Waleed-Kadous/comment/2988928.http://www.quora.com/The-Bible/What-precisely-was-the-knowledge-that-God-didnt-want-Adam-and-Eve-to-have/answer/Autymn-CastletonThe Buybull says contradictory things. Get on a biblical search engine and enter hate. One requirement is to hate your family and your own life.

  • $73376667

    “The views and statements expressed by Mr. deGrasse Tyson herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions held by News Corporation, its staff or subsidiaries.”

    • True, but they are still broadcasting it and profiting from it.Again, I’m glad it’s on, and have no problem with that, but I think the presidential endorsement is odd.

    • James Donnaught

      “Physical reality does not necessarily reflect the opinions held by News Corporation, its staff or subsidiaries.”What’s amazing is how this doesn’t bother them in the slightest.

  • some sort of event horizon

    Hee hee. If only.

  • Farb

    Pretty soon the reactionary American Christian fundamentalists won’t be all that different in their political activity from the fundamentalist Muslims. They are staunch deniers of modernity, of any sort, and of many of the sciences. Considering their approach to gays and reproductive rights (including the bombings of clinics), and penchant for holing up in rural enclaves (aka, “communities”) it won’t be long before they start their own unique brand of terrorism, which they will invariably categorize as God’s work.

    • Estproph

      You’re a good 10 years too late at least.

    • gingerland62

      They are already killing and terrorizing Women’s Health doctors. So, I’d say we are already there.

      • xMatt

        Blaming Christianity every time some “Christian” murders someone is like blaming Science every time an atheist murders someone. Pretty sure both scientists and Christians condemn the murderer and wouldn’t call that person “one of their own.”

        • alysdexia

          Atheism comes with no prescriptive/proscriptive doctrine.One day use a biblical search engine and enter hate, cut, sword, kill, “evil spirit”, little AND rocks, slay, worms, dogs, vipers.

          • xMatt

            You can’t be serious. Are you trying to say that Christianity encourages murder? Pretty sure it’s on one of the top 10 thou shalt not lists. The point is that you can’t blame a group for the actions of an individual, especially when the individual goes AGAINST the teachings of the group.

          • alysdexia

            It glorifies suicide (however, “soul” is translated as “life”) which is as illegal as murder, under 1USC1.Whatever the commandments are (600+) and whatever the deadly sins are (32 in Roma 1), the protaghonists (gods also) are guilty. Of moral relativism at least.

          • xMatt

            Glorifies suicide? You can’t be serious. While I’m not Catholic, they believe suicide gets you a 1 way ticket to hell. Hardly glorification.

          • alysdexia

            Quote the verse for yours. I can quote the one for mine.

          • xMatt

            Here’s a list of 60 verses:add www to this:openbible.info/topics/suicideQuit trying to use single verses out of context to try to make blanket statements about a religion.

          • alysdexia

            It’s the believer who takes verses out of context.1Co 3:16: homicide, not suicide, of a believer, not anyone.Ecc 7:17: One’s time can be decided by oneself.Psa 34:17..: This is demonstrably wrong, not only in Jdg 1, every endtimes passage, but in real life.1Co 6:19: A temple is a material object, so why should it matter if it dies?Jer 29:11: This can excuse death with a promise in the afterlife, as is customary for believers.1Co 6:20: The sale was so that nobody should die. If a believer dies, that is god’s fault.Psa 13:2..: This doesn’t help at all.2Co 12:9: Be glad in suicide then.Rom 10:13: This includes death.1Joh 3:15: This contradicts the directive to hate one’s brother.Joh 12:25: Hah! This is the verse I meant that glorifies suicide, and you want to use it to deny it? You don’t do any work at all and can’t make a coherent argument and you want to waste my time with popular bullshit you don’t least understand.Joh 10:28: This applies to the afterlife.Deu 30:19: Wrong covenant.Psa 147:3: Justifies afterlife.Heb 13:5,6: This contradicts the blasfemy at crucifixion1Co 3:17: Duplicate.2Co 4:8,9: This looks like a special case.Rom 12:2: But god refuses to be tested, and should fail.Lu 18:1: Suicidists also pray.Heb 10:35: It is the will of god to make oneself poor and die for the belief.Mat 6:34: Justifies suicide.Jer 20:14..: This helps your point how?Job 7:15: Defeats your point.Exo 20:13: Suicide like homicide is illegal (1USC1) but any act has legal defenses like justification, necessity, duress, self-defense, mistake of fact.Psa 138:7: If life were preserved, there would be no need to introduce in the NT a distinction between first and second death.Rev 9:6: Revelation like other predictions lie in the past and are all failed.Rom 5:2: Again this applies to the afterlifeJoh 10:10: This life he means is after death.Psa 118:17: Not in context of time.1Pe 5:6,7: Again, justifies afterlife.Rom 8:38: Justifies afterlife.Mat 10:39: Duplicate of my verse.Mar 16:16: Justifies suicide.Jon 4:3: Blatantly justifies suicide and defeats your point.Phi 1:6: That is the day when the dead rise from their graves.Joh 14:1: Justifies suicide and afterlife.Eph 1:4: Then believers can reenact what he did.Mat 27:5: Nobody stopd Judas.1Sam 31:4: This helps your point how?Jud 16:30: Glorifies suicide.Psa 139:13: That should include the demented and deranged.Joh 3:16,17: Yet everyone still dies. Fail.2Sam 17:23: Where is this condemned?Psa 13:2,3: Duplicate.Phi 1:18-28: This can justify anything.Joh 14:23: If you kept his word you should do as he said and I said.Jer 20:17: After the fact (or nonfact), doesn’t apply.Isa 51:11: This chapter is about his ethnic group.1Kin 19:4: You want me to apply this chapter where this poor sod has his imaginary friend to talk with and war beside like a comic book to real life?Num 11:10-15: Doesn’t apply.Rev 20:1-13: This is about resurrection of the executed and justifies death.Phi 1:21..: Duplicate.Act 16:27: This is a special case where the jailer was mistaken. But try to run the statistics on me.Lu 17:2: This has nothing to do with suicide, but it justifies execution.Mar 5:1A: This has nothing to do with suicide.Mat 4:6: This doesn’t help the believer.Jer 16:19: This has nothing to do with suicide.Psa 127:1-5: Now let me counter this with his murder of the innocent: http://classic.net.bible.org/universal.php?s=little+AND+rocks.Jdg 16:25-30: Duplicate suicide glorified.Jdg 9:53-54: Justifies homicide.Now follow all of the links until they run out: http://www.quora.com/Did-Jesus-think-he-was-being-crucified-to-save-mankind-Did-he-think-he-was-saving-mankind-from-sin/answer/Autymn-Castleton.

  • Robert Slack

    This depressing post really makes me want some cosmos, but unfortunately I’m out of vodka.

  • fredoandme

    i agree with your final assessment.jimmy cracked corn and i don’t care what all of the non-believing believers think. or want.billions and billions of years just to produce us.that’s inspiring and has always made me want to know more.

  • xMatt

    FWIW, I just happened on this website from a simple google search trying to find out more about the series after watching the episode. Only reason I felt the need to post was all the ridiculously one sided hateful things being said about creationists. Based on the website name “happy nice time people,” I would’ve thought people would’ve been a bit more laid back and less hateful.

    • Kyle Rutherford

      I’m sorry? Creationists utilize the very science they reject, fight their hardest to make people ignorant and remove evolution from being taught in our schools and you expect us to remain docile?

      • xMatt

        Food for thought:If religion prevents scientific discovery, why are the most religious societies the most advanced throughout history?Sorry, even if you think it’s all pretend, religion is the best thing that could’ve happened to our society…. in spite of the (pretty easy to point out) bad things done in history in the “name of religion.” FWIW, the people trying to remove evolution from being taught in schools are no worse than those trying to remove prayer. And guess who won that fight? YOU DID. Not sure why you’re still angry.

        • Kyle Rutherford

          Um. What? So what you’re saying is that the people who are trying to remove evolution from schools is no worse than… people who are trying to prevent others from breaking constitutional law by allowing an endorsement of prayer in public schools?Is that what you’re saying?So we stand up and defend the constitution and that’s as bad as trying to get evo out of schools? How ridiculous are you?And no. Religion did not harbor the best advancements. People only appealed to God out of ignorance and when they couldn’t figure out something, they said that God must have done it or had his hand in it.. Like Newton claimed. Only later did we find out the what Newton attributed God to do. Fundamentalist religious sects have criminalized people for making a discovery that contradicted either the bible or the quran. How is religion the best thing that happened to society again? Oh how easily people forget about Bloody Mary, Columbus, the INQUISITION and the crusades/jihads.

          • xMatt

            I do believe that prayer in schools is a constitutional issue, it’s a freedom of speech and freedom of religion issue. ALLOWING people to pray is not the same as the government forcing religion, or even 1 specific religion. Politicians are free to be religious, I’m not sure why teachers and students aren’t given that same freedom anymore. And yes, DESPITE some of the terrible things done in the name of religion (no need to list specifics like people always seem to do and I already noted) religious societies have consistently been MORE ADVANCED than non-religious ones. It’s not a coincidence that telling people they love and care for each other for fear of eternal consequences does more good than bad. Even if you think it’s all complete BS, you’d have to be completely ignorant to history to not see the spillover effects of this. Want to know why it’s a pretty common concern in this country to care for the sick and the poor? Religion. Even non-religious people hold those same values in this country from being exposed to those ideals so much. Guess what they do with the sick and poor in non-religious societies? They’re on their own. Want to know why we’re a monogamous (for the most part) society? Religion. Guess what happens to polygamous societies? They fail. The list could go on….

          • Anomalous Hominid

            Pretty much every society ever has been religiotic in it’s early stages.

          • xMatt

            Want some modern specific examples? Just look at Christianity in the US and China. Chinese sociologists studying why the US has prospered came to 1 conclusion: Christianity. And as it spreads in China so do things like human rights and prosperity. Look up this article on Aljazeera: Christianity: China’s best bet? I’d post a link but this site doesn’t seem to like external links.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            LoL!

          • xMatt

            Not sure why that makes you laugh. But I’ll take you being speechless as a win. I would’ve thought a scientist would have appreciated studying religion as a sociology experiment.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            Tell yourself whatever you want, after all, isn’t that what beliefism is all about? Christianity, LoL, ya if you need that hack trash keep it, LoL. I don’t have enough faithlessness to be a christian. You’re so needlessly scared of existing.

          • Anomalous Hominid

            Mostly laughing because you’re deluded enough to think this country was founded as a theocracy, also because you’re dumb enough to be so nationalistically and superstitiously blind to it’s disfunction. And then because you’re indoctrinated enough and ignorant enough of your own confirmation bias to attribute that so-called ‘success’ entirely to the patron deity of your ridiculous cult. And then a little bit just because that Jesus trash is pretty much the most vapid shit I’ve ever heard, LoL! The judeo-christian mythology is an insipid idiotic insult to plain ol’ ordinary everyday reality. It’s laughable. That’s why I’m laughing. But again, tell yourself whatever you want, that’s all beliefism is about. That’s why it’s so stupid. LoL! Jesus, LoL! Such a piss!

          • Anomalous Hominid

            Jesus, LoL. So useless.

          • alysdexia

            What’s the source for your bullshit?America prospers ouht to colonialism and industry.Religion spreads disease and poverty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulJX-x2bSW0.

          • doktorzoom

            Private prayer is allowed in schools. Students are free to get together and pray out loud if they want to (outside of class time, which is for instruction, of course) What’s not allowed is organized, school-endorsed prayer; that runs afoul of the Establishment clause.

          • xMatt

            It isn’t allowed…… anymore. Because they changed the definition of the Establishment clause. I just disagree with how it changed. I believe that teachers and faculty should have the same freedom of speech and religion that politicians do. Obama is allowed to pray, out loud, at an organized event all he wants. No harm done. There’s a difference between the government being religious and government employees being religious. Same goes for a difference between a school being religious and school employees being religious. I know we’re going to disagree on these points, but I just want to clarify what I believe and why. Freedom of speech and religion are two of the major founding principles in this country and are quite important to hold on to. Our right to say what we want is more important than someone else’s right to have to hear it. You shouldn’t be able to keep people from praying any more than you should be able to keep people for cheering for their favorite sports team.

        • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

          religion sucks – it spreads fear and hate and it wants to be PAID by the government to do so.

          • xMatt

            Flawed people spread fear and hate. The religious message is love and acceptance. Can’t blame the religion for that. And it’s the religious minority that you’re blaming. The loud few. Quit throwing the baby out with the bath water. Are you one of those people that think all Muslims are terrorists too?

          • Anomalous Hominid

            The religious message is be a faithless ignorant self-deceiving sycophant dupe and waste your life and energy on obsessively make-believing that make-believe is secretly the real real. Pretty fuckin’ dumb, and certainly something you’d only be susceptible to if you’re completely thankless and dull-minded in your assessment of plain ol’ ordinary unembellished everyday reality.

          • Love and acceptance? I throw the BS flag. Christians are the most judgmental, unforgiving people on earth. Here is their real message.Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

          • xMatt

            You’re just proving my point. You’re complaining about Christians, not Christianity. And no…. 1 verse out of context does not represent the religious message. Love your neighbor, blessed are the peacemakers, etc. That’s the message Jesus sent. Not his fault people didn’t get the message.

          • Christians ARE christianity. I’m sorry that you cannot comprehend simple facts.Are yu saying that is not a legitimate verse from the babble? Are you claiming that christians do not follow that verse more than any other? BTW, there is no proof that any mythical Jesus ever existed. Here’s another fact for you. See the attached file.I know that you religious nuts hate the truth. I can understand that. Truth never supports your favored delusions.

          • xMatt

            You can’t be serious. Virtually all historians agree that Jesus existed.Even the person who you’re quoting here believes Jesus existed. From Bart Ehrman’s article, even if you don’t read the whole article, just read the last line:”Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

          • xMatt

            Bah.. this website hates links. I’ll try again:You can’t be serious. Virtually all historians agree that Jesus existed.Even the person who you’re quoting here believes Jesus existed. From Bart Ehrman’s article, even if you don’t read the whole article, just read the last line:”Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.”Search for “Did Jesus Exist” an article by Bart Erhman. It’s on the Huffington post.

    • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

      The problem with the holier than everyone – especially YOU – creationists are such hatemongering, violence-demanding, death-panel adorationists that they should have no expectation of respect and courtesy. They show none to anyone who dares to disagree with their hatefilled ideology.Their desire is to punish everyone who dares to not PRETEND to be as holy as they only pretend to be. They are not holy. They use their pretend gawd speaks to them and tells them to do the hateful things they do. They pretend they are better than everyone else because of the fantasy in which they believe – that Noah built that ark and none of the rattlesnakes bit a single person and not a single lion ate another animal – because GAWD and Benghazi.They want their idea of their phony fantasy religion – the hateful one that wants to destroy everyone who disagrees with them – into law while paying no taxes and getting lots of free stuff for their churches so they can continue to spread their hate of everyone who refuses to believe in their stupid idiotic made up as hate-filled as they are fantasy invisible sky dude.

      • James Donnaught

        Yeah . . . but tell us how you REALLY feel.

      • xMatt

        Who are these so-called Christians that you’re meeting? While I’ve heard of a few people on TV that might fit into the category you’re talking about… I don’t think I’ve ever met any personally. And that’s a lot of anger and hatred for someone to have against an unknown group of people.

        • kfreed

          Who are these hateful “Christians”? Here you go: take a gander: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/It's 24/7… so be sure to check back for daily updates.

          • xMatt

            You just posted a link talking about the crazy extremists on TV that I mentioned. They aren’t representatives of the Church. Want to meet real Christians? Go spend some time at some local churches and Christian organizations. They’re not the hateful group you think they are.

  • Der_Zed

    if any religious person actually believed this Universe was created by a supreme being they would revere, worship and study that creation. In effect becoming scientists. but they don’t, they cling to dogmas written by iron age mystics and severely edited by every king since. they scoff at the actual creation by attempting to cram all of reality into these dusty, paranoid little tomes when the true glory lies there for us to discover. they don’t believe in a creator god at all: they believe whatever it takes to imagine their own centrality to a Universe (thanks to observation) of ever-increasing size, age and complexity. that is simple and astoundingly unimaginative hubris.

    • xMatt

      Most religious people I know do revere and study creation with a sense of awe.What the same people reject are the scientists who call them fools, idiots and worse for believing in a higher power. So bystanders end up thinking that religion and science are opposing forces. They aren’t. In the same manner that the Religious message (for example Christianity) is ruined by Christians, sometimes the scientific message is ruined by scientists. Just the fact that so any people here think that Christianity spreads hatred shows how people (Christians) are messing the message up. Usually it’s the loud unusual ones that you see on TV… and people think they somehow represent everyone. They don’t put “normal” people on TV.

      • alysdexia

        They make opposite claims.

      • Instead of trying to put christ back into christmas, how about putting christ back into christians?

        • xMatt

          One of the biblical messages Christians mess up so frequently on is the idea of “judging others.” The Bible does call Christians to judge……. other Christians. Paul criticized the early church for judging non-Christians while accepting sin within the church. Even the early church had it backwards.

  • Sometimes the charge of bias really means people are upset that you aren’t teaching THEIR bias. This would appear to be one of those times.

  • So what is new? The religious reich will not shrink from anything to promote their sick ideology.No lie, no matter how absurd and ignorant, no law, no common sense or even human decency can stand in the way of their drive to force their willfully ignorant ideas upon everyone.They always cry, “Persecution” whenever they are prevented from persecuting others.