Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just was worried about the imprint left on people who are intimidated by math becasue they are not good at it. The last thing they need to be thinking is that it's beyond them to learn it so they give up.
Yeah I have had the same concern for people intimidated or bored by history. My wife was taught history by idiots who made her memorize lists of dates. I had the pleasure of surprising her with the FUN of history.
Yeah I have had the same concern for people intimidated or bored by history. My wife was taught history by idiots who made her memorize lists of dates. I had the pleasure of surprising her with the FUN of history.
History is very interesting...how could anyone be intimidated or bored by it?
Saying I'm more agnostic is not the same as saying I'm Agnostic...especially when he says all of the other things that support his stance.
What's the point of putting a label on someone who does not even acknowledge something that's not real? It's nonsensical. I totally get where he's coming from.
This is exactly why I don't call myself an atheist or agnostic either. The god thing is a non issue for me...this concept was create by man just as the concept of Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy. It's a nonissue...why create a label for it?
You said he said this (your own words):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora At the end when he talks about someone editing his Wiki page he says: So people said “oh, he’s an atheist”, “let’s make him an atheist” and then they put it in my Wiki page. I was fascinated by that because no \’m not really an agnostic\,so then they went back and changed it to atheist."
You put words in his mouth and misrepresented what he said just to try to make me look bad as if I didn't listen to the video.
He said no such thing.
Quite misrepresenting him. He said: "I'm not really that, I'm more agnostic."
There has been much discussion in the threads that deal with the issue of evidence.
The word evidence itself may be the issue.
It means one thing for sciences, perhaps another thing for criminal investigations, and yet another thing for those that seek evidence in religion.
Unless we are talking the same language, using a word such as evidence may not mean much because if one thinks it should be red and the other one thinks it should be blue, never the twain shall meet. As such, let's hear what your perspective of the word evidence means, perhaps we can have some intelligent conversations thereafter.
All you need to do is open your eyes if you want evidence
How can you look and not see?
Have you ever seen Mount Rushmore?
If not you could Google I guess but seeing it what does the evidence there indicate? A miracle in nature up on that mountainside ??!!! I guess we could deny all common sense and stamp our foot saying there is no evidence that it's man made till we see proof because there is always the chance it could somhow have formed on its own
I think we could label any such person as ignorent and in denial
So if that simple rock can't create a perfect form by chance how can everything else that is very evidently before your very eyes ?
You said he said this (your own words):
You put words in his mouth and misrepresented what he said just to try to make me look bad as if I didn't listen to the video.
He said no such thing.
Quite misrepresenting him. He said: "I'm not really that, I'm more agnostic."
No I did not put words in his mouth...his muffled and non-clear enunciation sounded to me exactly what I posted.
Now take a look at his wiki page. You don't see him claiming to be either an Agnostic or Atheist.
You make yourself look bad with all of your futile attempts at trying to prove your beliefs and opinions.
In March 2014, philosopher and secularism proponent Massimo Pigliucci asked Tyson "What is it you think about God?" Tyson replied "I remain unconvinced by any claims anyone has ever made about the existence or the power of a divine force operating in the universe."
Pigliucci then asked him why he expressed discomfort with the label "atheist" in his Big Think video. Tyson replied by reiterating his dislike for one-word labels, saying "That's what adjectives are for. What kind of atheist are you? Are you an ardent atheist? Are you a passive atheist? An apathetic atheist? Do you rally, or do you just not even care? So I'd be on the 'I really don't care' side of that, if you had to find adjectives to put in front of the word 'atheist.'"
Nope I just corrected your misunderstanding of what his views are.
Tyson never once said said he was an Agnostic. Never once.
Now do you have anything of value to contribute to the topic of this thread?
That's not the point. The point is you put words in His mouth which he didn't say.
I’m not really an agnostic[/color][/b] so then they went back and changed it to atheist"
When he said no such thing. He actually said "I'm MORE AGNOSTIC"
[/color][/IThis proves one thing: You can't admit you are wrong about that.[/color]
[/color]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
