Posted by Lynn on January 02, 1997 at 16:07:16:
In Reply to: Re: Carl Sagan posted by Amanda on January 02, 1997 at 03:01:09:
:
: :
: : :
: : : : : When I subscribed to "Skeptic" magazine over the holidays - the woman who took the call mentioned that they were working on a tribute issue on Carl Sagan much like their first issue on Asimov. It will no doubt be a beauty so I thought I'd share the info. He was a great man and I was looking at other great minds that have died such as Asimov and Russell and a host of others and I'm wondering if anyone has any examples of ones that are alive today - fighting to get science out to the people and perhaps minimizing the effects of religion and mysticism in the process? One I can think of is Stephen J. Gould.
: : : : When I learned that Carl Sagan died, I felt saddened by it. I consider him a role
: : : : model. I admire him not only because of his views on science and reason, but also
: : : : his concern and activity for the community, environment, tolerance of differences,
: : : : and other humanistic principles.
: : : : Another person I am impressed by is right here in the Skeptic Society. It's Dr.
: : : : Michael Shermer (if you're reading Mike, I hope you don't mind a little bit of
: : : : flattery ;) ). I'm generally quite impressed by his writings and I consider him
: : : : a good role model as well. I like the fact that he stood up to Holocaust
: : : : Revisionist bigots (I wouldn't be surprised if he got a few death threats). In
: : : : another case, when he was debating Duane Gish, he stood up to an atheist handing
: : : : out obnoxious anti-religious hate literature. It's not good enough to champion
: : : : reason and skepticism only. Tolerance and concern for the community should be
: : : : championed as well.
: : : : - Jason
: : : Just a comment on that last bit. I agree that atheists handing out hate material due to anit-religious beliefs is wrong but I don't think that all anti-religious material can be considered wrong. I consider myself not only a non-religious type but also an anit-religious type because I believe it does a lot of harm to soceity and humankind. I disagree with Sagan's comment that he made once concerning his opinion that we should just leave religion alone and if we can't be kind then be silent. I believe there is a middle groud that could do a lot of good and examples of such are the writings of Bertrand Russell and William Fielding - even Nietzsche to an extent. I do try not to attack people personally but I do attack religion and I try to do this in an intelligent manner with as much respect and kindness that is appropriate. Humanism has many aspects - my feeling is that everyone would be better off without religion. If you can show me where I might be wrong - please do.
: :
: : I would be interested to know why you, and others here, feel that religion is dangerous to you. The truth seems to be that it's the Christian religion that most of you are bothered by. Amanda stated that she had more respect for the ancient Pagan religions of the time as opposed to the God of the ancient Israelites. I found this interesting, since many of these religions commonly practiced human sacrifice and other abominations. She cited the superiority of the Greek civilization even though they worshipped a myriad of gods and were constantly at war. And even though she was arguing about how Christianity has been unfair to women, she didn't seem to have much of a problem with the Muslim religion which is notorious for it's less than humane treatment of women. (Sorry, Amanda, I don't mean to pick on you) The fact that Christianity seems to be the only politically INcorrect religion only tends to strengthen my belief that it is the right one.
: That's all right Lynn, feel free to pick on me but please try not to put words in my mouth.
: Regarding Paganism - I have many problems with it as well but because many great Greek minds were able to prosper along side it - I have less problem with that aspect of the suppression of science. There are several examples of scientific discoveries made by Greek men and women that we didn't see again until the early Renaissance period and that was due to its suppression by christianity and thankfully because the Arabs kept it going and handed it back to Europe. I don't think we EVER discussed Islam - but Imost certainly do have problems with it but again the idea that the Arabs saved some ancient science from being lost to oblivion makes me like them a bit better. Mohammed was less respectable than Jesus from what I've read and I'm well aware of the harms that Islam has done and certainly continues to do moreso than Christianity. The reason I didn't mention Islam was because you never brought it up and I was simply giving my opinions on your postings - that's also why I only mentioned Paganism briefly. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Christianity is considered politically incorrect from what has been discussed here. I'm not a politically correct person myself so I certainly wouldn't attack something for being politically incorrect - that's all a bunch of nonsense to fit the 90s - you should check out the last issue of Skeptic on that topic. Anyway, if you don't mind me saying so, you don't appear to be a skeptic on this particular issue - your beliefs seem to be based on faith and faith alone. I can respect that if it doesn't interfere with the facts but when you claim that evolution or the cosmos are a product of a Creator than you've got to give evidence to back those claims up. If you solely claim that God is within you personally and has nothing to do with the outside world then great, much happiness for you. Happy New Year!
You're right. I'm about as skeptical of Christianity as you are of evolution. I just enjoy the debate, although we do seem to be at an impass. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. I was commenting that those times were barbaric, and you sited the Greeks as an example of that not being true. I was merely pointing out that Greeks were not perfect either. You also stated something to the effect that Paganism was preferable to Judaism, and I was trying to make the point that if you condemn the OT because you see it as cruel, you cannot possibly feel otherwise about the abominable pagan religions of that time.