Comments on: Star worship http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:59:20 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: JONOJ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/comment-page-1/#comment-106517 JONOJ Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:11:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/#comment-106517 You lot are certainly an inteligent bunch. Please exuse my spelling as I started this journey in 1973 and the education system sneered at me, like it did so many others of the day. I read through the list above and was impressed by all, even those who could only find it in themselves to display their general anoyance. Here's a thought for you all to be going on with. What if you are all right? You will all feel quite silly if all of the argument is about nothing. What if there has been a confusion for ages about the distinction between God, the universe, of whose eternal energy we are all comprised and alien ( Gods ) that are using earth as a way of understanding their own ill traits. Some of you are so inteligent that you will laugh because I mentioned aliens at all but scientificaly, it is rediculouse and aregant to assume that you are alone in the cosmos, to which, some of you will no doupt write that space is too vast to traverse, to which I say, rock is difficult to pass through, water is thinner so with less friction we can move faster, air is thinner still so we can pass through it even faster, space is not a void or thrust could not be achieved so perhaps a little thinner and if you remove that level of friction from your path then light is suddenly slower than you. As for all you atheasts, I understand why with all the truth and lies, why you can form a negative veiw of the flock but this sadly stops you from looking and that way you will never find anything of interest. You may think that this way you will not be dissapointed but on the contrary this way you can only be dissapointed. Just for the record, moses was a good man but a lousy shepherd, he could not convince his poeple that the desert was their home and with a little graft fertilising the sand with their sanitised waste and decay, it would be a land of milk and honey as it once was, after that it is sad to say that the flock grew sharp teeth but as I said, moses was a good man and refused to follow the wolves, most of the dispicable acts that followed to this day have been undertaken without sanction. On the point of inbreeding, more than a million choices of code pass through each couple and traits can skip several generations but when an illness strikes everyone suffers a degree of negativity. Finaly, all the ( Profits ) have tried to shed some light on truth but I fear that the fight is all that keeps you going, going where you can see for yourselves. You lot are certainly an inteligent bunch. Please exuse my spelling as I started this journey in 1973 and the education system sneered at me, like it did so many others of the day. I read through the list above and was impressed by all, even those who could only find it in themselves to display their general anoyance. Here’s a thought for you all to be going on with. What if you are all right? You will all feel quite silly if all of the argument is about nothing. What if there has been a confusion for ages about the distinction between God, the universe, of whose eternal energy we are all comprised and alien ( Gods ) that are using earth as a way of understanding their own ill traits. Some of you are so inteligent that you will laugh because I mentioned aliens at all but scientificaly, it is rediculouse and aregant to assume that you are alone in the cosmos, to which, some of you will no doupt write that space is too vast to traverse, to which I say, rock is difficult to pass through, water is thinner so with less friction we can move faster, air is thinner still so we can pass through it even faster, space is not a void or thrust could not be achieved so perhaps a little thinner and if you remove that level of friction from your path then light is suddenly slower than you. As for all you atheasts, I understand why with all the truth and lies, why you can form a negative veiw of the flock but this sadly stops you from looking and that way you will never find anything of interest. You may think that this way you will not be dissapointed but on the contrary this way you can only be dissapointed. Just for the record, moses was a good man but a lousy shepherd, he could not convince his poeple that the desert was their home and with a little graft fertilising the sand with their sanitised waste and decay, it would be a land of milk and honey as it once was, after that it is sad to say that the flock grew sharp teeth but as I said, moses was a good man and refused to follow the wolves, most of the dispicable acts that followed to this day have been undertaken without sanction. On the point of inbreeding, more than a million choices of code pass through each couple and traits can skip several generations but when an illness strikes everyone suffers a degree of negativity. Finaly, all the ( Profits ) have tried to shed some light on truth but I fear that the fight is all that keeps you going, going where you can see for yourselves.

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/comment-page-1/#comment-14755 Irishman Tue, 16 May 2006 16:07:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/#comment-14755 Allen, I have a few counter thoughts. <blockquote>However, I also have a personal relationship with God. </blockquote> Whenever I hear this statement, I am very puzzled by what the person means. What is a "personal relationship with God"? I know when I have a personal relationship with someone, it typically involves information exchange. Sharing letters and emails may count to some extent, depending upon the depth of content shared. Mostly it describes someone you know In Real Life (IRL). Often it involves spending time with the person, perhaps just sharing each other's presence. I have difficulty understanding how that sentence can apply to God. He is notorious for not saying anything. He is notorious for not being present, at least in recognizable form. People do claim he is everywhere at once, but that doesn't help if you can't point to him and say "There he is", or demonstrate him in some way. How does he communicate with you? Do you hear his voice? Does a random bush ignite when you're nearby? Stone tablets appear on your doorstep? Or is his communication much less overt, along the lines of a feeling of goodwill? Allen, I ask this because I was a Christian - I went to church, attended services, studied the lessons, got baptized. I prayed - I prayed sincerely an meaningfully, not over trivial things like "help me ace this test". In all that time I <i>never</i> got <i>anything</i> I would characterize as a response (unless you characterize ignoring me as a blanket "no"). I certainly never held conversations - they were all one-sided. So you are correct, I <i>can't</i> understand you, but it's not for a lack of trying. <blockquote>I am sure if you saw a blind man about to take a step off a cliff, that fell straight into a blast furnace, you would try to stop him by calling out if you were too far away to grab him and stop him falling. </blockquote> That is one characterization. Let me give you another. You would not appreciate it if I came up to you and said, "Have you heard the good news? There's no Hell and no God! Isn't that great?" You'd find that pushy and rude. But you seem to have no issue going up to people and saying, "Have you heard the good news? You're an evil sinner and bound to spend eternity being tortured, not because you did anything wrong, but because your distant ancestor screwed up. But I can make all that go away, if you just believe what I do." Kind of tacky, a bit insulting, and not particularly convincing. (And for my next act, I'll predict you turn that description around and point it at me. Do I win Randi's Million Bucks?) <blockquote>Nor do I think the Church (pick one) has people that are especially wonderful, although I can say that I have personally met a few people that are. </blockquote> I've met some wonderful people, too. With and without "Church". <blockquote>Does that have much to do with the so called “main theme” which is to point out bad science? </blockquote> That is the main theme of the overall website. However, a blog is inherently a venue for personal expression of the author. And while Phil has stated that he still primarily will focus on good astronomy and good science, often by pointing out bad examples but also by drawing attention to the good stuff, he retains the right to express his opinions on other topics as well. Clear thinking and critical evaluation are related themes to good science, and for many of us Atheism is an extension of those clear thinking processes. But also, he probably feels a desire to give a little good press to a position he advocates. If you don't share his attitude, that's your choice to make. <blockquote>As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t; however, he has the right to post anything he wants. But as it is a blog, I want to stand up for my side too even if you all think I have a screw loose. </blockquote> The blog has a public feedback forum, so you are free to respond - even if you disagree. But don't expect people to blindly accept what you say, either. We share the same feedback forum. Allen, I have a few counter thoughts.

However, I also have a personal relationship with God.

Whenever I hear this statement, I am very puzzled by what the person means. What is a “personal relationship with God”? I know when I have a personal relationship with someone, it typically involves information exchange. Sharing letters and emails may count to some extent, depending upon the depth of content shared. Mostly it describes someone you know In Real Life (IRL). Often it involves spending time with the person, perhaps just sharing each other’s presence.

I have difficulty understanding how that sentence can apply to God. He is notorious for not saying anything. He is notorious for not being present, at least in recognizable form. People do claim he is everywhere at once, but that doesn’t help if you can’t point to him and say “There he is”, or demonstrate him in some way.

How does he communicate with you? Do you hear his voice? Does a random bush ignite when you’re nearby? Stone tablets appear on your doorstep? Or is his communication much less overt, along the lines of a feeling of goodwill?

Allen, I ask this because I was a Christian – I went to church, attended services, studied the lessons, got baptized. I prayed – I prayed sincerely an meaningfully, not over trivial things like “help me ace this test”. In all that time I never got anything I would characterize as a response (unless you characterize ignoring me as a blanket “no”). I certainly never held conversations – they were all one-sided.

So you are correct, I can’t understand you, but it’s not for a lack of trying.

I am sure if you saw a blind man about to take a step off a cliff, that fell straight into a blast furnace, you would try to stop him by calling out if you were too far away to grab him and stop him falling.

That is one characterization. Let me give you another. You would not appreciate it if I came up to you and said, “Have you heard the good news? There’s no Hell and no God! Isn’t that great?” You’d find that pushy and rude. But you seem to have no issue going up to people and saying, “Have you heard the good news? You’re an evil sinner and bound to spend eternity being tortured, not because you did anything wrong, but because your distant ancestor screwed up. But I can make all that go away, if you just believe what I do.” Kind of tacky, a bit insulting, and not particularly convincing. (And for my next act, I’ll predict you turn that description around and point it at me. Do I win Randi’s Million Bucks?)

Nor do I think the Church (pick one) has people that are especially wonderful, although I can say that I have personally met a few people that are.

I’ve met some wonderful people, too. With and without “Church”.

Does that have much to do with the so called “main theme” which is to point out bad science?

That is the main theme of the overall website. However, a blog is inherently a venue for personal expression of the author. And while Phil has stated that he still primarily will focus on good astronomy and good science, often by pointing out bad examples but also by drawing attention to the good stuff, he retains the right to express his opinions on other topics as well. Clear thinking and critical evaluation are related themes to good science, and for many of us Atheism is an extension of those clear thinking processes. But also, he probably feels a desire to give a little good press to a position he advocates. If you don’t share his attitude, that’s your choice to make.

As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t; however, he has the right to post anything he wants. But as it is a blog, I want to stand up for my side too even if you all think I have a screw loose.

The blog has a public feedback forum, so you are free to respond – even if you disagree. But don’t expect people to blindly accept what you say, either. We share the same feedback forum.

]]> By: Allen Lipscomb http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/comment-page-1/#comment-14776 Allen Lipscomb Fri, 12 May 2006 02:20:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/#comment-14776 Gary, I just went on there. It's free? Go back to post 18930, I was having dificulty posting it. For some reason, it has posted several times; go figure. I think we would probably have a lot more in common than you think. I am also seeker of knowledge, I also like sci fi and fantasy as well. However, I also have a personal relationship with God. You know I don't expect you to think any more than this guy is soft in the head which is a shame. All joking aside, I know my belief system is something you cannot, or will not, understand, but what you do need to understand is the way people like me look at you. I am sure if you saw a blind man about to take a step off a cliff, that fell straight into a blast furnace, you would try to stop him by calling out if you were too far away to grab him and stop him falling. This is not my saying I am superior or better in anyway. Nor do I think the Church (pick one) has people that are especially wonderful, although I can say that I have personally met a few people that are. This post started as BA glorifying the views of an atheist. Does that have much to do with the so called "main theme" which is to point out bad science? That is why I started reading the BA, and enjoying it as well, I might add. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't; however, he has the right to post anything he wants. But as it is a blog, I want to stand up for my side too even if you all think I have a screw loose. All I can do is try. Allen Gary,
I just went on there. It’s free?

Go back to post 18930, I was having dificulty posting it. For some reason, it has posted several times; go figure.

I think we would probably have a lot more in common than you think. I am also seeker of knowledge, I also like sci fi and fantasy as well. However, I also have a personal relationship with God.

You know I don’t expect you to think any more than this guy is soft in the head which is a shame. All joking aside, I know my belief system is something you cannot, or will not, understand, but what you do need to understand is the way people like me look at you.

I am sure if you saw a blind man about to take a step off a cliff, that fell straight into a blast furnace, you would try to stop him by calling out if you were too far away to grab him and stop him falling.

This is not my saying I am superior or better in anyway. Nor do I think the Church (pick one) has people that are especially wonderful, although I can say that I have personally met a few people that are.

This post started as BA glorifying the views of an atheist.

Does that have much to do with the so called “main theme” which is to point out bad science? That is why I started reading the BA, and enjoying it as well, I might add.

As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t; however, he has the right to post anything he wants. But as it is a blog, I want to stand up for my side too even if you all think I have a screw loose.

All I can do is try.

Allen

]]> By: Wendy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/comment-page-1/#comment-14787 Wendy Thu, 11 May 2006 13:08:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/#comment-14787 I'm not saying I'm advocating intermarriage, but for the record, I seem to remember an article in Scientific American a few years ago that showed many advantages of intermarriage. One of the diagrams showed the Rothschild family, in which the goal was to keep the money in the family, and that no offspring of the family had more than the average number of genetic problems (my paraphrase), with another example being the marriage of Chas. Darwin to his cousin. Anyway, there was another, more scientific reason that it was not necessarily a bad thing for close relatives to marry. A person with an interited trait of a big jaw and big teeth marrying a person with a small jaw and small teeth could produce an offspring with a small jaw and big teeth that could cause a life full of dental problems. Of course, I can't find the reference or I'd give you all the link. Just one of those darned imponderables. I’m not saying I’m advocating intermarriage, but for the record, I seem to remember an article in Scientific American a few years ago that showed many advantages of intermarriage. One of the diagrams showed the Rothschild family, in which the goal was to keep the money in the family, and that no offspring of the family had more than the average number of genetic problems (my paraphrase), with another example being the marriage of Chas. Darwin to his cousin. Anyway, there was another, more scientific reason that it was not necessarily a bad thing for close relatives to marry. A person with an interited trait of a big jaw and big teeth marrying a person with a small jaw and small teeth could produce an offspring with a small jaw and big teeth that could cause a life full of dental problems. Of course, I can’t find the reference or I’d give you all the link. Just one of those darned imponderables.

]]> By: Gary Ansorge http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/comment-page-1/#comment-14788 Gary Ansorge Wed, 10 May 2006 16:54:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/#comment-14788 Allen: Right,,,Abraham married his half sister. Still inbreeding, still wrong. Still leads to genetic problems. Book of Genesis filled with contradiction. I gave up reading the bible when I found much more interesting SciFi. Mythologies exist because humans MUST try to understand our environment and exercise some control over it. It's in our nature. The old testament, the new testament, the Quran, etc are all mythological attempts to come to terms with that which we do not understand. Interesting that the Sufii mystics stressed knowledge and reason as the penultimate way of knowing god. T'was a Sufii that developed the scientific method. A Sufii that developed the discipline of Algebra and a Sufii that invented fractional distillation.Ummm, distillation,,, We owe those great thinkers a lot.They still believed in a god, but one of knowledge, reason and compassion, not a god of vengence. I believe in reason, knowledge and compassion. Don't know about any Red Sea discoveries. Went to the mentioned site. Couldn't find what you were talking about, at least without paying,,,and I will NEVER give money to a religious site! Let them dig ditches like the rest of us. GAry 7 Allen:
Right,,,Abraham married his half sister. Still inbreeding, still wrong. Still leads to genetic problems.
Book of Genesis filled with contradiction.
I gave up reading the bible when I found much more interesting SciFi.
Mythologies exist because humans MUST try to understand our environment and exercise some control over it.
It’s in our nature.
The old testament, the new testament, the Quran, etc are all mythological attempts to come to terms with that which we do not understand.
Interesting that the Sufii mystics stressed knowledge and reason as the penultimate way of knowing god.
T’was a Sufii that developed the scientific method. A Sufii that developed the discipline of Algebra and a Sufii that invented fractional distillation.Ummm, distillation,,,
We owe those great thinkers a lot.They still believed in a god, but one of knowledge, reason and compassion, not a god of vengence.

I believe in reason, knowledge and compassion.

Don’t know about any Red Sea discoveries. Went to the mentioned site. Couldn’t find what you were talking about, at least without paying,,,and I will NEVER give money to a religious site! Let them dig ditches like the rest of us.

GAry 7

]]> By: Allen Lipscomb http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/comment-page-1/#comment-14789 Allen Lipscomb Wed, 10 May 2006 03:41:40 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/#comment-14789 Janet Exodus 20:22-23:19 The stipulations of the "Book of the Covenant (24:7), consisting largely of expansions on, and expositions of the Ten Commandments. Think of the Constitution before, then after, lawyers played with it. All that was 1500BC. Jesus changed a few things; don't you think? Gary, whilst you are probably an honest, upright person, and have all the good intentions in the world, I think as BA started this on his blog, it should be alright to continue it. So far, nobody has gotten out of hand. Secondly, I would rather people didn't have my email address just in case I get spammed to death or worse, do not take offence at this, I mean none. "You will note the story of Abraham and his incestuous daughters, who were determined to keep the Jewish tribe alive. Abe predates Moses, the accepted writer of the old testament,ergo, the belief system detailing Yawee was developed by a bunch of inbred desert nomads,,,and we’re stuck with the results. We have good evidence that much genetic inadequacy results from such inbreeding. Including hallucinations,,," Lot was the one with the daughters, not Abraham. Actually, we have not been stuck with the results for a long time, 1973yrs approx. since Christ died for us. Since then, a lot has changed, including if you want my opinion how God regards us. When Christ was sent, it was for one purpose and that was so those that chose to, can become acceptable for God. Perhaps God was a little weary of squishing people that were unacceptable to him. So, how come nobody has commented on the finds on the bottom of the Red Sea? Janet
Exodus 20:22-23:19 The stipulations of the “Book of the Covenant (24:7), consisting largely of expansions on, and expositions of the Ten Commandments.

Think of the Constitution before, then after, lawyers played with it.

All that was 1500BC.

Jesus changed a few things; don’t you think?

Gary, whilst you are probably an honest, upright person, and have all the good intentions in the world, I think as BA started this on his blog, it should be alright to continue it. So far, nobody has gotten out of hand.

Secondly, I would rather people didn’t have my email address just in case I get spammed to death or worse, do not take offence at this, I mean none.

“You will note the story of Abraham and his incestuous daughters, who were determined to keep the Jewish tribe alive. Abe predates Moses, the accepted writer of the old testament,ergo, the belief system detailing Yawee was developed by a bunch of inbred desert nomads,,,and we’re stuck with the results.
We have good evidence that much genetic inadequacy results from such inbreeding. Including hallucinations,,,”

Lot was the one with the daughters, not Abraham.

Actually, we have not been stuck with the results for a long time, 1973yrs approx. since Christ died for us. Since then, a lot has changed, including if you want my opinion how God regards us.

When Christ was sent, it was for one purpose and that was so those that chose to, can become acceptable for God.

Perhaps God was a little weary of squishing people that were unacceptable to him.

So, how come nobody has commented on the finds on the bottom of the Red Sea?

]]> By: Allen Lipscomb http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/comment-page-1/#comment-14790 Allen Lipscomb Wed, 10 May 2006 03:41:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/05/06/star-worship/#comment-14790 Janet Exodus 20:22-23:19 The stipulations of the "Book of the Covenant (24:7), consisting largely of expansions on, and expositions of the Ten Commandments. Think of the Constitution before, then after, lawyers played with it. All that was 1500BC. Jesus changed a few things; don't you think? Gary, whilst you are probably an honest, upright person, and have all the good intentions in the world, I think as BA started this on his blog, it should be alright to continue it. So far, nobody has gotten out of hand. Secondly, I would rather people didn't have my email address just in case I get spammed to death or worse, do not take offence at this, I mean none. "You will note the story of Abraham and his incestuous daughters, who were determined to keep the Jewish tribe alive. Abe predates Moses, the accepted writer of the old testament,ergo, the belief system detailing Yawee was developed by a bunch of inbred desert nomads,,,and we’re stuck with the results. We have good evidence that much genetic inadequacy results from such inbreeding. Including hallucinations,,," Lot was the one with the daughters, not Abraham. Actually, we have not been stuck with the results for a long time, 1973yrs approx. since Christ died for us. Since then, a lot has changed, including if you want my opinion how God regards us. When Christ was sent, it was for one purpose and that was so those that chose to, can become acceptable for God. Perhaps God was a little weary of squishing people that were unacceptable to him. So, how come nobody has commented on the finds on the bottom of the Red Sea? http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.html Janet
Exodus 20:22-23:19 The stipulations of the “Book of the Covenant (24:7), consisting largely of expansions on, and expositions of the Ten Commandments.

Think of the Constitution before, then after, lawyers played with it.

All that was 1500BC.

Jesus changed a few things; don’t you think?

Gary, whilst you are probably an honest, upright person, and have all the good intentions in the world, I think as BA started this on his blog, it should be alright to continue it. So far, nobody has gotten out of hand.

Secondly, I would rather people didn’t have my email address just in case I get spammed to death or worse, do not take offence at this, I mean none.

“You will note the story of Abraham and his incestuous daughters, who were determined to keep the Jewish tribe alive. Abe predates Moses, the accepted writer of the old testament,ergo, the belief system detailing Yawee was developed by a bunch of inbred desert nomads,,,and we’re stuck with the results.
We have good evidence that much genetic inadequacy results from such inbreeding. Including hallucinations,,,”

Lot was the one with the daughters, not Abraham.

Actually, we have not been stuck with the results for a long time, 1973yrs approx. since Christ died for us. Since then, a lot has changed, including if you want my opinion how God regards us.

When Christ was sent, it was for one purpose and that was so those that chose to, can become acceptable for God.

Perhaps God was a little weary of squishing people that were unacceptable to him.

So, how come nobody has commented on the finds on the bottom of the Red Sea?
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.html

]]>