Regarding the atheist-Stalin connection, do you think that atheists on BookTalk are sympathetic or pro-Stalin in any way? Your honest answer to this question, I think, would be very telling, though I'm not holding my breath that you will answer it.

Oh so there is a connection between atheism and Stalin, huh?
That is the closest you've been to admitting that. Congratulations.

You're question is a ridiculous one.


(when will Geo write that Stalin was just an evil politician and not an atheist)

geo wrote:

ant wrote:We don't need to consult a dictionary.
We'll just look at the broad-brushed oversimplifications made right in our very own yard here.

You've pretty much parroted Richard Dawkins supposed "philosophical thought" about religion. That's bad enough.

Do you deny the Enlightenment promoted positivism? Not overtly, but implicitly.
Do you also deny that most of the core thinkers here on BT have unknowingly promoted positivism as well? I had to personally introduce the word "scientism" to your working vocabulary. Do you remember that as well?

That's okay, Ant, I'm getting off the train. I personally don't find a lot of use of broad generalizations and stereotypes which apparently is the only way you are capable of seeing the world. I can only speak for myself and my own beliefs. I see no point in telling you what my own beliefs are because you've already made up your mind about what they are.

As for parroting Richard Dawkins, please show me exactly what I said. I'm always happy to explain where I'm coming from. By not quoting my exact words, we have to rely on your interpretation and memory of what I said. That would be foolhardy to say the least.

Of course you MUST get off the train here, rather than answer straightforward questions.
That's a great tactic.

I can answer questions.

I don't really have an opinion on whether the Enlightenment promoted positivism. The Enlightenment was about a lot of things. Why would you focus on its promotion of positivism? Is that your favorite word of the week or something?

Personally, I consider myself a naturalist. Does that mean I'm promoting positivism? To me that's a rather bizarre way of looking at it. Do my ideas have to be pinned to a grand movement?

Your turn. Can you answer my questions?

This also happens to be the one that is most susceptible to positivism (totally debunked) and anti clericalism (unhealthy for social cohesiveness).
It is too close to the "enlightenment" that historically was criminal in both action and thought.

What is the "outgrowth" that makes your brand of secular humanism different from the 18th century enlightenment?

Really, this era dubbed by historians as the Enlightenment was "criminal"? Our Founding Fathers, partaking of its spirit, were rogues or worse? Want to retract this generalization?

DWill wrote:

This also happens to be the one that is most susceptible to positivism (totally debunked) and anti clericalism (unhealthy for social cohesiveness).
It is too close to the "enlightenment" that historically was criminal in both action and thought.

What is the "outgrowth" that makes your brand of secular humanism different from the 18th century enlightenment?

Really, this era dubbed by historians as the Enlightenment was "criminal"? Our Founding Fathers, partaking of its spirit, were rogues or worse? Want to retract this generalization?

The French Age of Enlightenment? Of course its results were barbaric

BTW, I'm certain your great grandchildren will consider their age to be an age of enlightenment.

Specifically, that is what root we are speaking of as it pertains to secular humanism being an outgrowth of the 18th century enlightenment.

The science is "befuddled" because Mars gravity is less than Earth's and nothing indicated this (looked like they were in Arizona). And they had so much equipment on Mars they must have spent twenty years stocking up.

Also, you don't blow up part of your spacecraft when you have to travel for eighteen months before you get back to Earth(they did this to rendezvous with Matt Damon "orbitng" around Mars. Jessica Chastain said that they could "worry about damage later".).

And Matt Damon got so scrawny (body double or video tricks) at the end that it would be near impossible for him to do all the hard work he had to when he trekked out to 'boot up' the Mars prober and whatever so he could blast off planet, assuming he had enough nourishment not to get rickets or something.

And no way the "junior" NASA astrophysicists or whatever he was comes up with the only viable plan to make it to Matt in time while all the senior scientists are hard put to think up anything---and the idea was the same tired "loop around the planet' to get a boost of acceleration they've used in dozens if not hundreds of space stories. And of course, NASAish astronauts "mutinying" to save Matt (forgetting about their own spouses and kids) and blocking NASA control's ability to send commands to the space rocket? Hard to believe.

Lastly, Matt Damon's advice to the newbie astronauts:
"Just solve one problem at a time and you'll make it through" is B.S. Outer Space is deadly and with limited resources there is only so much you can do. Damon in the movie is pretty much an atheist (although he does use a cross for firewood) but while
"failure is not an option" often it is a sad eventuality.

As for "repeated success' of NASA, not only is that not true, even in the film the launch of the "extra food" rocket failed, which is when the Chinese kicked in (seriously? the Chinese volunteered to help out the Americans in lieu of doing their own secret space thing? And without even having a Chinese guy sent up to Mars to help out and share the glory? )

Nice comments, Serge.
You were right on the money with them.

Yes, the slingshot orbit strategy is not a new, brilliant idea.

It's not likely that "sciencing the shit" out of being marooned on a planet 33 milli9n miles away will save your arse. That's an attempt to portray science as an omnipotent power of humans that will work anywhere because of omnipresence.

I didnt know about the cross scene but the implicationis corny and clear: religiion is as useless as firewood, whereas science is Almighty.

I do like Ridley Scott though Blade Runner is my favorite philosophical scifi of all time.

Yes, the slingshot orbit strategy is not a new, brilliant idea.

No one claimed it was, perhaps that's why a "junior astrophysicist was able to come up with the notion.

As for "repeated success' of NASA, not only is that not true,

Read the list for yourselves, you'll learn like I did, that there have in fact been many more success' than failures.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html

The science is "befuddled" because Mars gravity is less than Earth's and nothing indicated this (looked like they were in Arizona). And they had so much equipment on Mars they must have spent twenty years stocking up.

Also, you don't blow up part of your spacecraft when you have to travel for eighteen months before you get back to Earth(they did this to rendezvous with Matt Damon "orbitng" around Mars. Jessica Chastain said that they could "worry about damage later".).

And Matt Damon got so scrawny (body double or video tricks) at the end that it would be near impossible for him to do all the hard work he had to when he trekked out to 'boot up' the Mars prober and whatever so he could blast off planet, assuming he had enough nourishment not to get rickets or something.

And no way the "junior" NASA astrophysicists or whatever he was comes up with the only viable plan to make it to Matt in time while all the senior scientists are hard put to think up anything---and the idea was the same tired "loop around the planet' to get a boost of acceleration they've used in dozens if not hundreds of space stories. And of course, NASAish astronauts "mutinying" to save Matt (forgetting about their own spouses and kids) and blocking NASA control's ability to send commands to the space rocket? Hard to believe.

Lastly, Matt Damon's advice to the newbie astronauts:
"Just solve one problem at a time and you'll make it through" is B.S. Outer Space is deadly and with limited resources there is only so much you can do. Damon in the movie is pretty much an atheist (although he does use a cross for firewood) but while
"failure is not an option" often it is a sad eventuality.

Yes, Very good indeed, All this proves that not all the public is mislead by the fictional story "The Martian" when it comes to science.

Manned missions to Mars are stupid. Robots only--they don't need to eat, sleep, rest, screw, exercise, get sick, get paid, etc. In the long run, they are far cheaper and if anything happens to them, we just build another.

The most valuable mission accomplished in recent years was Hayabusa landing on an asteroid, chipping off pieces and bringing them back to earth. That was a phenomenal achievement for two reasons:

1. We'd damn well better start learning how to deflect asteroids before we get hit, which is inevitable.
2. What Hayabusa did on a very limited scale was mine an asteroid, something else we damn well better start doing.

Why the hell should we waste one worn penny on Mars??? Start picking up where Hayabusa left off!!!

As for the success rate of missions to Mars, it's actually dismal. There have been 53 missions to Mars counting from the very first and counting every country that has participated. Of those 53, 29 have been failures. That's too high to risk sending people.