I don't agree with De Grasse. I believe it takes both types of delivery to get the point across. Look at it like a good cop/bad cop. We need a Dawkins to say, this is how it is. Then we need a De GRasse to make us feel better about it all.
I had never heard of Carl Sagan until one of his passages was quoted in "The God Delusion".
And yet this guy has been pedalling "nice" rational thought since the 60s/70s. "Nice" atheism didn't do anything and arguably allowed for the rise of American religious extremism (itself an exacerbator of Islamic extremism through religiously-led foreign policy).
Dawkins' book changed all of that. Something like 100 published rebuttles shows how serious he's taken among his enemies...
I never tire of this one - not just the ending but the way he "graciously accepts" that pile of horsecrap that Tyson is saying.
I've never seen Dawkins bash anyone - and as a human being he's allowed to say what he thinks.
The fact is, we've had loads of really nice people like Carl Sagan gently putting forward their views to little effect (although those people have their place in the quest for rationality).
Dawkins simply says what he thinks, and that scares people because he has a brain
I dont think what Tyson said is at all incorrect, in fact I find him to be dead on, and making his point, but I see your point. I feel Dawkins needs to speak how he does because that is who he is, and the fact that his method has in fact educated many people w/ great effect. However as Tysons approach or as he would have him be, would not be affective coming from Mr Dawkins, but being wise, he would have learned from him here. I bet, you he thought about what Dawkins said more than once
When you simply say what you think, which is what he does(Dawkins), you are not as effective as if you rethink and refine your own method. My point is they are both correct and are wise enough to laugh about their differences while helping each other. Which is why these are 2 of the wisest men living. As to Carl Sagan, You say he had little affect, are you kidding? All truly wise people talk and learn as these 2 without sharpness, when talking to one another, like in this clip, whenever possible
Dawkins is an irritating little gnome.
Zebonka 1 month ago
I don't agree with De Grasse. I believe it takes both types of delivery to get the point across. Look at it like a good cop/bad cop. We need a Dawkins to say, this is how it is. Then we need a De GRasse to make us feel better about it all.
ceanderson79 1 year ago 4
@ceanderson79 great thought
screenflicker1 8 months ago
Tyson! Tyson! Tyson!
DrWinstonRelthford 2 years ago
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can FUCK off."
LOL helll yeh.
vr4gasmtt 2 years ago 11
I had never heard of Carl Sagan until one of his passages was quoted in "The God Delusion".
And yet this guy has been pedalling "nice" rational thought since the 60s/70s. "Nice" atheism didn't do anything and arguably allowed for the rise of American religious extremism (itself an exacerbator of Islamic extremism through religiously-led foreign policy).
Dawkins' book changed all of that. Something like 100 published rebuttles shows how serious he's taken among his enemies...
jazzx251 2 years ago
I never tire of this one - not just the ending but the way he "graciously accepts" that pile of horsecrap that Tyson is saying.
I've never seen Dawkins bash anyone - and as a human being he's allowed to say what he thinks.
The fact is, we've had loads of really nice people like Carl Sagan gently putting forward their views to little effect (although those people have their place in the quest for rationality).
Dawkins simply says what he thinks, and that scares people because he has a brain
jazzx251 2 years ago
I dont think what Tyson said is at all incorrect, in fact I find him to be dead on, and making his point, but I see your point. I feel Dawkins needs to speak how he does because that is who he is, and the fact that his method has in fact educated many people w/ great effect. However as Tysons approach or as he would have him be, would not be affective coming from Mr Dawkins, but being wise, he would have learned from him here. I bet, you he thought about what Dawkins said more than once
1787patriot 2 years ago
When you simply say what you think, which is what he does(Dawkins), you are not as effective as if you rethink and refine your own method. My point is they are both correct and are wise enough to laugh about their differences while helping each other. Which is why these are 2 of the wisest men living. As to Carl Sagan, You say he had little affect, are you kidding? All truly wise people talk and learn as these 2 without sharpness, when talking to one another, like in this clip, whenever possible
1787patriot 2 years ago
Also, I love the end, when Dawkins says hes not the worst at his approach...Loved his example
1787patriot 2 years ago