The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
No, it's really not?That's basically a tautology.
At most a century. al-Chazali died in 1111, and the Islamic Golden Age ended in 1258 with the Siege of Baghdad. What's more, with writings like "Indeed the science of religion has been destroyed because the learned men have espoused evil. Allah is, therefore, our help and refuge. May Allah protect us from this delusion, displeasing to Him and pleasing to the Devil." (The Book of Knowledge: Section II) it's not entirely impossible that his writings didn't cause a shedding of the knowledges of "the learned men".Anyway, this happened centuries later and had nothing really to do with al-Ghazali,
Absolutely no. You gave a list (repeatedly) of statements dated from November and December of 2002. Screencaping nothing but 2002, as you admit.Absolutely false.
And in 2001, he is incredibly vague. "It's a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people", "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them", "Ours is a campaign against evil", Boy he really loved that line. "We're fighting evil". And "evil" as nondescript and vague as it was quickly became hijabs and mosques and turbans. You cannot deny this, and I remember it happening. It's so easy to say that you're not waging war on Islam, and so hypocritical when that's exactly what happened. His words allowed for that to happen.
File in with the other tin-hats then. There's room next to the "jet fuel can't melt steel" crowd.So I absolutely deny there was anti-Muslim sentiment because of Bush's statements.
Right, because given his very prominent and fervent faith he could have totally been referencing other gods. Flaccid argument ignoring his staunch Christianity and the very real cultural division between the Christian "God" and the Muslim "Allah".So, no. There is absolutely no claim that it was solely a Christian God that named the stars.
No, it demonstrates three speeches. Not a "routine". Especially given that he said he doesn't speak on religion all that often.Posting three separate occasions of Tyson telling this story demonstrates it was part of his routine.
Take it up with the Hayden Planetarium, then. Though I imagine, as a Planetarium, they're keen to have quotes related to the stars.But to this day the false quote is on one of the Hayden Planetarium pages
For someone getting so bent out of shape over misquoting, don't put words in my mouth.And you're telling me I'm incredibly stupid
Which wasn't really about religion.Well, there's the Bush and Star Names story
which reinforces the stereotype of intolerant, hate-thy-neighbor Christians.
With the end of the Islamic Golden Age. Which it did.Then there's this fiction that Islamic innovation came to a halt--
No, there's the truth that Newton believed the Solar System could only be held in perfect balance by god, as stated in his work The General Scholium to Principia Mathematica: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Which Tyson correctly quotes in his essay from 2005, The Perimeter of Ignorance. An essay which is devoid of a claim that Newton "didn't bother" modeling n-body mechanics.Then there's the fiction that Newton didn't bother trying to model n-body mechanics because he thought God kept the solar system stable.
You're going to have to provide a source for this claim of yours, because the most I can find from Tyson regarding Copernicus was a statement that his Heliocentric model challenged human importance, which it did.Then there's the fiction that Copernicus kept his ideas secret until he was on his deathbed, for fear of the church.
Another source needed, the most I can find is lambasting modern Flat-Earthers.[/quote][/quote]Then there's the fiction that the Christian leadership during the dark ages were flat-earthers who suppressed scientific inquiry.