Isaac Asimov, Ignorant, Hateful Atheist, Beloved by Leftists

[HenryBHough]

Most of those who tend libertarian or to the right do prefer Heinlein. Although..after reading Time Enough for Love...ya gotta wonder about his inner sexual landscape..a book where he fucks his sisters, his daughters and his Mom..Yowza!

In fairness..his sister/daughters were his clones..so in a way,..he also fucked himself!

Time Enough for Love

The capstone and crowning achievement of Heinlein's famous Future History, Time Enough for Love follows Lazarus Long through a vast and m...

www.goodreads.com

Yeah, now and then he had to give vent to his inner liberal.

Fortunately none of those unions yielded an infant to murder.

 

[irosie91]

I never read any of his stuff.

I did----he wrote science fiction that was so weird
it bordered on psychotic----but some people loved
it

Really?? You found the Foundation series weird..bordering on psychotic? Hari Sheldon weeps...

Most people blast Asimov for being dry and pedantic..sometimes to a fault.

You found I, Robot weird and psychotic...??

Oh well..as we all know..tastes differ.

I don't know that work----I read his short stories
in the 1960s

 

[james bond]

So..you are smarter than both Issac Asimov AND Carl Sagan?

You Do know...you're not, right?

He's right about no aliens. I can see why Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein all believed in aliens. They were trying to show that atheist science is right with evolution and abiogenesis. However, like Sagan and Hawking (atheist scientists), these writers all died without any evidence of aliens. Thus, they are all science fiction writers. What science states is there are no aliens and abiogenesis.

Since we're doing the big three:

A quote by Arthur C. Clarke

Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.

www.goodreads.com

The whole atheism thing misses me..what people believe about God and the afterlife is their business..as long as they don't push it in my face.

I didn't even mention God nor Christianity. What we have is the science of no God or evolution since the 1850s. Evolution assumes atheism. They can't have any supernatural beings due to their huge assumption that everything is natural. Thus, we get billions of years of universe and Earth or long time so abiogenesis can happen as Charles Darwin hypothesized. Yet, science has found that abiogenesis does not happen. It used to be called spontaneous generation and it was disproved by the scientific method.

If life can spring up from non-life naturally, then we would have seen it already and intelligent aliens would have contacted us. This is part of the scientific theory of aliens.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So..you are smarter than both Issac Asimov AND Carl Sagan?

You Do know...you're not, right?

He's right about no aliens. I can see why Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein all believed in aliens. They were trying to show that atheist science is right with evolution and abiogenesis. However, like Sagan and Hawking (atheist scientists), these writers all died without any evidence of aliens. Thus, they are all science fiction writers. What science states is there are no aliens and abiogenesis.

Since we're doing the big three:

A quote by Arthur C. Clarke

Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.

www.goodreads.com

The whole atheism thing misses me..what people believe about God and the afterlife is their business..as long as they don't push it in my face.

I didn't even mention God nor Christianity. What we have is the science of no God or evolution since the 1850s. Evolution assumes atheism. They can't have any supernatural beings due to their huge assumption that everything is natural. Thus, we get billions of years of universe and Earth or long time so abiogenesis can happen as Charles Darwin hypothesized. Yet, science has found that abiogenesis does not happen. It used to be called spontaneous generation and it was disproved by the scientific method.

If life can spring up from non-life naturally, then we would have seen it already and intelligent aliens would have contacted us. This is part of the scientific theory of aliens.

Evolution does not assume atheism.

What hubris to assume that YOU are the one who knows how God works. What if there is a God and God works through evolution, eh?

The only truly honest position to take is agnosticism because that is the only position that acknowledges the limits of what we actually know vs claim to know.

 

[bodecea]

Asimov was one of the great writers of hard science fiction (and also a professor of biochemistry). I, like most people who read his prolific writings, couldn't care less about his religious beliefs.

I moderate when needed and participate in threads as I choose. Being a mod does not mean I no longer post in various threads.

Leftists such as you certainly do care a great deal about Christians whom you relentlessly attack as "fundies" and "Bible-thumpers" who "are anti-science." Your hypocrisy is disgusting.
I couldn't care less about science fiction. I read and pursue science, and history, and apologetics, and ideas. I marvel when someone who is SUPPOSED to be as intelligent as Asimov writes such ignorant fabrications, and marvel even more that he was so disgusting a human. Evidently Leftists are terribly offended at what Trump did in the privacy of his meetings with willing women, but simply giggle and ignore Asimov's abandonment of his family.

Now if I never reply to another post of yours, it will be because I never read another of them. Like most all Leftists, you don't add any information or perspective. You subtract from them instead.

"I couldn't care less about science fiction..." I see your problem right there.

 

[bodecea]

I never read any of his stuff.

I tried but the several I tried to read were stupid!!

BTW: I read "Dune" in one sitting. Damn good read!

Greg

Psst...not Asimov.....

 

[bodecea]

Letters always come with a copyright in the corner of the envelope... and it took 3 years to get to you??
The letter is dated 1984, but the envelope you have is dated 1981.
And the other problem is $.13 postage ended in 1979. Postage was $.15 in 1981. If it was supposed to be 1984 then it would have been $.20.

FFS - Dude... if you are going to post up a fake claim, you should at least make sure the years on the two documents match... let alone the postage amount.

1. It is NOT a letter. It is a postcard. Both sides of the postcard are shown.
2. The USPS does not reprint its postcard stock every year, I would guess.
3. Thirteen cents postage for a LETTER is not thirteen cents postage for a POST CARD.
4. "Dude," you better get some help when you get all Lefty Uppity. You and your bald moderator pal who giggles like a little girl.

I will also add that Hateful Isaac, who by the way signed his first name with such curly flourish, befitting his massive ego, probably purchased a large supply of postcards and used them often to respond to his fawning Lefty Atheist sycophants. I was never one. I always read non-fiction.
He may have had that postcard in his drawer for years. But giggly moderators and their pals don't think things over before spewing out nonsense, as Moderator does. "BUSTED!"
heh heh heh

Someone sure is butt hurt.......

 

[bodecea]

I never read any of his stuff.

I did----he wrote science fiction that was so weird
it bordered on psychotic----but some people loved
it

I have seen the movie I, Robot yet did not find it any weirder than other stuff I have seen.

Nothing like the book.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So..you are smarter than both Issac Asimov AND Carl Sagan?

You Do know...you're not, right?

He's right about no aliens. I can see why Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein all believed in aliens. They were trying to show that atheist science is right with evolution and abiogenesis. However, like Sagan and Hawking (atheist scientists), these writers all died without any evidence of aliens. Thus, they are all science fiction writers. What science states is there are no aliens and abiogenesis.

Since we're doing the big three:

A quote by Arthur C. Clarke

Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.

www.goodreads.com

The whole atheism thing misses me..what people believe about God and the afterlife is their business..as long as they don't push it in my face.

I didn't even mention God nor Christianity. What we have is the science of no God or evolution since the 1850s. Evolution assumes atheism. They can't have any supernatural beings due to their huge assumption that everything is natural. Thus, we get billions of years of universe and Earth or long time so abiogenesis can happen as Charles Darwin hypothesized. Yet, science has found that abiogenesis does not happen. It used to be called spontaneous generation and it was disproved by the scientific method.

If life can spring up from non-life naturally, then we would have seen it already and intelligent aliens would have contacted us. This is part of the scientific theory of aliens.

You kind of threw me at , "Evolution assumes atheism"...I don't think it does...it does, however, assume that the Bible is a creation myth.

There is nothing in evolution that precludes intelligent design.

As for aliens..well..space is big..and so is time. Who knows what has gone before..when before..is a very long time indeed..so is after.
We may be alone..an outlier in time..or there may be 100's of civilizations..all 1,000 years behind us. Everyone thinks aliens mean advanced...not necessarily, right?
Insufficient data..probably be that way for a long time.

BTW..supernatural...is a nonsense word...if you think about it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Most of those who tend libertarian or to the right do prefer Heinlein. Although..after reading Time Enough for Love...ya gotta wonder about his inner sexual landscape..a book where he fucks his sisters, his daughters and his Mom..Yowza!

In fairness..his sister/daughters were his clones..so in a way,..he also fucked himself!

Time Enough for Love

The capstone and crowning achievement of Heinlein's famous Future History, Time Enough for Love follows Lazarus Long through a vast and m...

www.goodreads.com

Yeah, now and then he had to give vent to his inner liberal.

Fortunately none of those unions yielded an infant to murder.

I hope you didn't pull anything with that twisty snap back to some semblance of your Prime Directive!


LOL!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I see we are all on different pages with our science fiction. I prefer Herbert to Azimov to Heinlein. I am not really at all fond of the latter as it always seemed to me that everything he wrote was filtered through very limited 1950's sensibilities in terms of cultural attitudes.

As far as 1950s and 60s science fiction, though, how about John Brunner? Stand on Zanzibar is amazing. There is James Blish's Seedling Stars which imagined humans adapting themselves to different environments and is a wonderful read. R.A. Lafferty was whimsical and lyrical and put you in another world while William Tenn was satirical and silly and wry. The thing is -- Science fiction, especially some of the best science fiction, isn't all cowboys and indians in outer space like some imagine. The best science fiction makes you think about what it means to be human.


oh, and how could I forget Phillip K Dick?! That man was prescient!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I see we are all on different pages with our science fiction. I prefer Herbert to Azimov to Heinlein. I am not really at all fond of the latter as it always seemed to me that everything he wrote was filtered through very limited 1950's sensibilities in terms of cultural attitudes.

As far as 1950s and 60s science fiction, though, how about John Brunner? Stand on Zanzibar is amazing. There is James Blish's Seedling Stars which imagined humans adapting themselves to different environments and is a wonderful read. R.A. Lafferty was whimsical and lyrical and put you in another world while William Tenn was satirical and silly and wry. The thing is -- Science fiction, especially some of the best science fiction, isn't all cowboys and indians in outer space like some imagine. The best science fiction makes you think about what it means to be human.

Brunner's Shockwave Rider defined hacking before it existed!

Now who sits on the throne?

Kim Stanley Robinson & Neil Stephenson

I do like my David Weber though

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I see we are all on different pages with our science fiction. I prefer Herbert to Azimov to Heinlein. I am not really at all fond of the latter as it always seemed to me that everything he wrote was filtered through very limited 1950's sensibilities in terms of cultural attitudes.

As far as 1950s and 60s science fiction, though, how about John Brunner? Stand on Zanzibar is amazing. There is James Blish's Seedling Stars which imagined humans adapting themselves to different environments and is a wonderful read. R.A. Lafferty was whimsical and lyrical and put you in another world while William Tenn was satirical and silly and wry. The thing is -- Science fiction, especially some of the best science fiction, isn't all cowboys and indians in outer space like some imagine. The best science fiction makes you think about what it means to be human.

Brunner's Shockwave Rider defined hacking before it existed!

Now who sits on the throne?

Kim Stanley Robinson & Neil Stephenson

I do like my David Weber though

I loved Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age where he envisioned a world made up of alliances of mutual interest rather than nation states.

We may be approaching that.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I see we are all on different pages with our science fiction. I prefer Herbert to Azimov to Heinlein. I am not really at all fond of the latter as it always seemed to me that everything he wrote was filtered through very limited 1950's sensibilities in terms of cultural attitudes.

As far as 1950s and 60s science fiction, though, how about John Brunner? Stand on Zanzibar is amazing. There is James Blish's Seedling Stars which imagined humans adapting themselves to different environments and is a wonderful read. R.A. Lafferty was whimsical and lyrical and put you in another world while William Tenn was satirical and silly and wry. The thing is -- Science fiction, especially some of the best science fiction, isn't all cowboys and indians in outer space like some imagine. The best science fiction makes you think about what it means to be human.

Brunner's Shockwave Rider defined hacking before it existed!

Now who sits on the throne?

Kim Stanley Robinson & Neil Stephenson

I do like my David Weber though

I loved Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age where he envisioned a world made up of alliances of mutual interest rather than nation states.

We may be approaching that.

His early stuff...I really liked.
The Baroque Cycle is a masterwork

The Baroque Cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I see we are all on different pages with our science fiction. I prefer Herbert to Azimov to Heinlein. I am not really at all fond of the latter as it always seemed to me that everything he wrote was filtered through very limited 1950's sensibilities in terms of cultural attitudes.

As far as 1950s and 60s science fiction, though, how about John Brunner? Stand on Zanzibar is amazing. There is James Blish's Seedling Stars which imagined humans adapting themselves to different environments and is a wonderful read. R.A. Lafferty was whimsical and lyrical and put you in another world while William Tenn was satirical and silly and wry. The thing is -- Science fiction, especially some of the best science fiction, isn't all cowboys and indians in outer space like some imagine. The best science fiction makes you think about what it means to be human.

Brunner's Shockwave Rider defined hacking before it existed!

Now who sits on the throne?

Kim Stanley Robinson & Neil Stephenson

I do like my David Weber though

I loved Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age where he envisioned a world made up of alliances of mutual interest rather than nation states.

We may be approaching that.

His early stuff...I really liked.
The Baroque Cycle is a masterwork

The Baroque Cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I haven't read that. I will have to put it on my list.

It sounds like he branched out from cyberpunk.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I see we are all on different pages with our science fiction. I prefer Herbert to Azimov to Heinlein. I am not really at all fond of the latter as it always seemed to me that everything he wrote was filtered through very limited 1950's sensibilities in terms of cultural attitudes.

As far as 1950s and 60s science fiction, though, how about John Brunner? Stand on Zanzibar is amazing. There is James Blish's Seedling Stars which imagined humans adapting themselves to different environments and is a wonderful read. R.A. Lafferty was whimsical and lyrical and put you in another world while William Tenn was satirical and silly and wry. The thing is -- Science fiction, especially some of the best science fiction, isn't all cowboys and indians in outer space like some imagine. The best science fiction makes you think about what it means to be human.

Brunner's Shockwave Rider defined hacking before it existed!

Now who sits on the throne?

Kim Stanley Robinson & Neil Stephenson

I do like my David Weber though

I loved Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age where he envisioned a world made up of alliances of mutual interest rather than nation states.

We may be approaching that.

His early stuff...I really liked.
The Baroque Cycle is a masterwork

The Baroque Cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I haven't read that. I will have to put it on my list.

It sounds like he branched out from cyberpunk.

Yeah..he's a mature talent for sure

Seveneves

Seveneves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ReinyDays]

What an awful way to portray Christian doctrine ... shockingly, ChemEngineer knows less about Christianity than he does about Chemistry ... if that's even possible ... because he doesn't seem to know anything about chemistry ...

Attacking science is a poor way to gather His lost flock ... thread after thread spewing hatred ... Evil by any other name smell just as putrid ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

Trying to educate or teach a Leftist/atheist anything is utterly futile.
They refuse to learn and persist in living their lives of fiction, hence their worship of atheist/Leftist Asimov, the master of fiction. Even when he wrote nonfiction, it was fiction and this goes right over the heads of Leftists and atheists.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light excelleth darkness."

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trying to educate or teach a Leftist/atheist anything is utterly futile.
They refuse to learn and persist in living their lives of fiction, hence their worship of atheist/Leftist Asimov, the master of fiction. Even when he wrote nonfiction, it was fiction and this goes right over the heads of Leftists and atheists.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light excelleth darkness."

are you SURE you didn't intend this for the satire section?

 

[james bond]

Evolution does not assume atheism.

Of course it does. It has to. If we believe in God, he tells us that "because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." Romans 1:25 In fact, the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. What you discuss is a minority who believes in theistic evolution. For the creation scientists, evolution is not compatible with God and creation.

Evolution is not compatible with creation science in that the Bible tells us that God was the creator. It wasn't a naturalistic process as that can't happen.