Not just Sally Ride »« Why I am an atheist – Sunday Afternoon

Comments

  1. Usernames are smart says

    Topic suggestion: why do so many True Believers™ never read the bible (or only skim)?

    Are there any examples of you doing the same thing—not reading source material, and taking things on faith?

    Examples could be “Global Warming,” The true threat of terrorism, politician statements on anything, etc.

  2. devogene says

    Since we will be talking about Genome evolution, we could have a chat about evo-devo, or Adaptive landscapes. I know I have asked for an evo-devo podcast for the third time, and sorry if that bugs anyone. I am gonna try to join the podcast, but I am not sure how good I am at Molecular evolution.

  3. New England Bob says

    I would love to be part of this but even though I am 61 years old, Friday evening at 9pm ET rarely finds me at home.

  4. David Marjanović says

    Topic suggestion: why do so many True Believers™ never read the bible (or only skim)?

    Are there any examples of you doing the same thing—not reading source material, and taking things on faith?

    Averted (in the TV Tropes sense)! I’ve never read On the Origin of Species!

    That’s because I don’t need to. It’s not a source of truth; I don’t accept anything just because it’s in that book.

    What still holds of it is explained in more recent sources (often based on data that Darwin couldn’t dream of), what’s outdated of it is unnecessary to know. The book from 1859 is of purely historical interest, like the paper by Darwin and Wallace (1858) that almost nobody ever talks about.

  5. says

    I think after dealing with the Slimepitters and such bleating on about “litmus tests” for skepticism, we have a far more pressing question than more creationist-stomping:

    Does applying skepticism to political discussions show that conservatives are consistently wrong? (Alternatively, what are the meritorious arguments for any conservatism, libertarianism, neoliberalism/”economic liberalism”, and other right wing stuff that I keep hearing exist somewhere?)

  6. says

    (I know, stomping creationists is fun. But is it really that much better than the Bigfoot-bashing that the anti-feminist “skeptics” so rabidly think is all skepticism should ever focus on? I don’t think so; when holding these internal discussions, we should discuss things that are important, not hold Bigfoot-bashing circle jerks of the type we say we don’t want skeptical/atheist conferences to become.)

  7. Brownian says

    It’s also got way too much pigeon in it.

    Ooh, fun! During my first undergrad, studying anthropology, I focussed on pidgins and creoles for my linguistic component.

    [Looks in awe at copy of On the Origin of Species]

  8. says

    I’d like to hear further discussion of the biology/biochemistry involved in the chromosome 2 fusion and human/ape evolution.

    But creationist stomping begins to bore me – the tactics they employ to willfully misrepresent and misinterpret the data to obfuscate their lies are predictable. At what point can we say “Zimmer stomped them. Now here’s some really cool science?”

  9. Sili says

    Averted (in the TV Tropes sense)! I’ve never read On the Origin of Species!

    That’s because I don’t need to. It’s not a source of truth; I don’t accept anything just because it’s in that book.

    What still holds of it is explained in more recent sources (often based on data that Darwin couldn’t dream of), what’s outdated of it is unnecessary to know. The book from 1859 is of purely historical interest, like the paper by Darwin and Wallace (1858) that almost nobody ever talks about.

    I have a copy somewhere, but it (like so much else) has gone missing.

    There was an essay on Radio3 a long while ago, that argued that OtOoS was as important for English literature as it was for biology. Darwin was not just a scrupulous scientist, but also an excellent writer. Even from the first edition OtOoS went on sale in W. H. Smith’s at such august locations as railway stations.

  10. lsdfg1 says

    I’d like to hear a discussion about SLC18A2 the so called “God gene” that I’ve been reading about recently. When I typed it into youtube to try to learn more about it I saw this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nADFJlAggnY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxm2IIUoEC4

    The video looks completely bogus, as the whole thing seems to futuristic, but would make for a pretty interesting discussion anyway. Has genetics advanced to the stage where it can really do things like this? Also, what are the ethical implications of doing something like this if something like this can be achieved in the future? Would it really it even work? etc. I’d be interested in hearing a discussion about this.

  11. says

    I can appreciate Setár’s aversion to the (seemingly) inevitable circle jerk that some topics could devolve toward. Politics sounds fun, but I’d be tempted into wholesale Libertarian bashing. Science topics from any discipline are great, but I’m only an amateur, so would just be listening (not necessarily a bad thing).

    What do people think about some aspect of ethics or ideology? Feminism (any wave, any aspect) is near the top of my list, partly because I’d be over my head and I’d most likely reveal my ignorance. Nearly my favorite place to be.