I have nothing to say except that I’ve been traveling since 10:30 Tuesday morning, I’m still in a big metal bird in the sky, and I want to get out. Now. But I guess I’ll wait until we land in Melbourne…in a few more hours. Gaaaaaaah.
I have nothing to say except that I’ve been traveling since 10:30 Tuesday morning, I’m still in a big metal bird in the sky, and I want to get out. Now. But I guess I’ll wait until we land in Melbourne…in a few more hours. Gaaaaaaah.
I’m an atheist because it is natural to be so.
In every time, people who were not subjected to irrational fears and intelligent enough to be free from social conditioning were atheists.
That has been true for a very long time: the first documented atheists were Greek philosophers about 2500 years ago.
Through time, when social conditions let life be bearable, people have found they don’t need a god to fear or invoke in battle.
So, let’s say everyone is being born an atheist, and so he/she remains as long as no one makes his/her life miserable by terrorizing her/him.
Fernando Santagata
Italy
Bags are packed, passports in hand, we’re about to scurry down the road to the airport to commence an agonizingly long journey to Australia. And you all know the one reason to go to Australia, right?
I wonder if my wife knows what horrors await her at the end of the flight. With my luck, she’ll love the stuff and end up importing a few cases home.
(Episode CCCXV: But I am going to Salt Lake City!)
Tennessee is taking a big step backward with a new “academic freedom” bill that will open the doors of the public schools to a whole flood of nonsense. Students at the University of Tennessee sent a polite letter to the governor explaining the problems with the bill.
Dear Governor Haslam,
We are writing to you regarding HB368/SB893. As graduate students at the University of Tennessee, we strongly believe that this Bill represents a step backward for Tennessee and our state’s ascending recognition for Science and STEM education. We are specifically writing to address the nature of the Bill itself, which we feel was not adequately discussed during either the House or Senate hearings and misrepresents the undivided consensus among anthropologists, biochemists, biologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, genome scientists, geographers, and molecular biologists.
If given a cursory reading, this Bill appears to advocate for intellectual freedom in the classroom and hence would seem prudent. However, it is abundantly clear from both a careful reading and from the testimony at hearings that the intent of this Bill is to encourage teachers to call into question universally accepted scientific principles.
In Section 1(a)(2) of SB893, the generally assembly states “The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy;”
We agree. However, this “controversy” is not scientific. The controversy to which the Bill alludes is the reluctance of non-scientists to accept these principles due to certain religious and political beliefs. This can be the only explanation for the inclusion of human cloning in the Bill. Human cloning is solely an ethical issue. There is no scientific debate on how to clone an organism or whether genetic clones can be created. It is a fact that humans can create genetic clones. Only the ethics of the issue is at stake.
Scientific evidence supporting the occurrence of biological evolution, global climate change, and the chemical origin of life are not controversial among scientists. Scientists universally accept these principles based on their predictability and the overwhelming evidence supporting them. Among scientists, the controversy exists in the details such as how changes in temperatures will affect biodiversity or what evolutionary forces
regulate the speciation process. This type of discussion is due to the very nature of science, which requires the constant acquisition and analysis of data.However, this is not the controversy to which the Bill speaks. The bill later states, in section 1(c), that “The state board of education . . . shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.” This wording seems to imply that the controversy for these aforementioned subjects lies in the scientific realm where in reality they lie only in the political and religious ones.
We fear that this bill only ostensibly supports “critical thinking” in Tennessee’s classrooms. Instead, by implying that subjects such as evolution and global warming are “debatable”, this bill achieves the exact opposite of its purported goal. This is tantamount to encouraging educators to suggest students in science classes disregard the very nature of the scientific process and ignore factual data in favor of the beliefs of some individuals. Scientists cannot ignore data in favor of personal biases. If they did, they would be discredited as non-objective.
This Bill is a step backwards and would do irreparable harm to the development of STEM education in this state. As university educators, we continually face the challenge of losing students’ interests in science courses when they arrive at The University of Tennessee because they are frustrated by their lack of sufficient preparation. Many of them know very little about evolution by natural selection or the mechanisms of global climate change. We hope that you see that as with the legislatures who passed this bill, we too are concerned about the education of children in Tennessee.
This passage of this Bill has the potential to cost the state dearly in terms of lost revenue, a poorly trained scientific workforce, and an exodus of scientists and educators who do not wish to have their discipline diluted with non-scientific biases. We fear that calling into question scientific support of foundations to biological theory will cripple the ability of Tennessee’s students to become functional scientists, doctors, professionals, and contributing members of many growing fields.
We ask that you please thoughtfully consider our position, and veto this bill. Thank you for your time.
Signed,
Graduate Researchers in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolutionary Biology (G.R.E.B.E)
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville[56 grad students from EEB and other departments signed the petition]
Now this is it: this is the last day before Haslam signs the bill into law. Contact the governor and urge him to veto this embarrassing law.
Here’s the contact information for his office:
Phone: (615) 741-2001
Fax: (615) 532-9711
email: Bill.Haslam@tn.gov
World-wide criticism would be helpful at this point.
Have you heard Rick Warren’s Easter message?
Well certainly the Bible says we are to care about the poor….But there’s a fundamental question on the meaning of "fairness." Does fairness mean everybody makes the same amount of money? Or does fairness mean everybody gets the opportunity to make the same amount of money? I do not believe in wealth redistribution, I believe in wealth creation.
The only way to get people out of poverty is J-O-B-S. Create jobs. To create wealth, not to subsidize wealth. When you subsidize people, you create the dependency. You — you rob them of dignity.
So it’s come to this. Modern Christians happily interpret away the egalitarian message of the New Testament — perhaps the one salvageable bit of compassion in the whole Bible — to now denounce charity as robbing the poor of dignity. Even a wicked atheist like myself can see how Warren has completely distorted his own holy book.
On the other hand, though, Warren does believe in giving more to the rich, as you discover in his letter to his congregation, in which he reaches out his hand and begs them to donate a million dollars.
He is right about one thing. Rick Warren has no dignity.
I once had a believer ask me “Every atheist I’ve met believes in something. So what do you believe in if not God?”
“Nothing” I replied. At the time, this was probably true. Even now, I can’t say that belief takes any part in what I consider to be transcendent, but there are some things I know to be true, and this knowledge, gained through science, is what allows me to comfortably call myself an atheist.
I don’t have to believe that mankind is like a newborn baby who’s eyes are darting around a lit room for the first time and noticing things, it’s self evident. To a newborn, everything is surprising, everything is new. As her attention shifts from her mother’s nose, to her eyes, she is learning. She’s adding it all up and forming a cumulative collage of her surroundings. Over time she’ll begin to understand who she is and develop a sense of self.
Humans are doing the same thing as we focus our telescopes at the farthest depths of a vast and incomprehensible universe, or hurl protons at one another at close to light speed to see if we can catch a glimpse of what they are made of when they collide and break down into even smaller pieces. Mankind is an infant in an infinite universe. It doesn’t require belief to recognize or understand this.
Just as a newborn would feel alone and helpless if she didn’t see the soothing eyes and hear the gentle voice of her mother, so does humankind look out into her universe and pray that there is something there, some comfort to be found. Here a believer would say that there IS something there. They claim they can see their celestial father smiling back at them and stroking their hair. “It’s all right” they hear him say, “I will take care of you if you trust in me.”
I do not share that delusion, but I do however feel that sense of longing. I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t. All mammals, most birds, and a smaller percentage of cold blooded animals exhibit extremely tight bonds between at least the mother and her young through infancy and adolescence. Not until they are ready to survive on their own do parents cut ties with their offspring. Evolution has thoroughly conditioned us to need that relationship. It doesn’t surprise me that we collectively long for a cosmic hug.
However, as we humans open our eyes for the first time, and let out that first intergalactic scream, we are coming to the conclusion through science that our virgin birth has luckily not rendered us helpless or alone at all. More like a colt or a fawn, we are able to hit the ground running and fend for ourselves. Billions of years of evolution have already done the job of making us self sufficient. No parenting is needed, no hand holding or teaching; we will learn and grow, and when we reach adulthood in some distant future we will be beautiful, strong, confident and humble for having made it so far; together, not alone.
The sense of awe and wonder I feel when thinking about such things doesn’t require me to believe in anything supernatural or irrational. It doesn’t require me to take anything on faith.The feeling that comes over me when I’m able to just sit and think about the universe and how lucky I am to be a part of it, but yet how small we all are in it’s presence, is a transcendent experience that requires me to “believe” nothing, only to come to “know” as much as I can in the blink of an eye we call a lifetime.
I find comfort through knowledge, not faith. Life has meaning because there remain things to be known. To the believer, a life with unanswered questions is void of meaning, to me, a life with all the answers penciled for me is pointless.
Erik Abretske
It’s about to be a long weekend of triumphant atheism in Australia, and Richard Dawkins set things up by sacrificing that idiot, George Pell, on the altar of reason. The whole debate is now online.
I was really unimpressed with most of the audience’s questions, and even less impressed with Pell. Pell threw in Atheist Hitler at about 11 minutes in, and some smug audience member exhibited his confusion about atheism and agnosticism at 14 minutes. Also, the guy at 21 minutes with a video embarrassed all Australians, I think.
It’s a good warmup for the rest of the week, though.
It was also a warmup for Richard: here he is the next morning on the radio.
That last poll at the Blaze was such a one-sided stomping — we inverted the results, from 8% pro-atheist to 92% — so let’s do it again.
Did Jesus Christ Really Exist?
Absolutely, but he wasn’t God’s son. 10.17%
Yes, and He was the Son of God. 69.89%
No way. 17.66%
I’m in the middle on this one. 2.3%
We might have a split vote on this one, but the least we can do is smash the currently leading option.
A good suggestion: since The Blaze likes to block particular referrers, go straight to the poll.
I’m not against diplomacy; I don’t think you need to beat up the religious; I like nice people who represent atheism and humanism. What I can’t stand are the simpering suckups who give away the store in the name of getting along.
If you want to see how it’s done right, watch Andrew Copson, the British humanist. He’s all friendly and understanding, offering helpful, reasonable explanations, without budging an inch on principle. Can we have more American humanists like that?