Skeptics of Think Atheist


Skeptics of Think Atheist

A group for skeptics to gather and help each other battle woo, pseudoscience, misinformation, and other nonsense. Feel free to ask for help in seeking information to address any claims you might be skeptical about.

Members: 167
Latest Activity: Mar 16

Discussion Forum

Why People Believe in Conspiracies - By Michael Shermer

Started by Sydni Moser. Last reply by Joli Feb 23, 2011. 5 Replies

Why People Believe in ConspiraciesA skeptic's take on the public's fascination with disinformationBy Michael Shermer  | September 10,…Continue

QED Vodka-Homeopathy Expose' 10:23 Campaign

Started by Andrea Steele. Last reply by No name Jan 26, 2011. 3 Replies

This is SO cool! The 10:23 Campaign has already made significant progress in exposing the fraud behind homeopathic "medicine" in the UK. Here's the link. For some reason it isn't embedding. :/ …Continue

Tags: science, UK, homeopathy, skeptic

Is There Such a Thing as Life After Death?

Started by Sydni Moser. Last reply by kumera Dec 14, 2010. 24 Replies

On television you can't escape it.  The National Geographic Channel, The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, even the Science Channel lower their standards to cater to the undeniable human 'need'…Continue

What Do You Believe In?

Started by Sydni Moser Nov 17, 2010. 0 Replies

by Michael ShermerNov 09 2010 SkepticblogAs a skeptic and atheist I am often asked, “What do you believe in?” The ending preposition implies something more than what factual claims are to be…Continue

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Skeptics of Think Atheist to add comments!

Comment by Reggie on January 24, 2010 at 12:19am
Good call, Philip.
Comment by Reggie on December 27, 2009 at 11:38pm
The wheels have yet to hit the ground in this group, but once they do, I suspect it to be interesting! I look forward to unlearning what my public education taught me!
Comment by Shamar Hawkins on November 22, 2009 at 5:51pm
The Earth is Flat! And Other False Beliefs Based on Dogma and Pseudoscience that Stress the Need for Critical Thinking
Comment by Henry Ruddle on October 22, 2009 at 7:19pm
Chiropractic is a great example of where my conflict over "nonoverlapping magisteria" comes into play. What do you say to someone who swears by it? What about when someone pushes it on you? Normally I demur, "no thanks," or "it's not for me." and that usually ends it. But naturally if I give them my opinion that chiropractic is a load of BS similar to homeopathy, they will have two comebacks: "It works for me." and "Where did you get such bad information?" If I don't have my citations ready (and even if I do), the discussion will end there anyway.
Comment by CJoe on October 22, 2009 at 5:31pm
Everyone should subscribe to and receive their weekly e-newsletter. Today, I got an email from them highlighting the risk of chiropractic practices; I posted a blog featuring the article. I think these newsletters would be great for discussions here!
Comment by Reggie on October 21, 2009 at 1:13pm
It sounds like you're implying that neurology is really explaining emotions.

Certain sciences are young due to the difficulties in obtaining objective data. FMRI's have certainly changed neuroscience greatly even if some applications of the FMRI are still in debate regarding their interpretations and explanatory power. Same with evolutionary psychology.

Between neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and other fields of study, I'd bet we'll obtain a more comprehensive understanding of these things sooner rather than later.
Comment by Dave G on October 21, 2009 at 12:04am
It is reasonable to have a method to evaluate things like emotions, etc. Neurological studies are coming along nicely with that. And if you don't count neurochemistry, etc, there's always philosophy and psychology as well.

As far as the third hand option, it depends largely on how those fantastical myths and false histories encourage the people who believe in them to behave. If they behave ethically (and I am not in the least saying that current religions do encourage that, if anything they encourage the opposite) in every way, except that they try to force t heir system on everyone, regardless, then it is not worth it.

For me, I prefer the truth to pretty lies, even useful lies.
Comment by Henry Ruddle on October 20, 2009 at 11:23pm
I vacillate regarding Stephen Jay Gould's concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (he must have Catholic roots if he uses a word like "magisteria"). On the one hand, I agree that it is reasonable to have some method for evaluating non-material things like feelings, concepts and aspirations. But on the other hand, I wonder if religion has too much baggage and makes too many unprovable or unproven claims about the material world to deserve respect even as a "meaning maker." On the third hand (just for aliens I guess), every philosophical system has baggage and makes unnecessary claims ... even skepticism (if you include it's entire historical pedigree). So I usually ignore the grand schemes and just focus on behavior. If an ideology encourages you to behave ethically, is it really so bad if it also includes belief in fantastical myths and false histories?
Comment by Reggie on October 20, 2009 at 7:22pm
I also get to use bad puns like, "it's going to get ruff for people spreading woof! I mean woo!"
Comment by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on October 20, 2009 at 3:03pm
Whooo-hooo! Battling "Bad Science" is my past-time! lol

Members (167)


© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service