Sunday School NOV 14, 2010
Hemant Mehta linked to this short letter to America from a foxhole atheist.
dark matter and gravitational lensing.
apologists around the internet mixing science and religion and getting neither right.
why does matter take up space? while we're at it, how does the Higgs give us mass?
NASA has found the coolest stars. literally.
ancient rocks show oxygen was abundant long before complex life arose.
cats have mastered physics in order to drink efficiently.
Allen McNeil has this great post asking "what is a 'Darwinist?" and "am i a 'Darwinist'"? Larry Moran comments and points to this hilarious/depressing thread at Uncommon Descent, an Intelligent Design forum, where ID'ers provide their definition of "Darwinism".
one of TA's own, Greg, has started a new blog and has roared out of the gates with great introductory posts on Free Will/Determinism, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Cosmological Argument.
Russell Blackford has a couple of good posts this week on scientism, check them both out. Coyne comments.
the brains of Neanderthals and modern humans developed differently.
the physics of global warming.
scientists find the oldest dinosaur embryo ever.
the ongoing debate between PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne on whether or not there could ever be convincing evidence for god has two new participants this week. Christopher at Teapot Atheist posted his thoughts in two parts while John Loftus pointed to a previous post of his where he answered the question from his perspective. meanwhile, Ophelia Benson pointed out that the question is more nuanced.
Frans De Waal has responded to the criticisms he received on his piece about god and morality where he seemed to ignore his very own research that shows an evolutionary basis for morality, saying instead that morality required god.
remember the report Dan Dennett did on atheist clergy? Hemant Mehta pointed to an ABC News report (with video available) on a couple of Dennett's subjects.
energy and science in America are in big, big trouble.
you'll often hear theists respond to an invocation of the multiverse in the context of the fine-tuning argument by saying that atheists simply invented the multiverse in order to explain away fine-tuning. Luke Muehlhauser considers the question of whether or not this is true.
NASA's FERMI telescope has found a giant structure in our galaxy. here's The Telegraph's report on the find. (thanks Jason!)
body-snatching, not socializing, drove the evolution of bigger-brained insects.
Coyne has had enough of New Scientist and urges his readers to be done with them too.
as skeptics we often hear the question, "well, what DO you believe in?", as if being a skeptic means you believe in nothing. Michael Shermer responds to the question.
lead ions smashed together for the first time at CERN create mini big bangs, bring us closer to understanding the big bang itself.
for polar bears, the price of rapid evolution is a weaker skull.
gay suicides and the Mormon Church.
is ghost-hunting science or pseudoscience?
Massimo Pigliucci has his second part on Objectivism. previously he'd tackled Objectivist Metaphysics, now he's on to Objectivist Epistemology.
dark matter and gravitational lensing.
apologists around the internet mixing science and religion and getting neither right.
why does matter take up space? while we're at it, how does the Higgs give us mass?
NASA has found the coolest stars. literally.
ancient rocks show oxygen was abundant long before complex life arose.
cats have mastered physics in order to drink efficiently.
Allen McNeil has this great post asking "what is a 'Darwinist?" and "am i a 'Darwinist'"? Larry Moran comments and points to this hilarious/depressing thread at Uncommon Descent, an Intelligent Design forum, where ID'ers provide their definition of "Darwinism".
one of TA's own, Greg, has started a new blog and has roared out of the gates with great introductory posts on Free Will/Determinism, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Cosmological Argument.
Russell Blackford has a couple of good posts this week on scientism, check them both out. Coyne comments.
the brains of Neanderthals and modern humans developed differently.
the physics of global warming.
scientists find the oldest dinosaur embryo ever.
the ongoing debate between PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne on whether or not there could ever be convincing evidence for god has two new participants this week. Christopher at Teapot Atheist posted his thoughts in two parts while John Loftus pointed to a previous post of his where he answered the question from his perspective. meanwhile, Ophelia Benson pointed out that the question is more nuanced.
Frans De Waal has responded to the criticisms he received on his piece about god and morality where he seemed to ignore his very own research that shows an evolutionary basis for morality, saying instead that morality required god.
remember the report Dan Dennett did on atheist clergy? Hemant Mehta pointed to an ABC News report (with video available) on a couple of Dennett's subjects.
energy and science in America are in big, big trouble.
you'll often hear theists respond to an invocation of the multiverse in the context of the fine-tuning argument by saying that atheists simply invented the multiverse in order to explain away fine-tuning. Luke Muehlhauser considers the question of whether or not this is true.
NASA's FERMI telescope has found a giant structure in our galaxy. here's The Telegraph's report on the find. (thanks Jason!)
body-snatching, not socializing, drove the evolution of bigger-brained insects.
Coyne has had enough of New Scientist and urges his readers to be done with them too.
as skeptics we often hear the question, "well, what DO you believe in?", as if being a skeptic means you believe in nothing. Michael Shermer responds to the question.
lead ions smashed together for the first time at CERN create mini big bangs, bring us closer to understanding the big bang itself.
for polar bears, the price of rapid evolution is a weaker skull.
gay suicides and the Mormon Church.
is ghost-hunting science or pseudoscience?
Massimo Pigliucci has his second part on Objectivism. previously he'd tackled Objectivist Metaphysics, now he's on to Objectivist Epistemology.
-
Comment by Nelson on November 14, 2010 at 9:14am -
check out previous editions of Sunday School:
-
Comment by Nelson on November 14, 2010 at 12:31pm
-
thanks so much for the comprehensive comment Adriana. :)
-
Comment by Greg Gorey on November 14, 2010 at 3:13pm -
thanks for the shout out :). Some cool stuff as usual.
-
Comment by Nelson on November 14, 2010 at 3:15pm
-
thanks for dropping in to comment Greg. i look forward to the follow-ups to those introductory posts!
-
Comment by James on November 14, 2010 at 5:00pm -
More great reading per-usual!
-
Comment by Nelson on November 14, 2010 at 5:01pm
-
thanks James! glad you found that to be the case. :)
-
Comment by Eoganacht on November 14, 2010 at 8:12pm -
Thanks. Will try to get through all the material. The cats one looks interesting.
-
Comment by Terry Crow on November 15, 2010 at 5:08am -
On 'dark matter and gravitational lensing' - how unconvincing. Why is it that some atheists through lack of belief in God feel the need to believe in concepts as yet far from unproven? Dark Matter and with it Dark Energy, according to the Big Bang Theory account for 95% of the (observable?) Universe. And yet it has not been observed. Black Holes are said to have a zero diameter - in my book, since nothing is known to have a zero diameter, an impossibility. According to the Big Bang Theory, there was no time before the Big Bang - again, self-evidently an impossibility since nothing can happen in no time. A lot of people believe in Gods - it is no surprise to me that many atheists and scientists choose to believe in evidence-thin theories. I am all in favour of science and theorising, and I'm not saying such theories won't prove to have some merit, but clearly some of the concepts that the maths demand are beyond reality - sci-fi is having its heyday, me thinks. What I most of all object to is ideas that have such little evidence being presented as fact - the NASA website is one of the worst, just for example, but just as capable of this misrepresentation is Jonathan Amos, BBC science correspondent.
-
Comment by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on November 16, 2010 at 12:07am -
@Terry Crow when a scientist "believes in" something, it's based on the best evidence available, and is subject to change based on experiments and new evidence. Do you know of a better explanation than NASA's for the newly discovered structures aligned with the milky way's axis? I take their explanation with a grain of salt, and only "believe" it to the extent that I can personally understand it. And to be more accurate, the only ideas presented as "fact" are the measurements of the gamma rays, and how it's possible they've been produced.
I'm not even sure I "believe in" dark matter, but I have to consider it at possible until I hear of and can understand a better explanation the spin rates of outer vs inner parts of galaxies, and the intensity of observed gravitational lensing.
Better explanations are always welcome in science. As is healthy skepticism.
Comment
What's new today
Forum
Friend doesn't believe in dinosaurs.
Started by Redlilly Pond in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by archaeopteryx 3 hours ago. 49 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
God spared our church...
Posted by Keith Konecny on May 24, 2013 at 9:30pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist