Atheists who love Science!

Information

Atheists who love Science!

A group for science enthusiasts of all types -- professionals, amateurs, students, anybody who loves science.

Members: 1581
Latest Activity: on Sunday

Whether you're a professional, a student, an amateur, an enthusiast, whatever! Lots of atheists love science. Might as well have a group for it!

Feel free to nerd out, link articles, talk about your favorite field of research, whatever!

The icon is from www.wearscience.com.


9/28/2008
I've been super busy with school this semester -- no time for Atheist Nexus, sadly!!
If anyone who's around here a lot wants me to toss them moderation privileges to run this group or anything, just send me (Sara) a message! Thanks!

11/14/2009
Removed ability to send mass messages to everyone in the group. At 1000+ members, that seems like asking for spam.

Offer still open if anyone active in the group wants moderation privileges, but it appears everything has been going smoothly with all kinds of great discussions without moderation. Fantastic! :)

Discussion Forum

Quick Ebola tests on the horizon

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Deidre on Sunday. 2 Replies

Tenured Professor shouts "Fire!" in crowded theatre

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by David Layton Sep 27. 4 Replies

Max Planck on New Scientific Truth?

Started by Tom Sarbeck. Last reply by Luara Aug 13. 5 Replies

Lead Ebola Doctor In Sierra Leone Contracts It Himself

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Sentient Biped Jul 23. 3 Replies

Electric Bacteria

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Luara Jul 18. 3 Replies

Vantablack

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Sean Murphy Jul 15. 1 Reply

Roundup Ready Corn IS Toxic

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 13. 7 Replies

Crowded rooms make you dumb

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Pat Jul 5. 4 Replies

American Lysenkoism

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 6. 1 Reply

Big Bang, its limits, and being OK with "I don't know"

Started by Gregory Phillip Dearth. Last reply by Idaho Spud May 25. 62 Replies

Decline of Evidence-Based Medicine

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Luara May 16. 6 Replies

Canadian war on science

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck May 14. 2 Replies

Nuke close call in 1961

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner May 11. 3 Replies

Green Tea Boosts Brainpower

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner May 11. 3 Replies

Link Discovered Between Prostate Cancer and Vitamin D Deficiency

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner May 11. 1 Reply

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheists who love Science! to add comments!

Comment by Dominic Florio on April 7, 2013 at 1:36pm

Joan, concerning those who are believers, they just won't give it up, unless they are already on the road.  People see kittens and rainbows and they see god.  When I show them pictures of a baby with no legs and a brain outside its head, I ask them if they still see god.  They just don't answer, or it's something stupid like not understanding god's plan.  I'm legally blind.  Why?  Nature.  But if I had to look towards religion, I would have to assume that there is no god, or that he is a sadistic asshole.  

Some of these people pretend to be in awe of scientific discovery, until it goes against their religious beliefs.  They believe that god gave them that cuddly puppy for Christmas, and yet they don't see god when it comes to the ball of worms inside the puppy's stomach.

Some people have gotten to the point where they reject most theology, at least on the surface, but hold on to a creator concept. Then you would have to assume that this creator, like I said, is a sadistic asshole, has little power over his creation, and/or just sits back and just lets things happen, which means that the flea is equal in value to humans.  And in nature, the flea is of equal value and is evolving to survive, just like us.  Mortality and the fact that we are not a special creation, are two very hard concepts for believers.

And yes, we have to do something about preventing "intelligent design" and other religious crap in our schools, or we will continue to be the laughing stock of the world and our quality of life will continue to deteriorate. 

Comment by Idaho Spud on April 7, 2013 at 12:48pm

Thanks for the image of the Hydrothermal worm.  Very interesting, and would be frightening if it were the size of a sand-worm.

Comment by A Former Member on April 7, 2013 at 9:19am

The purpose of scientific enquiry is not to compile an inventory of factual information, nor to build up a totalitarian world picture of natural Laws in which every event that is not compulsory is forbidden. We should think of it rather as a logically articulated structure of justifiable beliefs about nature. -- Peter Medawar

Comment by A Former Member on April 7, 2013 at 9:19am

Joan, that's frightening! : )

Comment by Joan Denoo on April 6, 2013 at 11:32pm

Hydrothermal Worm Viewed Under An Electron Microscope (via & Philippe Crassous) #science

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on April 3, 2013 at 2:46am

Sign the petition but also support Nat'l Coalition for Science Education at www.ncse.com. (The name would be ncse.org but someone else grabbed the dot org.)

NCSE is a coalition of science teachers and allies in the life sciences, geology, etc. With the ACLU and others they sue states to have creationism laws overturned.

Comment by AgeOfAtheists14 on March 25, 2013 at 8:27am

gotta keep those kids involved with .. mental slavree.. i mean god.. i mean.. ! hey what the!?
Children should be allowed to get bored so they can develop their innate ability to be creative, an education expert says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21895704

if a kid is trying to be themselves but beat up at home over morals and god.. wtf! ? peace

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 24, 2013 at 2:44am

Oh my goodness, all we have to do is pay attention to what those who believe there is a god say, fact check, then stand on principles of sound research. Scholarship, well done, provides a solid foundation upon which to stand. Now, the responsibility is on non-believers to do research correctly and report honestly what we find.

As to intelligent design going into public school science courses, there is absolutely nothing to benefit children. Teaching religion and  traditions and values based on beliefs is just not good enough for science courses.

Thanks for your insight. Tom, may I publish your remark on  Facebook with attribution to you? I want my family and friends to read your comments. 

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on March 24, 2013 at 2:05am

Joan, thanks for the link to "Dishonesty....", where I read "Behe is asserting that he has no need to produce any evidence, .... He simply has to make an assertion...."

Soon after I quit Catholicism (in the 1950s), I learned the Inquisition had operated that way: a charge of witchcraft was evidence of guilt.

While conservatism's hero William Buckley was on radio, a critic remarked that he had the finest mind the 13th Century (Catholicism's Aquinas period) created.

I understand Platonic idealism as saying "Asserting X is evidence for X."

If that's correct, can we describe Behe's mind as the finest one the 4th Century BCE (Plato's time) created?

Plato's student Aristotle also had no use for evidence. He is alleged to have said women have fewer teeth than men. About 2000 years (a period that included the Inquisition) passed before someone with access to the media counted teeth.

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 23, 2013 at 8:39pm

I am amazed at the technique this man uses. It is plain and simply superstition. How can he achieve such credibility when he does not know how to build a scientifically sound, verifiable, repeatable research project? When I do a research project, I am the one who makes it possible to be replicated, verified, and refute the null hypothesis. He did not even include all possible options. Having two options to prove one is a joke and reveals complete lack of scholarly rigor. For the lay public, did you fall for his charade? 

Dishonesty of inteligent design “research”

 

Members (1581)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service