Activate the Mechanism!

Why don’t they care about this stuff?

teachthemhowtothink:

My 7-year old picked out a book about our solar system for our bedtime story tonight.  (My 22-month old was thrilled with this choice as she loves to say “Jupiter has 63 moons” every time we come to a page with Jupiter on it…though now that I type that I wonder if that is still accurate?  This book was published in 1998….  hmmm…)

Anyway, when we got to the pages discussing “our place in space” I made the comment that all the galaxies in our universe are moving away from each other and that some day, billions of years from now, we might not be able to see any galaxy but our own from Earth (something we learned from Dawkins’ The Magic of Reality which I reviewed briefly HERE - it really is excellent).

“That’s why they call it a big BANG, right Mom?  Like an explosion!” my son said, waving his arms around.

“Exactly right.”

“Some kids at school just say ‘God made the sky.’  Why don’t they care about this stuff?  It’s SO COOL.”

And that, in a nutshell, is one more reason why it’s awesome being freed from religious trappings.  The magic of reality is ten thousand times more interesting and COOL than anything that can be found in religion.  ~JJ

That’s so awesome.

I stared teaching my kids about science as soon as they could talk. They love watching documentaries about space and pre-historic animals with me.

(Source: teachthemhowtothink, via seriouslyamerica)

What Evolutionists Must Have Faith In

sungyak:

“[T]he philosophical presuppositions of science [include]: the existence of a theory independent, external world; the knowability of the external world; the existence of truth; the laws of logic; the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment; the adequacy of language to describe the world; the existence of values used in science; the uniformity of nature and induction; and, the existence of numbers and mathematical truths.”

J.P. Moreland, Love God With All Your Mind, P. 147

Applying philosophical concepts to science as a “got ya” that it is faith is nothing more than word games and musing.

Have a read: http://abaldwin360.tumblr.com/post/16589046326/science-requires-faith 

(via sungyak-deactivated20130430)

There is a difference between criticism and character assassination.

unknowablewoman:

abaldwin360:

This morning I posted about the Reason Rally, where Richard Dawkins will be a speaker, which brought up discussion of Dawkins’s sexism, and a few rumblings of why people still support him.

At one point someone called him a pig. I’m not jumping down anyone’s throats, or giving anyone shit, I would, however, like to express something.

Dawkins should be criticized for sexist remarks, he should know that they’re not tolerated, it should be discussed.

I stated earlier that we shouldn’t eat our own, that is, he shouldn’t have a character assassination performed on him. You can still support someone, even admire some of what they have to say, but disagree with them on other points. I feel it’s part of being a free thinker. I don’t think he should be “protected from criticism” because he’s one of our own, and the fact that he’s made sexist remarks does bother me, but it doesn’t invalidate the rest of the work he’s done.

People can have character flaws, we all do, like I said earlier, if I decided to hate people because of one or two aspect of them, I would hate damn near everyone.

Being a free thinker and a skeptic also means looking at the whole and not focusing in like a laser on the parts that you disagree with. Criticize the man, criticize his remarks, let people around you know you don’t like what he said concerning that.

But that doesn’t mean that everything else he ever said now means nothing and he’s a pig. - That’s character assassination.

The way I see it - criticize his sexists remarks, but don’t invalidate him as a supporter of atheism and science.

Nah. First of all, I don’t think “pig” is really such a terrible insult. I could’ve said a lot worse. And I don’t think calling him a sexist pig invalidates his contributions anyway.

But most importantly, it’s not really your place, as a man, to determine when it’s acceptable for women to call him a pig or not. You have no stake in whether he’s a sexist or not, so of course it seems like character assassination to you. I think the comparison to swine is entirely fair and I admire the work he’s done for atheism. I have no trouble holding these two beliefs at once, and I don’t think they’re contradictory.

And I can certainly respect it when you put it that way.

I have a knee-jerk reaction when I see the word “pig”.

I was pretty much raised by my mother and grandmother, both of whom I love very much, and both of whom were very strong women, but they also both had very (understandably) low opinions of men.

A lot of issues I had with self esteem and self identity had to do with hearing constant male bashing when I was going up.

I heard a lot of “Men are pigs, men are stupid, men only think with their little head, men are scum, I wish I had daughters” so on and so forth.

I don’t fault my mother now, and I’m mostly over it, but they actually had me to a point when I was younger where I was guilty for being a man, to the point where I felt bad for looking at attractive women or was uncomfortable with being assertive.

I guess I might have a little baggage left over because the word “pig” still really gets under my skin.

(via little-sword-deactivated2013040)

There is a difference between criticism and character assassination.

This morning I posted about the Reason Rally, where Richard Dawkins will be a speaker, which brought up discussion of Dawkins’s sexism, and a few rumblings of why people still support him.

At one point someone called him a pig. I’m not jumping down anyone’s throats, or giving anyone shit, I would, however, like to express something.

Dawkins should be criticized for sexist remarks, he should know that they’re not tolerated, it should be discussed.

I stated earlier that we shouldn’t eat our own, that is, he shouldn’t have a character assassination performed on him. You can still support someone, even admire some of what they have to say, but disagree with them on other points. I feel it’s part of being a free thinker. I don’t think he should be “protected from criticism” because he’s one of our own, and the fact that he’s made sexist remarks does bother me, but it doesn’t invalidate the rest of the work he’s done.

People can have character flaws, we all do, like I said earlier, if I decided to hate people because of one or two aspect of them, I would hate damn near everyone.

Being a free thinker and a skeptic also means looking at the whole and not focusing in like a laser on the parts that you disagree with. Criticize the man, criticize his remarks, let people around you know you don’t like what he said concerning that.

But that doesn’t mean that everything else he ever said now means nothing and he’s a pig. - That’s character assassination.

The way I see it - criticize his sexists remarks, but don’t invalidate him as a supporter of atheism and science.

brittanibotulism:

unknowablewoman:

vaishino:

unknowablewoman:

Ugh. I hate that people still support Richard Dawkins. What a pig.

He’s got some unchecked privilege, and doesn’t understand western society from a female perspective, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a pig. I mean, he is still concerned about women’s issues, he’s just doing it wrong.

And even with all that, as a leading evolutionary biologist and vocal opponent of religious tyranny, he’s an asset wrt those topics. Ghandi wrote some pretty racist statements, it doesn’t invalidate the work he did, nor does it make him inadmirable. It makes him a flawed character imo.

That’s fair.

I feel like that’s the best way to articulate how I feel about the man at the moment.

Thank you. Yes, the man has his issues, but let’s not eat our own.

We don’t need character assassinations for personal flaws, if I hated people for one or two things they said that I didn’t agree with, I’d hate damn near everyone I’ve ever known.

(via glittertitties-deactivated20130)

Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact

By Richard Dawkins

In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job. [FULL STORY]

So, the question becomes, why are there so many well-heeled, gullible idiots out there?

Well worth the read:

Science explains the end of the world - By Richard Dawkins, via The Washington post.