Definitely worth checking out.
Does that seem right to you?
Tuesday 29 March 2011
Sunday 27 March 2011
"The Banana man" calls...
Well, I just watched the live stream of "The Atheist experience" and I can say that it was one of the most satisfying shows to date. For this was the show that had a call in by Ray Comfort himself.
For those of you who don't know(and by "those" I mean the two people who I know read this blog) Ray Comfort is an outspoken creationist who hosts "The way of the master" and is known as the "Banana man" to the atheist community(why? check this out).
You can't see the whole episode offline yet but I just wanted to discuss a brilliant analogy of evolution that Matt Dillahunty(the host of the show) made to Ray.
We can see that the Spanish and French languages originally came from Latin. We never saw, or would see, a Latin speaking women giving birth to a Spanish speaking child. Rather we see a slow change from the original Latin language to different forms and dialects until we come to the present day, where we have two separate, but similar, languages The process is not immediate, nor is it ever stopping.
I think Matt said it much better, so I'll be sure to post a link to the video when it comes available. For now, check out "The Atheist Experience" and all the people who make it possible(without pay mind you!).
Does that seem right to you?
For those of you who don't know(and by "those" I mean the two people who I know read this blog) Ray Comfort is an outspoken creationist who hosts "The way of the master" and is known as the "Banana man" to the atheist community(why? check this out).
You can't see the whole episode offline yet but I just wanted to discuss a brilliant analogy of evolution that Matt Dillahunty(the host of the show) made to Ray.
We can see that the Spanish and French languages originally came from Latin. We never saw, or would see, a Latin speaking women giving birth to a Spanish speaking child. Rather we see a slow change from the original Latin language to different forms and dialects until we come to the present day, where we have two separate, but similar, languages The process is not immediate, nor is it ever stopping.
I think Matt said it much better, so I'll be sure to post a link to the video when it comes available. For now, check out "The Atheist Experience" and all the people who make it possible(without pay mind you!).
Does that seem right to you?
Saturday 26 March 2011
Lets still not panic...
I have always supported the full implementation of renewable resources. Indeed, I am often frustrated by the position our governments take in their refusal to make, at least, a reasonable effort to make renewable energy a significant part of our energy production.
But It would seem almost counter-intuitive for a quasi-environmentalist, such as me, to say they support Nuclear Energy. undoubtedly , nuclear energy is indeed not a risk free venture and of course, it is not a perfect solution, given the waste by-product that comes from the energy production.
But time and time again I am faced with irrational fear whenever the topic of nuclear power plants come up. When people think of Nuclear power, they see the Chernobyl disaster or the iconic image of a mushroom cloud. What they don't see is clean efficient energy that poses no harm to the planet and relatively no harm to people. Indeed, when we compare the Nuclear industries to the mainstream industries of Coal and fossil fuels there is really no contest in which resource is safer, cleaner and cheaper.
But relative fear of Nuclear power has only been increased by the terrible events in Japan and the events surrounding the Fukushima power plant. All around the World, countries have put a hold on nuclear initiatives and the fear of radiation seeps across the Pacific and throughout the World.
But I need to say something that not many people have been saying. The disaster at Fukashima is not really that significant. Lets consider the situation for a moment.
The reactor in Fukashima is of fairly old construction. Compared to modern technologies, it is significantly less safe than any reactor we would build today.
Next we have possibly the worst case scenario, short of an impacting asteroid, that could have hit the reactor. One of the most powerful earthquakes on record coupled with a tremendously powerful tsunami. And yet, presently, no one has received any lethal doses of radiation.
Conversely , if were to see more widespread adaption of nuclear energy we could see the construction of incredibly safer plants and the closing of dated, less safe, designs.
Instead of irrationally pointing towards the disastrous outcomes of Nuclear energy, we should be gaining some perspective from the events in Japan.
I'll let George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, have the last word.
Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.
Check out his entire article here: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/#more-1568
Does that seem right to you?
But It would seem almost counter-intuitive for a quasi-environmentalist, such as me, to say they support Nuclear Energy. undoubtedly , nuclear energy is indeed not a risk free venture and of course, it is not a perfect solution, given the waste by-product that comes from the energy production.
But time and time again I am faced with irrational fear whenever the topic of nuclear power plants come up. When people think of Nuclear power, they see the Chernobyl disaster or the iconic image of a mushroom cloud. What they don't see is clean efficient energy that poses no harm to the planet and relatively no harm to people. Indeed, when we compare the Nuclear industries to the mainstream industries of Coal and fossil fuels there is really no contest in which resource is safer, cleaner and cheaper.
But relative fear of Nuclear power has only been increased by the terrible events in Japan and the events surrounding the Fukushima power plant. All around the World, countries have put a hold on nuclear initiatives and the fear of radiation seeps across the Pacific and throughout the World.
But I need to say something that not many people have been saying. The disaster at Fukashima is not really that significant. Lets consider the situation for a moment.
The reactor in Fukashima is of fairly old construction. Compared to modern technologies, it is significantly less safe than any reactor we would build today.
Next we have possibly the worst case scenario, short of an impacting asteroid, that could have hit the reactor. One of the most powerful earthquakes on record coupled with a tremendously powerful tsunami. And yet, presently, no one has received any lethal doses of radiation.
Conversely , if were to see more widespread adaption of nuclear energy we could see the construction of incredibly safer plants and the closing of dated, less safe, designs.
Instead of irrationally pointing towards the disastrous outcomes of Nuclear energy, we should be gaining some perspective from the events in Japan.
I'll let George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, have the last word.
Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.
Check out his entire article here: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/#more-1568
Does that seem right to you?
Friday 25 March 2011
Wednesday 23 March 2011
The Nine
According to an analysis of census information, researchers using, a mathematicl model, have predicted that religion will slowly become "extinct" in Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.
Thats nine countries! You know what that means! Soon, the nine will ride out onto the battlefield of the mind and rid Middle Ear-I mean,THE Earth of religion once and for all.
Okay, I'm getting a bit carried a way, but you have to admit, the imagery of these nine counrties as the nine Nazgul is pretty darn cool, if not a little ambiguous. The metaphor only works if you think of the Nazgul as a unstoppable force that will never quit until they succeed (i.e freedom from religion) and not as mindless thought slaves unquestionably following the will of a quasi-religious dark overlord.
But coming back to reality, it is clear that more and more people are coming around to the view that a positive future for humanity does not involve religion.
And thats pretty cool.
check out the news report here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197
check out the study here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1375
Does that seem right to you?
Monday 21 March 2011
Sunday 20 March 2011
Being "non religious" is the majority in BC
Here's a cool thing. According to Statistics Canada (a fairly reliable source) the majority of British Columbians reported to be non-religious. Now I know this is not necessarily new, as the data is taken from 2005, but I know it is somewhat intuitive to think that people with no religious affiliation make up the minority.(see the data HERE)
Indeed, Catholicism and Protestantism still outrank us in the rest of the country (except the Yukon) and I'm looking at the Maritime provinces right now and its still pretty bad.
But the good news is that 35% of BC has no need for a invisible dictator in the sky. The Bad news is that atheism, or simply not being religious, does in no way (well, maybe a bit) lead to critical thinking. While there is a correlation between the two, the fact that you don't believe in a God(s) doesn't prevent you from, say, taking homeopathic medication, sending your five year old child to a chiropractor, thinking that a "Supermoon" is going to cause Global disasters or playing ultimate Frisbee.(Seriously what the hell is wrong with some people)
Still, its nice to know that, on May 21, 2011, there will be a lot of people to celebrate "Not the end of the World Day"(the supposed day of the rapture and "glorious" return of Zombie Jebus). If anything it will be a good warm up for 2012's "Not the end of World Day" party.
Does that seem right to you?
PS. I'm only joking about Ultimate Frisbee. It is a legitimate and serious sport with a dedicated following of athletic and dedicated people.
Just kidding! Its a stupid sport for people pretending to be athletic.
Deal with it.
Indeed, Catholicism and Protestantism still outrank us in the rest of the country (except the Yukon) and I'm looking at the Maritime provinces right now and its still pretty bad.
But the good news is that 35% of BC has no need for a invisible dictator in the sky. The Bad news is that atheism, or simply not being religious, does in no way (well, maybe a bit) lead to critical thinking. While there is a correlation between the two, the fact that you don't believe in a God(s) doesn't prevent you from, say, taking homeopathic medication, sending your five year old child to a chiropractor, thinking that a "Supermoon" is going to cause Global disasters or playing ultimate Frisbee.(Seriously what the hell is wrong with some people)
Still, its nice to know that, on May 21, 2011, there will be a lot of people to celebrate "Not the end of the World Day"(the supposed day of the rapture and "glorious" return of Zombie Jebus). If anything it will be a good warm up for 2012's "Not the end of World Day" party.
Does that seem right to you?
PS. I'm only joking about Ultimate Frisbee. It is a legitimate and serious sport with a dedicated following of athletic and dedicated people.
Just kidding! Its a stupid sport for people pretending to be athletic.
Deal with it.
Saturday 19 March 2011
The Atheist Bus Campaign is here!
My sister spotted this at Simon Fraser University! Just Awesome. All I'm gonna say.
Friday 18 March 2011
There is no "Supermoon". Period.
I don't have much to say about this so called "Supermoon" , just to say that this is a excellent example of how one should never, and I mean NEVER get their Science information from News outlets.
All you want to know about why this whole idea (that because the moon is closer than usual, happens to be a full moon and is relatively lined up with the Sun will result in severe Earthquakes, Volcanic eruptions and overall unpleasantness) is complete and utter woo woo is explained beautifully by Phil Plait(aka The Bad Astronomer) in his recent post.
I couldn't explain it any better myself, given that I hold no scientific credentials and he happens to be a professional astronomer with a wealth of experience and credentials. I can't compete with him...yet!
What I get from this whole Supermoon situation however is the observation that a lot of people take what the media claims to be Science as, well, valid Science. That's a problem. Not to say that the media is bad, goodness no. Just that when it comes to credible resources, while the general media serves its purpose as a good starting point for deeper research and exploration, the science in the news does not always match up with the actual research that was done.
Weirdly enough, it is astrologers who have started this whole "Supermoon" craze. I think that sums up the validity of the entire hypothesis.
And personally, whenever I come in contact with an astrologer , I find its always a good policy to turn off the computer, leave the room or change the channle and proceed to beat my head against a tree. I find that this exercise provides much more intellectual stimulation than an astrologer's sermon.
All you want to know about why this whole idea (that because the moon is closer than usual, happens to be a full moon and is relatively lined up with the Sun will result in severe Earthquakes, Volcanic eruptions and overall unpleasantness) is complete and utter woo woo is explained beautifully by Phil Plait(aka The Bad Astronomer) in his recent post.
I couldn't explain it any better myself, given that I hold no scientific credentials and he happens to be a professional astronomer with a wealth of experience and credentials. I can't compete with him...yet!
What I get from this whole Supermoon situation however is the observation that a lot of people take what the media claims to be Science as, well, valid Science. That's a problem. Not to say that the media is bad, goodness no. Just that when it comes to credible resources, while the general media serves its purpose as a good starting point for deeper research and exploration, the science in the news does not always match up with the actual research that was done.
Weirdly enough, it is astrologers who have started this whole "Supermoon" craze. I think that sums up the validity of the entire hypothesis.
And personally, whenever I come in contact with an astrologer , I find its always a good policy to turn off the computer, leave the room or change the channle and proceed to beat my head against a tree. I find that this exercise provides much more intellectual stimulation than an astrologer's sermon.
Thursday 17 March 2011
Richard Dawkin's Interview with RevelationTV (thoughts)
(These are just a few quick thoughts on the interview below)
Well that was pretty much what I expected.
That is to not say I didn't enjoy it, and honestly I never get tired of Dawkin's "Are you fucking serious?!" face. But it is frustrating when everything Dawkins says is treated as equal to religious belief.
Time and time again, Evolution is seen as just another Worldview(to be fair, many Christians and indeed the Roman Catholic church(despite being, quite frankly, a criminal organization) accept evolution). And time and time again appeals from religious people for a "open and respectful discussion" with scientists and atheists just means "I can disregard what you say but you must regard what I say".
The usual attempts by Dawkins to explain the beautiful mechanism of evolution by natural selection and the ways we can verify it, through the fossil record, DNA and so on, were interrupted by arguments that amounted to nothing more than simply, as usual, "The bible says otherwise".
It seemed that every time Dawkins questioned the validity of genesis (and the bible in general), the host would, instead of answering directly, would just go off on a tangent of how great Jesus was. And when the camera would pan to Dawkin's face we were treated to another perplexed expression of disbelief at the sheer ignorance of his interviewer.
As I said, I enjoyed this interview as its always fun to see moronic creationists get their intellectual asses kicked(although,sadly,they would undoubtedly believe otherwise). And I'm sure many people would agree with me on that.
Unfortunately the majority of the regular viewers of "RelevationTV" will, of course, not be swayed whatsoever by Dawkin's appeal to reason. But I like to think that there is at least one person out there who was led to question, at least, one aspect of their religious faith. One person who has slowly begun the journey that will liberate them from the intellectual prison that is religion.
For one question will lead to another and that will lead to another and on and on it goes. Eventually you come to find that there really is nothing to this "God Thing" afterall (I speak from personal experience) If people are able to come to this conclusion on their own, then the results are much more powerful.
And sometimes all people need is little push in the right direction. It may take months, hell, it may take years, but as long as the questioning continues, reason will come.
Does that seem right to you?
Well that was pretty much what I expected.
That is to not say I didn't enjoy it, and honestly I never get tired of Dawkin's "Are you fucking serious?!" face. But it is frustrating when everything Dawkins says is treated as equal to religious belief.
Time and time again, Evolution is seen as just another Worldview(to be fair, many Christians and indeed the Roman Catholic church(despite being, quite frankly, a criminal organization) accept evolution). And time and time again appeals from religious people for a "open and respectful discussion" with scientists and atheists just means "I can disregard what you say but you must regard what I say".
The usual attempts by Dawkins to explain the beautiful mechanism of evolution by natural selection and the ways we can verify it, through the fossil record, DNA and so on, were interrupted by arguments that amounted to nothing more than simply, as usual, "The bible says otherwise".
It seemed that every time Dawkins questioned the validity of genesis (and the bible in general), the host would, instead of answering directly, would just go off on a tangent of how great Jesus was. And when the camera would pan to Dawkin's face we were treated to another perplexed expression of disbelief at the sheer ignorance of his interviewer.
As I said, I enjoyed this interview as its always fun to see moronic creationists get their intellectual asses kicked(although,sadly,they would undoubtedly believe otherwise). And I'm sure many people would agree with me on that.
Unfortunately the majority of the regular viewers of "RelevationTV" will, of course, not be swayed whatsoever by Dawkin's appeal to reason. But I like to think that there is at least one person out there who was led to question, at least, one aspect of their religious faith. One person who has slowly begun the journey that will liberate them from the intellectual prison that is religion.
For one question will lead to another and that will lead to another and on and on it goes. Eventually you come to find that there really is nothing to this "God Thing" afterall (I speak from personal experience) If people are able to come to this conclusion on their own, then the results are much more powerful.
And sometimes all people need is little push in the right direction. It may take months, hell, it may take years, but as long as the questioning continues, reason will come.
Does that seem right to you?
Richard Dawkins Interview with RelevationTV
I just started watching this. Seems like it should be interesting. At least the parts when Dawkins is talking.
Does that seem right to you?
Does that seem right to you?
Tuesday 15 March 2011
Lets not panic...
I'm glad I live in Canada. I'm even more glad that I live in Vancouver, even if we are scheduled for a devastating Earthquake sometime this century.
There is an average of one earthquake in southwest B.C. every day. Nearly all are too small to be felt, but a damaging earthquake occurs somewhere in the region about once every 20 years. The largest earthquake in this century was a magnitude 7.3 event in 1946, centred beneath central Vancouver Island. Were this earthquake to occur today under Vancouver, damage would be in the billions of dollars. Recently, scientists have recognized a history of infrequent, but great (magnitude 8 to 9) earthquakes on the fault separating the subducting Juan de Fuca and North America plates. The last great earthquake in 1700 AD affected the entire coast from northern California to southern B.C.
http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/vancouver/earth_e.php
It can be shown that every 350 years or so the area around Vancouver experiences a Earthquake with the potential to cause a lot of damage. We're at about 310 years from the last one so we can be confident that we'll experience one of a similar magnitude(more or less) that Japan has recently experienced in this century.
What scares me is not the fact that I live in a place where a massive earthquake is guaranteed to occur but the fact that it takes a situation like Japan's to get people thinking about it.
Indeed, I remember a few weeks back I was browsing the public opinion section of my district's local newspaper which was questioning people on how prepared they were for dealing with an Earthquake (which by some estimates would require surviving without emergency help for at least 3 days). I normally don't pay much credence to these just because they never offer any real insight and always seem to be awkwardly worded, but one struck my eye. A woman claimed that we do not live in a Earthquake zone.
A woman in VANCOUVER, doesn't "think" we live in a area susceptible to Earthquakes. Just let that simmer for a bit.
This is simply unacceptable. This woman evidently does not realize that we are, in fact, nearly living on top of a plate boundary. You'd think the amount of volcanoes we have in this area would have tipped her off, but I would be surprised, given her impressive knowledge of local geology, if she even knew what a volcano was. High School must have been tough for her.
My point is that even though there is no need to panic, Vancouverites, and everyone who lives in a dangerzone, should be ready for a disaster. Individuals should be ready and society at large should be ready. When we look at Japan it is clear that they have put a lot of effort and resources into preventing the most damage they possibly can.
Think of how much more devastating the recent disaster would have been if they had not seismic proofed many of their buildings and not put signifigant time into studying the workings of their local geology.
You know what would be nice? If the BC government could get busy on seismic proofing our public schools(liek they said they would). If we ever had a magnitude 9 Earthquake on a school day the results would be horrendous.
What I'm trying to say is, lets not panic but rather try to understand and deal with the realities of where we live. If we choose to live in areas prone to Earthquakes we should be ready for them. Japan has shown that they can effectively minimize the impact , we should too.
As a developed nation, there is really no excuse given the consequences of doing nothing.
Does that seem right to you?
There is an average of one earthquake in southwest B.C. every day. Nearly all are too small to be felt, but a damaging earthquake occurs somewhere in the region about once every 20 years. The largest earthquake in this century was a magnitude 7.3 event in 1946, centred beneath central Vancouver Island. Were this earthquake to occur today under Vancouver, damage would be in the billions of dollars. Recently, scientists have recognized a history of infrequent, but great (magnitude 8 to 9) earthquakes on the fault separating the subducting Juan de Fuca and North America plates. The last great earthquake in 1700 AD affected the entire coast from northern California to southern B.C.
http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/vancouver/earth_e.php
It can be shown that every 350 years or so the area around Vancouver experiences a Earthquake with the potential to cause a lot of damage. We're at about 310 years from the last one so we can be confident that we'll experience one of a similar magnitude(more or less) that Japan has recently experienced in this century.
What scares me is not the fact that I live in a place where a massive earthquake is guaranteed to occur but the fact that it takes a situation like Japan's to get people thinking about it.
Indeed, I remember a few weeks back I was browsing the public opinion section of my district's local newspaper which was questioning people on how prepared they were for dealing with an Earthquake (which by some estimates would require surviving without emergency help for at least 3 days). I normally don't pay much credence to these just because they never offer any real insight and always seem to be awkwardly worded, but one struck my eye. A woman claimed that we do not live in a Earthquake zone.
A woman in VANCOUVER, doesn't "think" we live in a area susceptible to Earthquakes. Just let that simmer for a bit.
This is simply unacceptable. This woman evidently does not realize that we are, in fact, nearly living on top of a plate boundary. You'd think the amount of volcanoes we have in this area would have tipped her off, but I would be surprised, given her impressive knowledge of local geology, if she even knew what a volcano was. High School must have been tough for her.
My point is that even though there is no need to panic, Vancouverites, and everyone who lives in a dangerzone, should be ready for a disaster. Individuals should be ready and society at large should be ready. When we look at Japan it is clear that they have put a lot of effort and resources into preventing the most damage they possibly can.
Think of how much more devastating the recent disaster would have been if they had not seismic proofed many of their buildings and not put signifigant time into studying the workings of their local geology.
You know what would be nice? If the BC government could get busy on seismic proofing our public schools(liek they said they would). If we ever had a magnitude 9 Earthquake on a school day the results would be horrendous.
What I'm trying to say is, lets not panic but rather try to understand and deal with the realities of where we live. If we choose to live in areas prone to Earthquakes we should be ready for them. Japan has shown that they can effectively minimize the impact , we should too.
As a developed nation, there is really no excuse given the consequences of doing nothing.
Does that seem right to you?
Monday 14 March 2011
I need to stop commenting on YouTube...
So I watched a clip of Dane Cook a few days ago, and unfortunately this involved me watching a clip of Dane Cook. I don't know why I did this, I regret doing this and I really need to stop blindly clicking on "related videos".
The clip was about atheists and I soon observed, of course, that there is a lot ( I mean a LOT) of people engaging, in religious "debate". I use the term "debate" loosely, because I really don't think throwing threats of hellfire and mindless insults at eachother qualifies as meaningful dialogue.
Blindly, I made a quick comment to someone who was against any "debate" whatsoever. I think I said something like "Debates are fun", or something like that. Nothing major, just a quick little useless comment to help me sleep at night knowing I had stated my disagreement with someone on the interenet.
This morning I recieved a reply from the user "SinnersGoToHell". Not being the original reciever of my comment you can imagine my confusion. I think their user name should have been the first hint that my secular faith in humanity would decrease slightly. Heres what he/she said exactly as it was written:
This isn't a debate. The hold the truth, because it is the word of Jesus. So, how can you argue with a perfect being? Thanks for being on my side, though, and helping fight these heathens. I'm ashamed to live in the same country as these "Atheists". America is making a move to become Christian again. Luckily we have such great Christian mentors like Sara Palin.
Yeah...well I had to respond:
I think you may have misinterpreted my remarks, as I am one of those "heathens" you speak of. I'm an atheist because I value truth above all else. To seek truth is to be always seeking, always questioning and never taking things soley on faith. For you to say you hold the truth when all your knowledge comes from a poorly written book and, I assume, personal experience is incredibly insulting. Insulting not just to me but the entire human endevour.
I wonder what he/she'll say next? I am smitten with anticipation.
The clip was about atheists and I soon observed, of course, that there is a lot ( I mean a LOT) of people engaging, in religious "debate". I use the term "debate" loosely, because I really don't think throwing threats of hellfire and mindless insults at eachother qualifies as meaningful dialogue.
Blindly, I made a quick comment to someone who was against any "debate" whatsoever. I think I said something like "Debates are fun", or something like that. Nothing major, just a quick little useless comment to help me sleep at night knowing I had stated my disagreement with someone on the interenet.
This morning I recieved a reply from the user "SinnersGoToHell". Not being the original reciever of my comment you can imagine my confusion. I think their user name should have been the first hint that my secular faith in humanity would decrease slightly. Heres what he/she said exactly as it was written:
This isn't a debate. The hold the truth, because it is the word of Jesus. So, how can you argue with a perfect being? Thanks for being on my side, though, and helping fight these heathens. I'm ashamed to live in the same country as these "Atheists". America is making a move to become Christian again. Luckily we have such great Christian mentors like Sara Palin.
Yeah...well I had to respond:
I think you may have misinterpreted my remarks, as I am one of those "heathens" you speak of. I'm an atheist because I value truth above all else. To seek truth is to be always seeking, always questioning and never taking things soley on faith. For you to say you hold the truth when all your knowledge comes from a poorly written book and, I assume, personal experience is incredibly insulting. Insulting not just to me but the entire human endevour.
I wonder what he/she'll say next? I am smitten with anticipation.
Wednesday 9 March 2011
Tide goes in tide goes out, no miscommunication. For those who don't get the reference here is Bill O'reilly being the usual ignorant douche: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI
To be fair, the ad campaign is not worded very well.
Seriously though, you need to subscribe to Mr. Deity.
Tuesday 8 March 2011
Beginnings
I'm still in the process of setting this blog up so I am not really writing much just yet. Plus I'm sick, so I'm not much use to anyone if I haven't had my drug of trail running.
To start, I'm trying to set up a good schedule that will force me to keep posting on a regular basis. I thought of having a few themed days each week with random postings whenever.
Monday:"Why I'm an atheist": Arguments, observations, tidbits and news relating to religion and all that good(by good I of course mean bad) stuff.
Thursday:"Why I'm a skeptic": Non-religion themed subjects, such as pseudo-science and cool(and by cool I of course mean not-cool)stuff.
This will force me to stay even more up to date on issues and events.
And throughout the week I'll try to keep posting lots of neat and random stuff.
"Does that seem right to you?"
To start, I'm trying to set up a good schedule that will force me to keep posting on a regular basis. I thought of having a few themed days each week with random postings whenever.
Monday:"Why I'm an atheist": Arguments, observations, tidbits and news relating to religion and all that good(by good I of course mean bad) stuff.
Thursday:"Why I'm a skeptic": Non-religion themed subjects, such as pseudo-science and cool(and by cool I of course mean not-cool)stuff.
This will force me to stay even more up to date on issues and events.
And throughout the week I'll try to keep posting lots of neat and random stuff.
"Does that seem right to you?"
Sunday 6 March 2011
Blast off, I guess
Well...here I am.
It seems pretty clear that starting a blog can be a lonely process. You find yourself aimlessly floating through space hoping someone will notice you (kudos if you get the Firefly reference from above). And even if someone does, there is no guarantee that you will ever rise above obscurity.
But the real point of a blog is not the prospect of someday having thousands of followers(although who doesn't want that), but the simple need to write. The need to effectively and elegantly express ideas, opinions and share information.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a world renowned astrophysicist and science educator, stated in a recent interview:
So my advice to someone who wanted to be a science communicator is, you write. Writing is the excuse you can give yourself to organize ideas in coherent sentences in ways that make sense not only word to word, but sentence to sentence and paragraph to paragraph. And that is the art of communication, being clear and succinct. And the proving ground for that is writing.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/neil_degrasse_tyson_communicating_science/
It is clear at this point in my life that I cannot continue not writing. Plus it gives me the chance to combat irrationality and, as James Randi would say, "Woo woo".
"Does that seem right to you?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)