I am not on fire.
As Towel Day approaches, those on the outside of the fandom are slowly waking up. Come on all you hoopy froods, we see you hanging about out there. Come inside and join all the fun. We even have something that’s almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea for you.
“you’re khan? are you sure? you look like a baiganbharta cucumberraita to me”
(via spiralling)
Dawkins Tells Atheists To “Mock Religion With Contempt,” And Ravi’s Response
Ravi is a great man.
“Atheism’s entire definition is that everything that is, is matter.”
This is why I don’t take this guy seriously. Atheism is simply the disbelief in gods—nothing more, nothing less. Descriptive atheism is, of course, more than simply that. However, an atheist that says that everything that exists is matter isn’t thinking too clearly. The wind isn’t matter; dark matter doesn’t seem to be ordinary matter; antimatter isn’t ordinary matter; dark energy isn’t ordinary energy. Thus, an atheist who does think clearly will say something like, everything that exists is made of or is reducible to matter. Wind, for example, is reducible to the tangible atmospheric conditions of a planet (see here). Consciousness is immaterial, but it is reducible to the brain; the same can be said of self-awareness. The utterance of language is immaterial, but it is reducible to mostly the trachea; people who undergo a tracheostomy cannot speak. Sound is immaterial, but it is reducible to the object making the sound (i.e. living organisms like birds, humans, rats; speakers; airplanes; nails on a chalkboard). Sound is also captured in material structures (i.e. ears; different forms of technology like bioacoustic instruments).
“Why not end up in nothing, including meaning?” Atheism isn’t in the business of deciphering the meaning of life (assuming there’s such a thing). Actually, Christianity is the ultimate form of nihilism (see here) and it is clear that Zacharias isn’t aware of this. Ultimately, championing this argument from ignorance doesn’t help the Christian case and it doesn’t harm the atheist case. Atheists are content in their justifiable ignorance when stating that the origin of the universe is unknown, but that modern day physics has a few plausible answers to the question. Christians are content in their unwarranted, arrogant and naive ignorance in stating that their god (and only their god) was the creator of the universe—all whilst discarding every other possible god ever abstracted by man (and let us not forget that there are thousands of possibilities if one wants to take that route!). I’ll take justified ignorance over their kind of ignorance any day.
He stated that the Nothing posited by physicists is actually a something, but then goes on to say that this Nothing violates the “fundamental starting point of atheism.” How? If the quantum vacuum is a different sort of nothing than the nothing of colloquial language and is actually a tangible something, how are we violating naturalism? The man is ranting and losing track of his own thoughts.
“He is driven by hate.” Ad hominem. “And that’s why many respected atheists want to separate themselves from him.” Who? Sam Harris? Daniel Dennett? Neil Tyson? Lawrence Krauss? Christopher Hitchens when alive? Jerry Coyne? Richard Carrier? Victor Stenger? AC Grayling? Sean Carroll? Alain de Botton? Botton simply disagrees with Dawkins; he isn’t attempting to separate himself from Dawkins. This is the issue with Zacharias’ assumption; he is generalizing atheists whilst thinking that we’re as homogeneous as most religious groups. Atheists are a diverse group of people; in disagreeing with one another, we’re not attempting to alienate one another.
“One day that anger will catch up with him.” In Hell I assume? Goes to show that most Christians are uncritical.
“He’s playing a very dangerous game.” Yes, let’s imply that some radical Christian is going to assassinate Dawkins!
That’s where I stop listening. Zacharias seems angry. He hates that his religion no longer has privilege. He hates that it can be questioned, mocked, ridiculed, etc. He hates that it can be critically analyzed and picked apart by rational people. He hates that his God isn’t wiping atheists off the planet. He hates that his religion is declining and he probably hates that another religion (Islam) is growing faster than his. You can see anger and frustration in this man every time he talks about atheism. He can stay angry and frustrated for all I care; what I want is for Christians to question their apologist heroes rather than cheering them on (no matter what) like some fan club. If need be, I would rip Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Botton, Coyne, Carrier and any atheist on Tumblr or in the world for that matter! I don’t agree with atheists because I’m an atheist; I don’t cheer them on because they’re on my team. Learn to do the same and not just when it’s convenient; “oh look at this preacher preaching heretical teachings.” It’s easy for Christians to criticize Christians on Christian matters, but if a Christian misrepresents atheism, Islam, Hinduism or any other worldview, rare is the Christian who will correct such misrepresentations. It’s shameful and it’s appalling.
(Source: youtube.com)
I look up — many people feel small because they’re small and the Universe is big — but I feel big, because my atoms came from those stars. There’s a level of connectivity.
That’s really what you want in life, you want to feel connected, you want to feel relevant, you want to feel like a participant in the goings on of activities and events around you.
That’s precisely what we are, just by being alive…
- Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson [ x ]
(via thescienceofreality)
Space exploration is a grand adventure. Its mystery has always captivated us and the inevitable discoveries to come will add to the many cosmological insights we already have. But let this list serve as a warning for any weary inter-solar travelers. The universe can be a very frightening place. I…
(Source: listverse.com)
Galaxy Collisions: Simulation vs Observations
The folks over at NASA apod just put up an awesome galaxy collisions, simulations and observations video for the public. I made a little gif set to go along with the video which can be found here.
What happens when two galaxies collide? Although it may take over a billion years, such titanic clashes are quite common.
Images Credit: NASA, ESA; Visualization: Frank Summers (STScI);
Simulation: Chris Mihos (CWRU) & Lars Hernquist (Harvard).
Since galaxies are mostly empty space, no internal stars are likely to themselves collide. Rather the gravitation of each galaxy will distort or destroy the other galaxy, and the galaxies may eventually merge to form a single larger galaxy.
Expansive das and dust clouds collide and trigger waves of star formation that complete even during the interaction process. Pictured above is a computer simulation of two large spiral galaxies colliding, interspersed with real still images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.
Our own Milky Way Galaxy has absorbed several smaller galaxies during its existence and is even projected to merge with the larger neighboring Andromeda galaxy in a few billion years.
(via thenewenlightenmentage)
(via preludity)
FANCIFUL LIFE — Nydia Lilian
San José del Pacífico - Mazunte - Punta Cometa
Oaxaca, Mexico, 2013.
(via darkspace)
people died in socialist countries therefore socialism doesn’t work
come back to capitalism where you can be immortal
(via commie-femme)
The Quantum of Time
If I ask you for the smallest unit of time you can possibly think of, you might suggest a second, or a millisecond, or a nanosecond if you’re clever. But while these units are small enough to measure everyday events, physicists have to deal with cosmological forces and events on incredibly tiny scales, so they need to use appropriately tiny units to measure them. In 1899, German physicist Max Planck (who was also, incidentally, the founder of quantum theory) proposed a system of natural units of measurement called Planck units, stated in terms of five universal physical constants: the Gravitational constant, the Reduced Planck constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, the Coulomb constant, and Boltzmann’s constant. The system is based on the idea that space and time aren’t continuous—they’re quantised, which means that there’s a shortest possible measurable length (called Planck length) and a shortest possible measurable time (called, surprise, Planck time). Planck length is roughly 1.616 × 10-35 metres, and Planck time is the amount of time it takes for a photon to travel a single Planck length, i.e. 5.391 × 10−44 seconds. This is an unimaginably small quantity, but it helps to define the unimaginable small scale at which current physical theories break down—and helps physicists to study the beginning of the Universe, where the sequence of events in its early evolution was crammed into minute fractions of time.
everyone needs a jumping elephant on their blog tbh
(Source: thatscompletelyerrelephant, via spiralling)
