A Catholic theologian tries to justify his faith by attacking Richard Dawkins but as Jerry Coyne points out, defending faith as a virtue is not good enough. Many people in the Muslim world just love him.
Atheists in Malaysia are under attack from the Religion of Peace.
I think this story is about atheist books and stuff. Old TA members say “Hi!” to Steve Shives.
This weeks’ Woo: Homeopathy works better with knobs.
Climate Change: Republicans keep their heads in the sand as Alaskan sea levels rise.
This is an interesting story about equality, diversity and freedom of speech in academia. Would you consider one of the professors to be making a “straw woman” argument by asking us to focus on what is true? (then read the comment section)
The Voyager missions will be documented by PBS later this month.
The Earth exists because of an imperfection in nuclear physics.
It is interesting to see an alternative viewpoint of Evergreen College and the conflicts there. I didn’t realise the place had been targeted so heavily by the obnoxious alt-right. At the same time, I think the author neglects to mention that Social Justice Warriors are bat-shit crazy, highly intolerant and anti-rational. Just like the alt-right, in fact.
I don’t think Heather Heying is making a straw-man argument (Should we “stop equating science with truth”). It does appear that science gets pulled in political directions, in certain quarters: some people don’t like the truth because it doesn’t fit with a political agenda. What’s more, relativism seems very fashionable: the truth is whatever you want it to be.
I see her article as a very sane and reasonable defense of science.
I believe confederate statues and flags should go. Many were not even installed until the 1960’s civil rights conflicts and they celebrate treason and are offensive to so many.
I disagree with the author who asserts that Robert E. Lee was a poor strategist. There was no way the South would win a long defensive war of attrition. The Confederacy could barely even produce equipment, food and arms and Lee had them largely living off the land. His mantra of attack and attack more was a long shot, but it was his best shot and they almost pulled it off despite very slim odds.
The initial act of succession was very poor strategy given that farm machinery would soon be more economical than slave labor. After all, England and Northern states only outlawed slavery and indentured servitude when it was economically convenient for them to discover their new morality.
Would it be a fair comment to say that the war was almost entirely about slavery?
I think it was about slavery without a doubt. As western territories were gaining statehood; a cold civil war was being waged in Congress way before the shooting started. Would slavery be allowed in the west? You could say that states’ rights vs federal oversight was an overarching issue, but slavery was the central issue.
I have a white friend who is from Savannah, He drove me in to an old area of town and we stopped in front of an old house occupied by an African American family. Painted on the mailbox was his families’ last name. He refers to the Civil War as the ‘war of Northern aggression.
Yes, Money. While the Bible may have been used to defend it at times, it was mostly for economic and political reasons that it was fought over. There are those who still insist it was about succession and not about slavery. There are a few other myths about it too here.
I may be in Savannah around Thanksgiving later this year and will check out the history further. For some reason I have always wanted to go there.