Atheists who love Science!


Atheists who love Science!

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

Members: 1580
Latest Activity: on Monday

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

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!

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

Stable light-based memory

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Monday. 0 Replies

Diagnostic test for ALL viruses

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Loren Miller Sep 24. 4 Replies

Fascinating article on strange world ex BBC

Started by Christopher Cosgrove. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Sep 4. 3 Replies

Dirty Oil Beats Science in the US

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Sep 3. 0 Replies

"Science Isn't Broken"

Started by Grinning Cat. Last reply by tom sarbeck Aug 28. 10 Replies

Dog-human alliance edged out Neanderthals

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Gerald Payne Aug 27. 12 Replies

Not-amorphous glass

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 20. 0 Replies

Science Journals suffer large scale peer review fraud

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Clarence Dember Apr 17. 1 Reply

Common sense talk about climate change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Michael Penn Apr 15. 2 Replies

Time goes both ways in the quantum world

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by tom sarbeck Apr 14. 1 Reply

Ebola Vaccine Very Promising

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Patricia Apr 10. 6 Replies

Wound Healing

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 14. 2 Replies

The Web is not the Net.

Started by Visvakarman Svetasvatara-Upanish. Last reply by Michael Penn Mar 14. 1 Reply

Science, information, and politics in the Anthropocene

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 12. 3 Replies

Comment Wall


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

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 16, 2014 at 12:00am

Chuck, my education has been neglected; didn't know about this and the Dude de Ching! ... interesting!

I think I will stick with quantum physics, even if I don't understand it ... however, religious don't seem to understand their dogma either!


Comment by Chuck in TN on March 15, 2014 at 8:21pm

@Tom - I know. That was a cheap shot and just rude of me. I know better than to act like an ass (especially to a fellow atheist). I hope you'll accept my apology.

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 15, 2014 at 1:03am

I have moved my discussion of the Big Bang and the limits of theories to a discussion group. Seems more appropriate than hogging the comment wall. 

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 15, 2014 at 12:49am

Wasnt trying to. Just having a healthy debate. This stuff is worth talking about. 

Comment by tom sarbeck on March 15, 2014 at 12:40am

Chick in TN: Gregory didn't blind me with science.

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 14, 2014 at 11:02pm

Its all good. Theories are a tricky subject. It is entirely possible that there could be a better explanation for the apparent red-shifts of galaxies. We don't currently have one, but that is not to say one could not exist. The Doppler effect, when applied to electromagnetic waves is a description of an observed process. Just as gravity is itself just a description of the attraction of masses, one could apply a different label or term to a process and have a different mechanism to describe the effect in question. There is room for people to be skeptical. If we just assume that our descriptions (theories) are the correct ones, progress in science comes to a screeching stop. 

But that is not to say that we should reject the mainstream theories outright just out of skepticism. If there were fatal flaws in any of the mainstream theories, they should be investigated. But you cannot just throw the entire theory out (such as the Big Bang model) just because it leaves some questions unanswered. 

I think it is a common mode of thinking that many people have when they had just recently moved from being a religious person to being a skeptic or atheist. In many religions, people are provided an absolute belief system that fills in every hole possible. They are indoctrinated to believe the answers of the universe are known... god did it. When they move to atheism they want a similar belief system and are quite resistant to entertain the healthy motto of "I don't know." Any questions science lacks an answer for is inherently uncomfortable for many ex-theists. So they latch on to pet alternative theories that profess to answer all of the questions just as their prior theistic belief had done. In the absence of a god, the ultimate panacea answer for any unknown question, some theists reject any scientific theory that does not fill in all of the blanks. Of course, these do not actually exist. 

Theories are bounded. That is, they cover a very specific range of explanation. The Big Bang theory, for example covers the expansion of the cosmos from one Planck second after the actual event to the present. It says nothing of what happened at the event, or where it came from, or what any singularity might have been. Those questions are beyond the range of the theory. 

The bottom line is that science tries to overlap theories but there are gaps. The Big Bang has its limitations, which it clearly defines. Evolution, similarly, is about the change of genes over time. It says nothing about how non-living matter became living organisms. That would be handled by abiogenesis, which is the bleeding edge of research today, bridging chemistry with biology.

Comment by Chuck in TN on March 14, 2014 at 6:54pm

Gregory - Admittedly, I am quite the lay-person when speaking of science, but I was more than a little surprised when Tom suggested that red-shift was fictitious. In this day and age that sounds a lot like a flat-earth argument to me. Unfortunately, Tom left the group before I had the opportunity to read his last few comments.

Several years ago I read Simon Singh's 'Big Bang' and thought it was very well written for laymen like myself.

Comment by Chuck in TN on March 14, 2014 at 6:30pm

Patricia - Haha! That certainly reinforces my opinion that all religions are silly. Yes, even those that worship cats. ;-)

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 14, 2014 at 1:22pm

I am awake typically at night, so feel free to ask questions and I will gladly drop science bombs for you.  Tom was cool and graciously bowed out. No biggie. Post your questions and I will get answers overnight. I am an atheist that happens to be reasonably well versed in quantum mechanics, various cosmological models (I favor the Big Bang), abiogenesis, and a little evolutionary biology (enough to know what I am talking about). I wrote a book in lamans terms on various topics that arise in debates with theists too. Published on Amazon for Kindle.

Comment by Chuck in TN on March 14, 2014 at 1:09pm

@ Joan - The only religion that I am interested in is Dudeism and it, like all other religions, is silly too. (but in a good way - IMHO)


Members (1578)


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service