Atheists who love Science!

Information

Atheists who love Science!

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

Members: 1581
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 www.wearscience.com.


9/28/2008
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!

11/14/2009
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

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

Marburg and Ebola Viruses

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Patricia Mar 4. 2 Replies

Dog-human alliance edged out Neanderthals

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Michael Penn Mar 4. 1 Reply

Climate Change Deniers.

Started by Visvakarman Svetasvatara-Upanish. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 4. 8 Replies

FDA hides fraud

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Feb 14. 4 Replies

Vulnerable to science denial

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Feb 8. 1 Reply

Brain and Spinal Cord

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jan 18. 3 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

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

Comment by tom sarbeck on May 1, 2012 at 1:54pm

TNT666, if your book treats only of what you've posted here, its subject matter is severely limited. The ways we human beings get what we want are far more varied.

BTW, to hear what NASA says about the Higgs boson, visit Astronomy Picture of the Day sometime today (May 1). If you miss it today, scroll down the page and click on Archive.

Comment by TNT666 on April 30, 2012 at 9:04pm

Dear me! I'm not even considering physical violence. The point of rules of procedures is to keep a meeting orderly and to allow it to finish in a prescribed amount of time. We live in a society were time is at a massive premium, and endless meetings are a major deterrent to democracy. In my book, it doesn't really matter which set of rules, as long as the goal is accomplished.

Comment by tom sarbeck on April 30, 2012 at 2:30pm

TNT666, other than in this sentence I will ignore your use of the word "little".

You are overlooking the amount of trust a group's members have for each other.

In a low-trust group you are right. Such people are most likely to use physical violence and need the most complex rules. In the USofA I suggest the rules the US Congress uses. Were I in the UK I would suggest the rules the Parliament uses. Such people are most likely to break whatever rules they have. When they reach a standoff they might for a short time simplify their rules.

In a high-trust group you are wrong. A rule to discuss one subject until the group disposes of it might suffice. Should a subject stir controversy, they might need a rule that only one member may have the floor at one time. 

I have a much longer sermon, in which I mention the rules of the United Nations, or the works of America's Asher Hinds or England's Thomas May. I won't lay it on you.

Comment by TNT666 on April 30, 2012 at 3:08am

Of course everybody has their own little favourite version of a code. But the point is, meetings need a code, otherwise democracy cannot exist. The less code a group has, the more the group is subject to hostile takeover. I have seen it done. The frustration is with newbs who think they can come into an meeting and talk whenever they want!

Whichever group one plans to get into, one needs to first acquaint themselves with the rules and regulations of that group. It is elementary.

Comment by tom sarbeck on April 30, 2012 at 2:57am

Joan, TNT666, and anyone else who chooses to read this.

Robert's Rules is the worst book in the English language. Somewhat like the literacy tests that blacks in southern states had to pass before they could vote, the purpose of Robert's Rules is to deny educated people a part in the decision making.

For a vastly easier-to-understand book, many public libraries have the widely-used Sturgis Standard Code.

What entitles me to denounce Robert's Rules? About fifty years of experience with p'tary law, using Robert and other books, and seeing people frustrated by Robert.

You say people should read it before taking part in meetings? Do you require people who want a credit card to take a law school course in contracts?

Comment by Thomas Ledbetter on April 29, 2012 at 10:21pm

Oh yeah ... half hours of fun with this!   http://htwins.net/scale2/

Comment by TNT666 on April 29, 2012 at 7:29pm

They are the two largest unions in Quebec. They wrote their own meeting order books, in some ways similar to RR, in some ways different. I learned how to negotiate group decision-making with those. RR came later in life, and I found it a little weaker, not going into quite enough detail about various possible situations, and leaving some regular situations rather open-ended. I think it has to do with the 'French' obsession about having decisions made in a highly organised manner. :)

Comment by Thomas Ledbetter on April 29, 2012 at 7:21pm

I have not heard of CSN or FTQ, and a google search doesn't help any... do you have any links where I can learn about these?

Comment by TNT666 on April 29, 2012 at 7:08pm

Robert's rule of order, like the CSN code, or FTQ, are the only way to have a decent conversation as a group. I have encountered so many newcomers to group decisions who hated the rules, because they were under the impression that a single person should be allowed to get all the attention and impose their way. How foolish of them. I have seen too many complain about these rules through my many years of community organisation. I tell them... read'em!

Comment by Joan Denoo on April 29, 2012 at 3:39pm

You have? Did it cause you to change anything you do? 

 

Members (1581)

 
 
 

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