I thought my mom would go, but she got really frustrated with the last atheist meeting she went to because (as I've experienced in other places) atheists who participate in such gatherings have zero propensity to criticize science, ever. I have also found it to be very frustrating. There is good science, there is bad science, and people unwilling to see that some science is completely biased to corporate greed.
My mother is very active in the fight for labeling of Genetically modified foods and against genetically modified foods in general. But apparently the atheists of Montreal are totally ok with Monsanto...
We are third generation atheists, we are skeptics, of all things, the religiosity of some science lovers as well :)
Yes, it's easy to be a dormant atheist in Montreal, there ain't much religious stuff happening, publicly at least. And I know folks from Florida, been there and I know how heavy religion is. It's a different world.
Now you have to tell me what's wrong with science.
It personally saved my life, we use it to communicate, there are discoveries popping-up in all domains, like never before, but there's still not enough kids (in the US) interested by science to fill all the new research fields that are opening.
What exactly would your mom want science to be examining that it is not?.
The annoyance topic, as I mentioned in before, was regarding GMOs.
tell me what's wrong with science
IT's not of course what's wrong with science "in general"... it's about a subset of atheists who have replaced religion with science, seeing any and every "scientific" declaration with complete lack of skepticism. There is nothing wrong with science on its own, but when corporate money used the guise of science to advance a poltical/profit agenda, that is another thing entirely. I am a biologist but I left the world of science (on and off) because I was annoyed with the level of servitude some people have towards ANY single scientific publication. I worked in a lab financed by Monsanto and in pharmaceuticals. I have seen first hand how pharmaceutical companies can totally sidestep the FDA and have discussed the Monsanto dogma "GMOs will save the world" to utter frustration.
Science will never "save" the world, in fact, mostly it is chemistry which is ruining our planet.
We humans only live longer thru meds, it's an artificially sustained---high maintenance version of longevity which I have no inclination for.
atheists are not immune to brainwashing thru corporate greed propaganda.
I'm Canadian so I don't care about your local problems with GMO's.
"We humans only live longer thru meds, it's an artificially sustained---high maintenance version of longevity which I have no inclination for."
I had none either until I was told how long I was going to live (not long). I'm talking to you now because of medical sciences and meds (and quite advanced ones at that.) Maybe the world is worse off now, with me still in it, but I for one appreciate it. So that's my bias.
Atheists are just people who say there are No Gods. The rest of their lives is up to them. Maybe you expect too much from atheists?
I think I clearly explained why I was pro-science, what was my personal bias.
And whatever you consider atheism is fine by me (BTW, no god means by default no religion and no religious attitude - it's pretty much the accepted definition - as for me, I personally add: no magic, no supernatural, no soul, no afterlife. Because I'm a skeptic first, hence a de-facto atheist.
And I'm skeptical about science too, many things don't work as they should, I'm most skeptical of the scientific media, way too prone at jumping to conclusion and making premature announcements for reader attention, so I check for corroboration. That's how my skepticism of science works.
It's generalisations that get to me. They are the fuel of prejudice.
I'll paraphrase you (or your mom, not sure): "atheists are not immune to prejudice thru ill-informed opinions." But it's a good thing that you travel, travel informs.