TreesNightly

Mathematically, .9 repeating is equal to 1. Here's the proof: two-thirds (.6 repeating) plus one-third (.3 repeating) is equal to 1 (.9 repeating) You can think of the 1 as an infinite whole and the .9 repeating as an infinite regress of 9s, yet they are equivalent. You, in your body, exist in this moment. When did you exist before now? The moment before. These moments regress back to when you were conceived. Before that moments regressed back to the Big Bang. Moments, as I'm using it, is shorthand for any length of time you'd like--seconds, minutes, days, whatever. Before the Big Bang it gets more complicated because it seems as though space and time as we understand them originated in same singularity as all the matter and energy of the universe. It isn't technically correct to say anything precedes the Big Bang, but that isn't going to stop this thought experiment. After all, believers assume something (God) came before the Big Bang and they won't simply giv...

Darwin Day was last week, or as religious apologists call it "question evolution day." In that spirit, I posed a question to those not sold on the theory. What aspect(s) of evolution do you have a problem with? Is it that you don't believe in heritability? Is it that you don't believe natural selection is a sufficient mechanism to propagate beneficial genes and weed out harmful or useless genes? Is it that you don't believe in genetic mutation? There was one apologist who answered saying that they didn't believe in heritability--he actually didn't believe that traits were based down from parent to child. I asked if he noticed that black parents typically have black kids and that tall parents usually have tall kids, but to that he said anecdotal evidence can't be used to show anything. Luckily, only one respondent went to this extreme a denial. There was another apologist who didn't believe natural selection is a sufficient mechanism for the theory....

On Labels Theists and atheists are primed to dislike each other. It�s a function of the labels. Whenever people create an in-group/out-group dynamic we progressively identify more with the in-group and consider the out-group the enemy. It seems to be human nature--whether you think that nature is due to the fall of man or selective pressure. I am an atheist, I�m not denying that, but I�m tired of it opening the door of generalization. I probably don�t possess whichever negative qualities someone draws from whichever other atheist they happen to dislike the most. I�m an individual. So are you. So is that Christian. So is that Muslim. Now I�m buried in labels--secularist, naturalist, materialist, evolutionist, New Atheist, Darwinist, humanist, skeptic, whatever. I honestly don�t know if there are distinctions any more or which really do apply. On Sports People's obsession with this or that sports team relies on one of two factors the vast majority of the time. You root for team ...

It seems like every few months there is a news item about a guy who takes up arms and kills as many people as he is able before being put down. Sometimes there are targets in mind, others the deaths are quite random. It�s sad news, but I doubt anyone who reads this is unaware. Whenever the killers have a religious background, especially when it factors into the killer�s motivations, many atheists are sure to place part of the blame on the religion itself. I do too, but less directly than most. The killers are mentally ill. We can argue that they aren�t all mentally ill, but it can�t be argued that this pool of killers are not, on average, more mentally ill than the general population. Their brain chemistry is rare and so puts their behavior at odds with cultural and societal norms. Their indoctrination didn�t do this to their brain chemistry. However, their indoctrination and the beliefs of those closest to them inform what they do about their problem. There is a large stigma regarding...