Invisible Pink Unicorn The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a parody religion used to satirize theistic beliefs, taking the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink.[1] She is a rhetorical illustration used by atheists and other religious skeptics as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot, sometimes mentioned in conjunction with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[2] The IPU is used to argue that supernatural beliefs are arbitrary by, for example, replacing the word God in any theistic statement with Invisible Pink Unicorn.[3] The mutually exclusive attributes of pinkness and invisibility, coupled with the inability to disprove the IPU's existence, satirize properties that some theists attribute to a theistic deity.[4] History[edit] The Invisible Pink Unicorn logo used to depict atheism The concept was further developed by a group of college students from 1994 to 1995 on the ISCA Telnet-based BBS. Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. Concepts[edit]
Personal and Historical Perspectives of Hans Bethe Bertrand Russell Russell led the British "revolt against idealism" in the early 20th century.[58] He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege, colleague G. E. Moore, and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein. Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism[60][61] and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I.[62] Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.[63] In 1950 Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought Biography Early life and background Young Bertrand Russell Childhood and adolescence Russell had two siblings: brother Frank (nearly seven years older than Bertrand), and sister Rachel (four years older). Early career
Flying Spaghetti Monster The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism, a movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.[3] Although adherents describe Pastafarianism as a genuine religion,[3] it is generally seen by the media as a parody religion.[4][5] The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.[6] In that letter, Henderson satirized creationist ideas by professing his belief that whenever a scientist carbon-dates an object, a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs is there "changing the results with His Noodly Appendage". History Internet phenomenon Positions Creation Afterlife Pirates and global warming
Constructor Theory | Conversation | Edge I'm speaking to you now: Information starts as some kind of electrochemical signals in my brain, and then it gets converted into other signals in my nerves and then into sound waves and then into the vibrations of a microphone, mechanical vibrations, then into electricity and so on, and presumably will eventually go on the Internet. This something has been instantiated in radically different physical objects that obey different laws of physics. Yet in order to describe this process you have to refer to the thing that has remained unchanged throughout the process, which is only the information rather than any obviously physical thing like energy or momentum. The way to get this substrate independence of information is to refer it to a level of physics that is below and more fundamental than things like laws of motion, that we have been used thinking of as near the lowest, most fundamental level of physics. Being testable is not as simple a concept as it sounds. This is counterintuitive.
The Mortification of James Watson Not very long after James Watson finished his Nobel Prize–winning work on the structure of DNA in 1953, he started firing off some eyebrow-raising comments about his fellow man: that fat people don't get hired because they lack ambition; how sunlight (and darker skin) is the source of the "Latin lover" libido; what he found distasteful in the appearance of his female research collaborator, Rosalind Franklin. But as the great geneticist slunk back to the U.S. on Friday — his sold-out U.K. tour for his new book called Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science canceled after the apparently racist remarks he made to Britain's Sunday Times Magazine last weekend — it's clear that Watson's latest provocation is not one he'll shrug off lightly. Condemnation was swift. By noon on Friday, a beleaguered Watson had canceled his remaining engagements and was flying back to the U.S. No one seems more shocked by the statements than James Watson himself.
The Myth of Militant Atheism Nine bullets fired from close range ended the life of Salman Taseer last month, making the Pakistani governor the latest high-profile victim of religious violence. Taseer had the audacity to publicly question Pakistan's blasphemy laws, and for this transgression he paid with his life. Taseer joins a list of numerous other high-profile victims of militant religion, such as Dr. With this background, it is especially puzzling that the American media and public still perpetuate the cliché of so-called "militant atheism." In fact, however, while millions of atheists are indeed walking our streets, it would be difficult to find even one who could accurately be described as militant. When the media and others refer to a "militant atheist," the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God. But this reflects a double standard, because it seems to apply only to atheists.
Sokal affair The resultant academic and public quarrels concerned the scholarly merit of humanistic commentary about the physical sciences; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether the journal had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor before publishing the pseudoscientific article. Background[edit] In an interview on the NPR program All Things Considered, Sokal said he was inspired to submit the hoax article after reading Higher Superstition (1994), by Paul R. After analyzing essays from "the academic Left", scientists argued that some of these critical writers were ignorant of the original scientific documents they were criticizing and, therefore, were making a series of nonsensical statements about the nature and intent of science. The article[edit] Content of the article[edit] Publication[edit] Peer review[edit] Responses[edit] Academic criticism[edit]
Occam's razor The sun, moon and other solar system planets can be described as revolving around the Earth. However that explanation's ideological and complex assumptions are completely unfounded compared to the modern consensus that all solar system planets revolve around the Sun. Ockham's razor (also written as Occam's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287 - 1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's Razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.
Atheism "Divine Fury" by Sabina Nore.Traditionally speaking, most religions were especially hostile towards women. While some atheists consider themselves as spiritual people, most do so because they haven't yet found the appropriate "label" for themselves. Atheism is, simply put and by definition, the belief that there is no God nor divine presence. Some atheists define it as a lack of belief in a God or deity, while others discover that the proper "label" for them would actually be agnostic, rather than atheist. In the words of Penn Jillette, a US-American comedian, illusionist and writer: "Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o, and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have. Here is an article by Ricky Gervais, an English writer, comedian and actor on how he went from "God-bless" to God-less in one afternoon. Further reading
Laws of Physics Can't Trump the Bonds of Love Zack ConkleLIFE LESSONS Jeffrey Wright with his son, Adam, who has a developmental disorder, in a scene from “Wright’s Law.” Jeffrey Wright is well known around his high school in Louisville, Ky., for his antics as a physics teacher, which include exploding pumpkins, hovercraft and a scary experiment that involves a bed of nails, a cinder block and a sledgehammer. But it is a simple lecture — one without props or fireballs — that leaves the greatest impression on his students each year. The talk is about Mr. It has become an annual event at Louisville Male Traditional High School (now coed, despite its name), and it has been captured in a short documentary, “Wright’s Law,” which recently won a gold medal in multimedia in the national College Photographer of the Year competition, run by the University of Missouri. The filmmaker, Zack Conkle, 22, a photojournalism graduate of Western Kentucky University and a former student of Mr. The beginning of the film shows Mr. But each year, Mr. Mr.
Argument from ignorance Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, truefalseunknown between true or falsebeing unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Overview[edit] Basic argument[edit] Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. Null result[edit]
Evil Bible Home Page