A is for Atheism

SD State laws and voting

 In 2006 when I voted I was wearing a campaign sticker on my jacket and was stopped. Luckily I was still allowed to vote and just had to turn my jacket inside out. The less hassle the better when it comes to voting.

When you go to the voting booth there is something you need to know. A person may not wear campaign materials in or within 100 feet of polling places. http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=12-18-3&Type=Statute 

Posted at 10:51AM Nov 03, 2008 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[0]

Why the GOP turns me away from voting McCain.

I don't write often these days and I write even less often about politics. With the current political climate I feel it is necessary to tell everyone why I like John McCain but hate the GOP. McCain is an amazing guy, he willingly went to an unpopular war , he has been in the senate for 26 years, and yes he was a Maverick.

The things that bother me most about him is that he has gone away from his old ways. Starting in 2004 and culminating this year. His former glory of being an old school conservative is over. He now panders to the neocon's more than ever. I don't blame him for this, McCain realizes that if he wants to win he has to pander. Even this didn't turn me off to the man completely.

 He picks a VP choice that was neocon to the core and more than that has less experience than the man whom he claimed did not have the experience to lead. Again just another pander to his base. As a side note I think it is worth pointing out that Reagan had only 8 years in elected office before becoming president, Bush 6 and Clinton 14. Both the presidential candidate on the Dem side and Vp choice on the Repub side would not be the most inexperienced president we ever had. Although Palin is pushing those limits.

What has the GOP done to turn me away from their ticket? Lies, Damn Lies and Slander. That is the easiest way to say it. They have run an incredibly dirty campaign filled with dubious claims and an undeniable tendency to try and make a mountain out of a molehill. The most recent example is the frankly stupid claim that Obama was referring to Palin, in using the often used and famous saying, "Put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig." The GOP wants me to believe that Palin now has a monopoly on the word "lipstick" and any mention of the word is an automatic reference to her. It is ridiculous. They also want us to believe that Palin killed the bridge to no where. Again, the GOP insults our intelligence by treating us like lost children who don't know how to critically examine claims. Facts is the problem that the GOP has Facts.

There is still 2 months till the election, there is still time for the GOP to raise our discourse above the lowest levels and to put it in a place where we can have a clear and honest dialog. Alternatively there is still time for the DNC to jump in the mud with the GOP, although Obama has a long way to go and alot of mud to rake.

Posted at 10:48AM Sep 12, 2008 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[4]

Secular Students Alliance First Meeting

Come one come all, Secularists Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics. Freethinkers of all types the first meeting of the Secular Student Alliance will be Thursday, November 15th at 5:00 PM, room 216B in the Arts and Sciences Building. Be there or be square.

May his noodlely appendage bless you

Posted at 10:20AM Nov 09, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[0]

The Denial of Freewill

    I know everyone would like to believe in freewill. There is a sense of powerlessness that comes with thinking that we are bound to do what we are bound to do, but I see no other choice. I will take a look at two possibilities that both end up in denial of freewill, the first will be the Deterministic way and the second will be through the eyes of an all knowing creator. These are probably the two most common views of the cosmos. 

    Determinism can be thought of as thinking that humans are biological machines. We have pistons that pump, juices that flow, and a working cpu, so for one to do an action it requires a combination of internal forces working together. In this way it can be said that freewill becomes an illusion. I know what you are thinking, "so what we are machines that doesn't ruin freewill." You are right there that alone would not ruin freewill, until we looked at it from a grander perspective. Imagine ,if you will,  that you know the cause and effect of everything that ever happened in this universe. You see the universe in its entirety before you. Now does freewill exist? I would say it does not because the causal chain of events would be predictable. If there is a great enough mind capable of deducing the cause of things then the effects and the effects of the effects ect. ect. would be known also. Another way of looking at this is think of it as a mathematical formula. 1+2=3 for example is an example of a causal event. A great enough formula and mathematical calculation could figure out the string of events which would lead to every event to ever happen. This leaves freewill to its illusion, but what about God? Surely God can give us freewill.

    Nope. Well, as long as God is omniscient then freewill cannot exist. If any being whether God or mortal could ever receive knowledge of everything that ever happened then they would already know the outcomes of events. For instance if God were to say set up rules in which if they would not be followed then humans would be tortured in everlasting hell, then he would be setting up those rules with the knowledge that some good people would end up there. Essecially as soon as someone knows everything than anything you do from that point on is predestined to happen. If omniscients exists then freewill does not. Choice shrinks down to a nothingness.

    Freewill is ultimately a culmination of all of our wants, what I desire is my freewill. Even what I desire then becomes a product of a formula of desires. Free will seems to me to be left floating on the breeze somewhere just outside of what we consider possible.

Posted at 11:39AM Oct 29, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[0]

Why Are More Scientists Atheist?

    According to a document found on the God and Science website took a look at the percentage of professors in multiple studies. They found that the percent of those in the hard sciences and soft sciences scored nearly the same. They also asked about family status and it was found that those studied were more likely to cohabitate then the general population. The obvious conclusion, Scientist reject god because of a desire to be immoral. "It is likely that those who have rejected religious morality (i.e., those who were cohabiting) wanted to justify their behavior by saying that there was very little truth in any religion." This is what the study called Why are Most Scientist Atheists If There Is Evidence for Belief in God?

    The "Logic" issued forth here is astounding. First I would like to address the title, Why are Most Scientist Atheists If There Is Evidence for Belief in God? The answer to this simple question is even simpler, there isn't proof that there is a God. If there was proof this story would be much different. The next part of this twisted tale I would like to address is why don't those Atheists get married? If one doesn't believe in God than what is left of marriage other than a promise and a tax cut? Aka It is not immoral to stay unmarried. Shouldn't whether two people remain together be a matter of love? I would contend that it should. I think this article far missed the reason why many educated people don't believe in god. The subject is simple, the idea is not hard to grasp, unless you have no critical thinking skills.

    That is the common link behind all of these professors. All education demands critical thinking. That is what is missing from most of the population. I am not going to contend that no atheists has critical thinking skills or that all of the religious have the same problem. I will say though that I would bet those stupid people who fed McDonald's to their kids everyday and were surprised that their kids got fat, were not atheistic.

    I want to stress one more time that Christians are not necessarily bad thinkers, but I am saying that those who are well educated and well respected thinkers are far better than the average man. Before this groups goes off and starts making Atheists out to be immoral fornicators maybe they should do some practice in critical thinking.

Posted at 07:59PM Oct 18, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[3]

Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics oh my

A secular group may be starting on campus. Someone requested a packet for getting a group started at the U. Go to Secularstudents.org/usd for more info or by email at USD@secularstudents.org.Bravo for having much more get up and go than I have Sir or madame.

Posted at 07:27PM Oct 18, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[2]

An open letter to Fundamentalist Christians

Dear Fundamentalists,

    I know you may not like me and that's ok. It is your "god given" right, but I am here to talk about one thing we ought to be able to agree on. The protection of the environment is something we can all get behind. It is a cause backed by biblical principles and the interest of all those on earth. Whether based on biblical doctrine or our children's sake we all have a deep interest in the protection of our Earth.

I know you don't want to talk about it because you think Jesus is coming back and we won't have to worry about the environment when he does. If this is true and Jesus comes back and saves mankind again, don't you think he may be pissed at the treatment of the world? We all know of the story of Jesus and his treatment of the moneychangers in the temple. Is there any sense in which this parable wears on you at all? Do you really Believe that this world is a gift from God? If we do have dominion over it than we have a responsibility to keep it safe and keep it healthy. If Jesus comes back I would be worried if I were you, he might turn over the tables of the moneychangers. I have a better question, who pays if you are wrong?

    Global Warming probably won't affect my generation, it may not adversely affect my children's generation, but it will affect our grand children's  lives. Now if you are wrong and  Jesus isn't  riding his magical cloud back to Earth as we speak than it is in some future generation that we will pay for it. I personally don't want to hand down a lesser Earth to my children, or my children's children and I have a feeling neither do you. I know this is not very convincing for you since, Jesus IS coming back, but please at least consider it.

Please be kind to our Earth, it is the only one we have. If not for you sake than for those who will one day call you their ancestor. If not for them than for Jesus, and if you won't do something for Jesus than what kind of Christian are you?

Sincerly yours,

Dan.

Posted at 11:15AM Oct 15, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[2]

Ben Stine Doesn't Understand Science.

    I find Ben Stine, for the most part, agreeable. I like his dry tone and subtle humor. I laughed as people won his money and as he bored the students on Wonderyears, but now Ben Stine is taking on a misrepresentation of science. He is talking about Intelligent Design, which is the idea that God was the helping hand behind the Evolutionary process. That there is a supernatural explanation for the existence of life. I will make clear to make a distinction between this and creationism. (although they are intrinsically connected.) According to the Christian Post Reporter,

“Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning” said Stein in a news release.

Ben sounds like he is being very reasonable, Why can't Scientists proclaim a supernatural event? Well let's purpose another example of supernatural explanations. The earth shakes and crumbles and hot fire shoots out of the ground. Well the ghost inside the earth must be angry, I mean we know that the earth shifts and causes these events, but it is the ghost that causes the shift in the earth. No need for further explanation. That is as good of science as any secular explanation. Well the reason this is not science is the same reason that ID is not science.

    First, Science makes no comment on the supernatural. By definition science (the study of the natural world) makes no claim on the supernatural. Some like to claim that science is the pursuit  of truth. It is not that would be more Philosophy, Science is the pursuit of truth in such a way that it can be repeatable, testable, and falsifiable.  ID  does not do any of this, it doesn't even bring anything new to science. One cannot test the ghost in the earth nor the god in the man, so it remains outside of the realm of science.

“There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch God,” said Stein in the film’s trailer. “  "Scientists are not even allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

The little box is Science, and to reach outside of the box is too reach into pure speculation. Would anyone want to live in a world where scientists relied on supernatural claims. Claims that can be made without evidence. Also the ID people have a bigger problem than saying there is design in nature and it is God who put it there. The religious should stick to philosophy/theology and maybe Ben Stine should stick to being a lawyer, and author because science is outside the realm of Ben Stine.

Posted at 03:00PM Oct 09, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[6]

Why Creationism Doesn't Belong In U.S. Public Schools.

    In response to a comment left by Jesse Bethke, Douglas Bryenldson and a final argument presented I decided to make this blog about why creationism doesn't belong in our schools. The first of the arguments from Bethke went along the lines of all viewpoints to an argument should be presented in addition to each other. The problem with this argument is that it sends the wrong message. It presents the false idea that there is an actual debate about creationism, when simply there isn't. The only way that it could be presented in a scientifically consistent way is to present it the same way they present spontaneous generation. (not abiogenisis) The idea was that out of meat that flies spontaneously come from meat, when in reality the flies lay eggs in the meat. So in summation they should show it as a theory that has been debunked over and over again. Just like when the theory of a flat earth is presented. "They once thought the earth was flat now we know it is not." "We once thought that the earth was created in six literal days, now we know the earth is about 14 billion years old." That is not what the creationists want, they want the false claim of there being a debate among scientists about evolution. Now we can go to our second argument that of Doug Bryenldson.

Should we teach creationism in a class about world religions. I can respect that opinion because a good grasp on world religions is very important. If we are going to deal with peoples of other religions we need to understand them, it will also help with a better understanding of the world. The only problem with this is it would be impossible to have a fair view of different religions presented. Another good point is that they can teach the bible in classes as a piece of literature, just as long as it is not a requirement. That isn't enough though they want to teach it in the science class room. Now on to the last "argument" from a user identifying themselves as Christ's Warrior.

Now this person's comments were to priceless to summarize so I will quote directly. "Actually evolution is also just a THEORY not a FACT, just like intelligent design is. I don't see how so-called "scientists" like yourselves can keep on ignoring that inconvenient reality. What's wrong with teaching 2 THEORIES alongside each other? Oh yeah, everything, when you are advancing an anti-God agenda. Duh. This isn't about science its about an irrational hate of God." The crux of the argument seems to be that since evolution is a theory and creationism is a theory than they are equal. This is false, first no one claimed evolution as a fact, so your claim to my ignorance is wrong. Second just because there are two theories does not make them equal. There have been plenty of times when two theories have been purposed and one of them has been utterly wrong. Say the earth is flat theory. Also there are a plethora of theories that we accept as if they were fact because of the overwhelming evidence supporting them. Here is a list for you; Gravity,  Electromagnetism, Atomic. All of which are theories, so why then would we laugh at a theory of intelligent falling? All objects know they should fall and that is why they do, any scientist claiming otherwise is just angry with the thought process of objects. Why don't we teach both theories? Because the second one in each case is not founded on any scientific evidence. Finally your last "argument" about me hating God is sophomoric at best and moronic at worst. I don't believe in god, you can't hate something you don't believe in. Why do you hate the Easter Bunny so? Oh what the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? Just another part of your anti-bunny agenda.

Posted at 11:52PM Oct 04, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[3]

Louisiana Promoting Ignorance in Education Since 1858

    Ever since the proposal of Evolution in 1858 creationist groups have been fighting the theory. Now thanks to a proposal by the extremely Evangelical senator from David Vitter creationism has gotten a new toe hold into our school systems. According to an article in the The New Orleans newspaper The Time-Picayune.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties

Besides this being an obvious political maneuver with no real interest in our kids future, and this possibly being perceived as a type of atonement for past sins, (mainly the visiting of a Washington DC Madame) the teaching of creationism has been shown, in court cases, to be impossible to separate its ties to religion. If Louisiana passes this money it would be the state, our government, sponsoring religion. I believe our constitution has something to say about that. Something about Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion. See first amendment or the wall above the door to the Al Neuharth Media Center. Now it is not unknown for the religious to receive funding from the government, but they are not allowed to proceed to teach their myths as fact. That is really what this money is for, David Vitter admitted it. According to an article from National Center for Science Education, "In a written statement, Vitter explained, 'This program helps supplement and support educators and school systems that would like to offer all of the explanations in the study of controversial science topics such as global warming and the life sciences.'"

    There is no doubt in my mind that this is more than just trying to get a  religious view put in our school systems. They seek to undermine our children's education, using misinformation and lies. They make claims which aren't supported by 99% of all scientists, yet say that evolution is a theory under stress. As if there is an actual controversy  in the scientific community  regarding evolution.  Every American who believes in the children's education, every American that believes in the scientific ideal, every American who believes in the constitution that our forefathers setup should find this type of religious sanctioning grievous and offensive. Offering special consideration to a group of this type not only undermines our constitution it also undermines the future of our children and that is inexcusable.

Posted at 10:54PM Oct 01, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[5]

The Power of Prayer

    You hear time and again that prayers have an enormous power. They heal nations, bring people together and save lives, or does it? The question of whether prayer has an effect was looked at in a study in 2006. From a Washington post article called "Prayer Doesn’t Aid Recovery, Study Finds." 

    The new $2.4 million study, funded primarily by the John Templeton Foundation, was designed to overcome some of those shortcomings. Dusek and his colleagues divided 1,802 bypass patients at six hospitals into three groups. Two groups were uncertain whether they would be the subject of prayers. The third was told they would definitely be prayed for.

    They gathered three groups, two catholic and one protestant. The research is setup, one group is prayed for and knows it, one is prayed for and doesn't know it and the final is not prayed for. What were the results? Well, the two who didn't know whether they were prayed for did, as one would expect, about equal, 52 percent had complications. The ones who knew they were prayed for had a complication rate of 59 percent. The ones who knew they were prayed for did worse? How could this be? I thought that prayer were the answered requests of an all loving God? Why didn't they answer these patients requests?

    According to Mark Farley of the Catholic Education Resource Center they were answered. In an article, "Does Prayer Work?" He purposes that all prayers were answered by God. We just didn't necessarily like the answers. 

But perhaps the study’s biggest flaw involves how the results were interpreted. Christians know that there are three possible answers to prayer: “Yes,” “no,” and “wait.” The Harvard study measured only the “yes” answers. But just because we don’t get the answer we’re looking for does not mean God is not listening or answering.

Oh! God answers the prayers by either saying yes,no or wait. Of course. Now I would like to take a step back from the realm of sarcasm  and into the realm of mockery. God answers in yes, no and wait? That is a patently stupid claim. That is too say only the brain dead and children should be convinced by such a claim. The reasons I say this is because that claim has no way of being made false. I could get the same results by praying to any of the Greek God's  or my dog or to the laptop I am writing this on. What power does this demonstrate? No power, it just asks you to avoid the prayers that are ignored. This type of thinking is at it's base a surrender to ignorance.

    I understand the desire to want to have a fatherly figure looking down on us, protecting us, but to suspend logic to the point some people have is incomprehensible. Not only is it offendable to logic, but it is also unhelpful in life. If one goes through life seeing all actions as a triumph of God, then you become a victim in life, a passer by if you will. Take charge and don't settle for the whim of a nonexistent God. Take the responsibility on yourself. If your life is shit there is a chance that it is at least part your fault, so if you don't like your life than change it.

Posted at 09:51AM Sep 18, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[3]

The Unchanging God

      One may find it difficult to completely miss a giant cross in the middle of a college campus, I found it impossible. Far be it for me to sensor another or ridicule them in public for the right to state how much they love the object their messiah was killed upon.  So I sat and read my book (a book about Nietzsche, whose famous saying was echoing across my brain. "I have killed all the gods for my immortality") and watched the amusing sight. Looking at this contradiction of logic, celebrating the death and not the life of the supposed greatest teacher to live, I got to thinking about the god they proclaim.

    I have heard it said that God is eternal and unchanging. That he is a God of consistency. This can be used to justify the belief of an unchanging moral code that comes from god. It can also be used to justify the more abstract of the beginning paradox. That is that the universe had a finite beginning and that God exists outside of time in an unchanging sea of eternity. (Which if I may digress once more, is to say that God exists in a sea of nothingness. I have a short riddle to end my digression. What exists nowhere in space? What exists nowhere in matter? What exists nowhere in Time? There are two answers God and nothing. That is to say they are one in the same.)  Is Yahweh truly an unchanging God? More intriguing has Judaism and therefore Christianity and Islam always been monotheistic?

    The answer to these questions are a resounding no and no. What the great unchanging god used to be one of many? Yes, it is true folks, the God Yahweh used to be one in a pantheon of Judaic gods. The God now proclaimed under the monotheistic religions was the patron god of a certain region in Judea and was considered one of many gods. Theophile James Meek's article titled Monotheism and the Religion of Israel starts off by accepting that fact. "No Modern scholar of any standing today believes that the Hebrews of the Patriarchal Period were anything but polytheistic..." (The Patriarchal Period refers to the period in which the three fathers of Judaism lived. Abraham, Issac and Jacob) He goes on to say that Moses was monotheistic. (The only source for the existence of a man named Moses is in the bible, so this is to say the person who very well may have been made up was monotheistic.)  What became of those gods of old?

    There are several theories on these old gods the one I am particularly fond of comes from a book entitled Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity by Polymnia Athanassaidi and Michael Frede. This book is a series of lectures by Oxford professors about the various forms of pagan monotheism. They proposed that the lesser gods of Judaism's importance were degraded slowly over time, until they were absorbed by the greater god. Those lesser Gods became aspects, soldiers and messengers of the greater. It used to be that they would pray to a certain God for protection of a certain tribe or a certain god for protection of crops or for rain ect. This happened until Yahweh started being seen as the head god and the others were pushed down to subservient rolls. Does this sound a bit familiar? Is there a being in this theology that can be described as aspects,soldiers, or messengers for god? Any mention to certain servants of god? An Angel would fit this description pretty well. We all know of the passages where god sends a messenger angel, or an angel of death. They are an army of ghosts from a polytheistic past.   

    Beyond this lesson in history there are implications. There are very few possibilities for this god left. A few examples would be god would have to be changing. The moral code that god sends to us could no longer be trusted. As Socrates would point out what makes good? Is it what is beloved by the Gods or is it beloved by the Gods because it is good? If it is the latter what if what is stopping it from changing? Tomorrow, for all we know, God could decide that murder and rape are good things. What of the beginning paradox then? If god is in eternity and constantly changing than why wouldn't the laws of physics be changing with him? So go ahead and erect your crosses and hold up your signs with outdated "wisdom". I can take comfort knowing when you go to bed and pray at night you are just praying to one god in the pantheon of forgotten gods.

Posted at 10:51AM Sep 07, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[3]

There is a huge conspiracy amoung Atheistic evolutionist

    Or so those who tote the ideas of intelligent design, such as David Warren of the Ottawa citizen, would have you believe . He recently wrote an article called The Limits of Atheism in which he describes what he thinks is a century long conspiracy among atheistic materialism. The conspiracy is deeper than he thinks, It is mostly prevalent among scientists. Apparently that is not who should be telling us things about science, I had no idea.

    The intelligent design "debate" has been going on since the theory of evolution was proposed. It was originally under the name of creationism, which was unapologetically religious and unequivocally unscientific. In the 90's the advocates of Creationism reclaimed the idea under the name Intelligent Design which was suppose to be scientific. The theory goes like this, the design of life can be explained in no other way than a deity or in other words natural selection cannot explain how life came to be as it is today. For centuries Darwin's theory was without a means to explain genetic traits and therefore not well excepted. Then in the 1900's when Mendel's genetic research was discovered which allowed purposed genetic heredity. The theory was further supported by the discovery of DNA in 1940 and its structural discovery in 1953. The invention of the mass spectrometer in 1940 and the discovery about its use in radiometric dating in 1950 gave an evolutionary time line to know how gradual the change. Over the last fifty years science has only agreed more and more with the theory of evolution. What was it that exactly said in David Warren's article that so offends one who believes in science? 

    Many claims were made throughout the article, such gems as when referring to people who defend evolution "when a writer finds he has hit such a nerve, he can also know that he is approaching a great truth."  This is a genius statement, that means the greatest truths ever told were those who say things that offend.  So when a white supremacist claims a person is inferior based on race then that person isn't offended because of the sheer ignorance of the statement, they are offended because they are inferior. Great offense does not make for great truths. He also asks why should we care about his misunderstanding and misrepresenting evolutionary theory? There are several reasons, many have a vested interest in the truth. I care deeply about the truth, so much so that when someone tries to force truth into there narrow views I get offended. Now it is time to learn of the great conspiracy.

    The evolution conspiracy has been going on since the beginning of evolutionary theory. Powerful people purposely restrict the research of intelligent design. As Mr. Warren said

The establishment wants such research to be stopped, because it challenges the received religious order, of atheist materialism. Any attempt, or suspected attempt, to acknowledge God in scientific proceedings, must be exposed and punished to the limit of the law; or by other ruthless means where the law does not suffice.

We all have heard of the case of "Doctor" Kent Hovind who was imprisoned for ten years. This was obviously because of his position on the theory of ID rather than his theory of paying taxes or in his case not paying taxes. We also know of the great riot of 1990 when at a national scientific meeting someone muttered "Darwin was wrong", three dead and ten wounded. It is well known that scientists would rather agree with science than disprove evolution. Something like that would win the Nobel prize and no one wants that. Lets take one more look at the vastness of this conspiracy. It exists from the supreme court to a humble scientist. Has been going for 100 years and between many fields of science. If you believe in an old earth you would have to dismiss biochemistry, ecology, genetics, biology, archeology and physiology.  (if you believe in a young earth you also throw out cosmology and earth sciences)

    The truth is there is no conspiracy other than that presented by the Discovery Institute whose known doctrine is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." which is to dismiss the scientific method in favor of ignoring the information that disagrees with you and only presenting what agrees with a Christian world view. It is near crazy to believe that such a conspiracy among science would be nearly impossible since science by definition is self correcting. There is even no debate among the scientific community. It is very telling that this author lists Michael Behe as a scientist and then describes "other very qualified scientists" as the rest of them. There is a list of scientists who do not believe in evolution that has gotten 600 signatures. There is also a list of scientists named Steve who do believe in evolution, this list has 800 signatures.  A final thought would be to challenge Mr. Warren's claim that science doesn't claim to god because of some fear of god or fear of the consequences. The truth is that Science makes no claim about the supernatural. Science tells us about the natural ways of the universe as such that which cannot be defined by the universe cannot be scientifically proven.

Posted at 09:17PM Aug 22, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[0]

B is for Bertrand Russell

The first in my series dealing with the life, times and impacts of famous Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics.[Read More]

Posted at 04:27PM Aug 09, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[3]

Reflections on Patriotism

    So I am sitting in the office where I work listening to music and waiting for something to do and I thought instead of doing something overly productive in this down time I would blog. Blog about what you may ask? Patriotism. Gasp, but your a liberal what can you possibly have to say about patriotism. The same thing that every American who wants the best for the nation of america.

    First and foremost I would like to point out a difference that not many see between the nation of America and the government of America. That being the government of Ameica are those who run this country, the bureaucrat and the politician. I am unconcerned with the well being of the bureaucrat as it is more efficient for him to remain employed than unemployed. If bureaucrats are good at one thing it is efficiency. As far as the politician goes if he is at all worth his salt he can find popularity and some employ outside of the government system. Now the nation of America are the people in it and the culture of. These are the people who should be the focus and concern of a true patriot.

    These were the people that the founding fathers were immensly concerned about when they took arms against their government. I want to say that it is not my intention to convey that we should act as they did in violence. I believe this country and its people are more civilized than that. I do think that we have the right and obligation to act as they did initially. When an unfair tax was placed on tea americans first protested and petitioned for it to be lifted. This is how a patriot should act. Ah the point becomes more clear. I am saying that dissent is a true act of patriotism. As long as that dissent is in the common interest of the American people, the american nation. That is why it makes me laugh when fake patriots like Bill O'Reilly come on and shouts their "patriotism" and decries those true patriots. For the sake of this country we must say why we think a war against a country that never attacked us is wrong. For the sake of this country we must say why we think national healthcare is important. For the sake of this country we must say why we demand a humble foreign policy. We must do this not for an American government, but an American nation.

Posted at 09:24PM Jun 23, 2007 by Dan Benjamin Smart in General  |  Comments[0]