Evolution of Men
So boys, what does the evolution of women look like? 
Category: Uncategorized
Auction Items
Sure, the video fundraiser is over for our New Orleans Trip -but we still have some items up for auction til Friday!
The Knitted Flying Spaghetti Monster (Rum not included *sniffle*)
Scarlet Letter ‘A’ Black Scarf (wear your godlessness in the death of winter!)
Ray Comfort’s Origin – Copy 1
Ray Comfort’s Origin – Copy 2
The Bone Conjures (Jon’s novel, coming out in October. Must be patient for this one!!!)
Be sure to share with your friends, and get over there to bid before its too late!
Category: Activism, Fundraising
The Division of Humanity
So here we are. New year (albeit 17 days in), a new beginning, and one step closer to a brighter future. The recent events in Haiti really proved to me that there really is good in humanity, which is something I’ve wondered about for some time. However, no sooner did I regain a bit of hope than this video shows up online.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TE99sAbwM
If you don’t feel like following the link, I’m sure you’ve seen it before. It is of everyone’s favorite minister, Pat Robertson, declaring that Haiti had sworn a pact with the devil in order to be released from French oppression. Shortly after seeing that, I found this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBTtv7nTYzY
To summarize for those of you who are too lazy to follow the link: A “prayer-cast” was organized in an attempt to stop health care reform (If you were at the meeting in which we watched Jesus Camp, you may see a familiar face in that video).
That’s right, we need to pray to end health care reform. That’s what Jesus would have wanted. Everyone knows that Jesus was heavily in favor of an economy run off of greed and money. While I don’t know that full universal health care is the answer, I know what we have now is not working.
So why show these videos? It is to show the kind of people who divide humanity. Using their religion, they cast people into clear distinctions of “them” and “us”. It is people like this who do no good for this planet or the living things on it.
All of that being said, it is easy to cast the blame on the religious. Religion has, to an extent, a history of dividing people. This doesn’t mean that the godless are blameless though.
For those of you who did not see the fund raiser last night, it began with Jon Weyer having a discussion with PZ Myers. Key word: discussion. This was not meant to be a debate. The conversation went well, in my opinion. Both PZ and Jon having their high and low points. This morning, I found on PZ’s blog that he had posted that he was on BlogTV. Here are some of the comments that his readers have posted.
“Couldn’t watch all the way to the end. The pastor just keep ranting on and on. He said he didn’t agree with the “God of the Gaps” idea, however, when PZ asked what compelled him to Christianity, he basically pulled out that argument and was ranting on about nothing.”
“ Quote- “Theology is self-correcting, like science.”
Yep, gotta love all them peer-reviewed theological journals that strictly evaluate the data and evidence, and would never deduce any conclusions based on what’s written in their holy books.
Crackpot.
Quote- I think I gave a good example of why I think theology is self correcting during the chat. However, I’ll be posting something about it on the Thomas Society blog in the next day or so
Thanks, I’ll pass.
Changed Quote- I don’t want to hijack PZ’s space for that discussion be laughed out of the room.
Fixed.”
And the Nicest one I could find: “Yeah, PZ doesn’t look as clear but he sure speaks more clearly. The pastor stutters and doesn’t make any kind of sense. Another nice guy who doesn’t know how to think straight. Sad really.”
Clearly, the religious are not the only ones to blame for the division of humanity. When one is so stuck in their belief that they aren’t willing to budge an inch on anything, they become the exact same thing that they claim the other side is.
So who is responsible for the division of humanity? It is clear; those who aren’t willing, at all, to give anything to the other side. Those who refuse to work with the other side, even for the good of all. Those who aren’t willing to even hear what they other side has to say.
With each side we have to judge people on an individual basis. No stereotype of Christians will accommodate all, nor will one stereotype of Atheists cover all. Fighting over little details when we all have the same basic moral principles will lead to nothing good. In one of the waiting rooms during the broadcast, there were atheists defending the viewpoints of others from people who would attack them. We must be willing to work with, and accept, those who have different views and beliefs. Otherwise, we as a species, will eventually fail. Don’t do what you accuse others of doing, or you are just as guilty.
Category: Uncategorized
PZ, the Preacher, & New Orleans
Further details on the workings of the fundraiser, or to donate early, click here!
Please show your support!
Category: Uncategorized
God of the Gaps
Greetings Heretics,
“Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem. Once upon a time, people identified the god Neptune as the source of storms at sea. Today we call these storms hurricanes. We know when and where they start. We know what drives them. We know what mitigates their destructive power. And anyone who has studied global warming can tell you what makes them worse. The only people who still call hurricanes “acts of God” are the people who write insurance forms.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson
Several weeks ago, Ray Comfort’s minions descended upon OSU and campuses nationwide to distribute “enhanced” copies of Darwin’s The Origin of Species. These copies featured a fifty page introduction intended to defame the name of Charles Darwin and make the case for intelligent design. One of the arguments they try to make in favor of intelligent design involves the claim that many of the great intellects of the past relied on faith, and believed in the “God of Creation”. I felt that this argument seemed particularly weak considering that most of the scientists they referenced were prominent long before The Origin of Species was published. Nonetheless, it’s one of the more common claims I hear from creationists, so I thought I’d give it a look. (Let me say that as far as I’m concerned, creationism is intelligent design. You can change the packaging, but the product stays the same.)
The question that must be asked is simple. Would these men have been in lockstep with the people who lobby out of the Discovery Institute, or were these men merely victims of their own limited tools and resources?
In the second century AD, Ptolemy conceived the geocentric theory of the universe, which prevailed for centuries. At the boundary of his primitive understanding of the universe, he had the following to say about his observations, “I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral, but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself, and take my fill of ambrosia.” I’d like to think that if Ptolemy were alive today, he would have at worst been a deist. His curiosity and inquiring mind were unique in his time. Still, to tout someone who lived nearly two millenia ago, and had the tools to acquire only the most basic understanding of our planet and its processes seems to be a stretch.
Galileo, whose conflicts with the religious establishment were well documented, seemed to understand that religion had its limits when it came to describing the physical properties of the universe. He is famously quoted to have said, “The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, but not how the heavens go.” This great mind was reprimanded repeatedly for the heresy of insinuating that humans were not at the center of the universe. His heliocentric view caused him to be placed under house arrest by the Catholic Church, but his work helped to establish the independence of science from the dogma of religious authority.
Despite Galileo’s obvious disdain for the long reach of religiousity, you will often hear creationists say that much like Galileo’s Heliocentric Theory, intelligent design is often dismissed as absurd. They infer that their views haven’t been given a fair shake, like Galileo’s, and that they are being shut out by the close-minded scientific establishment. These people try to pretend that they are the advocates for critical thinking. There are not two sides to this issue. There is science, and then there are things that masquerade as science.
Sir Isaac Newton, sometimes regarded to be the most brilliant man who ever lived, created calculus on a whim. He single-handedly discovered the laws of motion, force, and gravity without once invoking an intelligent designer. Predictably, when he struggled to describe the stabilization of the forces in the solar system, he realized he had reached his limits. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being,” Newton decreed. This quote is often touted by Intelligent Design proponents as evidence that Newton himself would have subscribed to this theory. They fail to notice that these great minds only invoke a creator at the boundary of their understanding, if they do at all. I highly doubt Newton would have espoused this belief in the twenty-first century in the face of all the advances in astronomy, physics, and mathematics.
What would have happened if the many brilliant minds of our species had failed to move past the boundaries of contemporary understanding, but had instead accepted the roadblocks their predecessors ran into as inevitable and a result of the mysterious will of a supernatural being. You will often hear from religious types that the great scientists of the past were aware of their limits and believed that ultimately God was responsible for everything we observe in the universe. This is supposed to convince us heathens of our own arrogance in the contrast to the humility and concessions to design made by these intellectual giants. What you are not likely to hear is that these men only conceded the rest to a supernatural being where they could not continue on the strength of their own abilities. Progressive waves of scientists would expand on the limits put forth by their predecessors.
In the United States, almost 90% of the public believes that a supernatural being is responsible for the existence of the universe. Even more shocking, nearly half of these people believe this process took place close to six thousand years ago. A scant 10% of people believe in the accepted naturalistic view of evolution, and we wonder why math and science literacy in this country is so low?! We must learn the lessons of history and accelerate our understanding of the natural world by denouncing the use of mythology and irrationality to bridge the gaps in our knowledge. I think that those who would say, “Yes, I can see clearly that I would be a great fool to deny the evidence for evolution and the origin of our cosmos, but what came before that?” These people need only look to the greatest minds of our time and understand that had these brilliant men not become victims to the limits of their intellect, they would have continued to dazzle the world with their discoveries.
There is so much left to be discovered in our cosmos. For all we know, understanding the origins of this universe could only be the beginning. Even as we speak, physicists at the Large Hadron Collider are whizzing protons around at just under the speed of light in the hopes of unraveling the secrets of the first moments of the Big Bang. (They are also crafting hilarious music videos detailing this process.) Would we be doing experiments such as these had creationists gained access to our classrooms. I suspect not. Incredible intellectual progress is limited by the halting force of religion. When one admits with great humility that he or she does not know the answer, but is currently striving to find and identify the solution, this is seen as weakness and far too often god is used to fill the gap.
Category: Uncategorized
Jesus is the reason for the season. And he has the firepower to prove it…
I’ve already done my blog but I thought everyone who reads these blogs might enjoy this news story.
Nothing like artistic vision is there?
Category: Uncategorized
Mappy Kwolistmukah
Since I’m not a “real” scientist (as Psychology is really just a bunch of guess work that does not apply to all situations), I prefer to write about things on this website that you can not disprove; my opinions. So sit down and enjoy my wild rantings about why I’m right and everyone else is wrong.
It’s that time of year again. The weather is growing steadily worse and more uncomfortable, the malls are crammed to and beyond capacity, and the credit card companies are licking their chops at the thought of all of the interest that will soon be compiling on numerous accounts. That’s right, it’s the Holidays/ Christmas/ Solstice/ Chanukah/ Kwanza/ Festivus/ insert your other holiday here. Recently, Mr. Dan Grible and I along with a few others (whose names I don’t recall since I’m horrible with names and was only given them once) had a very brief conversation about the phrase “Merry Christmas”. The question posed was, “What do you think about ‘Merry Christmas?’” If my recollection is correct, the answer from all of us was something along the lines of “I don’t care”. That’s right, I don’t care and I don’t understand why most people seem so opinionated on the “Merry Christmas” vs. “Happy Holidays” debate.
I’ve worked retail and I’ve heard horror stories about these kinds of things. “Here’s your change, Happy Holidays!” “IT’S MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!” Really? Why get so worked up about two words? The other day I was wished a Merry Christmas by a man at White Castle. I simply smiled and returned the sentiment. It doesn’t matter what you say, it’s all for the same purpose. It’s a wish of happiness (usually) attached to a certain day. And just because you’re on the “Happy Holidays” team, don’t think you’re safe from guilt.
I recently found a group on facebook about this debate. I didn’t plan on joining but there was one post that caught my eye. In summary it said, “Jesus wasn’t born this time of year anyway, he wouldn’t care what you say, just be nice to each other.” This woman was attacked by three or four people. I joined the group and defended the woman despite the fact that we share differing points of view on religion.
So here’s what it all amounts to. If you want to be wished a Merry Christmas, wear some kind of symbol to let me know that. Same goes for Chanukah. If you want “Happy Holidays”, don’t show any kind of symbol and that’s what you’re going to get. If you want Kwanza, well, you’re out of luck because I’m not sure what that’s all about and don’t know the symbols.
So, I’m done, my food just arrived and I’m too lazy to proofread. So go, reply and tear apart my poor grammar/ sentence structure, post your horror stories, or tell me why I’m wrong (which I’m not). Also, read the previous post about the planning meeting and attend. Although I know that the four to five people that will read this will also probably be there.
EDIT: First mistake found. Sorry Dan.
Category: Uncategorized
Planning Meeting Thursday
Planning Meeting
December 17th, 6:00pm, Raney Commons 001a
(please use entrance by Taylor Tower)
Come and join us and help us in planning the next quarter for the Students for Freethought! Come out and find out how you can get involved, and make a difference within the organization. We will also be briefly discussing constitutional changes.
You can RSVP on our Facebook by clicking here!
(Note: Please use entrance to building by Taylor Tower in case the doors are locked. We will have someone there by that entrance to let people in from 5:45pm-6:15pm. If you are late there will either be a phone number posted on the door to call or one of them will be wedged open with something.)
Category: Uncategorized
Global Cooling?
Greetings Heretics,
“The fact that this whole idea on the global warming, I’m glad that’s over, gone, done. We won, you lost, get a life.” – Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
Granted, Mr. Inhofe is an easy target for my scorn. I would hope you would find a slightly more intelligent and reasonable argument made by the vast majority of global warming skeptics. To put the quote in context, as many of you know (I’m talking to the four people who read this blog) almost two weeks ago a hacker gained access to thousands of emails detailing correspondence between prominent climate researchers at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. According to climate change skeptics these emails show a prolonged effort to silence all dissenting opinion on the matter, and to also use statistical tricks to hide the obvious decline in global temperatures. These claims stem from a handful of aggressively written emails demeaning the integrity and work of skeptical climate scientists. Also this passage from Phil Jones of the CRU is referenced as proof that scientists manipulate the data to suit their own hypothesis.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) [and] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Now, when these two pieces of information are presented to the masses on cable news under the scrolling brightly lit heading of “Climate-gate” (whoever decided that adding the suffix “gate” to any noun suddenly creates a dastardly conspiracy needs to be shot) it stands to reason that people would be concerned. The questions true skeptics and freethinkers need to ask themselves are these: What is the context in which these debates have taken place? Can the validity of an entire scientific theory be trumped by a couple of cherry picked emails from one research institution?
Ever since the effects of our hedonistic lifestyles have been made evident in the enormous rise of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, scientists have warned us that continued use of fossil fuels as our primary energy source would hasten the progress of our planets 6th Great Extinction. CO2 levels today have increased by almost 100 parts per million over even the highest point in the last 400,000 years, and have made the jump from a mere 280 ppm to 380 ppm in less than 300 years. Because the Earth’s surface heats up more slowly than the atmosphere, temperatures have not yet caught up to these escalating concentrations of carbon dioxide. Predictably, the industries and people that rely so heavily on fossil fuels have been fierce in their attacks of these findings. Every year, hundreds of peer reviewed journal articles from around the world are published supporting and challenging the consensus view on climate change.
In most scientific controversies, scientifically inferior viewpoints are quickly discarded and fall to the wayside. That’s why we know that evolution is responsible for the life we see on our planet today, and not intelligent design (the bastard child of Creationism). The same goes for the bygone theories of alchemy and blood-letting. You don’t see peer-reviewed journals claiming these practices and beliefs to be scientific, because they have not withstood the tests of the scientific method. When dealing with climate change skepticism, the game changes considerably. Special interests prop up the flawed science behind this skepticism, and fund its study so as to maintain the massive profits to be gained from our reckless abuse of the only planet we will likely ever have the good fortune to inhabit. Its also no coincidence that these emails were released just prior to the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen this December.
To address the emails themselves, having participated in my fair share of scientific experiments, I know first hand that sometimes the results you get don’t reflect the hypothesis you posed. In that case sometimes your methods for gathering the data were faulty, the hypothesis you posed was incorrect, or you have failed to manipulate the data correctly in order to draw out the correct correlation behind the numbers. In this case, the word “manipulate” doesn’t always refer to an attempt mislead the scientific community, and within the correspondence between colleagues at the CRU, the use of the word “trick” could refer to that kind of manipulation. UPDATE: Kris Scott provided an explanation for the email in question in a comment below, and I am re-posting it here to shed some light on the issue
Actually you’re a bit off… The “hiding” mentioned isn’t actually a cover-up. Scientists use tree rings to gather temperature data from before thermometers existed. However, there is an issue called the “divergence problem” in which starting in the 1980’s temperatures inferred from tree rings did not match the actual temperatures measured by scientific instruments for the year. Instead, the rings appear to show either cooler or non-rising temperatures. Scientists are not yet aware why this is happening in tree rings, but some speculate it is actually caused by global warming itself.
Notice they added “real temps” to “hide the decline” meaning that they used the actual data collected from weather stations and various scientific instruments to adjust for the decline shown from tree ring data. Why use tree ring data at all then? Because using this data allows them to accurately see temperatures going hundreds of years back. This way current data can be compared to see if we are in a unique warming scenario or if we are just in some sort of natural cycle.
While the choice of words is undeniably poor, when taken in context as an exchange between colleagues who could not have expected their privacy to be breached in such a serious way, it certainly does not automatically infer that these scientists are trying to present knowingly false information to the public.
Even if these particular researchers were trying to cover up mistakes that they made in their research, that hardly implicates the entire scientific community in a vast conspiracy. At this situation’s very very worst (and let me stress that this seems highly unlikely), the only conclusion a reasonable person could possibly make would be that two scientists engaged in some bad science, and that’s something that climate change skeptics are certainly familiar with.
Category: Skepticism
New Orleans Trip
Hey everyone! As you may know, we are going to New Orleans to help re/build homes. We did this last year, and it was an absolute blast! We went down with a church, stayed at a church, and even met some other godless folk down there.
It was so successful, and so much fun – we’re doing it again this year!
It’s going to be the week of spring break, and even cheaper than before. We’ll be going with our friends at The Thomas Society this year, with Reverend Jon Weyer, soon to be famous author (congrats Jon!). Once more we’ll be surrounded by the godly, and once more sleeping at a church. Rest assured though it’s safe, and fun!
It’ll be both work and play. We’ll have a little more time to explore the city this year, and we’ll also be taking our own vehicles (those volunteering to drive must let me know asap).
If you’re interested in coming, you must first sign up for the trip by clicking here! If you’re not on this list, I’m assuming you’re not coming. A $25 non-refundable deposit is due by the end of finals week. The total after that is $175. Half of that must be paid by January 15th, and the remaining amount must be paid by February 12th.
If you have questions please contact info (at) sffosu (dot) org asap!
Category: Activism
