Vaccines do not cause autism!

“The antivaccination movement purports to try to save children. Instead, if it is successful it may be condemning millions of them to terrible ailments, and a significant fraction of them to death.

It is that simple.”

read more | digg story

Getting Bored Of The Skeptic vs. The Irrational

I know that these debates need to happen in order to prevent the “suckering” of individuals into crazy beleifs that only seek to control and to take advantage. These debates are something I am not ready for, because I am bored of these debates so I will expand the content beyond this to science as well. Not many people read this blog but I still think it important to say. I want to try to and create a blog that gets the truth instead of going for speed. Hopefully this new information format will be more pleasing.

I’ve actually decided that I will research a topic given to me by a reader. If you feel a story may not be accurate or feel that something is wrong in the details I will research the hell out of the topic and write a detailed blog article going over the false claims within that story. The more suggestions the better.

At first you may just leave a suggestion in the comments area, after that I will set an easier way to do that.

Morality In Atheism… It does Exist

In a comment made on one of my previous posts, I don’t think I made it clear what prevents an Atheist from committing a crime? Here is the comment for comparative analysis:

gitmochajoe said 1 week ago:

I agree with this: Stalin killed because he was Stalin. It’s really not fair to lump all atheists in with him, and I don’t.

Nevertheless, since there is no official atheist moral code, I wonder how other atheists could condemn what Stalin did, except on the basis of their own personal moral standards — which would seem to carry no weight beyond the individual.

Given atheism, how can we say that anything is absolutely wrong or unfair?

Beginning top to bottom, thank you for agreeing that Stalin was evil because of who Stalin was, not because he was an Atheist. Even though he said that, I would like to make it clear that Atheism is not a religion, or a set of ideals. There is nothing to follow, and being such no Atheist is bound to any set of ideals that could be misinterpreted to justify a crime, and Stalin has nothing he can justify his logic with either, because what he did was evil.

Second point made in the comment, “There is no official Atheist moral code”. No there isn’t, because there is no official Atheist anything. Atheist is not a belief system, is has nothing bound to it. This may be hard to understand because the world is so strung up on religion that anyone without one must be non-human or radically different, when in reality is that Atheists are individuals and not bound to any society other then the global community. As for Atheist morality, there is reason for Atheist morals.

I personally hold more value in the opinions of myself from my family’s point of view then any God that may roam in the supernatural universe, as anyone would who has had a loving family such as mine. My family is entirely secular and yet they have shown that secular families have the ability to love. What my family thinks of me drives me to be a good person, because I would not want to commit an act of violence or any crime and disappoint them.

This still does not explain why an Atheist would have any morals, I would disagree, but I see what your getting at. What is the root for Atheist morals is what you want me to explain. Well, I think I have, because in nature we see that love can be seen within families of lions, bears, dogs, wolves, and other mammal species. This love is based on the primal instinct of parents that must be there in order for the species to live on, because if there is no love, the parent would let the child die and the species would die. This basic love for the offspring must be passed down into the child, and so on and so forth. As a species evolves, the love grows to the community of families around it, because of the same primal instinct to nurture those who have nurtured you. That love grows as the community grows and so on and so for.

We hold a tribal instinct to care for those within our community, and as an Atheist in the modern day I can say that the human race has grown to the point where the entire world is our community, and that holding our values to religion closes the door to a global community. The day that we all can accept the beliefs and faiths of others is the day that our global community will make another giant and crucial step towards global peace.

So much for short format.

Intelligent Design != Science

I’m going to try a shorter format from now on to increase the number of posts that I can do in a week. So I’m going to start with the most popular debate in the US (not in Canada, majority of Canadians agree with evolution.), but I would rather touch on it anyway seeing as this is on the world wide web and anyone can read it.

I’m not sure how many times this can be brought up until someone realizes it. Evolution is a scientific theory, such as the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. These theories have been used in science to predict the paths of asteroids, space probes, and solar flares. If scientific theories were incorrect they would not be compatible with conventional science, but they are. Evolution is very widely used by the medical industry to create new and advanced methods of treatment. The other common misconception is the scientific definition of a theory.

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

The reason why ID isn’t accepted by science is because it doesn’t follow the scientific method. There are no studies that can be done that shows evidence of a Designer. In all the debates I have listened to there is a common method used by ID proponents that doesn’t help their argument. They simple point out the holes in evolution, which by science standards are never seen as weaknesses, but future points of exploration. Also, never once have I heard a study proposal made by an ID proponent.

If you have seen the movie Expelled, then you should notice that everyone that is claimed to be shot down by big science seem to have given up fairly easily. Science is a very competitive field and you need to be able to defend your position with evidence. If you do not have scientific evidence such as fossil records, lab studies, tissue samples then you will be ignored, not because of your position, but because you have brought absolutely nothing to the table.

Also, the theory of evolution has never once suggested that God does not exist. This all feels like the flat world argument. That somehow a change in conventional thinking is threatening to the concept of God. There are tons of people who believe in evolution and God. In fact I believe that sometime a few years ago, 1000 clergy members wrote letters of support to the theory of Evolution. Pope Jean Paul II agreed with the theory of evolution and promoted his and the churches support for it.

So, why this resistance? Fear in change is a weakness not a tribute.

A Common Misconception. Hitler Wasn’t An Atheist & Stalin Isn’t A Weapon.

Despite what you hear and see, the opposition to Science and Non-theism is highly aggressive in their campaign to cast shadows of evil among people such as myself who have non-religious morals. It almost feels like I’m being persecuted for my beliefs (or lack there of), and although this is not anywhere near the severity it is a tactic I have seen time and time again through-out history. Opposition meets aggression, but instead of fighting fire with fire, I will be the better man who comes in and says “wouldn’t it be better to use water to put that out?”. The opposition commonly uses sympathy to gather support, despite the aggressiveness that they use to show how frustrated skeptics and scientists can get. I bet you if we remained patient and argue in a more passive way, they will get aggravated waiting for us to crack, and being the better person we will not point out this aggression because it will not need to be pointed out.

Hitler was actually a deeply “religious” man. What I mean by the quotations is that during his reign he didn’t support any Christian religion, but did beleive he was doing the work of God. His goal was to essentially (and don’t quote me ever) create his own religion or cult. Members of the Nazi party would not claim to be part of a religion but labeled themselves as “gottglaeubig” or roughly translated (pretty accurate actually) “beleiving in god”. I had read quotes by Hilter mentioning a “god” but I’m not sure how accurate those quotes may be.

When it comes down to Stalin, who may have killed more people with in the Soviet Union then the total population of Canada in the 1950’s. Stalin was on record as being an Atheist, but what most people fail to realize is that Atheism is not idealistic in any way. What does that mean? Nothing, because even though there are no ideals linked to Atheism that does not mean I have no ideals, its just my ideals are far different then the Atheist sitting next to me. Stalin didn’t kill in the name of Atheism, he killed in the name of Russia. There is no “Bible of Atheism” or a leader that we follow. There is no “we”, because “we” to an Atheist is humanity as a singularity. So, in conclusion to Stalin, I have Ukrainian family who I love and I have a deep fondness with the culture and any suggestion that I have common ideals with Stalin is an insult not to just me but to the millions of Ukrainians killed by Stalin for entirely different reasons. Atheism is not to blame, only the people who allowed it to happen.

So then why does non-religious person like me have morals, well without explaining this through a long history of evolution, I’ll simply tell you why I could never commit a crime against my fellow man (or women). I am not susceptable to fear tactics, which helps me appreciate the world more. With what I know in my background of science, the millions of years that it took to evolve and learn and develope our technology. After all that we have gone through to become what we are it would be a waste and is a waste when we kill our fellow people. With everything that we know and don’t know about the human body and how it evolves to adapt to its environment, why would you destroy this amazing biological machine? With the possibility that our bodys our made up of elements that could have been a star or a planet in another galaxy is far more incredible and interesting then it just magically appearing. I do have feelings, and I do realize why a person of religion may feel threatened by this growing movement away from religion, but as everything in history, I do not beleive we should let it go entirely.

Angry I Am Not. Why Skeptics Are Going In The Wrong Direction.

I have heard and read many rational and sensible writings and podcasts, coming to the final conclusion that scientists have social issues with today’s society. As an Engineering student I should know better then to get frustrated with people who have not learned the language of science. That would be similar to a Economist getting angry with me about not understanding their lingo, although probably wouldn’t happen since Engineers usually take economics courses. So, being frustrated is not in my interest, because as an Engineer it is not my job, but my career to translate the science to those who don’t know the language. So, as this blog will now be my practice and my interest to help people understand a much misunderstood society that is science.

Yes, science is a community, a business on to itself, and it’s very aggressive in nature and full of severe competition between scientists over what the outside public would consider small or irrelevant. The publicity of this aggressiveness never reaches public knowledge, and this aggression is then poorly translated by scientists and opponents to the public as an overpowering ego. The issue is that people try and come into the scientific community with a very opposing view to a heavily studied problem and expect open arms which even a scientist who follow the consensus don’t even receive this privilege.

It is my goal to help educate people who don’t know about the aggression between scientific colleagues, the incompatiblity of science with the supernatural and intelligent design, or the simple day to day suedo science seen all to commonly.

I am an non-theist, but it is my stance that Richard Dawkins’ is far to aggressive and that his tactics geared towards attacking and abolishing religion are immoral and give an all to common negative view of every non-theist even though non-theism is not idealistic, which is almost like a personal religion without a diety. It is not my position to be trashing your beliefs and I respect and admire your dedication, and I would appreciate the same mentality.