Advocating Reality

Evolution is often decried as 'theoretical' because the term 'theory' is attached to it.   Scientists use the word 'Theory' in a very different way than other people do.  It is much more similar to a mathematical 'Theorem' than it is to the traditional use of the word 'theory'. Hopefully you remember high school geometry, but in case you don't, here is a refresher on the Pythagorean Theorem: On any right triangle (a triangle with one 90 degree angle) the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and this is reflected in the formula a² + b² = c². No matter what, each and every right triangle abides by this theorem.  Every time it has been tested, it has given the correct result.  The theorem would be easily falsified (proven wrong) if a single right triangle was found that did not exhibit the dimensions predicted by the theorem.  Of course, this is entirely unlikely, if not impossible, so ...

Major Themes of this film: Martyrdom Martyrdom Atheists are awful Martyrdom Muslims are awful Martyrdom Martyrdom Academics are awful Big Business people are awful Oh, and Martyrdom.  Did I mention Martyrdom? Actually, scratch a lot of what I said before.  Anyone who isn't Christian is awful, and some people who 'claim' to be Christians are also awful. This movie can be summed up as 3 logical fallacies: Arguments from Emotion Arguments from Ignorance Arguments from Authority First, just like with the TV appearance of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, this movie most certainly is NOT persuasive in regards to the existence of God. Virtually every stereotype which could be played, was played.  The abusive Muslim who disowns his daughter when he learns that she is a Christian.  The scenes with the Academic crowd show them all to be vapid anti-theists.  Every student in the philosophy class, save one, simply go along with the anti-religious n...

If, for the moment, we accept the Creationist argument that our scientific observations regarding the age of the Earth are off by a scale of about 1:750,000 (6,000 years versus 4.5 billion), then it logically follows that our method should be proportionally ‘off’ by about the same amount.  We should be able to recalculate our findings accordingly and, on paper, this should match up our findings to be closer to the Creationist claims.   I am basing these calculations on an ending point of 8/1/2014 at 8:00 AM (the date that I originally wrote this article). So, for instance, the claim is that the Earth was created on or around 4,000 BCE, compared to the scientific view of the Earth forming about 4.5 billion years ago.  We will now synchronize our Scientific chronology to this timetable and see what happens. Just for contrast, according to Science, in 4000 BCE the wooden plow is being used in central Europe. Agriculture has spread to what today is Britain and Irela...

Over the course of several years, through education, discussion and hours upon hours of deep thought, I no longer accept the traditional, mostly-absolute view of 'Free Will'. During some of my discussions, an issue kept coming up which kept me wondering about one particular aspect, though. Mainly, what does this mean for morality and law? How do we hold people 'accountable' to our societal and legal rules if they don't really have a say in their own thoughts and behavior? For the duration of this article (rant?), when I use the term 'Free Will' without qualification, I am specifically referring to the version of 'Free Will' which has been traditionally held by the majority of the populace for (probably) thousands of years. It occurs to me that the reason why we can still hold people accountable even without Free Will is because, when our brain is faced with a decision to make, it takes everything possible into account, including memories...

"You can't solve a mystery with another mystery." - Matt Dillahunty, The Atheist Experience I see it time and time again, when theists get backed into a corner, they often resort to a 'Mysterious Ways' argument, or they appeal to 'The Unknown' to account for their unreasonable beliefs.  It's weak, but they use it anyway. This is, of course, not acceptable in the slightest.  If mankind has no actual knowledge about something, why choose to believe the most plausible-sounding lie? For starters, many people are indoctrinated from a very young age to accept authority for authority's sake; but I think that the problem is much deeper than this.  It seems like we want to find answers, but for some reason many of us don't care whether or not those answers are correct.  When you watch or listen to a few debates/arguments between theists and atheists, you find very quickly that 'I don't know' is an unacceptable answer to most theists. ...

Hey everyone, we've finally got Episode #2 finished up!  I think that it turned out well, and we definitely learned a great deal in the process.  Please comment and let us know what you like, what you don't like, etc. Advocating Reality Podcast #2 - Evidence-Based Thinking Thanks! Edit:  I've created an MP3 version of the podcast, I don't want to use the Blogger video module any more.

My friend Wayne made a post on his Facebook Wall earlier today: Everyone should dedicate one hour to education per day. Yea, go do something useful. Now, I actually do this already.  I am always looking for documentaries, lectures, debates and whatnot in order to further my understanding of science and of the world in general.  The more I think about it, the more I realize that this is something that everyone should do.  I realize that many people have little free time in their lives, but I say do it anyway.  Learning is the absolute best use of your time, in my opinion, and it has innumerable benefits. For one thing, learning will  challenge your preconceptions.  I can't count how many times I have watched Lawrence Krauss' lecture 'A Universe From Nothing', because it completely changed my perspective on how the Universe actually works.  This has happened to me on a number of occasions, on such topics as cosmology, biology, chemistry, and physics...

I often question myself when I argue with religious people and other believers in the supernatural - not necessarily my own position, but the manner in which I assert it.  It has been pointed out to me that I tend to be brisk and sarcastic in my arguments.  I agree that this is true, but I think there's more to it than that. Any time I respond to someone, I read my own post over and over again, often times long after posting it, just to look for any possible holes in my argument and to observe how I responded to particular comments.  Time and time again, I find that the real sarcasm doesn't begin until I start to get exasperated with the same argument over and over again.  I also find that it happens when the other party starts asserting what my beliefs are or makes other assumptions about me or my position.  In short, I keep it to a minimum, but it does happen. I have always held strong convictions, but for many years I maintained a strict habit of keeping...