Dark Chocolate Helps Ease Emotional Stress: A new study found that eating about an ounce and a half of dark chocolate a day for two weeks reduced levels of stress hormones in people who felt highly stressed. The chocolate also partially corrected other stress-related biochemical imbalances. “The study provides strong evidence that a daily consumption of 40 grams [1.4 ounces] during a period of 2 weeks is sufficient to modify the metabolism of healthy human volunteers,” the scientists say.

That led me to a study from last December. It’s rather small and involves self-reporting, but it could be a promising line for further research, and could be something you experiment with yourself to see if it works for you:

Dark Chocolate Lessens Cravings: Dark chocolate is far more filling than milk chocolate, lessening our craving for sweet, salty and fatty foods. In other words, eating dark chocolate may be an efficient way to keep your weight down over the holidays (and throughout the year!) The dark chocolate gives a feeling of satiety.

To compare the effects of dark and milk chocolate on both appetite and subsequent calorie intake, 16 young and healthy men of normal weight who all liked both dark and milk chocolate took part in a so-called crossover experiment. This meant that they reported for two separate sessions, the first time testing the dark chocolate, and the second time the milk chocolate.

They had all fasted for 12 hours beforehand and were offered 100g of chocolate, which they consumed in the course of 15 minutes. The calorific content was virtually the same for the milk and dark chocolate.

During the following 5 hours, participants were asked to register their appetite every half hour, i.e. their hunger, satiety, craving for special foods and how they liked the chocolate.

Results

Two and a half hours after eating the chocolate, participants were offered pizza ad lib. They were instructed to eat until they felt comfortably satiated. After the meal, the individuals’ calorie intake was registered.

The results were significant. The calorie intake at the subsequent meal where they could eat as much pizza as they liked was 15 per cent lower when they had eaten dark chocolate beforehand.

The participants also stated that the plain chocolate made them feel less like eating sweet, salty or fatty foods.

So apart from providing us with the healthier fatty acids and many antioxidants, dark chocolate can now also help us steer clear of all the sweet, salty and fattening Christmas foods.

That led me to an even older study (2006) about smokers’ arteries and dark chocolate. I’m sure it benefits nonsmokers as well. This study is also small, but promising.

A Few Squares Of Dark Chocolate A Day May Stave Off Artery Hardening In Smokers: Dark chocolate may stave off artery hardening in smokers, and a few squares every day could potentially cut the risk of serious heart disease.

Researchers compared the effects of dark (74% cocoa solids) and white chocolate on the smoothness of arterial blood flow in 20 male smokers.

In smokers the activity of both endothelial cells, which line the artery walls, and platelets, which are involved in the formation of blood clots, are continuously disrupted, making the arteries susceptible to the narrowing and hardening characteristic of coronary artery disease.

Before eating 40 g of chocolate (about 2 oz), smokers were first asked to abstain from other foods rich in antioxidants, such as onions, apples, cabbage, and cocoa products for 24 hours.

After two hours, ultrasound scans revealed that dark chocolate significantly improved the smoothness of arterial flow, an effect which lasted for eight hours. Blood sample analysis also showed that dark chocolate almost halved platelet activity. Antioxidant levels rose sharply after two hours.

White chocolate had no effect on endothelial cells, platelets, or antioxidant levels.

Dark chocolate has more antioxidants per gram than other foods laden with the substances, such as red wine, green tea, and berry fruits, say the authors, who suggest that the beneficial effects of dark chocolate lie in its antioxidant content.

“…Only a small daily treat of dark chocolate may substantially increase the amount of antioxidant intake and beneficially affect vascular health,” conclude the authors.

Of course, these studies are not conclusive. They are all small. But hey, it’s dark chocolate. It tastes great and is full of chocolatey goodness. With all the other stuff you eat, if it could help you in these three ways, some of which you can experiment with yourself to see if it’s actually working for you, why not give it a try?

I had some bars in my fridge that I had been saving for a special occasion but decided, since I get stressed out easily, I’d try to do an experiment. I will eat 40 grams a day (if I can get my hands on that much) and keep a log of food cravings, food intake and stress levels. So far I’ve had it for two days but have been quite lax about the log bit. I guess we can’t all be diligent.

I thought while I have you here, I’d share some other links that might interest you.

We have all been inundated with swine flu madness over the past several months. But what is hype and what is science-based reality? Is the vaccine safe? Do I have to worry about this?

I’ve gotten a lot of information just from listening to The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, which is honestly the best skeptical podcast I’ve found. I’m usually a couple of episodes behind, but hey, look at what they have for the November 15 epsiode: Special Report: H1N1 Pandemic Update! I’d recommend listening to back issues as well. They are quite an education in skepticism. You’ll learn a great deal!

Dr. Steven Novella, the main Rogue of the SGU, also has a blog called Science-Based Medicine. (I know, what a concept, medicine based on science!) This site has different contributors who cover all kinds of issues with solid facts, no hype, no pseudoscience BS. Want to know the facts about H1N1? Go here. Want to know if chiropractic is mainly pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo? You know where to go.

On that note, you can also go to Quackwatch. I haven’t investigated it much, but the SGU recommends it and for this kind of thing, I’d consider that a good endorsement.

Now, just to remind you of some other podcasty goodness, and so that we don’t ignore our minds with all this science talk, there is Reasonable Doubts, the podcast for people who refuse to “just take things on faith.” These guys know their religion. They mainly focus on christianity and its flaws, but they’ve also tackled issues like Determinism, islam, Profiles of the Godless (a survey study done by one of their own), and much, much more.

I love these guys and get so much out of each podcast. I only found them through a friend several months ago, so I am still not caught up with the old episodes. I highly recommend listening to their full library.

Like the SGU, you can subscribe to Reasonable Doubts through iTunes.

Ok, that’s it. Have fun. If you have suggestions for great podcasts, websites or resources for science-based medicine, studies, facts over hype, skepticism, and of course atheism, please feel free to share in the comments.

Related posts

• Sometimes It Sucks To Be A Skeptic (0)
• Your Tax Dollars Teaching Medical Students Pseudoscience (6)
• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• We Are Lions! (4)
• Thinking Is Hard Work (0)

By Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, Comment Is Free.

Civility has its uses, but atheists should not be afraid to mock faith to undermine religious power.

Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can’t deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It’s hard to see what questions could be more important.

Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.
Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy.

As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients’ requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.

In a different world, the merits, or otherwise, of religious teachings might be discussed more dispassionately. In that world, some of us who criticise religion itself might be content to argue that the church (and the mosque, and all the other religious architecture that sprouts across the landscape) should be kept separate from the state. Unfortunately, however, we don’t live in that world.
When religion claims authority in the political sphere, it is unsurprising — and totally justifiable — that atheists and skeptics question the source of this authority. If religious organisations or their leaders claim to speak on behalf of a god, it is fair to ask whether the god concerned really makes the claims that are communicated on its behalf. Does this god even exist? Where is the evidence? And even if this being does exist, why, exactly, should its wishes be translated into law?

In many situations, it is better to be civil, as Paul Kurtz has pointed out, but satire and  mockery have traditionally had a legitimate place whenever absurd ideas are joined to power and privilege. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire often used mockery to show the absurdity of  ideological stances — including religious ones — that were considered sacrosanct. Mockery is one way of saying that a view does not deserve to be taken seriously. Religious views are fair game if one can also show, on a more serious level, why the view in question does indeed not deserve serious respect.

Perhaps some rationalist or humanist organisations, such as Kurtz’s venerable Center for Inquiry, do have good reason to maintain a scholarly and dignified brand image. But there is also room for the younger, brasher atheists whom Kurtz inaccurately brands as “fundamentalists”, and, in any event, there is a world of difference between appropriate civility and keeping quiet.

In the US, unfortunately, some atheists appear to have concluded that even civil and thoughtful criticism of supposedly “moderate” religion (i.e., almost anything that does not dispute evolutionary theory) should be discouraged.

These “accommodationist” atheists tend to be focused on science advocacy, particularly the teaching of evolution in public schools. In seeking public support for their positions, they think it prudent to take the various American demographics as they are. Since they want to sell evolutionary science to very large numbers of pious Americans, the last thing they want is to see it linked with atheism.
Once you think in that way, from a kind of marketing perspective, it can take over your approach to what you think you ought to say. Sincerity goes out the window, and everything must be “framed” to please the audience. We doubt that this strategy can work.

Religion cannot be eradicated — that is not a realistic goal — but the many problems with religious dogma can and should be highlighted. As atheists, we should state clearly that no religion has any rational warrant, and that many churches and sects promote cruelty, ignorance, and civil rights abuses.

There are harmful consequences to real people in the real world if the views of churches and sects are enshrined in law or given undue social deference – the acceptance even in liberal secular societies of conscientious objection as a legitimate reason for health care professionals and even civil servants to refuse to provide professional services to certain citizens is a case in point. For these reasons it is important that we should speak out and publicly contest the special authority that is accorded, all too often, to pontiffs, imams, priests, and presbyters. Religious leaders are not our moral leaders, much as they clamour to be, and however much the politicians flatter them. These spiritual emperors have no clothes, and we shouldn’t flinch from saying so.

Found at AlterNet.

Thanks to Bill for sending this to my Morgantown Atheists group. While I’ve been guilty of being overly accommodating regarding religion, I find myself agreeing with this argument. Sure, there’s a place and time for civility, but in general, I think this article, and my awesome husband Butch, are right. Religion should be heartily mocked for its unfulfilled, ridiculous promises and stories that people eat up like candy.

Related posts

• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (9)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (35)
• How To Talk To A True Believer About Atheism And Religion (32)
• Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy (11)
• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)

I belong to a book club that has been reading Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula.

I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it’s helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that’s pretty invaluable.

So here’s the list of important principles from Robert Gula:

1. Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words like all, none, no one, never, always, everyone, must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs or attitudes.
2. Be alert to generalizations, especially ones that are unsupported or that are supported from just one or two specific, unusual or extreme examples.
3. Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.
4. Do not confuse opinion, attitude, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance or unsupported generalization with hard, factual evidence.
5. Be sure that the issue under discussion is clear and precise, that its ramifications, complexities and goals have been identified, and that the words and concepts have been defined.
6. Be sure that the evidence is relevant to the specific topic of discussion, not to some related topic.
7. When an authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless their credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.
8. Make sure that the conclusion follows from the evidence.
9. Be sure that you do not put others in a position where they have to make inferences, and that you are not put in a position where you have to make inferences. In other words, be sure that necessary steps are not omitted in argument. Avoid making assumptions.
10. Wherever possible, do not allow rational discussions to become heated arguments.
11. Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.
12. Don’t quibble; don’t argue just for the sake of arguing.
13. Think critically. Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don’t say anything, say to yourself, “this is nonsense.”
14. Whenever you hear an argument, examine it before you accept its conclusions. As three questions:
    1. Are the statements – the premises – the points being made and used as evidence – true?
    2. Is the evidence complete? Or has the evidence been one-sided?
    3. Does the conclusion come incontrovertibly from the evidence? Or might a different conclusion just as easily have come from the evidence?
15. Finally, no matter how skilled in argument you may become, never forget the opening sentence of Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado”:
    The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.
    The world does not need another smart aleck.

Cross-posted from Morgantown Atheists

Related posts

• The Law Of Attraction- And The Secret -Are Bullshit (64)
• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (1)
• How To Argue (8)
• How People Tend To Think And Respond (3)
• Burden Of Proof Lies With The Claimant (9)

History might credit him with a much darker deed though, not surprisingly one the church usually fails to mention or attempts to brush under the rug. Although not official of course, some have referred to him as the patron saint of arsonists. His leadership possibly brought about what is probably the single most destructive annihilation of knowledge in human history.

The Great Library of Alexandria is thought to have been founded around the beginning of the third century BCE. A museum, a research institute, and a library, it was the first of its kind. Besides attempting to collect all the world’s knowledge, it housed a number of esteemed scholars; and boasted the latest works in mathematics, astronomy, physics, natural sciences and other subjects. It was at the Library of Alexandria that the scientific method was first conceptualized and utilized.

There are several descriptions of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all from different periods in time. First in 48BCE by Julius Caesar, then by the attack of Aurelian in the third century CE, by the decree of Theopilus (Cyril’s uncle) in 391CE, by the mob incited by Cyril’s followers around 416CE, and finally by the Muslim conquests around 642CE. Its probable that all of these caused damage to the library in some form or another; but historians have been as-yet unable to say when its complete destruction came about. When it was destroyed though, one of the greatest repositories of knowledge was lost to humankind; somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million volumes of knowledge were lost, many of them forever.

The hypothesis that Cyril’s followers destroyed the library stems from stories of the murder of Hypatia. Hypatia of Alexandria was a Greek scholar who taught philosophy and astronomy at the library, as well as being a notable contributor in the field of mathematics. And a woman; something completely unheard of at the time. Hypatia came into conflict with Cyril, first because of her friendship to Orestes (the prefect of Alexandria, and stanch resistor of Cyril’s agenda for a church-ruled government); and secondly because of the church’s view of many sciences being heretical or associated with paganism. Hypatia was murdered in 415 at the hands of a Christian mob led by Cyril’s assistant, after being incited by Cyril to oppose Orestes and his allies. Without her leadership to defend the library, it was only a matter of time before Cyril was able to convince and incite his followers that the libraries association with paganism and heresies deemed it an enemy of the church and a target for destruction.

Here is an excerpt from Cosmos where Carl Sagan talks about the Library of Alexandria:

If a story has conflict (especially religious or political), with a fight, a murder, and little intrigue… You know Hollywood is going to take a crack at ruining it. And this story is no exception of course. Agora has already been released in a few locations in Europe; but oddly has no US release date. The movie sets the time in 391CE, with the main character as Hypatia; but also including Theophilus, Cyril, Orestes, and a Muslim invasion. So I would speculate that Hollywood is blending three of the destruction stories.

A last little side note: Some historians speculate that the library may have contained actual writings of Jesus (instead of all the third-hand stories). A little conspiracy theory, I know; but if Jesus existed and he did write, how different might that writing be than what the Catholic church collected and distributed?

Information pulled from here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Related posts

• Scientific Explanation For Supernatural Events (8)
• The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution (1)
• Superstitious? It Could Be Your Lack Of Control (5)
• Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant (3)
• FREE Scanning Electron Micrographs of Just About Anything (5)

I can’t remember who twittered this yesterday, but I noticed this site: The Center for Atheist Research.

Want to help researchers learn about atheists, brights and humanists and how we think? I took the atheist survey yesterday and it was quite thorough. It took about 25 minutes at the most, and I felt like I was being counted, so to speak. As a housewife activist atheist, I really don’t fit what people think “nones” are, so it’s nice to share my worldview with people interested in looking at such things.

Oh, it’s completely confidential. They don’t take any personal information so if you’re in the closet don’t worry, you’re secret is safe with them.

Here’s what they say on their home page:

Atheists and other secularists who have a naturalistic worldview (a philosophy of life that does not involve a belief in God, higher powers, or anything supernatural) have been understudied by the social sciences.
The Center for Atheist Research was founded to address this omission, and seeks to give individuals across the religious/spiritual/secular spectrum the chance to contribute their perspective on topics within the psychology and sociology of atheism and secularity by participating in Internet-accessible academic research.

You can choose from the following current research studies:

• The Atheist Experience
• The Bright Experience
• The Secular Humanist Experience
• Your Perspective On Those Who Do Not Believe

Related posts

• Justifying Our False Beliefs (18)
• Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness (0)
• What Would An Atheist Free America Be Like? (8)
• The Christian Questionnaire (6)
• Swearing Brings Pain Relief (6)

I had my doubts about this; I got an offer from ASPEX corporation to let people get free scanning electron micrographs of just about anything. They make a desktop SEM, and all you have to do is fill out a form and mail it in with your sample of a dead bug or a microchip or bacon, and presto, within a few weeks they’ll have it scanned in and the image available on their website.

I asked them if they knew how many readers I have, and they said no problem, they can handle it.

Huh.

Well, you heard them. Scavenge your trash cans, dig into your local sources of vermin and oddments, and send them in. I’m thinking this could be really fun for any school teachers out there — you could have the whole class looking for interesting specimens to zoom in on. You can see their current galleries for ideas.

If you do send something in to get scanned be sure to note that you found them via PZ; and be sure to come back here and share your scan with the rest of us.

Related posts

• Wow. It’s Over! And Other Goodness (2)
• We Are Lions! (4)
• The Greatest Destruction of Knowledge (2)
• Superstitious? It Could Be Your Lack Of Control (5)
• Scientific Explanation For Supernatural Events (8)

So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

If only politicians today would take this view, instead of attacking that wall of separation.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

Truly he was a politician who understood the founding of our county; for although beliefs of our founding fathers may have varied, they knew that the success of the nation depended upon religious freedom, and to have religious freedom you must have separation of church and state.

You can find the full speech transcript on NPR’s site.

Related posts

• [UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center (5)
• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (24)
• Kingsville: King of Ignorance (7)
• Congress Goes to Recess – Secular Successes and Failures So Far This Year (7)
• Wow. It’s Over! And Other Goodness (2)