What is a Bright? The same as an Atheist?

Very annoyed with the Founding Brights

Worldwide Brights Meetup Message Board

Wendell	Posted Sep 27, 2006 at 2:35 PM
isaone Nashville, TN 15th Post	Arrgh! I just read this article by the 'founders' http://www.stnews.org... and at the risk of being disloyal I completely disagree with the manner in which they attempt to avoid the fact that by definition a Bright must be an Atheist unless you somehow manage to define the term God being nothing Supernatural. They state A common misconception is that brights are atheists. Then later the network has Buddhists, Druids, pantheists, transhumanists, Unitarians, Wiccans and Yogis. A gamut of folks ? Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, Muslims ? uphold some of a religion?s cultural aspects but not its supernaturalism. There are plenty of ?nones? ? the individuals who, when confronted by a questionnaire that asks, ?Religion?? will state, ?None.? The naturalistic worldview embraces a broad civic arena. This is just the kind of linguistic gymnastics that annoys me when often used by Theists. They list various belief labels and religions to imply that a person who is one of those must not be an Atheist but this is by no means true yet they ignore the actual definitions of the terms Bright and Atheist themselves. I hope that they are doing this in order to try to avoid the equating of Bright with Atheist and not because they are self deluded enough to actually believe what they are saying. They do mention in the article the correct approach which is to emphasis that Brights are actually a subset of Atheists brights may be atheists, atheists who have supernatural beliefs in astrology or who wear magnets to ward off disease are not brights. If this level of Intelletual Dishonesty is what is required to get the movement off the ground I may have to resign my commission. I have wrtitten them on this. I await their reply. Edited by Wendell on Sep 28, 2006 at 2:37 AM
Kristine	Posted Oct 8, 2006 at 11:29 PM
Wendell	Posted Oct 16, 2006 at 5:07 PM Link to this reply
isaone Nashville, TN 20th Post	I was amazed to find that the people on the thread where I posted this question for the most part simply either do not think it is important or disagree with me. The discussion on the thread went back and forth and around and around. if you are interested it is here. In short they do not agree with my position that it is important that we actually define who we are. They seem to want to avoid the entire questions of defining "Naturalistic" (which I admit is a minefield). They also are very very very sensitive about the idea that the Brights are just another name for atheists (which is not my position at all, I merely believe that by definition a Bright must be an atheist). I understand the need to create a new term not contaminated with the connotations of 'atheist' but I am not willing to do it at the risk of not even understanding who we are. I also still feel that it is much like the ID believers who refuse to take a stance on the age of the earth (8,000 years vs 4.5 billion) because they do not want to lose either of the main groups of believers who otherwise support them. If we are not willing to define who we are I think we water down our message to the extent that we will fail in acheiving anything.
Akkdio	Posted Oct 22, 2006 at 2:44 AM
user 2585827 Baltimore, MD 1st Post	Hmmm. I don't like the word atheist either but agree that it is time the people "come out" about their beliefs. How many can say "I don't believe in God" out loud. Ok. Now try it in front of your Mom/patriarchal figure that grips their heart in silent prayer. Its personal and it is hard but we must encourage ourselves and others to do it. I am looking for an organization that puts reason first and take the Sam Harris view that you must have good reasons... to believe what you do. My definition of good is evolving but it should be based on our well honed scientific process for theory. That would be a start. As to linguistic gymnastics... Is there such a group call The Reasonists? If there is I apologize but I think that would be a good name for a group that can develop or join others in the pursuit of reason. With Reason, Andrew
Brent Gulanowski	Posted Nov 9, 2006 at 11:03 AM
user 2834703 Toronto, ON 1st Post	You should think about this more and stop being so partisan. There's no necessity to think that a belief in God is a belief in the supernatural, because it is not necessary for God to be supernatural, depending on your definition of God. And, unfortunately for your argument, there is no strict definition for God. Thus, belief in god, disbelief in god, or disinterest in god has no bearing on whether an individual believes in the supernatural. Personally, I think the anti-religious focus on God is totally off-base. The problem with supernaturalism is not God, but spirit, including the soul, angels, devils, or any other kind of invisible, conscious being (unseen agency) which has the power to influence the material world and human affairs. Granted, by far the majority of believers see God in this way, but not all. Anti-religion efforts should be on the rejection of belief in the soul and life-after-death. God is irrelevant. No soul, no heaven or hell or otherwise, and religion falls apart. You can still have religion and supernaturalism without God. So you are wasting your time on this crusade.
Brent Gulanowski	Posted Nov 9, 2006 at 11:09 AM
user 2834703 Toronto, ON 2nd Post	They do mention in the article the correct approach which is to emphasis that Brights are actually a subset of Atheists brights may be atheists, atheists who have supernatural beliefs in astrology or who wear magnets to ward off disease are not brights. I think you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about basic set theory. They are not describing a sub-set, according to your excerpt, but an intersection of two sets (atheists and brights). Some brights are atheists, some atheists are brights. Their point, which you've utterly missed, is that some atheists may still be supernaturalists, too, in which case, they aren't brights.
Leo	Posted Jan 29, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Leo123 Chicago, IL 40th Post	To the last poster: Sorry dont see it your way at all, if one is an Atheist, they dont believe in astrology, nor god or anything supernatural. Every act or thing that happens has a reason and a scientific explaination, just because mankind is too stupid to know how it works, dont make it supernatural, their is an explaination. I AM AN ATHEIST, go ahead and say it, say it again and again. Atheism is FREEDOM, true freedom from religion, freedom from the shackels that bind faithers together. All faithers are blind to the truth, through fear or ignorance, or greed. Theist is a person with belief in a god, Atheist is a person without belief in a god. An Atheist knows there is no god, and can actually prove it. The term god has been changing over the years, some now define it as a binding force of all living things. Thank you Steven Speilberg for Star Wars and the Farse, I mean Force. Whether there is energy that binds all living things together in some way does not create a god, it would be some sort of physics. A god is an entity that has absolute control of its enviroment, and command of all that exists. In more ancient times, gods were prioritized, having powers over different elements of existance. If in fact some creature created man, they are not gods, they are but creatures like man that believe in science and work it for either pleasure, entertainment, or for fact finding. If we were created, our creators left long ago, or are just sitting back and laughing at us struggle with the pety concepts we let rule our logical brains ... I AM AN ATHEIST, I KNOW there is no god, and can prove it, I will not go away ...

Views and Truth

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com "When two people hold diametrically opposite points of view, the truth does not necessarily lie somewhere in between. It is possible that one of them is simply wrong." Roger Smith Bio

Fallacy of Many Questions

clipped from en.wikipedia.org Fallacy of Many Questions or Fallacy of a Loaded Question (Plurium Interrogationum), wherein several questions are improperly grouped in the form of one, and a direct categorical answer is demanded, e.g. if a prosecuting counsel asked the defendant " What time was it when you met this man? " with the intention of eliciting the tacit admission that such a meeting had taken place. Another example is the classic line, "Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?"

Begging the Question

clipped from en.wikipedia.org Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion.

Appeal to Authority

A type of Irrelevant Conclusion

clipped from en.wikipedia.org An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable. On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof.

Argumentum ad Populum

Type of Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy

clipped from en.wikipedia.org An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable." This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

Ad Hominem Fallacy

A type of Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy

clipped from en.wikipedia.org An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Killed in the name of "tallness"

clipped from atheism.about.com How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism? Response: None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

Should the secular minority remain silent?

Rational for atheist activism.

clipped from atheism.about.com But why should the nonreligious, nonaffiliated, secular minority in the country remain silent? We dissenters now comprise some 14 to 16 percent of the population. Why should religion be held immune from criticism, and why should the admission that one is a disbeliever be considered so disturbing? The Bush administration has supported faith-based charities—though their efficacy has not been adequately tested; it has prohibited federal funding for stem cell research; it has denied global warming; and it has imposed abstinence programs instead of promoting condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS. Much of this mischief is religiously inspired. How can we remain mute while Islam and the West are poised for a possible protracted world conflagration in the name of God?

Videos concerning atheism vs religion

clipped from mail.google.com http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?video=00095 http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?video=00069 http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?video=00054 http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?video=00052 http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?video=00033 http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?video=00005 http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?video=00004 http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?video=00002

Science v Faith

not a bad approximation of the "Scientific Method". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
and
http://tinyurl.com/2mnno6

"The successes of the scientific method, to say nothing of our everyday experience, ought to have taught us all by now that this faculty called reason only works well when it is fed a carefully prepared diet of quantifiable, verifiable data from the outer world. And even then it is apt to go wrong, so the results we get must always be held lightly, as current best estimates, rather than tightly, as eternal truths. Eternal truths too often begin to look like weapons, and weapons tightly held are too often used."

clipped from www.wellingtongrey.net

The Descent of Dissent

to view a larger image go to the clipped from link

clipped from www.swarthmore.edu

Perseverance

Through such tragedy and loss, greatness can still be found. Remember always, to persevere, persist, and hope. One day you just might reach your dream, but only if you never gave up.

clipped from www.lead-america.org At the age of seven, a young boy and his family were forced out of their home. The boy had to work to support his family. At the age of nine, his mother passed away. When he grew up, the young man was keen to go to law school, but had no education. At 22, he lost his job as a store clerk. At 23, he ran for state legislature and lost. The same year, he went into business. It failed, leaving him with a debt that took him 17 years to repay. At 27, he had a nervous breakdown. By 35, he had been defeated twice running for Congress. Finally, he managed to secure a brief term in Congress, but at 39, he lost his reelection bid. At 41, his four-year-old son died. At 42, he was rejected as a prospective land officer. At 45, he ran for the Senate and lost. Two years later, he lost the vice presidential nomination. At 49, he ran for the Senate and lost again. At 51, he was elected president of the United States of America. The man in question: Abraham Lincoln.

Children's Sleep Needs

clipped from www.aafp.org Change in Hours of Daytime and Nighttime Sleep with Increasing Age FIGURE 1. In newborns, the amount of sleep is divided fairly equally between night and day. In the normal infant, nighttime sleep gradually becomes consolidated over the first year into a single uninterrupted block of time, and daytime sleep gradually decreases over the first three years. Adapted with permission from Ferber R. Solve your child's sleep problems. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.

Textbook Disclaimer Stickers

Wording for the first disclaimer (top left) is taken verbatim from the sticker designed by the Cobb County School District ("A community with a passion for learning") in Georgia, which actually plagiarized Alabama's evolution disclaimer (view). Really, I'm not making any of this up. The other 14 are mildly educational variants that demonstrate the real meaning of a scientific "theory" as well as the true motivations of the School Board members and their creationist supporters. Ideally, the above stickers will deter other districts from using textbook disclaimers as a way to undermine the teaching of evolution.

clipped from www.swarthmore.edu

Every eight seconds, a young child dies from lack of water or a waterborne disease.

Awful.

clipped from www.nature.org I recently attended an international water conference during which the keynote speaker revealed a shocking statistic: Every eight seconds, a young child dies from lack of water or a waterborne disease. He equated this to a 747 jetliner full of kids going down every hour. Stunned by the enormity of this tragedy, I reflected on the relevance of our conservation work to this year’s World Water Day theme of water scarcity. The lack of suitable water for people and for nature is a growing crisis: More than 1 billion humans lack access to clean drinking water. Two billion — almost one in every three people on the planet — do not have adequate sanitation facilities or electricity.

Brief History of Disbelief & the Atheism Tapes - Johnathan Miller

I love these programmes made by Johnathan Miller. I recorded the whole series on my Archos but the set below is web friendly.

Link to 6 videos

• Brief History of Disbelief
  

  Jonathan Miller's history of atheism Part 1,2 & 3

• The Atheism Tapes 1 & 2 : Colin Mcginn & Steven Weinberg

  A Spin-off from Jonathan Miller's 'A Brief History of Disbelief', including interviews about atheism with Colin Mcginn & Steven Weinberg

• The Atheism Tapes 3 & 4 : Arthur Miller & Richard Dawkins

  A spin-off from the 'A Brief History of Disbelief': Jonathan Miller is conversation with Arthur Miller and Richard Dawkins, about atheism....

• The Atheism Tapes 5 & 6 : Denys Turner & Daniel Dennet

  A spin-off from the 'A Brief History of Disbelief': Jonathan Miller is conversation with Denys Turner & Daniel Dennet

reposted from: richarddawkins
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Religious liberals

by Terry Sanderson

Going to extremes

Engaging with religious liberals will not help to undermine extremists; it will only enable and protect them.

March 20, 2007 2:30 PM | Printable version

There's an argument in religious circles that goes: in order to undermine the fanatics we have to encourage the liberal elements of religion. If you want to stop suicide bombers, you have to encourage the more moderate voices in Islam to speak up. The same argument surfaces regularly in Christian circles - yes, there are fundamentalists out there doing horrible things, but you can't judge all Christians by the activities of the minority at the extremes, it goes. Why not support the good guys who are doing their best and being ever so nice?

It's a seductive argument and I used to subscribe to it myself. But I've changed my mind.

As president of the National Secular Society I am are constantly approached by religious groups wanting to engage us in their pursuit of "interfaith dialogue". They want, they say, to "break down barriers", and who doesn't?

But once involved in these groups, it soon becomes clear that they are all from the liberal tradition. One set of moderates talking to another. The people who really need to engage - the jihadis and the literalists - are off practising the sectarian warfare they are so fond of. Let's talk? No, let's abuse human rights, persecute infidels and preach hate.

I've come to realise that the delusions of the liberals are not qualitatively different from those entertained by the Pat Robertsons or Abu Hamzas of this world.

The danger that these apparently harmless liberals pose is that of enabling the fanatics, who happily use them as human shields. Just as the terrorists of the Middle East will hide out in schools and hospitals to avoid being targeted by enemy bombs, so the ideological terrorists hide behind the liberals and the good-natured in order to spread their doctrine of intimidation and terror.

The poor, bleating liberals who are constantly complaining that their faith is not only misunderstood by its non-adherents, but also perverted by the fanatics who share it. There they stand, having spent a lifetime reinforcing in their heads the childhood brainwashing that they will never overcome, and making excuses for the same beliefs that motivate bombers and theocrats, misogynists and homophobes. This hinders the rest of us getting a clear run at the villains.

The liberals pave the way, open the doors and give succour to the very people they say bring their faith into disrepute. But it's no good the liberals trying to dissociate themselves from their wilder compatriots in faith. They promote and praise the same holy books that the fanatics use as justification for their murderous activities. "But the terrorists and the bigots are not true Christians/Muslims" say the liberals, while the bigots and the terrorists say exactly the same thing about them.

Or, as Sam Harris said in a recent essay:

"The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists, men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals 'who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally' deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society."

I am now accustomed to being accused of practising "fundamentalist secularism" and "atheist extremism" by religious reactionaries, but now the terms are being eagerly embraced by liberals. But a moment's thought would tell the liberals that democratic secularism is their best friend. Not only does it protect those of no belief from being persecuted by over-mighty and ruthless religious regimes, but it offers protection to the smaller religious groups who have become used to being stamped on by their holier-than-thou big brothers (try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia, for instance).

Liberals in religious traditions may not have evil intentions towards their fellow men, but they provide cover for their fellow believers who do.

reposted from: CIF
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

The Great Global Warming Swindle - 1

Watch a full repeat of the 70 minute programme here or 8 x 10 minute clips here.

Forums > Climate Change in the Media > The Great Global Warming Swindle

from jo_hamilton on 9th Mar 07, 13:06:48

Did you see 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Ch4, Thurs 8th March? What did you think of the programme? you can see the background info on the programme, and vote via this link to the Channel 4 website. Post your comments below.

---

---

from fred on 9th Mar 07, 13:57:35

A fine example of tabloid TV journalism, consisting largely of tightly-edited soundbites and very little extended analysis.

Sure - many of the issues that it featured were, in themselves, respectable pieces of science, at least as far as identifying past drivers of climate are concerned. But the fact that cosmic ray levels may have influenced terrestrial climate over the past 545 million years doesn't mean that anthropogenic CO2 isn't doing so today.

And in all the discussion of the correlations between global temperature and atmospheric carbon throughout the glacial-interglacial periods, absolutely no mention was made of the Milankovitch cycles. While variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt do explain many past climatic variations (and the fact that atmospheric carbon levels trailed rather than led temperature changes), they do not explain currently-observed warming trends.

Likewise, much was made of John Christy's work indicating that satellite and radiosonde measurements of tropospheric temperatures were incompatible with carbon-driven warming. However, there was absolutely no mention of the fact that most of this discrepancy has now been dismissed as an artefact caused by measurment inaccuracies.

But the crowning irony of the programme was to suggest that current concerns about global warming are driven by scientists' venal desire to obtain more research funding by promulgating environmental scare stories. It asks us to believe that national governments are more willing to fund "pro-global warming" research than Exxon-Mobil is to underwrite studies showing the opposite. A brief glance at the past relationship between the tobacco industry and research on smoking and health should lay that particular conspiracy theory firmly to rest.

All in all, a wonderful piece of sophistry that simply cries out to be subjected to a detailed and merciless refutation.

---

from jo_hamilton on 9th Mar 07, 23:02:37

For some very interesting background profiles, and discussion, on people featured in the programme, see the latest posting on http://www.climatedenial.org/ .

Answers to some of the FAQs that the programme raises can be found on the Met Office website http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/2.html.

from fred on 10th Mar 07, 21:24:51

An excellent rebuttal of many of GGWS's points is contained in http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
by Sir John Houghton, FRS CBE. According to Wikipedia, he is the co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) working group, the lead editor of first three IPCC reports, and was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.

Don't know if the reference to his rebuttal article has been inserted as a hyperlink - if not, can someone with more technical savvy than me hyperlink it please.

---

from fred on 10th Mar 07, 21:29:34

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

Maybe this one worked. Hope so.

---

from gobion on 12th Mar 07, 14:49:18

The problem with programmes like this one is that 10-minutes after it has been shown I get my stepfather on the phone asking questions about it. Unfortunately he tends to believe the last thing told to him and as ever in my opinion they didn't do enough to show the agenda being pushed there...

I did notice the letter in the Sunday Observer refuting the claims in the show signed by various luminaries including Myles Allen from ClimatePredicton.net. I'm pleased to see them tackling it.

Cheers,

Gobion

---

---

from dave on 14th Mar 07, 15:36:24

Frankly... I didn't like how they stopped showing the records at about 1980. I also think it's fairly obvious that the director knew what he wanted footage of. It's easy to tell that a lot of "if"s and "buts" and "maybe"s have been simply cut out. Oh, and I'm fairly certain (and will look for a better source in a moment) that humans emit more C02 than volcanoes.

---

from ojwoodford on 15th Mar 07, 11:28:04

As someone who feels they understand the basic drivers of climate, it did make me stop and think that I am taking a lot for granted. Having said that, the program was full of annoying contradictions. I'll go and read the rebuttals that people have posted links to, to make sure I have the full picture.

---

from dave on 15th Mar 07, 17:22:02

Here's an interesting article that came up on Digg, the gist of which indicates that the graphs shown in the program were far from unbiased against global warming. Interestingly, I've had a friend repeatedly claim that all who oppose the program are conspirators in some kind of "plot". I can understand the need to be cautious, but some of this conspiracy theory is bordering upon hysteria, not to mention paranoia.

---

from ian on 19th Mar 07, 14:13:39

Likewise there has been an interesting discussion about the programme here. A lot of strong opinions from both sides of the fence on this and some good articles linked in the comments.

I think my main concern with the climate change issue being so divisive is that this isn't an ideological issue - it's a purely scientific issue, not a political one, not a cultural one... and yet we have people acting as if this is some conflict of science versus society. This issue shouldn't be another creationism vs evolution debate - there are no scriptures that say that the earth was created in 6 days and on the 7th God gave man an SUV and saw that it was good.

In principle, I can respect a climate sceptic provided that the result of their scepticism is to go out and do peer-reviewed studies to try and produce more accurate data. That's what the scientific method is all about... but these people, influenced by their socio-political bias, who promote a kind of "climate denial", claiming it is some culture conspiracy, are causing a great deal of harm to the public's perception of what, to me, is a very simple issue:

There is a correlation between carbon emissions produced by human activities and rising global temperatures. While the precice levels of influence and the specific ways that these changes will manifest are varied, complex and in some cases uncertain, the fact of the matter is that we would be incredibly foolish as a society to risk ruining the environment we have with practices that can be avoided by implementing alternative measures. It's really straight-forward and the fewer of these programs that complicate that issue we have the better, imho.

reposted from: www.climatex.org
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Couch potato lifestyles 'costs NHS £1 billion'

Inactivity 'costs NHS £1 billion'

The researchers say more should be done to help people be active

Couch potato lifestyles cost the health service more than £1 billion a year, research suggests.

The Oxford University study calculated physical inactivity was directly responsible for 3% of all deaths and illness in 2002.

Writing in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the researchers said more needed to be done to help people be more active.

Heart experts said GPs could offer advice on how to start exercising.

The risks of not being active enough are well known, but only a third of men and a quarter of women are meeting government targets.

These say adults should take 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week, while children and young people should take 60 minutes.

Heart disease

The researchers calculated the amount of disease and early death attributable to physical inactivity, using information from the World Health Organization.

Things like social dances for older people make a big difference Dr Steven Allender, University of Oxford

They focussed on coronary artery heart disease, stroke, breast and bowel cancers and diabetes, calculating the total number of deaths, illness, and disability associated with them in 2002.

They then used a calculation called the population attributable factor, which works out the proportion of disease which can be attributable to a particular risk factor - in this case inactivity - and applied this to the UK data.

Altogether, 287,206 people died from diseases associated with a lack of exercise in 2003/4, of which more than 35,000 were directly attributable to physical inactivity.

The direct cost to the NHS, including inpatient stays, outpatient appointments, drugs, community care, and visits to primary care practitioners amounted to £1.06 billion.

Of this, coronary heart disease accounted for £526 million.

But the researchers said the cost could be even higher as the estimates did not take into account additional costs such as lost productivity or informal care.

Everyday lives

The team led by Dr Steven Allender of the department of public health at Oxford University, said: "We are not arguing that the findings of this paper change the importance given to achieving a reduction in the main risk factors for premature mortality such as smoking.

"We are arguing that the potential impact of changing other risk factors would be further enhanced if they were to include an increase in physical activity.

"There is an economic case for developing policies and interventions that promote physical activity."

Dr Allender added: "Activity needs to be a lot easier for people to fit into their everyday lives.

"For instance, we know a lot of people don't ride their bikes because of concerns over road safety and traffic density.

"At a more local level, things like social dances for older people make a big difference."

Steve Shaffelburg, of the British Heart Foundation, which is launching a campaign next month to encourage people to be more active, said: "This research is yet more evidence showing how important physical activity is for our overall health, and especially for our heart health.

"All adults should aim to take 30 minutes of moderate physical activity on five days a week at least. It can be enjoyable, cheap and easy to fit into everyday life. Brisk walking, swimming and gardening are great examples.

"You are never too old to start being active, but people who are not used to physical activity and not sure of what activity is right for them should discuss it with their GP."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6466019.stm

RELATED INTERNET LINKS

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

British Heart Foundation

University of Oxford

reposted from: bbc
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Oxford Literary Festival with Richard Dawkins, MATT RIDLEY, ROBERT MAY, LENNY SMITH et al

From Tuesday, 20 March to Sunday, 25 March Friday is a good day. How to book.

Friday, 23 March 2007

60 MATT RIDLEY Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code 2.30 pm • £7.50 • Newman Rooms

In 1953, Francis Crick walked into a pub in Cambridge and announced that he and his colleague James Watson ‘had found the secret of life’. Indeed they had; they had worked out the structure of DNA, discovering its ‘double helix’ form, one which could replicate itself, confirming theories that it carried life’s hereditary information. Matt Ridley’s life of Crick begins with his birth in 1916, his early explosive experiments at primary school and his time developing torpedoes in the Navy. After his genetic code discovery, which won him the Nobel Prize, the scientist’s later work was rarely uncontroversial.

61 TONY JUNIPER, DIANA LIVERMAN, MARK LYNAS and ROBERT MAY How do we Change Climate Change? 4 pm • £7.50 • Marquee, Christ Church

We may dispute exactly how much the temperature will rise this century but anything over 2°C risks catastrophic climate change. Rich countries are responsible for 80% of the man-made increase in CO2 and the poor countries will bear the brunt of impact, although it will affect us all. Whose responsibility is it to act? Do carbon trading schemes work? Should we be planning to double air transport by 2020? How can we produce energy less dangerously? Is blaming China and India an excuse for inaction? What exactly are we going to do and are we willing to pay for it—before it’s too late? Discussing these issues are Tony Juniper, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth and author of How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change a Planet, Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees, and Robert May, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government, 2000-05, chaired by Diana Liverman, Director of the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford.

LENNY SMITH Very Short Introduction Soapbox: Chaos 5.30 pm • free • Blackwell Festival Bookshop, Marquee, Christ Church

Chaos exists in systems all around us. Lenny Smith briefly draws on philosophy, literature, and mathematics to illuminate Chaos Theory, showing the variety of its fascinating applications in the real world—including technology, politics, and even gambling on the stock market.

Sponsored by Oxford University Press

69 NICHOLAS HARBERD Seed to Seed: The Secret Life of Plants 6 pm • £7.50 • Festival Room 2, Christ Church

Nicholas Harberd, one of the world’s leading plant biologists, tells of the changing seasons, taking as his focus one tiny thale-cress plant in an East Anglian churchyard. He describes both what can be seen with the naked eye and the hidden molecular mechanisms that underlie the visible events in the plant’s life. He also tells the story of the last ten years of scientific discovery in his own laboratory, as the team works to understand the genetic control of the growth of thale-cress—the fruit-fly of the plant world. Part field notebook, part sketchbook, part diary, Seed to Seed is a dazzling evocation of the beauty of the natural world and an exhilarating explanation of the secret workings of plants.

151 RICHARD DAWKINS and ROD LIDDLE with JOAN BAKEWELL The God Delusion 8 pm • £8.50 • Marquee, Christ Church

Does religious belief damage the health of a society, or is it necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society? While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fundamentalism— whether in the Middle East or Middle America— is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world. How are states shaped, with or without religion, and is the mixing of religion and politics always lethal? Richard Dawkins, author of the highly successful The God Delusion discusses these issues with writer and broadcaster Rod Liddle, chaired by Joan Bakewell.

http://www.sundaytimes-oxfordliteraryfestival.co.uk/events_23march.htm#060

reposted from: richarddawkins.net
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments