START GTD SUMMARY

A statistical summary by – Heather Spoonheim

Synopsis - GTD

TOC

The information included herein summarizes data from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), maintained by The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), based at the University of Maryland. At the time of this writing, May 14, 2001, the START webpage states that the GTD includes information on over 87,000 terrorist events, spanning the years 1970 through 2008.

Disclaimer

TOC

The information included herein is not guaranteed for accuracy. It is recommended that the following information only be used with a citation to the GTD so that queries can be rechecked for accuracy.

The Total Fatalities Dataset (TFD)

TOC

A May 14, 2001 query of the GTD for records that included a non-zero entry for fatal casualties returned 36,153 records. This dataset of 36,153 records is herein called the Total Fatalities Dataset (TFD). The oldest events in the TFD are GTD ID records 197000000001, 197001000001, and 197001110001 (all 3 are referenced here because the first two do not specify the day of the event, although all three are dated for 1970). The most recent event in the TFD is GTD ID number 200812310012, which specifies a date of December 31, 2008. There are 5 events in the TFD that specify a date of December 31, 2008.(Disclaimer)

Table of Contents

• Synopsis
• Disclaimer
• The Total Fatalities Dataset (TFD)
• General Summaries of the TFD
• Table Summaries of the TFD
• Total Fatalities by Country
• sorted by country
• sorted by fatalities
• Total Fatalities by Terrorist Group
• Terrorist Groups Killing 1000 or More
• al-Qaeda
• Fatalities Count Distribution
• Worst Terrorist Events
• Graph Summaries of the TFD
• Graph of Worldwide Fatalities Per Year
• Graph of Worldwide Fatalities - Cumulative

General Summaries of the TFD

TOC

• The TFD includes records of 36,153 terrorist events that resulted in at least 1 fatal casualty.


• The total number of fatalities recorded in the TFD is 201,594.


• There are 3,355 records in the TFD which do not specify a count of non-fatal casualties.


• There are 32,798 records in the TFD which do specify a count of non-fatal casualties. These 32,798 records record a total of 178,025 fatal casualties and 196,202 non-fatal casualties.


• There are 19,329 records in the TFD which specify 0 non-fatal casualties. These 19,329 records record a total of 95,262 fatal casualties and include; 9157 records that specify 1 fatal casualty, 2973 records that specify 2 casualties, and 1625 records that specify 3 casualties. GTD ID number 199404130008 references a record that specifies 0 non-fatal casualties and 1180 fatal casualties.


• The TFD contains 1510 different entries for terrorist groups, including the designation “Unknown” and 6 other entries containing the word ‘Unknown’. Records specifying the terrorist group as ‘Unknown’ record 62,136 fatalities and records containing a terrorist group entry containing the word ‘Unknown’ (although not just ‘Unknown’) record 38 fatalities.


• Disclaimer

Table Summaries of the TFD

TOC

Total Fatalities by Country

Total Fatalities by Country - sorted by country

TOC

The following table summarizes the TFD by country, showing total fatalities for each country as well as the totals for the 5 year periods preceding the years indicated.(note that the TFD ends on December 31,2008)(Disclaimer)

Country	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	Total
Afghanistan		53		138	148	105	866	3493	4803
Albania					1	80	2		83
Algeria					288	6708	1660	563	9219
Angola		19	467	363	371	747	1040		3007
Argentina	52	276	3	34	119	2			486
Armenia					16	16			32
Australia	1	2	3	8	9				23
Austria	4	5	5	6					20
Azerbaijan					204			5	209
Bahrain					1	10		1	12
Bangladesh			13	300	217	102	167	77	876
Barbados		73			3				76
Belarus						2			2
Belgium		2	10	16	4				32
Belize					2				2
Bhutan								9	9
Bolivia			13	6	16				35
Bosnia-Herzegovina					27	14	2	3	46
Botswana	1			4	6				11
Brazil	2	5	48	15	42	44		20	176
Bulgaria			2				8		10
Burkina Faso			1		1				2
Burundi					804	2809	531	76	4220
Cambodia	3	1		11	237	168	26	1	447
Cameroon					52			34	86
Canada	2		1	332				1	336
Central African Republic			3		3		14	6	26
Chad					210	81	20	247	558
Chile		6	79	99	30				214
China				20	25	95	42	38	220
Colombia	1	282	1810	4200	1961	2781	1458	419	12912
Congo (Brazzaville)			15			109	47		171
Congo (Kinshasa)		1	2	28	12	328	164	431	966
Corsica			6	7	4	2			19
Costa Rica			8	1		4			13
Croatia					239	2			241
Cuba					3	2		1	6
Cyprus	1	3	9	12					25
Czech Republic						2			2
Czechoslovakia					1				1
Denmark				1	1				2
Djibouti		5		10	237	11			263
Dominica			3						3
Dominican Republic	1	4	6	8	5	6			30
East Germany (GDR)	1			1					2
Ecuador		4	6	30	5				45
Egypt	1	4	68	17	53	225	42	112	522
El Salvador		328	8891	2482	741	2			12444
Equatorial Guinea					1				1
Eritrea								4	4
Ethiopia	4	131	200	41	507	8	6	255	1152
Fiji					1				1
Finland								9	9
France	9	44	73	60	8		4	4	202
French Guiana			1						1
Gabon		2				8			10
Gambia					13				13
Georgia					96	116	8	32	252
Germany					17	6			23
Ghana						2			2
Gibraltar				3					3
Great Britain	88	27	68	293	11	4	2	72	565
Greece	99	17	19	92	54	2	2	63	348
Grenada			9						9
Guadeloupe			5	2	1				8
Guatemala	2	125	4172	580	166	36	8	5	5094
Guinea			1				109		110
Guinea-Bissau							2	11	13
Guyana		6	2					29	37
Haiti			5	7	212	12	24	4	264
Honduras		1	101	57	25	6	28		218
Hong Kong					1				1
Hungary						2			2
India		31	359	2828	3285	2566	3753	2849	15671
Indonesia		1	6	92	64	182	640	87	1072
International							2		2
Iran	7	527	447	91	88	28	8	121	1317
Iraq		13	105	43	132	325	3235	18440	22293
Ireland	46	24	22	11	3	2		1	109
Israel	110	145	40	86	135	122	966	168	1772
Italy	88	80	186	28	13	2	4	2	403
Ivory Coast					1	34	30	58	123
Jamaica		4	16	3	3	2			28
Japan		11	2	8	3	12			36
Jordan	3	9	2		1		2	64	81
Kazakhstan					2	2	4	2	10
Kenya		31	13	4	184	426	26	182	866
Kosovo						42	76	3	121
Kuwait		1	7	14	2		12	2	38
Kyrgyzstan						2	10	1	13
Laos				2	3		20		25
Latvia							2		2
Lebanon	4	93	1080	1330	251	120	32	220	3130
Lesotho			29	4					33
Liberia					139			12	151
Libya			15						15
Macedonia							69	2	71
Madagascar					12				12
Malawi					30		2		32
Malaysia		105		29					134
Mali					170			75	245
Malta		1		1	3				5
Mauritania		4						35	39
Mexico	3	81	17	2	74	339	4	55	575
Moldova					10			2	12
Morocco		10		202	5		71	3	291
Mozambique		36	115	1799	603	13		6	2572
Myanmar		86	30	288	297	102	24	64	891
Namibia		37	34	96	3	13	46		229
Nepal				6	9	71	1574	507	2167
Netherlands	2	8		4	2		4		20
New Caledonia			11	24					35
New Zealand					1				1
Nicaragua		306	7884	2992	97	2			11281
Niger				174	71	62		65	372
Nigeria			1	4	158	289	166	435	1053
North Yemen		2	1						3
Northern Ireland	876	799	373	376	213	104	22	5	2768
Norway				1					1
Pakistan	1	14	46	435	607	1414	1007	3133	6657
Panama		1	1	1	28	2			33
Papua New Guinea				13	39	12			64
Paraguay	1	1	4			6			12
Peru		5	4637	4385	3275	211	62	39	12614
Philippines	46	283	843	2109	1253	342	1549	478	6903
Poland					2	2			4
Portugal		6	19	8	1				34
Puerto Rico	5	10	5	2					22
Qatar			1	3			2	4	10
Rhodesia		193	24						217
Romania			1	2	1				4
Russia					20	789	2470	337	3616
Rwanda					1670	1396	2	30	3098
Saudi Arabia		5		64		19	163	10	261
Senegal				2	63	157	50	4	276
Serbia							2		2
Serbia-Montenegro							4	2	6
Sierra Leone					338	399	28		765
Singapore					4				4
Slovak Republic						4			4
Solomon Islands						4	4		8
Somalia			1	30	14	199	111	911	1266
South Africa		22	103	580	1190	103	14	1	2013
South Korea	1		2	5	1		192		201
South Vietnam	81								81
Soviet Union		4		6	85				95
Spain	27	289	290	240	98	18	287	16	1265
Sri Lanka		2	490	5319	3356	2557	613	1388	13725
Sudan	3		307	80	57	53	114	1042	1656
Suriname				28	1				29
Swaziland			1			2			3
Sweden	27	4	1		4	2			38
Switzerland	47	1	2	1	7		14		72
Syria	1	86	380	65		15	8	24	579
Taiwan	25				23		4		52
Tajikistan					19	109	22	1	151
Tanzania		1				11			12
Thailand	2	92	97	43	51	16	140	864	1305
Timor-Leste						46	12	3	61
Togo				1	57				58
Tunisia			41	2	7		37	14	101
Turkey	4	199	160	549	2291	457	168	175	4003
Uganda		13	413	266	86	982	1056	169	2985
Ukraine					1	4			5
United Arab Emirates	1	6	114	1					122
United States	120	52	39	7	8	205	3013	8	3452
Uruguay	4			1					5
Uzbekistan						36	49	2	87
Venezuela		2	44	71	52			2	171
West Bank and Gaza Strip	1	10	58	89	218	28	649	213	1266
West Germany (FRG)	33	9	25	27	1				95
Western Sahara				1					1
Yemen					16	36	55	136	243
Yugoslavia	1	1	4		8	119	12		145
Zambia	3	2		44	20	2			71
Zimbabwe			63	64	9		16	7	159

Total Fatalities by Country - sorted by fatalities

TOC

The following table summarizes the TFD by country, showing total fatalities for each country as well as the totals for the 5 year periods preceding the years indicated.(note that the TFD ends on December 31,2008)(Disclaimer)

Country	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	Total
Iraq		13	105	43	132	325	3235	18440	22293
India		31	359	2828	3285	2566	3753	2849	15671
Sri Lanka		2	490	5319	3356	2557	613	1388	13725
Colombia	1	282	1810	4200	1961	2781	1458	419	12912
Peru		5	4637	4385	3275	211	62	39	12614
El Salvador		328	8891	2482	741	2			12444
Nicaragua		306	7884	2992	97	2			11281
Algeria					288	6708	1660	563	9219
Philippines	46	283	843	2109	1253	342	1549	478	6903
Pakistan	1	14	46	435	607	1414	1007	3133	6657
Guatemala	2	125	4172	580	166	36	8	5	5094
Afghanistan		53		138	148	105	866	3493	4803
Burundi					804	2809	531	76	4220
Turkey	4	199	160	549	2291	457	168	175	4003
Russia					20	789	2470	337	3616
United States	120	52	39	7	8	205	3013	8	3452
Lebanon	4	93	1080	1330	251	120	32	220	3130
Rwanda					1670	1396	2	30	3098
Angola		19	467	363	371	747	1040		3007
Uganda		13	413	266	86	982	1056	169	2985
Northern Ireland	876	799	373	376	213	104	22	5	2768
Mozambique		36	115	1799	603	13		6	2572
Nepal				6	9	71	1574	507	2167
South Africa		22	103	580	1190	103	14	1	2013
Israel	110	145	40	86	135	122	966	168	1772
Sudan	3		307	80	57	53	114	1042	1656
Iran	7	527	447	91	88	28	8	121	1317
Thailand	2	92	97	43	51	16	140	864	1305
Somalia			1	30	14	199	111	911	1266
West Bank and Gaza Strip	1	10	58	89	218	28	649	213	1266
Spain	27	289	290	240	98	18	287	16	1265
Ethiopia	4	131	200	41	507	8	6	255	1152
Indonesia		1	6	92	64	182	640	87	1072
Nigeria			1	4	158	289	166	435	1053
Congo (Kinshasa)		1	2	28	12	328	164	431	966
Myanmar		86	30	288	297	102	24	64	891
Bangladesh			13	300	217	102	167	77	876
Kenya		31	13	4	184	426	26	182	866
Sierra Leone					338	399	28		765
Syria	1	86	380	65		15	8	24	579
Mexico	3	81	17	2	74	339	4	55	575
Great Britain	88	27	68	293	11	4	2	72	565
Chad					210	81	20	247	558
Egypt	1	4	68	17	53	225	42	112	522
Argentina	52	276	3	34	119	2			486
Cambodia	3	1		11	237	168	26	1	447
Italy	88	80	186	28	13	2	4	2	403
Niger				174	71	62		65	372
Greece	99	17	19	92	54	2	2	63	348
Canada	2		1	332				1	336
Morocco		10		202	5		71	3	291
Senegal				2	63	157	50	4	276
Haiti			5	7	212	12	24	4	264
Djibouti		5		10	237	11			263
Saudi Arabia		5		64		19	163	10	261
Georgia					96	116	8	32	252
Mali					170			75	245
Yemen					16	36	55	136	243
Croatia					239	2			241
Namibia		37	34	96	3	13	46		229
China				20	25	95	42	38	220
Honduras		1	101	57	25	6	28		218
Rhodesia		193	24						217
Chile		6	79	99	30				214
Azerbaijan					204			5	209
France	9	44	73	60	8		4	4	202
South Korea	1		2	5	1		192		201
Brazil	2	5	48	15	42	44		20	176
Congo (Brazzaville)			15			109	47		171
Venezuela		2	44	71	52			2	171
Zimbabwe			63	64	9		16	7	159
Liberia					139			12	151
Tajikistan					19	109	22	1	151
Yugoslavia	1	1	4		8	119	12		145
Malaysia		105		29					134
Ivory Coast					1	34	30	58	123
United Arab Emirates	1	6	114	1					122
Kosovo						42	76	3	121
Guinea			1				109		110
Ireland	46	24	22	11	3	2		1	109
Tunisia			41	2	7		37	14	101
Soviet Union		4		6	85				95
West Germany (FRG)	33	9	25	27	1				95
Uzbekistan						36	49	2	87
Cameroon					52			34	86
Albania					1	80	2		83
Jordan	3	9	2		1		2	64	81
South Vietnam	81								81
Barbados		73			3				76
Switzerland	47	1	2	1	7		14		72
Macedonia							69	2	71
Zambia	3	2		44	20	2			71
Papua New Guinea				13	39	12			64
Timor-Leste						46	12	3	61
Togo				1	57				58
Taiwan	25				23		4		52
Bosnia-Herzegovina					27	14	2	3	46
Ecuador		4	6	30	5				45
Mauritania		4						35	39
Kuwait		1	7	14	2		12	2	38
Sweden	27	4	1		4	2			38
Guyana		6	2					29	37
Japan		11	2	8	3	12			36
Bolivia			13	6	16				35
New Caledonia			11	24					35
Portugal		6	19	8	1				34
Lesotho			29	4					33
Panama		1	1	1	28	2			33
Armenia					16	16			32
Belgium		2	10	16	4				32
Malawi					30		2		32
Dominican Republic	1	4	6	8	5	6			30
Suriname				28	1				29
Jamaica		4	16	3	3	2			28
Central African Republic			3		3		14	6	26
Cyprus	1	3	9	12					25
Laos				2	3		20		25
Australia	1	2	3	8	9				23
Germany					17	6			23
Puerto Rico	5	10	5	2					22
Austria	4	5	5	6					20
Netherlands	2	8		4	2		4		20
Corsica			6	7	4	2			19
Libya			15						15
Costa Rica			8	1		4			13
Gambia					13				13
Guinea-Bissau							2	11	13
Kyrgyzstan						2	10	1	13
Bahrain					1	10		1	12
Madagascar					12				12
Moldova					10			2	12
Paraguay	1	1	4			6			12
Tanzania		1				11			12
Botswana	1			4	6				11
Bulgaria			2				8		10
Gabon		2				8			10
Kazakhstan					2	2	4	2	10
Qatar			1	3			2	4	10
Bhutan								9	9
Finland								9	9
Grenada			9						9
Guadeloupe			5	2	1				8
Solomon Islands						4	4		8
Cuba					3	2		1	6
Serbia-Montenegro							4	2	6
Malta		1		1	3				5
Ukraine					1	4			5
Uruguay	4			1					5
Eritrea								4	4
Poland					2	2			4
Romania			1	2	1				4
Singapore					4				4
Slovak Republic						4			4
Dominica			3						3
Gibraltar				3					3
North Yemen		2	1						3
Swaziland			1			2			3
Belarus						2			2
Belize					2				2
Burkina Faso			1		1				2
Czech Republic						2			2
Denmark				1	1				2
East Germany (GDR)	1			1					2
Ghana						2			2
Hungary						2			2
International							2		2
Latvia							2		2
Serbia							2		2
Czechoslovakia					1				1
Equatorial Guinea					1				1
Fiji					1				1
French Guiana			1						1
Hong Kong					1				1
New Zealand					1				1
Norway				1					1
Western Sahara				1					1

Total Fatalities by Terrorist Group

Terrorist Groups Killing 1000 or More

TOC

There are 27 different terrorist groups (including “Unknown”) in the TFD that are alleged to have caused at least 1000 fatalities. Excluding ‘Unknown’, the remaining 26 groups are alleged to have caused 78,518 casualties. Please note: this table does not include data from 14 terrorist groups recorded in the TFD that include the word “Al-Qa’ida” their name.(Disclaimer)

Terrorist Group	Victims
Unknown	62136
Shining Path (SL)	11194
Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)	8482
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)	8006
Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN)	7266
Hutus	3953
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)	3722
Al-Qa`ida	3464
New People's Army (NPA)	3064
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)	2743
Sikh Extremists	2670
Mozambique National Resistance Movement (MNR)	2436
National Union for the Total Independence of Angola(UNITA)	2380
Taliban	2044
Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE)	1803
Irish Republican Army (IRA)	1746
Tamils	1507
Chechens	1402
Tutsi	1302
M-19 (Movement of April 19)	1253
National Liberation Army of Colombia (ELN)	1241
Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)	1227
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (suspected)	1225
Taliban (suspected)	1156
Other	1112
Other (suspected)	1066
Al-Qa`ida in Iraq	1054

al-Qaeda

TOC

There are 16 terrorists groups in the TFD that include “Al-Qa’ida” in their name. These 16 terrorists groups are alleged to have caused 6,730 fatalities.(Disclaimer)

Terrorist Group	Victims
Al-Qa`ida	3464
Al-Qa`ida in Iraq	1054
Al-Qa`ida (suspected)	784
Al-Qa`ida in Iraq (suspected)	668
Al-Qa`ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQLIM)	259
Al-Qa`ida,Jemaah Islamiya (JI) (suspected)	202
Al-Qa`ida in Levant and Egypt	91
Al-Qa`ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQLIM) (suspected)	81
Al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)	48
Al-Qa`ida (suspected),Ansar al-Islam	28
Al-Qa’ida in Yemen	27
Al-Qa`ida,Ansar al-Sunna	10
Al-Qa`ida in Iraq (suspected),Islamic Army in Iraq (al-Jaish al-Islami fi al-Iraq)	6
Al-Qa`ida,Al-Qa`ida in Iraq	4
Al-Qa’ida in Yemen (suspected)	2
Al-Qa`ida,Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) (suspected)	2

Fatalities Count Distribution

TOC

The following table summarizes fatalities recorded in the TFD by providing a count of all fatality entries that fall with the designated ranges. For instance, there were 316 records with fatality entries between 50 and 99 inclusive, for a total of 20,307 fatalities occuring in that event range.(Disclaimer)

Fatality Count	Occurances	Fatalities
1	15044	15044
2	5708	11416
3	3344	10032
4	2229	8916
5	1706	8530
6	1198	7188
7	938	6566
8	757	6056
9	561	5049
10 to 24	3355	48312
25 to 49	865	28790
50 to 99	316	20307
100 to 199	91	11219
200 to 299	26	5923
300 to 399	9	2958
400 to 499	2	830
500 to 999	1	518
Over 1000	3	3940

Worst Terrorist Events

TOC

The following table lists all 15 terrorist events in the TFD in which the fatality count was 300 or more.(Disclaimer)

Date	Country	Locale	Terrorist Group	Fatalities
11-Sep-01	United States	New York	Al-Qa`ida	1380
11-Sep-01	United States	New York	Al-Qa`ida	1380
13-Apr-94	Rwanda	Gikoro	Hutus	1180
21-Mar-04	Nepal	Bedi	Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist (CPN-M)	518
19-Aug-78	Iran	Abadan	Mujahideen-I-Khalq (MK)	430
23-Mar-94	Burundi	Bujumbura	Tutsi	400
18-Jul-87	Mozambique	Homoine	Mozambique National Resistance Movement (MNR)	386
23-May-96	Burundi	Kivyuka	Tutsi	375
01-Sep-04	Russia	Beslan	Chechens	344
23-Jun-85	Canada	Toronto	Sikh Extremists	329
01-Feb-98	Sri Lanka	Kilinochchi	Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)	320
20-Jul-96	Burundi	Central Burundi	Hutus	304
17-Nov-97	Rwanda	Gisenyi	Hutus	300
13-Feb-84	Sudan	Uaskeing (named Hegliga)	Christians	300
15-Aug-80	El Salvador	Suchitoto	Unknown	300

Graph Summaries of the TFD

Graph of Worldwide Fatalities Per Year

TOC

The following graph summarizes fatalities in the TFD by year.(Disclaimer)

Graph of Worldwide Fatalities - Cumulative

TOC

The following graph shows a cumulative count of fatalities in the TFD - cumulative total displayed over time.(Disclaimer)

I am an Atheist, NOT a Scientist

A narrative essay by – Heather Spoonheim

As a ‘strong’ Atheist, I believe there are no gods. That is a belief that I am very comfortable, if not enthusiastic, to have challenged. The thing that irks me, however, is that those who try to challenge that belief almost never challenge it at all, but instead lay out a challenge to science. Now, I have an extremely eclectic resume but I am definitely not a scientist; as a matter of fact, at the time of this writing I make my living with a chef’s knife. What the hell could I possibly know about science that isn’t already published and open to criticism by anyone who actually cares to do so?

Why is it that my belief is so readily interpreted as a statement that I know how the universe came to be? I have absolutely no idea how the universe came to be and neither does science, as near as I can tell.

I realize that the distance between galaxies has been observed to be increasing at an accelerating rate, and that one can describe that behavior mathematically and then reverse the math to calculate that everything came from some singularity about 14 billion years ago – but that is where the current mathematical models break down, apparently. After that it’s really anybody’s guess.

Maybe the universe pulsates from singularity to some end point and back again, infinitely repeating. Maybe the singularity was actually a vortex from someplace else through which our universe got ‘sucked’ or ‘pushed’. Maybe the universe is just an attribute of a less finite context that itself is just an attribute of a less finite context and on and on infinitely. To be honest, I believe we will never know the complete picture.

The only people who have the audacity to claim knowledge of the complete picture seem to be those who claim that it’s a portrait of their invisible, imaginary friend. What a Kodak moment that must present – just keep shaking that Polaroid until the image clears up enough for me to take a look too, please. In the meantime, stop asking me where the universe came from.

Why is it that my belief is so readily interpreted as a statement that I know the details of abiogenesis and/or evolution? It really irks me when people ask me to explain these things, especially when they don’t even understand that they are different concepts. Abiogenesis really eludes me because it is based on such a large knowledge base of chemistry and still in such early phases of research.

Evolution can be even more difficult because so few people realize that it isn’t a fact at all, just an explanation that is supported by literally millions of facts that aren’t nearly as accessible to the layman as the cosmos. To make matters worse, although U.S. courts readily accept DNA evidence of two men being brothers as being rock solid enough to put a man to death, they won’t accept it as rock solid enough to establish the irrefutable relationship between humankind and the rest of the great apes. Fuckers.

Even if I were a scientist and had devoted my life to a field that fell within the bounds of one of the aforementioned scientific realms, that still wouldn’t give someone the right to demand free private lectures. These days I make my living in restaurants, and if you don’t believe that eggs and oil can be whisked into mayonnaise then you can go buy a fucking jar of Miracle Whip – it’s not my job to educate you and if you want my services then talk to your waiter. Furthermore, I have no idea how the absence of a conclusive scientific proof for anything serves as evidence to support the impossibly self-contradicting postulations made by Bronze Age holy books. For the most part those texts manage to completely disprove themselves without any need for science.

What I do know is that if you could pray to get shit done then people would pray and get shit done. If the god of Judaism existed then the Jews wouldn’t have spent their entire history getting their asses kicked all over the planet only to wind up back in the only part of the Middle East that doesn’t have any oil under it. If another god existed then I’m certain that the Jews, pragmatic people that they are, would have tossed their Torah and Talmud into the trash centuries ago and jumped on a bandwagon that actually had wheels. All I can say to deists is that I find their concept of god equivalent to fat-free, sugar-free, caramel syrup; if the word oxymoron didn’t just pop into your head then please look up the definitions of oxymoron, god, and syrup in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Prayer doesn’t work, science does, and you don’t need to be an egghead to figure that out. Go get a job at the Cadillac factory like Johny Cash and take a toodle around on your lunch break. The engineers aren’t dressed in ceremonial robes reading incantations in a dead language as they wave a big brass incense ball over plans scrawled on parchment – they are at computers, punching in numbers, and using instruments to take measurements. Science works.

Science is for the public and you don’t need anymore than bus fare to find that out. Hop on a bus, head to a local campus, and casually walk into a lecture hall with a bunch of students, inconspicuously taking a seat near the back. Quick note - it might be a good idea to leave the holy books at home for a day and instead carry a binder or laptop or something to give the impression that you are literate. Anyway, you can sit there and listen to them speak and you’ll quickly discover there is no fucking conspiracy going on. Everything that they are saying can be confirmed at the library – the public library. Science is public.

Science is international and you don’t need to travel the world or speak seven languages to confirm that. You can pick a subject, like the second law of thermodynamics (a favorite of so many holy rollers), look it up on Wikipedia, and you’ll find that it is available in at least 30 languages. For those that have had their nose in the holy books too long, feel free to scroll through the list of languages and select ‘simple English’. If you doubt that this information is available around the planet then all you need to do is sign up for a myspace account using a picture of a blonde woman on your profile. Within hours some guy with a name like Achmed from Egypt or Morocco will send you a message requesting a conversation by webcam. Now, tell him you will turn your webcam on after he reads the Wikipedia article to you, confirming the translation in his native language – a lot of them seem to speak French as well so you can have them check that too. Science is international.

So, I would like to ask, once and for all, that all holy rollers please stop asking me to give them free science lessons. Everything that I know about science is publicly available at a nearby college, local library, or on the internet. I’m an Atheist, not a scientist.

Fallacy of the Ticking Time Bomb

A research essay by - Heather Spoonheim

Yesterday I started doing some research on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on America. It has always bothered me that reliable information about a man at the center of those attacks has remained so elusive: like the exact location and date of his birth, who his parents were, and what grade schools he attended - so I decided to start digging around for available source material on my own. Now I am not an historian and neither am I trained in the accompanying methodology so I must acknowledge, here and now, that my efforts are haphazard at best, and I've barely scratched the surface.

That being said, I've run across a connection in the data that I find rather interesting and for which I would like a second (third, forth, and fifth) opinion. I started preparing a timeline for the biography of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed(KSM) from this U.S. Department of Defense(DoD) document that I found archived by the New York Times. In it, the capture of KSM by the ISI of Pakistan is stated to be March 1, 2003 and clearly indicates that he was immediately transfered into U.S. custody [top of page 5]. The document then lays out arguments as to why KSM should remain in DoD detention, and in one of those arguments they assert [on page 10] that he was party to the Marriott Hotel Bombing in Jakarta as well as the Australian Embassy Bombing in Jakarta. Where this gets interesting is that those two bombings took place after KSM had been taken into custody; in that way, they are the perfect example of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario so often conjectured in an attempt to illustrate a justified application of torture.

The entries describing the bombing plot [page 10] indicate that three bombings were planned, with the first one being a Nightclub Bombing in Bali, five months before KSM was captured. KSM is even said to have paid out a sum of money in congratulations for that first bombing to a man named Hambali. I went digging a little further and found that the New York Times also archived some Justice Department memos that reveal KSM actually gave up Hambali after being tortured [page 94, DoJ memo], but that still didn't result in actionable intelligence capable of preventing the last two bombings. Hambali was captured in October 2003 , a couple of months after the Marriott Hotel Bombing - too late - and even then they couldn't develop actionable intelligence to stop the final bombing. So here we have a real life example of torture failing to diffuse two very real ticking time bombs.

The information doesn't end there, however. In the first document, from the DoD, KSM is said to have claimed there was another attack planned on the U.S. in which a commercial airplane would be hijacked and flown into the tallest building in California. This attack obviously didn't occur, but President George W. Bush actually cited the information extracted from KSM as having allowed his administration to foil the plot; he didn't, however, provide any mug shots or court documents to suggest anyone had ever been arrested or convicted in that plot. It seems that KSM may have just fabricated the plot to appease his torturers. In this case the ticking time bomb scenario became inverted as President Bush tried to justify torture that he had already committed by fabricating a bomb that he knew did not exist. What's worse, although his bomb was imaginary, the torture most decidedly, was NOT.

So the next time someone asks you if torture might be justified by some imaginary ticking time bomb that can only be stopped by water-boarding a known terrorist - just say 'NO', and point them to the miscarriage of justice carried out by the Bush administration that failed to keep anyone safe and which served only to cause more suffering than it could ever hope to prevent.

Risk Management

A narrative essay by – Heather Spoonheim

As an Atheist, I am often presented with Pascal’s Wager – essentially a postulation that one can optimize expected value by subscribing to Christianity. To be frank, although Blaise Pascal is duly revered for elevating the condition of human intellect, his eponymous wager betrays his fallibility. The wager proposes a binary choice and a binary result and evaluates the possible outcomes as follows:

	NO GOD	GOD
NO BELIEF	no loss	big loss
BELIEF	no loss	big gain

Although Pascal’s Wager clearly establishes a profoundly optimized expected value for subscribing to Christianity, it is fundamentally flawed by two false dichotomies. As a Catholic philosopher, Pascal limited both the choices and the results to Catholicism. The wager completely ignores Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all other religions, not to mention all sectarian variations. Most, if not all, of these options contain mutually exclusive doctrines and dogmas: for instance, the god of Islam condemns those who subscribe to Judaism.

Furthermore, considering the propensity of religion for imagining increasingly superlative punishments, rewards, and gods, it becomes apparent that one should not limit oneself to only the pool of religions fabricated thus far but should, rather, press one’s mind to its limits of imagining the absolute and ultimately worst case scenario impossible. Consider, if you will, the concept of a god that demands your worship while offering eternal punishment or reward to your entire family. Surely such a god must be given top priority because the result applies not only to your eternal soul but also to the eternal souls of every single person you love.

Following the above logic, it soon becomes clear that the only reasonable course of action is to have every single person on the planet cease all pursuits so we can all focus on collaboratively embellishing continually worse and better case scenarios for the rewards and punishments of ever greater gods. Although this line of reasoning results in the slipperiest of all slopes, it does provide better footing than the product of multiplying two false dichotomies. In point of fact, it represents an established form of risk management that focuses on the uncertainty of worst case scenarios.

Managing risk by evaluating worst case scenarios for which certainty has not been and/or cannot be established is known as the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle espouses a basis for public policy that practices caution in the context of uncertainty. It is essentially a restatement of Pascal’s Wager that replaces belief with action and god with hazard thusly:

	NO HAZARD	HAZARD
NO ACTION	no loss	big loss
ACTION	no loss	big gain

This type of evaluation has become common amongst proponents of extremely precautionary environmental policy. In cases where evidence may not be conclusive that environmental catastrophe is imminent, it is sometimes argued that the arrival of such evidence may signal a point of no return. Essentially this is analogous to Pascal’s evaluation that the certainty of a god cannot be determined until it is too late. Like Pascal, many environmentalists evaluate inaction (non-belief) as having no downside if the hazard (god) does not actually exist but having catastrophic implications if it turns out to be real. The evaluation of action (belief) follows suit by having no downside if the hazard (god) turns out not to exist but very positive implications if it is real.

Likely the most emotionally charged area of public policy currently employing the precautionary principle is in actions undertaken for public security in response to the threat posed by terrorism. Although terrorism is a certainty of the modern world, the specific hazards posed are not certain. Public security practices taken to prevent terrorism address threats and enemies of which and whom there is no certainty.

Just like Pascal and his belief in the Catholic god, environmental and terrorist issues present us with potential actions and hazards that should not be arbitrarily reduced to dichotomies. Fortunately there has been a great deal of advancement in the way such wagers are evaluated. For one, our evaluation of hazards can be constrained by setting minimum parameters for plausibility. Secondly, the result of inaction is not as superlative as eternal damnation. Finally, we can tangibly evaluate the costs of our actions to our pocketbooks and our liberties.

Unfortunately, public policy determined by precautionary principle can be subject to just the sort of slippery slope earlier applied to Pascal’s Wager. Those who are intellectually committed to a policy can overcome minimum parameters for plausibility by over-stating the consequences of inaction. Negotiation of policy can be easily swept away by appeals to emotion, leaving those armed with the most alarmist rhetoric leading the way down the slippery slope. Furthermore, in a world troubled by both shrinking pocketbooks and fleeting liberties, the cost of excessive caution should be closely examined before we automatically and blindly follow the very questionable doctrine of ‘better safe than sorry’.

I hope this little treatment of the similarities between Pascal’s Wager and the plausibility principle will help modern skeptics recognize and evaluate rhetoric designed to sway the public into adopting policies that over-manage risk. Although an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, let us not adopt polices that invoke a pound of prevention when the only ailment threatening us is uncertainty.

The Bitterness of Loss

A narrative essay by – Heather Spoonheim

I have a gambling problem – a very serious one. I have never lost so much money that I couldn’t pay the bills or had to sell prized possessions, but it is still a serious problem. The reason I think it is serious is because I have such a clear and perfect understanding of the futility of ever truly earning a profit at the activity but I just can’t ever get the thought of profit out of my mind when I’m taking part. If I had any sense at all I would never ever gamble again – but I will. I do have sense though, I’m sure of it, but I guess my wits become compromised whenever someone pulls out the cards and that is the behavioral dysfunction that is my gambling addiction.

I manage the problem very well and have kept my losses to under $1000 over the past decade. I do so by setting very strict limits and fighting desperately to maintain them. The most important tool in managing gambling addiction is to learn to swallow losses, no matter how bitter that pill might be. Your money is gone and you have nothing to show for it and that’s all there is to it. If you don’t give up the activity altogether, then you better get used to the taste of that bitter pill, because you’ll need to swallow it over and over again. If you are crazy enough to continue with the activity, well then learning to swallow that pill can at least offer you some protection. This is especially true when playing communal pot games like Texas Hold’em.

You see, a lot of gamblers become overwhelmed by Texas Hold’em because they fail to accept that the money they have put into the pot is no longer theirs – they’ve already lost it. You have to swallow your loss the very moment you pull those chips off of your stack. If you don’t swallow your loss right then and there then you will be left with the delusion that some of those chips in the middle of the table are yours – and this leads to the fallacy of believing that you will incur a loss if you fold.

When you swallow your loss the moment you pull those chips off of your stack then you will realize that folding doesn’t cost you a thing. With each round of betting you need to evaluate the revealed odds, consider the total prize available in the pot, and determine how much you are now willing to risk for that total prize. You just cannot factor loss into your evaluation at that point.

There are other factors like implied odds and evaluation of opponent behavior, but understanding that risk and reward are based on the current bet for the current pot is the most important thing to keep straight in your mind. If, even for a moment, the thought crosses your mind that you will lose chips if you fold then you had best pack up and go home. It NEVER costs you a penny to fold because the chips that you put in the pot were lost the moment you pushed them towards the center of the table.

I’ve watched so many gamblers lose all of their faculties by refusing to swallow their losses that I can’t even count them. Every time it happens at a Texas Hold’em game it is because they view the pot as an investment and just can’t bring themselves to accept that their investment is being wiped out. They start pushing good money into the void until they have no more to push and then, often enough, they start pushing the table itself. That money in the pot is NOT an investment to be pursued, pushing money onto the table does NOT secure an investment, and no one has any claim to the pot until it has been won.

This concept of recognizing risks and accepting losses at the moment I assume those risks has actually helped me a lot in business. When I buy a piece of equipment at auction, it usually comes ‘as is’ and without any options for recourse if I am unhappy with the purchase. I need to accept my loss at the time of purchase, and I am often happy to do so because I’m getting a $7,000 dishwasher for $850. I no longer have my $850, I have a dishwasher that didn’t cost me $7,000 and that’s a good thing. If it doesn’t work, I can’t very well go freaking out about my $850 because it isn’t my $850 to freak out about. I can get the machine repaired, or perhaps that is not viable and I need to dispose of it, but I can’t go lamenting about somebody else’s $850. In my experience the odds have been in my favour in these transactions, and accepting the losses at time of trade helps to keep me focused on my winnings.

Consider then a person who regularly gives their money to an investment firm. So many of these people walk around feeling secure that their money is still there and that there will be even more money awaiting them when they return. This is a complete fallacy though, because their money disappeared the moment they handed it over. What they purchased was incredibly strong odds that they can get the same amount of money back with the bonus of weaker odds that there might even be more money handed to them some day. There remains the risk, however small, that there will be zero money waiting for them when they return. Because of this risk, they really need to accept that the money they gave to the firm is gone – but just like compulsive gamblers, investors will find every rationalization they can to keep from swallowing that bitter pill. Even after being contacted by authorities and hearing all over the news that their investment firm left town over night, there is no way to prevent them from gathering outside the empty building to protest in vain. They will believe for years that ‘their’ money is safe and sound somewhere and that there exists some means of investigation that will reveal its location to them.

How, then, can I be the least bit surprised at the emotional reactions I get when I tell investors that their ultimate retirement plan is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme; when I tell them that the firm that they, their cousins, parents, and grandparents have been investing in will never payout one red cent; when I tell them that the retirement home where Grandma and Grandpa went is a big void and Grandma and Grandpa aren’t even there.

How can I be surprised when investors in such a firm react to the news by becoming more adamant than ever to push more chips to the center of the table? How can they do anything other than push all of their chips to the center and then start pushing on the table itself? How can I be surprised when they blow up and become madmen like so many compulsive gamblers I have faced across a poker table?

The fact of the matter is that most churches press hard to get people to put money into the pot. Those who can possibly afford to do so often give in to the pressure to push 10% of their earnings onto the table, although most will calculate on net rather than gross income. Those who can’t possibly afford it are pressed to put in more than they can possibly afford. Many of them have seen the remainder of their grandparent’s wealth pushed into the pot as well. Many of them have volunteered hours upon hours of their time to the special projects of their churches.

Imagine the 58 year old woman who has been tithing for over 30 years. If she has worked a professional career and never had children she might have easily invested $150,000. If, looking at her investment account, she realizes that she has invested the same amount of money in mutual funds and now that investment is waiting to pay her $500,000 then she has to swallow one hell of a loss and its going to be damn bitter. She could have literally been a millionaire. Worse yet, she stayed the course on that bad investment for 30 years, and that represents a lifetime of pushing chips into the void.

I think we all need to remember these things as we deal with theists. It’s easy to call them stubborn or pigheaded, but just think about what we represent to them – no one likes an armchair critic pointing out the odds after they’ve already put their life savings in the pot. When debating with theists, one should try to remember their own most difficult loss and remember how bitter that pill was to swallow. We would all do well to remember the bitterness of loss.

The Atheist Debt

An essay by – Heather Spoonheim

I used think there was an inherent justice in the way that I was able to simply look at the evidence for the existence of Yahweh and recognize it as nothing more than a collection of superstitious notions that, when combined, had coalesced into a misleading but compelling emotional appeal. That other people were captivated by such an emotional appeal didn’t contradict my sense of justice because they too were free to simply recognize it for what it was and liberate themselves of the fallacy; that they didn’t do so was nothing more than their own folly – or so I thought.

It should be noted, however, that calling the argument an ‘emotional appeal’ is a monumental euphemism; it is an overwhelmingly monumental euphemism because the argument is, in truth, nothing less than emotional extortion, a proverbial offer that one cannot refuse. For you see, fresh indoctrinates are repeatedly instructed or, more accurately, threatened that failure to accept the appeal will result in indescribable tortures that defy the imagination.

Upon first consideration of the threat of unimaginable torture by the devotees of a death cult it would seem that the mind of the victim should be filled exclusively by an overwhelming desire to escape. To combat this survival instinct, the doctrines of the death cult of Yahweh employ a tactic common to other sociopathic predators: a friendly introduction accompanied by an offer of candy. You see, the glossy brochures of this death cult rarely open with images of torture but, rather, dangle the most enticing piece of candy imaginable: the hypothetical possibility of conquering death itself.

Even given the superlative nature of this emotional extortion, I still managed to cling to my belief that justice was available in a philosophical market governed by the laissez faire doctrines of caveat emptor; after all, common sense (another fallacy) seemed to make it readily obvious that if an offer seemed to be too good to be true then it likely was not. Those who were foolish enough to trade their faculties of reason for a bag of magic beans, regardless of the magnitude of the promised returns, deserved exactly what they got – or so I used to believe.

You see, just like all too many people who attribute their own successes to self-proclaimed virtues, I was mislead by confirmation bias. I used circular logic to assert the power of ‘common sense’ by mistakenly citing it as the means of my escape and then citing the success of my escape as proof that ‘common sense’ was all it took. What I failed to acknowledge was the fortunate timing of my birth coupled with my aptitude for science, at least as it was presented in the grade schools of my time.

In my day, the eloquence with which Carl Sagan fueled wonder at the cosmos formed a brick wall upon which the awkward rationalizations of theists splattered instantly. Other scientific minds seemed to find increased courage from this and public discourse in scientific matters became noticeably less apologetic. As if to crown this revolution, the producers of the very popular, prime-time television series, ‘All in the Family’, went so far as to introduce a well-rounded and explicitly Atheist character, Michael Stivic.

All of these factors contributed greatly to my escape from cult indoctrination but my ability to perceive these factors was obscured by my own ego, by my faith in my own ‘common sense’ and my desire to believe there was any sort of inherent justice in life. As the years passed though, I began to learn more about the great minds that had contributed to our modern world and my ego became increasingly tempered. These days I am no longer able to maintain the delusion that my fallacious notions of ‘common sense’ in any way compare to the genius of the real heroes of modern thought who had the courage to declare that their own, original, empirical observations contradicted the highly revered Bronze Age notions of their time.

In this way I owe a huge debt to the courage of such a long list of rational thinkers that any attempt to name them couldn’t aspire to reveal anything more than an even greater list of glaring omissions. In lieu, all I can offer is my solemn acknowledgement of this debt and my embarrassingly inadequate ability to ever repay it. In doing so, I also acknowledge that there was no inherent justice in my liberation, only some very fortunate timing. More importantly, this acknowledgement allows me to realize just how the tables have been turned by modern cultists.

Unable to fabricate rationalizations elastic enough to stretch around our modern world’s ever expanding base of scientific knowledge, the strategy of the cultists has turned to outright, underhanded dishonesty. They have so saturated the very infrastructures by which information is disseminated that it is no longer possible to tune into the information stream without finding it befouled by their propaganda of doubt.

No longer able to credibly assert the certainty of their deity, they now repeatedly chant, “But you can’t prove he doesn’t exist.” No longer able to refute the credibility of scientific truths they respond, “But science doesn’t know everything.” And finally, no longer able to exert their authority to crush the very institution of science itself, they have taken to attacking the integrity of that institution.

Television networks that are supposedly devoted to the dissemination of scientific knowledge are riddled with programs that point out anecdotal transgressions of scientific fraud or bias; they do this without pointing out that such transgressions are repeatedly rooted out and expelled within decades rather than being upheld unapologetically for centuries. Newspapers fallaciously cloak themselves in anachronistic notions of journalistic integrity while adhering to nothing other than capitalist greed as they design sensational headlines of scientific folly while simultaneously ignoring profound, although usually more mundane, revelations of how genetics is solidifying the certainty of the evolutionary tree. Radio commentators repeatedly substitute editorials for news and assert that science is arrogant for not giving due consideration to ‘alternative theories’ without a single mention of the fact that these purported ‘alternative theories’ are generated by scientifically illiterate cultists.

Preschool indoctrinates are told that scientists are liars, without even an attempt to justify that claim. Biology teachers are compelled to assume a tone of apology when discussing evolution. When scientific curriculums are publicly debated the floor is left open to those who have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter and children are sent forth to make emotional appeals for cultist ‘values’ rooted in ignorance.

Where they can’t elicit doubt in scientific observation they try to insert reinforcement of any superstitious predilection they can identify. The recent barrage of ‘investigative’ television programs dealing with ‘scientific observation’ of paranormal phenomenon is almost overwhelming. Otherwise perfectly rational people are left to wonder if there might not be some validity to the concept that ‘life energy’ can leave a ‘metaphysical fingerprint’ in certain geographic locations. Failure to acknowledge at least a modicum of authenticity to these ‘investigations’ is maliciously labeled ‘close-minded’ prejudice.

It has become nearly impossible to evaluate the integrity of ‘educational programming’ without taking the time to google the credentials of the ‘experts’ that are paraded forth. For any single rational individual this tidal wave of misinformation presents an insurmountable battle of debunking. For those not yet liberated from superstitious indoctrination, however, the odds of recognizing this volcanic spew of fallacies for what it really is are infinitesimal.

In this challenge, I think I may have finally found the means by which to make a payment towards the debt I owe for my own intellectual liberation. Looking back, it wasn’t one voice of reason that guided me out of intellectual subservience, but a veritable chorus of rational voices. Every voice was important, even the droning, boring tones of my grade eight science teacher, and I know I can carry the tune a little better than he ever did.

The internet has given me a platform for self publication coupled with the resources to easily debunk inane cultist ‘documentaries’. It may seem like a chore to sit through a painfully ignorant program that asserts some holy book to be an archeological treasure trove, and even more of a chore to cite its obvious shortcomings in a well thought out blog entry, but I owe at least that much, even if I can only carry the tune of reason for just a few more bars.

Furthermore, I don’t have to debunk everything myself because there are plenty of Atheist and skeptic bloggers who are much better at it than I will ever be. By simply keeping tabs on some of their blogs, I am slowly gathering a nice collection of links that provide quick rebuttals to online friends infected with various superstitions and cultist misinformation.

Even in daily my daily encounters with the superstitious, nothing seems to shut some of them up faster than pointing out that there is one million dollars awaiting them if they can prove their claims to be true. Before informal exchanges head south of the boarder of rationality I can often infuse some rational thought by talking about the latest news of satellites orbiting distant planets – satellites that were put there by profoundly accurate scientific knowledge.

Finally, through the various online Atheist communities I can try to encourage other Atheists to continue the chorus of reason as well. I think I’ll start right now by posting a blog that might inspire others to consider ways of paying off some of the Atheist debt.