Slashdot Mirror

Actually, all the PINs were decrypted and available quite a while ago.

"I am a Christian"

- selective quoting by evangelicals to "prove" Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, and one reason why the USA was therefore created as a Christian nation.

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

- still selective quoting (source), but providing much better context to the one-liner and suggests the exact opposite of what the evangelicals claim.

What if there were a single cause for many of the world's ills in both the social and personal spheres, from overpopulation, ecological destruction, ethnic violence and hatred, to addictions, conflicts between the sexes, the breakdown of the family, and even why it feels good to be bad? Sound too simplistic or far-fetched? A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism.
Buying into, communism, spiritual cults, organized religion, UFO cults, therapy cults, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hitler or other authority beliefs where there is an unchallengeable book, ideology or leader generates self mistrust. It makes a person feel fundamentally mentally flawed. It causes you to look at evidence, logic, reason and what your mind would say is true, as garbage, you can not trust in, if it doesn't fit, the authority belief you bought into. These authority beliefs are social viruses that, like a computer virus, makes our basic human operating system dysfunctional. Just as a computer operating system controls how the parts work together, they say, moral codes provide the operating system both for self-control and social interaction. When the operating system is faulty, this produces distortions and malfunctions at all levels. As with computers, unmasking and decoding a virus allows one to disempower it. Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking. Buying into an authority belief makes you a mental vegetable. The answer is to have courage enough to think for yourself.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9671.htm

... you can muddy the waters somewhat. I just ran across this bit of advice today, as a matter of fact: "If you're worried about [something you wish you hadn't said publicly] showing up on the search engines, then might I suggest posting to as many different online forums as you can find, making sure to sign your real name to each of them. Cat got your tongue? Simply scroll up three (3) posts, quote a sentence from it, and then say, "I fully agree with that!" Then sign your full name and click the "Post" button. It's that simple. Posting to numerous online forums will get your name all over the web, but not in any context that would matter to anybody. With your name showing up several dozen times in the search engine, this one story will cease to stand out as anything significant. (Any type of forum will do, but computer repair forums are the best for this purpose because the computer repair guys do this for advertising and they always make sure to get their forums listed on all the search engines.)" Courtesy of Positive Atheism

meant to include a link to the GWB quote: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I just did a quick Google search on the quote and found the following. Don't know if it's true or not, but it makes for good reading.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

- Any public-school science teacher, atheist or not, who wants to tell his students that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and that Jesus didn't ride dinosaurs can expect to be "inhibited or dissuaded" from doing so, if he's teaching in the wrong part of the country.

- Yes, Richard Dawkins

- All atheists were "demonized" by no less a figure than President G. H. W. Bush.

- 53% of the American public would refuse to vote for an atheist in a presidential election. That's not just "demonization," that's disenfranchisement. Unless you profess a belief in an invisible sky fairy, you have no representation in American government.

More examples here.

Any more questions?

I believe the point was the ACLU should focus on an issue that effects the whole population (the story topic of a group of companies trying to control the internet in the name of "IP") rather then focus on a issue effecting a small number of people (torture/waterboarding).

It does affect everybody, er every American. If government csn torture one person it can torture anybody. But even if not the ACLU does focus on everybody, free speech is everyone's right.

As opposed to the way you seem to take the argument that torture of a few is ok to save the majoritiy

You're wrong big tyme. I oppose torture period, even if it were reliable. Which it isn't. Those being tortured will make up and say whatever the person torturing them wants to hear just to end it.

Even the USA's Founding Fathers opposed torture. As general George Washington ordered his troops to treat prisoners humanly and not to torture them. He ordered them to "Treat them with humanity,". "Let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army." Thomas Jefferson said "millions of innocent men and women, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion" he asked; "to make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites?"

Falcon

Unfortunately, most addicts are given drugs and/or forced to attend $ADDICTION anonymous meetings which do more harm that good: If you were a drunk, would want to do be forced into a smoke-filled room crammed in with other folks who are just as pissed for being there as you are, probably fiending for drinks?

Hmmmm...have you been to $ADDICTION anonymous meetings? Most of the people there are not pissed off, at least not at the good meetings. Most aren't court ordered, either.

Also, the "higher power" thing dosen't work for atheists.

Sure it does. Check this guy out. Atheists just usually say something along the lines of 'higher power' == 'the power of the program' or some such.

Really. Don't knock the 12 Step programs until you've tried them -- in earnest.

Call'em Nazi's all you want, but the Republicans (or at least the Conservatives) have never made demands over what you eat, what you drive, the type of toilet you use, or whether you smoke; that's for Liberals to control.

I like Nazi's, since you brought it up. Are you familiar with the underlying political philosophy of 1930's-1940's Germany? Mussolini once called it corporatism, Hitler called it National Socialism, and long before either of them the Romans called it Fascism. It descends from the thinking of Plato, that all good is traceable to a single, central form. The greatest good is therefore achieved through the harmonization of all lesser goods. A good society can't have dissent from the truth offered by the ordained ruling class, they can't have sex with people of the same gender or not believe in god. Who does that sound like?

There are fanatics on both sides. If you play with fanatics, you will get oppressed. Compromise is the essential virtue of democracy.

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

---Robert Heinlein

Yeah because republicans always get reamed by the media when they say stupid and offensive things. Why don't we stop pretending that Republicans get all the flak while Democrats get off without even a warning?

Do things slip through the cracks with regards to mainstream media reporting things? Of course, nobody is going to argue that. But to pretend one party has been issued a pass while the other is being heckled at every step is just ridiculous. Hell, it wasn't even too long ago that the media couldn't shut up about that Reverend everyone kept hearing so much of, and that supposed tape of Michelle Obama yelling about "whitey".

You're worried about a nanny state so you want to vote for Bob Barr? The guy wants to control your bedroom and your religion.

The Libertarian Party would not have chosen Bob Barr as it's candidate if he still wanted control. He himself said he was wrong and now opposes government control. I once opposed him but now I can support him. Of course, as with all other politicians, he needs to be monitored.

He led the fight to try and get the Army's first Wiccan Distinctive Faith Group disbanded (he lost that one).

During the 2000 campaign Bush went so for as to say Wicca wasn't a religion "I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision." I'm not one myself but I have studied it and have friends who are Wiccans. Several years ago I probably gave my sister a shock, she's a Christian even though she doesn't act like one all the tyme, when she asked me if I wanted to join a church and I said I was thinking of joining a Wiccan Coven.

Add tot hat the fact that the Libertarians would demolish the what little control the government still exercises on Corporate America

Corporate libertarians perhaps. However: "B7. What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?" Libertarians oppose the power corporations wield. Many corporations got their power by monopoly and Libertarians oppose monopolies. Corporations also offer stockholders limited liability, and Libertarians would end that thus making stockholders liable for actions the corporations take. It's Democrats, and others, who spread such lies that Libertarians would allow corporations to get away with whatever they want.

Falcon

by excellent men of Rhetoric and not so excellent men. Just give Scientology another thousand some years and it could be on par with any "legit" religion of today. Look how it has progressed in only a few decades. For some enlightening reading, check out the following.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3186/3186-h/3186-h.htm

And no, I am not an atheist. I use my reason and believe in no human god because there is no "True" evidence, and faith is not it. But, I also do not claim that there is no God because I neither have "True" evidence of that. I do not belong to any religion because the past and present has shown that it can be easily manipulated by certain corrupt humans for their own political agendas. Most likely the future will show the same.

I'd love to have a source for that story. I found this, which matches you word for word, but they don't give a source.

"...The knowledge exists by which universal happiness can be secured; the chief obstacle to its utilization for that purpose is the teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion." (Bertrand Russell)

I am by nature a very tolerant person, but it is time for all good people to actively refute the ideas of the intolerant fundamentalists of all stripes. I am appalled that there are politicians in the USA who think it is OK to condemn people due to their religious beliefs, or lack of belief. For example, Bush isn't sure atheists are citizens. Some politicians think they should be able to tell you what you do in the privacy of your own home. But these guys are pikers compared to Religious fundamentalists. Even peaceful, tolerant Canada had to deal with this, Teen killed by father, and if we scoot over to Afghanistan we have the Taliban executing people who dare to try to educate girls.

Peaceful discourse is our best weapon.

Happy New year.

"Dear God, hope you got the letter and
I pray you can make it better down here
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer"

Sorry, I just had to...

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9624.htm

OMG! (oh my goodness!)

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

OK its official, the entire nation has a mental disorder.

There is more, but by now you should be getting the flavor of why I think the legal and political system has been co-opted by Christians.

I'd grant you the no-drinky because that's an obnoxious movement that just won't go away, but even there it's become a secular and bipartisan "save the children" movement. "In God we trust" on the money is just whining; what about all the Masonic stuff on there? And when was the last time you recited the pledge or were even asked to? These guys say you don't have to swear on the bible, and the US Code says an oath or affirmation is valid and these notes indicate that it's specifically for atheists and such. Your taxes go to churches, and they also go to subsidize ethanol, farmers get special tax breaks and there are ten million other handouts. Welcome to rent-seeking, hardly a problem confined to or caused by religion.

What I advocate is a religious and political system that is absolutely free of religious rules, religious oaths, religious slogans, religious tax breaks, religious marriage rationales...

What you advocate is a political system that ignores the interests of religious voters and throws out all kinds of history and conventions because of some abstract offense you take that you can't really explain or some right you feel is violated without being able to demonstrate a tangible injury.

Actually, that was his daddy, George H. W. Bush.

What sort of tortured logic could possibly lead to the conclusion that relations between human beings (all fallible, sinful and fundamentally equal), should follow the same model as relations between human beings and God (fundamentally greater and qualitatively different)?

They should to some extent. In order for people to be "good" they must understand what "good" means. In other words, our notion of morality must be in alignment with God's morality, for otherwise we can only please God by accident, which conflicts with having choice. But, can we trust God?

You don't believe in God

I believe in the Spinoza/Einstein idea of a God.

so it is simply dishonest of you to swear an oath to Him.

LOL! You sound like you want to burn me at the stake or something! Surely my religious beliefs shouldn't affect my equal access to justice?

And do you really believe he, sorry He, gives a shit that you capitalize 'Him' like that? Where in the bible does it tell you to do that?

The alternative, an affirmation, exists and is just as strong

No it's not, at least in America. Most Americans are Christian, and react as irrationally as you do at any suggestion that someone's religious beliefs are not identical to theirs. George H W Bush said that atheists shouldn't be citizens for example. If I were in a muslim country, it would be even more important to play along with majority religion, or more likely pick the closest religion on offer to my personal beliefs. And essentially we are arguing about quantization errors. Most people have such a simplistic conception of religion that there is some difference between what each of the options on their list and what I actually believe. I can minimise it by picking the best option but not make it zero.

E.g. in the UK, I'd go for this one which mentions God but is not explicitly linked to an Abrahamic religion

http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/juror/walkthrough/the_ court/faqs/index.html#2277
I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence

There is this -
Affirmation I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence

But it is too atheist.

And practically, how can you possibly tell if I'm being dishonest in the oath or affirmation I pick? I could be lying outside court about my religion for example, and telling the truth inside. Which is ok - it's only illegal to lie in court. So you couldn't use my statements outside court to prove I deliberately picked the wrong oath. Plus you have no idea about who I really am, and I've already said I wouldn't mention these sorts of issues if I were going to court, just pick the best sounding oath or affirmation on offer.

Seriously, you'd be better off worrying about how many angels can dance of the head of a pin than worrying about this stuff. This isn't the Middle Ages!

A man looks to the heavens and speaks to the Lord Above.
"God, is it true that a million years to you is but a moment?"
The heavens shudder slightly as a reply is sent down. "YES"
The man ponders for a time, looks to the heavens again and speaks.
"God, is it true that a million dollars to you is but a penny?"
Again, the heavens shudder as "YES" as the Lord Almighty replies in the affirmative.
The man mulls this over, and looks skyward a third time.
"God, can you give me a penny?"
The heavens do not shake and the ground does not shudder as the Lord's booming voice answers.
"IN A MOMENT"

I saw a minivan that belonged to a protestant church in town. It was covered with the name of the church, as well as commands to attend and a slew of religious bumper stickers. Among all the other bumper stickers, there was one claiming that the KJV of the bible is the only true version. I wondered, if advertising is work, would not just the ownership of this vehicle be considered work? Should not I and others from town here, as part of the same community, be killing the owner of this minivan for working on the sabbath? Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. And what if Junior sees dad driving the minivan on the sabbath, what should he do? Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

On a related note. I've been wanting to get some slaves. That's cool with the Bible as per Lev. 25:44: You can also have other male or female slaves. These are the male and female slaves that you buy from the nations around you.

I'd personally like to know how anyone can look at one of these religious texts, claim they are the word of God, then disregard them. "Oh, that's the Old Testament. It doesn't apply with the coming of Christ." Huh? How did the Word of God just become invalid? And if the Word of God became invalid once before, doesn't that mean that it will likely become invalid again? If God is so Wishy-Washy on what he says (there are THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF COMMANDMENTS! http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm ) where is all this faith coming from? He can't even stand by his word between testaments.

I say, the big flightless bird is real. It went extinct with the advent of the wok.

Nice try, but that is a horrible mis-quote.

Einstein said once, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Read all about it here.

Good comment, but the George Bush comment on atheists was a bit off - that was George H. W. Bush, the former president, not George W. Bush, the current President.

First link on Google for the quote

Ryan Fenton

In a much earlier comment you said:
one thing that Evolution teaches is that men are just evolved creatures with no purpose.

That is absolutely untrue.

You are effectively declaring that if some element of your Faith is incorrect, that if God did not do things exactly the way you believe, then YOU are saying that God is not permitted to exist at all.

You are the one making the stong atheistic presumption and implying the strong atheistic argument, not me.

You're using the exact same reasoning that they used to attack Galileo in the middle ages. One element of their Faith, derived from their clear and literal reading of the Bible, was that God created an earth that did not more, an earth at the center of the universe. They had the hubris to tell Go how He could and could not do things, the hubris to say that if any element of their faith was incorrect, if any element of their literal Bible was incorrect, that God is forbidden to exist at all.

The majority of Christians on earth accept both evolution and God. The majority of Christians accept evolution as God's chosen mechanism operating in God's perfect universe to create the diversity of life, just as they accept the laws of optics as God's perfect mechanism for creating rainbows.

Imagine someone beleiving God directly creates rainbows and directly inserts them into the universe as a sign of his covnentant with man, based on the Biblical Noah story, and that person were to say exactly what you said... that the the laws of optics explaining the mechanism of rainbows "teaches is that men are just [] creatures with no purpose".

I'll do what is in my own best interst all of the time and call that "right".

Allow me to point out the irony trying to claim moral superiority over atheists by argument that *YOU* and other theists would behave like monsters. Heh.

You know what atheist organisation activity was for the US National Day of Prayer? Give their very blood to save the lives of others. I dunno about you, but I think telling everyone in the country to sit on their asses praying is worse than worthless. I dunno about you, but I think sacrificing of your very body to save the lives of others is not merely good and noble, most importantly it is EFFECTIVE. Passive prayer vs effective real action to improve the lives of real people, who are in real need, in the real world.

Atheists don't pray to God asking Him to make the world a better place. They believe that 100% of the responsibility for the future of the world lies with people, that the only way to make the world a better place is through our own action.

Atheists donate blood (not all of them of course, but at least as much if not more than the general public). They sign up as organ donors. They sometimes even become living bone marrow donors for complete strangers. Atheists donate billions of dollars per year (again, as much or more than the general public) and countless hours of their time to virtually every charitable group under the sun - in many cases giving money or working in religious-established charities simply because it is *the* big available group doing the good work. In fact atheists somtimes even wind up RUNNING explicitly religious related charitible organisations. I recently came across an atheist post amusingly citing the fact that he wound up at he head of his local YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association). Presumably he got that position because he was the best man for the job, because he was the one most willing and most competent and most dedicated to helping the local kids.

Why? Because they are good people. Because they enjoy it. Because they care. Because they think it is the right thing to do. Because they like being good people. Because they like doing the right thing. Because they feel a resposibility to do so (one memorable atheist quote was that if God does not exist, that places MORE responsibility up

Stop doing your research in Christian publications (yes, most dictionaries meet that standard... especially English dictionaries.) Do your research in the atheist community. The definitions of Christians applied to atheists are inherently invalid and biased.

Now, instead of the little "sound bites" you get from these dictionaries, do some real work: A good starting point would be if you read George H. Smith's scholarly "Atheism - The case against God", 340 plus-pages of actual research, exposition and background. And of course, this work includes the correct definition of atheism (on page 7.)

Or here, or here, or here (though as usual, in Wikipedia, this article is badly tainted by the opinions and errors of non-atheists... it still lays out the idea and a close approximation of the boundaries), or here, or here, or here, or here, or here. And in tons more, just go google it. On the one hand, you will find the atheist community, repeatedly explaining what the situation actually is. On the other, you will find religionists (and many agnostics), trying to apply a set of outlooks to a set of people who do not agree that they hold said outlook.

You'll note that these sources pretty much all treat the subject in some detail, explaining not only what is, but why. These sources come from the atheist community, and when an atheist tells you what they stand for, you're a lot better off taking them at their word and intent than you are trying to fit some religionist's preconceptions on top of what they actually think. But it is, after all, your call. You certainly won't be alone; religionists (and again, many "agnostics") try really hard to misconstrue the atheist position. it is pretty obvious why they do so. In the case of the religionists, they want to apply the idea of faith to the entire set of atheists, when this only applies to the hard atheist subset. They do this in order to try and demonstrate that "faith" is "required" to take the atheist view, when the actual situation is that this argument only applies to the hard athiests — of whom, by the way, I have met very few. In the case of agnostics, they do this so as to try to stake out an imaginary middle ground between belief and lack of belief. There is no such middle ground, and agnostics are upset by this idea because, I think, they're trying to avoid the issue. This can always be resolved by a simple question: Do you believe in a god or gods, or not? The answer is "I do" or "I don't", and the answer clearly defines one who embraces theism (theist) and one who does not embrace theism (atheist.)

I am atheist. I hold absolutely no belief in a god or gods, nor do I ever expect to, nor do I ever expect to run into any evidence to the contrary that would cause me to embrace the idea that the idea of a god or gods rises above the standard of any other fairy tale. Given the complete and utter lack of evidence made available to me to date, my confidence that the idea of a god or gods is a completely human construct is extremely high. None of this is disbelief. It is lack of belief. I find the cup of evidence to be empty. Like any assertion for which no evidence can be found, asking for belief is asking far too much. Is the idea interesting? Certainly. Is it entertaining? Yes, that too. Is it woven throughout history? Yes. Has it affected the course of human lives? Sure. Should I therefore pay attention to it? Indubitably. Might it affect my own life? Yes indeed. Does any of this make t

May I direct your attention here: "*Which* Ten Commandments?"

The Protestant, Catholic and Hebrew versions all say "Thou shalt not kill."

But, that's not nearly as interesting as the fact that the original tablets ("which moses did break," Exodus 20) are entirely different from the second set ("the words that were on the first," Exodus 34).

Nevermind that the Protestant and Hebrew versions are different (some subtley, some majorly) from the Catholic version.

But, you go ahead and believe whatever you need to, to be able to sleep at night. :)

For example, Russels Why I am not A Christian is much less idiotic. Richard Dawkins Is Science a Religion is also pretty good, so it's not like it's impossible for you to find such things.

I think it's sad that so many of the people who oppose religion so vehemently clearly have motivation other than seeking the truth. I know a lot of people have been damaged by those calling themselves Christians, and in America I can imagine that rationalist types feel oppressed by the religious literalists, and here on slashdot there must be lots of people who think that their trendy rationalist philosophy will give them the ability to look down on the rest of the population and make them feel good, but really, try to find a more appropriate target for that hurt, frustration and arrogance.

Religion is not the enemy of science, dogmatism is.

> The commandments, on the other hand, are immutable, they were given to Moses as tablets which were written by God.

The only problem with that is how many different versions there are.

Mark Twain also saw wasp parasitism in particular as an argument against benevolent design. See, for example, his late sketch "Little Bessie".

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]." This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept the uncertainties indicated by quantum theory. [Emphasis mine] Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

A better quotation showing what Einstein thought is the following: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein was unable to accept Quantum Theory because of his belief in an objective, orderly reality: a reality which would not be subject to random events and which would not be dependent upon the observer. He believed that Quantum Mechanics was incomplete, and that a better theory would have no need for statistical interpretations. So far no better theory has been found and evidence suggests that it never will be.

A longer quote from Einstein appears in Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

• The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

  But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task ...

Einstein has also said:

• It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

The latter quote is from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

• I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

If you read that quote in context ( http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einbucky.htm ) you'll see that it's highly misleading quoted alone. By "religion" he seems to mean "admiration for the mysteries of the universe". (My attempt at a summary, not a direct quote.) Einstein's ideas about "religion" aren't exactly mainstream.

A Usenet post (via Google) with some interesting quotes: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.jehova hs-witn/msg/d7aef3818e7ab1e6?dmode=source&hl=en .

Samples:

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." -- Albert Einstein, "The World as I See It"

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Princeton University Press.

First I would like to note that the rule of Separation of Church and State long predates the Constitution. Perhaps this rings a bell: "Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that
are God's."

The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with established religion.

You are missreading it. The force of government may not be used to establish anything with respect to religious matters. For example further down my post you'll see James Madison state that hiring congressional Chaplians is a violation of the establishment clause.

prevent the church from meddling with government (AKA public schools)

No, that is government meddling with religion. School boards and principals and teachers are are all government employees acting in an official capacity as agents of the government. They cannot abuse their government powers for the purpose of promoting or supressing any religion or religious belief or religious practice.

For example students have the right to pray in school. However government officals cannot abuse their government powers to promote nor to suppress student prayer. This is why the ACLU wins all of their school prayer court cases... because the ACLU explicitly supports the right of children to pray in school... and every ACLU prayer related case has in fact been a lawsuit targeted at government officials and their use of government powers to promote or suppress prayer by students.

When Thomas Jefferson enacted seperation of church and state, it was a one-way seperation

You have been lied to. That is a complete fabrication of religious right author and anti-separationist activist David Barton. Barton's claim is that Jefferson makes the following statement about his "wall" metaphor in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

Jefferson made no such statement, either in the Danbury Baptist letter or in any of his other writings. No professional accommodationist scholar gives Barton's claim the slightest credence. Still, the story continues to circulate, and has now become so widely disseminated among religious right activists that it has all but assumed the status of a religious "urban legend."

Barton has a bad habit of LYING and INVENTING NUMEROUS BOGUS QUOTES. In fact he has been cornered into admitting to many of his fabricated quotes.

Trying to claim Jefferson as anything but the stanchest of Separationists is comical. Jefferson led the pack on removing religion from of government institutions, and was often attacked as an atheist for it. (He was not an atheist, but then as now, one of the favorite tactics of religious activists trying to hijack government power for their own favor is to smear anyone who opposes them as an atheist. Jefferson was no Christian, but he was no atheist either.)

The primary authority on the meaning of the First Amendment would indisputably be James Madison. He is known as the Father of the Constitution and the Father of the Bill of Rights, and he directly penned most of it.

Some of Madison's writings on the subject:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history

It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, pos

No, I was not trying to point to make you look silly. What I was trying to do is to make you consider even a remote possibility to re-think the world around you and not fall into the comfortable "God loves me and I am special" dogma that has been beaten into most of the Western world since childhood. And don't be condosending-- I had lived in Christian community and had to take plenty Theology classes and got enough of "so sorry, you're great person but you're going to hell" looks. I have read the book you mentioned and many others as I was naive enough to consider that Christians around me were capabale of intelligent argument on the topic. Instead, I got "God exists and he loves me, I just know it. Otherwise, I would not feel special" And if you want some intelligent reading, I can suggest Richard Dawkins' "The Improbability of God" But something tells me that you're so wrapped up in your believes, that it's too scary to assume the possibilty that we might be alone, a possibility that belittles our self-worth, and to even imagine that the humankind might not be the "God's Image" and the best thing that happened to this world. I can hardly blame you-- all those generations of people who lived and killed in God's name must be right and the Bible must be faxed directly from Heaven and not selected by humans in 4th century (I will not insult your intelligence by pointing out the Wiki article on that).

Most religious people, including Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and so forth, show a high degree of tolerance for the beliefs of others.


That's true, but in the case of Jews and Christians they aren't following the Ten Commandments by doing so :

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"

The Qu'ran also has the same rule
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr10cisl.htm

Hindus - I have no idea, but historically they seem to have coexisted with Buddhists. I even saw some temples in Thailand with mixed Hindu and Buddist gods. Buddhism itself apparently has something about 'the higher Buddha is not Buddha'. So they both seem to be free of the inherent intolerance in Abrahamic, monotheistic religions.

Hey, since you're only following up to this because I was rude to you here
How does 'The Higher Linux is not Linux sound to you' ;-)


I know you want to paint all religious people as "evil", but the fact of the matter is that you're wrong. Reality differs from your fantasy world.


I can see how you'd get that impression from this post:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167879&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=153&mode=nested&cid=1400145 5

Oh wait, I said the exact opposite. Didn't Jesus say something about hating the sin, not the sinner?

Hitler had a bout of temporary blindness during duty in WW1. Later, on hearing news about the armistice and just what Germany had to accede to in the peace treaty, he had a second episode, lasting by some accounts only a little over 24 hours, by others possibly two days to two weeks. This second episode definitely sounds psycological or "histerical", whether there was any component of that in the first one or not.
There's even a theory that hypnosis possibly used in treating Hitler for this condition may have encouraged some sort of messianic complex and led to his latter activities in politics:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/hitlernuz.htm

(I offer this for whatever its worth. The site has several obvious philosophical or religious axes to grind, and as the text points out, the Gestapo possibly destroyed a lot of records that might help confirm or refute the hypothesis (so it's conveniently untestable, and very handy for anyone who wants to interpret it according to their own bias). Still it's an interesting idea).

A point I will conceed. Alas, George Bush isn't even close to being a John Adams, as a study of their mutual efforts pre-presidency will reveal. Adams at least had a height to fall from, to make his failures more tragic than farce.

Gee, it seems that Jefferson and Madison were religion neutral as well.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
--James Madison

..."the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Dr. Benjamin Rush, Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800. (Emphasis added, because the quote fucking rocks. )

For some reason, Fundamentalist Evangelicals seldom cite Jefferson, and never do so referring to the full source. =)

As for the other issues which you don't address, again the 10th Amendment covers it very nicely. If it ain't in the Constitution, a document I swore a long time ago to preserve, protect and defend and still hold to that oath despite my country breaking faith from me, it is left to the states or the people.

Article V: Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution". Which means you're still stuck (as I noted) with Amendment 14, not to mention assorted loons empowered by Article III until and unless they quit or keel over dead.

Sorry, but try another shot at my bows.

"Mister Christian! Man the Canons!"

We should read again that wonderful article by Sagan: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganbur.htm

regarding the wider scope of Intellegent Design, why does that necessarily have to conflict with the established theory of evolution?

Because evolution posits random mutation and natural selection! If there's one fact to take from the theory of evolution, it's that evolution is purposeless! If you believe that what you call "evolution" is a tool of God, you are not talking about Darwinian evolution. You really are talking about so-called Intelligent Design. And that opinion may be comfortable for you, but it is simply not borne out by the last century of biology.

Check out some Richard Dawkins quotes on this subject, e.g. this one: "Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion."

No. No. No.

Smart people especially geeks on this site believe stupid things as well. Just because you guys are geeks doesn't make you any more intellectually better than ANYONE else. Consider the actors that make up this site:

The editors. Our /. overlords who regularly post dupes without utilizing their 'typical geek analysing' to see whether or not an article has been posted.

The posters. Survey this site at -1 some time. It's no wonder the slashdot subculture article on Wikipedia gives our community such a bad rap. IMO, in any subculture there are only a few smart individuals all the rest are just guys/gals who ride the meme wave mid-coitus because they like being part of a group. It gives them an identity or the groupthink that many people espouse of here.

The mods. Well, like the GP stated you can't piss these guys off. Considering the mods have modded up in this thread a post that reeks of conspiracy and tin foil hat FUD I have my doubts about these actors as well considering they are the posters who also make up the rabble here.

So why are there so many stupid people here that seem smart? Because geeks believe stupid things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-intelligent reasons. How many people here still hold beliefs they received before they got the magical geek skill of analysis and intellectual brilliance?

I'll leave you guys to found out yourself. Heres a start though there are some biases found in psychology that might be of use. They are called intellectual attribution bias and confirmation bias.

"When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service." John Mackay, Extraordinary Popular delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

• Theory Influences Observations, or, "Does this surprise anybody?"
• Anecdotes Do Not Make a Science, or, "I read it on Indymedia, it was repeated on DailyKOS, that proves it's true"
• Scientific Language Does Not Make a Science, or, "500 Years of Jurisprudence is being thrown out because of denial of habeus corpus"
• Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True, or, "BUSH == HITLER"
• Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness, or, "We must have hit a nerve, why else would they deny it?"
• Burden of Proof, or, "Bush hasn't countered the cocaine charges, so they must be true"
• Rumors Do Not Equal Reality, or, "Everybody's saying it, it must be true"
• Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable, or, "We still don't know everything about 9/11, that proves Bush was behind it"
• Failures Are Rationalized, or, "The long-demanded 9/11 Report is just more lies"
• After-the-Fact Reasoning, or, "Bush should have known" And that's just the first half. How many can YOU find?

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

That line about "God does not play dice with the Universe" was essencially a figure of speech to illustrate his opposition to QUANTUM Theory not Chaos Theory.

Are you kidding me? Paul was a Pharisee named Saul before his conversion on the road to Damascus, and his main priority was stomping out the new cult of Christianity in the name of Judaism. He was about as Jewish as they came during that time period.

His father was a pagan. And how did he convert on the road to damascus? By a vision as he claims. He didn't actually meet Jesus on this road. This was after Jesus was allegedly cruzified. So what exactly do you think I am kidding you about?

The pagan influence is usually acknowledged by modern theologians. In fact I'm debating a theologian on another forum right now, who rejects paul altogether.

The claims by Paul that he was a learned pharisee is challenged by some scholars.
The Problem of Paul
Paul's Bungling Attempt At Sounding Pharisaic

Are you kidding me? Paul was a Pharisee named Saul before his conversion on the road to Damascus, and his main priority was stomping out the new cult of Christianity in the name of Judaism. He was about as Jewish as they came during that time period.

His father was a pagan. And how did he convert on the road to damascus? By a vision as he claims. He didn't actually meet Jesus on this road. This was after Jesus was allegedly cruzified. So what exactly do you think I am kidding you about?

The pagan influence is usually acknowledged by modern theologians. In fact I'm debating a theologian on another forum right now, who rejects paul altogether.

The claims by Paul that he was a learned pharisee is challenged by some scholars.
The Problem of Paul
Paul's Bungling Attempt At Sounding Pharisaic

Not to mention, as far as he is concerned, I am not a Patriot and I don't deserve to be an American citizen, because I'm agnostic.

His personal rhetoric doesn't back up that claim (of course, he may just be being PC for a photo-op):

"Americans practice different faiths in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. And many good people practice no faith at all."

Check out Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotations

Thank you to the reviewer for posting such a stale old story. I haven't had such a good laugh on /. for quite a while.

A few more news items:

Elephants are comming over the Alps. Head for the hills!

Man discovers fire.

Leave Troy now!

Oh wait....

I'd love to find a facsimile of "Discovery." They pop up at antiquarian book auctions now and then, fetching out-of-this-world prices.

Facinating guy, I agree. Science hadn't yet figured out that space is a vacuum, and Wilkins confused magnetism and gravity. Still, he was a modern mind in a world still gripped by superstition. Pretty clear-eyed for a man of faith. Good for him.