Slashdot Mirror

You have not presented evidence, only a hopeful event that has not occured.

Do you believe the nation of Ethiopia exists?

First hand accounts, video, documentation, don't you have a better example? Evolution has none of this, just wishful thinking from people that want it to be true.

Ah, so you're just a liar. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ad hominem attacks are not scientific. This is the problem with this debate, since you have no proof you have resorted to non-scientific means of discrediting personality instead of offering facts.

Secondly, if you read my post (that you even copied and pasted), I clearly state my position as one of "belief" not fact, so I am not lying, I do actually believe what I have stated.

You seem to have confused the Word Theory.

Evolution is a Theory in the Scientific Sense, "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

This is why it counts as "Science"

Intelligent Design is a theory in the colloquial sense, which is what most of the definitions that include "Idle speculation" are referring to. There is no Scientific Backing for Intelligent Design, which is why, if it's taught in a classroom, it should be a theology class, not a Science Class.

It seems that we need to get the definitions of theory side by side.

Now let's be a little more accurate.
There is scientific theory and then there is just plain regular theory.

Why this is almost never illuminated so full understanding is attained I'll never know.

It seems that we need to get the definitions of theory side by side.

Now let's be a little more accurate.
There is scientific theory and then there is just plain regular theory.

Why this is almost never illuminated so full understanding is attained I'll never know.

Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

You cannot base one unproven theory on a plethora of other unproven theories and call that science.

Belief in evolution is a form of religion,(definition #4) as it cannot be proved through any scientific methods on how life began and must be taken on faith, as we don't even know the conditions in which the first life came to be, as these are theories too.

Since ID is no different, then neither should be taught in schools...

Justin.

Justin.

The Wikipedia entry for Facism is currently flagged "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
If you read through the discussion you'll see claims that facism is incorrectly being tied with right wing politics

And for that American Heritage Dictionary definition;
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism

The dictionary.com refrence which also lists the American Heritage Dictionary as its source has something quite different
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

I want a neutral argument here, but that second definition doesn't have the "liberal spin" to it. In other words, you don't see extreme right or merging of state and business leadership, but instead the traditional definition of facism, which has a dictator with total control over the government and the economy.

Interpret this as you will, but I see here a case where information does not equal truth. There are so many facts to choose from, that people pick the ones that suit them best. If you hate Bush, you pick the first definition, and count the ways in which Bush is worse than Hitler. If you support Bush, you pick the second one and accuse the smelly hippies of spreading misinformation.

hey kiddo, perhaps this link will help you out!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conduct

next time, if you don't know the meaning of a word, perhaps consider looking it up before posting?

Ironically, you misspelled 'grammar' here.

It's not much fun grammar trolling if we can't missplell grammer.

Plus, someone haxored dictionary.reference.com this week and now my extention says that "grammer" means IN Zip code(s): 47236M

I'm pretty sure that the Apocalypse is close at hand.

Reading the comments I get the feeling a lot of people have problems distinguishing "ought to" from "must", let me explain:

Given that all sides agree Sony has a goal of making game which is popular, fun, and commercially successful, it is totally valid for someone to use "must" if, in her opinion, the suggestion is a firm prerequisite towards that objective.

"Ought to" * based on moral beliefs (which can greatly differ!)

Dictionary time!
must, v. 1. to be obiliged or required by morality

Section 209 of the USA Patriot (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html ) redefines "wire communication" in Title 18 of the United States Code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_ch apter119_.html) so that it strikes out the part saying "and such term includes any electronic storage of such communication" from the definition.

Sec. 2511 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cg i?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2511) of the Title 18, United States Code states, "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited."

Because electronic storage of wire communication was stricken from that definition, the USA PATRIOT allowed electronic storage of intercepted wire communication. Thus, recorded wiretapping was made legal by the USA PATRIOT Act.

However, the changing of this definition, and thus the legality of recorded wiretapping, expires December 31, 2005. Now I'll examine the punishment for this once the USA PATRIOT Act expires.

Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:

"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication

...

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5)."

In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.

Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.

Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.

I'm guessing, if the NSA is found to keep wiretapping past 2005, the result will be Bush getting fined. I'm examining subsection 5 now. Paragraph A states that an unscrambled, unencypted, private satellite video communication being tapped will result in the wiretapper or the person that procures that wiretapper being subject to suit.

Paragraph B of subsection 5 states that if Bush has procured wiretapping unscrambled and unencrypted American radio communications within frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission, he's also subject to lawsuit. When the USA Patriot Act expires, of course.

The section of the FCC's rules they refer to in Paragraph B of Subsection 5, subpart D of part 74, is listed here, with subpart D being numbers 74.401 to 74.482:

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2006/74/

In conclusion, in addition to being fined or sent to jail, if the NSA keeps wiretapping past 2005, George W. Bush is subject to lawsuit by the Federal Government.

I think that George Bush could avoid it, however, by argueing against the interpretation of the word "procure." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=procure)

If George Bush has procured another person to wiretap, meaning "to

The article states "founded".

Clearly you do not know what that word means.

1. Not restrained; uncontrolled: incontinent rage.

If you fail, you should retake the class.

That isn't an option. If you can't get a teacher to give you an incomplete, the grade is final.

You might be able to go to the Dean and ask them to reconsider, though.

K-12 is even worse. Once you've gone through 12 grades (13 counting kindergarten), you're locked out of taking any more courses.

Then you have to depend on finding ways to get money for college.

Allowing children the freedom to 'discover' things at their own pace causes more dropouts, and mostly tests motivation and discipline instead of talent.>

Rote is no different.

They used to have speed drills for multiplication in elementary school. I could have done all the problems correctly if allowed to work them in my own time. Those speed drills were just a waste.

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/

I found the website for PISA. You could have put it in one of your messages as a courtesy.

I'm not sure how valid their random picking method is. You aren't exactly citing the relevant portions of the site that explains their methodology on anything. In fact you are making a lot of assertions about PISA without appropriate citations. The main problem with PISA as I see it is that it compares schools that generally do things the same way to each other. Nor does it appear to highlight which portions of the differences in systems is responsible for good or bad performance. If a system were to produce 15% extremely high performing students and the rest sub-par, I don't know how they would rank against a system producing 40% slightly above par, 20% at par, and 40% sub-par students.

Consult a proper dictionary.
You consult a proper dictionary. Better yet take a course, though I'm not sure what course would address your lacking in this particular area. English isn't the native language of the Netherlands, unlike America, where I'm at, and English is my native toungue.

But to help you out, consider these definitions from WordWeb:
procedure: A particular course of action intended to achieve a result

instruction: A message describing how something is to be done.

Dictionary.com:
instruction:4b Detailed directions on procedure
procedure:1. A manner of proceeding; a way of performing or effecting something: standard procedure. A manner of proceeding; a way of performing or effecting something: standard procedure.

The students are going nowhere: even migration levels inside the country are very low due to religious, linguistic, and cultural division in the country. We do get a lot of foreign students these days at our university.

Cite sources please.

If you fail, you should retake the class.

That isn't an option. If you can't get a teacher to give you an incomplete, the grade is final.

You might be able to go to the Dean and ask them to reconsider, though.

K-12 is even worse. Once you've gone through 12 grades (13 counting kindergarten), you're locked out of taking any more courses.

Then you have to depend on finding ways to get money for college.

Allowing children the freedom to 'discover' things at their own pace causes more dropouts, and mostly tests motivation and discipline instead of talent.>

Rote is no different.

They used to have speed drills for multiplication in elementary school. I could have done all the problems correctly if allowed to work them in my own time. Those speed drills were just a waste.

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/

I found the website for PISA. You could have put it in one of your messages as a courtesy.

I'm not sure how valid their random picking method is. You aren't exactly citing the relevant portions of the site that explains their methodology on anything. In fact you are making a lot of assertions about PISA without appropriate citations. The main problem with PISA as I see it is that it compares schools that generally do things the same way to each other. Nor does it appear to highlight which portions of the differences in systems is responsible for good or bad performance. If a system were to produce 15% extremely high performing students and the rest sub-par, I don't know how they would rank against a system producing 40% slightly above par, 20% at par, and 40% sub-par students.

Consult a proper dictionary.
You consult a proper dictionary. Better yet take a course, though I'm not sure what course would address your lacking in this particular area. English isn't the native language of the Netherlands, unlike America, where I'm at, and English is my native toungue.

But to help you out, consider these definitions from WordWeb:
procedure: A particular course of action intended to achieve a result

instruction: A message describing how something is to be done.

Dictionary.com:
instruction:4b Detailed directions on procedure
procedure:1. A manner of proceeding; a way of performing or effecting something: standard procedure. A manner of proceeding; a way of performing or effecting something: standard procedure.

The students are going nowhere: even migration levels inside the country are very low due to religious, linguistic, and cultural division in the country. We do get a lot of foreign students these days at our university.

Cite sources please.

"To complex, to heavy, to expensive"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"To complex, to heavy, to expensive"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

but you know what i mean. there are different definitions of 'mature'. unfortunately it seems they get used interchangeably.

Sure, but only one of them is applicable in this context.

"Suitable or intended for adults: mature subject matter."

Link.

Anything is else is just an effort to make "mature" mean "games that I like."

All the good projects already had the non-presentation code separated from the prestation code.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to be the grammar Nazi today, because your usage of the word "to" is so egregiously wrong. If you are going to write a long rant about something, you need to at least make the effort to have proper grammar and spelling.

When something is excessively complex, heavy, expensive, or whatever, use the work "too," with two o's, for heaven's sake. Otherwise, it reads like you are trying to make complex, heavy, and expensive into verbs.

Some references to help you along:

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000258.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=too

http://mzbworks.home.att.net/grammar.htm

On the other hand, going "to hydrogen" is correct. Good for you.

Gonna nitpick here: one-over-r-squared ( 1/r^2 ) forces do NOT decrease exponentially with increasing distance. They decrease in proportion to ... one-over-r-squared.

Artificial. It's an illusion.

Wrong. Artificial doesn't imply "fake", "illusory", or anything like that. Whoever posted the lame "synthetic intelligence" blurb to Wikipedia doesn't understand English (or merely has peeve about the unimpressive results from the large bulk of research attempted under the "AI" banner).

And anyway, "synthetic" has "fake", "counterfeit" as parts of it's definition, too.

Well......they could become president.

We do have precedent now.


Did you think of that yourself, or are you just aping what you've heard elsewhere?

Condoning his actions implies you agree with, and to some extent support him.

No, it doesn't mean that. Check the dictionary. "Condone" means you allow something to proceed, even though you might not entirely agree with it, and probably think that it's wrong.

The most common modern usage is in a form of "I will not condone that behavior", which means (1) I disagree with behavior AND (2) I'm not willing to let it go on unpunished. If you DID condone it, however, then you would still disagree with it, but would no longer try to prevent it or punish for it.

I think you have mistaken Socialism (which is characterised by "social service" actually and includes democratic determination as a basic principle) with Avarice - as in the "United States of Avarice".

It's not your fault - Americans are taught in their impeccable "schools" ~ socialism is communism and republicanism is democracy.

Love your nick.

I believe the grandparent meant asymptotically, but the assertion is vague enough to be interpreted in any way the reader likes. Perhaps the poster is a politician ;)

The word you are looking for is fascism.

but if you're going to say "graphically" shouldn't there be... I dunno. A graph?

Technically, each one of the letters on the page counts as a graph. Look at definition 1a for graphical: "of or relating to written expression".

Today, people generally use "graphical" to exclude the possibility of text, when "pictorial" would be more correct for that meaning. The dictionaries haven't yet been rewritten to match, though.

Racism
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
Includes the words "prejudice" and "discrimination" to define the word.

Bigot
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Includes the word "prejudices" to define the word. You are correct that, by definition that "bigotry" does not necessarily include race as a prerequisite. Neither is race excluded. Bigot is defined elsewhere as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Prejudice
"c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"
Includes the word "race" to define the word. Prejudice is also described as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."

Discrimination
"b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [racial discrimination]"
Includes the words "prejudiced" and "prejudicial," and the phrase "racial discrimination" to define the word. Discrimination is described elsewhere as "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Based on the above, my statement that those words are fairly similar (in this context) stands.

If the original poster did not have any racial prejudice, racial bias, whatever you want to call it, then why specify that both store clerks apppeared to be Indian? If race was not a concern, that piece of information would have no value. I contend that race is not a concern, therefore that piece of information does not have any value.

I'm not saying that it's impossible or even necessarily (I know I used that word before) improbable that the two store clerks in question were trying to pull a fast one. What I am saying is that implying that their race or nationality is evidence that they were trying to pull a fast one is wrong, no matter what word you want to use to describe that. That the post was modded up Interesting is interesting in itself. Ignoring the information about the apparent race of the store clerks', the post seems written by someone who's a bit paranoid. That's not intersting; that's just tinfoil hat.

I know myself, and I know that when I was younger I was a Common Middle-Class Racist(tm). Somewhere along the way, I became aware that that is wrong, and since then I have made efforts to notice prejudices in myself and correct them. I know that I am from from being finished with that, and I fear that at my age, I may never be.

When I read the original post, the phrase "appeared to be Indian" jumped out at me. It's mild, off-the-cuff, minor, and still wrong. Everyone wants to split hairs about whether it's racist or bigoted or prejudiced, but that's completely tangential to what I intended to say.

What I intended to say is that it's wrong. There, I've said it. Split that hair.

Racism
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
Includes the words "prejudice" and "discrimination" to define the word.

Bigot
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Includes the word "prejudices" to define the word. You are correct that, by definition that "bigotry" does not necessarily include race as a prerequisite. Neither is race excluded. Bigot is defined elsewhere as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Prejudice
"c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"
Includes the word "race" to define the word. Prejudice is also described as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."

Discrimination
"b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [racial discrimination]"
Includes the words "prejudiced" and "prejudicial," and the phrase "racial discrimination" to define the word. Discrimination is described elsewhere as "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Based on the above, my statement that those words are fairly similar (in this context) stands.

If the original poster did not have any racial prejudice, racial bias, whatever you want to call it, then why specify that both store clerks apppeared to be Indian? If race was not a concern, that piece of information would have no value. I contend that race is not a concern, therefore that piece of information does not have any value.

I'm not saying that it's impossible or even necessarily (I know I used that word before) improbable that the two store clerks in question were trying to pull a fast one. What I am saying is that implying that their race or nationality is evidence that they were trying to pull a fast one is wrong, no matter what word you want to use to describe that. That the post was modded up Interesting is interesting in itself. Ignoring the information about the apparent race of the store clerks', the post seems written by someone who's a bit paranoid. That's not intersting; that's just tinfoil hat.

I know myself, and I know that when I was younger I was a Common Middle-Class Racist(tm). Somewhere along the way, I became aware that that is wrong, and since then I have made efforts to notice prejudices in myself and correct them. I know that I am from from being finished with that, and I fear that at my age, I may never be.

When I read the original post, the phrase "appeared to be Indian" jumped out at me. It's mild, off-the-cuff, minor, and still wrong. Everyone wants to split hairs about whether it's racist or bigoted or prejudiced, but that's completely tangential to what I intended to say.

What I intended to say is that it's wrong. There, I've said it. Split that hair.

Racism
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
Includes the words "prejudice" and "discrimination" to define the word.

Bigot
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Includes the word "prejudices" to define the word. You are correct that, by definition that "bigotry" does not necessarily include race as a prerequisite. Neither is race excluded. Bigot is defined elsewhere as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Prejudice
"c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"
Includes the word "race" to define the word. Prejudice is also described as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."

Discrimination
"b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [racial discrimination]"
Includes the words "prejudiced" and "prejudicial," and the phrase "racial discrimination" to define the word. Discrimination is described elsewhere as "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Based on the above, my statement that those words are fairly similar (in this context) stands.

If the original poster did not have any racial prejudice, racial bias, whatever you want to call it, then why specify that both store clerks apppeared to be Indian? If race was not a concern, that piece of information would have no value. I contend that race is not a concern, therefore that piece of information does not have any value.

I'm not saying that it's impossible or even necessarily (I know I used that word before) improbable that the two store clerks in question were trying to pull a fast one. What I am saying is that implying that their race or nationality is evidence that they were trying to pull a fast one is wrong, no matter what word you want to use to describe that. That the post was modded up Interesting is interesting in itself. Ignoring the information about the apparent race of the store clerks', the post seems written by someone who's a bit paranoid. That's not intersting; that's just tinfoil hat.

I know myself, and I know that when I was younger I was a Common Middle-Class Racist(tm). Somewhere along the way, I became aware that that is wrong, and since then I have made efforts to notice prejudices in myself and correct them. I know that I am from from being finished with that, and I fear that at my age, I may never be.

When I read the original post, the phrase "appeared to be Indian" jumped out at me. It's mild, off-the-cuff, minor, and still wrong. Everyone wants to split hairs about whether it's racist or bigoted or prejudiced, but that's completely tangential to what I intended to say.

What I intended to say is that it's wrong. There, I've said it. Split that hair.

Staid.

authority: 4.
a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.

Grammer tip: 'Effect' is used as a noun. 'Affect' is used as a verb.

Spelling tip: 'Grammar', not 'Grammer'

Grammer tip: 'Effect' is used as a noun. 'Affect' is used as a verb.

Spelling tip: 'Grammar', not 'Grammer'

They probably took the much more common definition - two lines of (gun)fire converging at a point - which serves their purpose perfectly well. Not that we should believe everything dictionary.com has to say (they think "color" and "neighbor" are words), but in this case I think they've got it right.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crossfire

What are you pair talking about? A shyster can be any cheat:

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=shyster
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shyster

Where did the Judaism ref com into things?

Justin.

Private.

Simple: I don't want my nanna leeching my private porn and I don't want my sex-buddies watching my family videos.

Besides, i'll sell granma some ratio credit for $50/gig :)

"By all means use wikipedia as an information resource, but also make sure that you another source that validates the information."

Shouldn't all information sources be corroborated? (dic. def. link provided for the average /. user)

China has seized to be communist

seize Audio pronunciation of "seize" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sz) v. seized, seizing, seizes v. tr. 1. To grasp suddenly and forcibly; take or grab: seize a sword.

cease Audio pronunciation of "cease" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ss) v. ceased, ceasing, ceases v. tr. To put an end to; discontinue: The factory ceased production. See Synonyms at stop.

China has seized to be communist

seize Audio pronunciation of "seize" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sz) v. seized, seizing, seizes v. tr. 1. To grasp suddenly and forcibly; take or grab: seize a sword.

cease Audio pronunciation of "cease" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ss) v. ceased, ceasing, ceases v. tr. To put an end to; discontinue: The factory ceased production. See Synonyms at stop.

While more militant atheists who actively try to convert others to nonbelief, might qualify...

A Lack of Belief is not a zealously held belief or cause.

Except the difference is that on average (and likely to a very large degree) the "fundamentalist" atheists are much more intelligent and educated than the fundamentalist Christians.

OTOH, the fucking fundies deserve every bit of abuse that comes their way, and then some.

Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance.

See Synonyms at passion.

All software is essentially mathematical algorithims

The definition of algorithm is A step-by-step problem-solving procedure. All software is created in response to some "problem" - i.e., running the ol' Gutenburg press is tedious - and all computers follow a series of instructions.

Therefore, software is nothing but an algorithm. Or, more accurately, the the application of an algorithm.

RTFL. "Proceed" in that sense is intransitive.

> Wrong.

Wrong.

"...designed to precede police into areas where there's no direct line of sight" - to go in before.

> I think that's "...precede police into areas..."

Wrong.

The "a-" in atheism refers to the diety, not the belief.

No, in fact it does not. In English, the word is a-theist; the root of this is considered to be a-theos, which meant something similar, but not the same, in Greek — that may be where your error is coming from. You can resolve your confusion by simple reference to a decent dictionary, or doing a little research to determine what those who are atheist say they stand for in general, and how the language is used by them to define those positions (strong [sometimes called naive] atheism adds conviction, weak atheism is the base position of being without belief.)

Please consider: It is amazingly pointless to look at a group, taking the position they stand for "A", when they have clearly stated they stand for "B", and then proceed to argue from the basis of "A."

As for the rest, since your premise was wholly flawed, I decline to go there.

Y'all are both irrational idiots, in my opinion. Least the christian fundies recognize that their beliefs are in fact, religious, something that most atheists will vehemently deny. So far, I've only met one atheist who is intellectually honest enough to state that, yes, her beliefs are religious. You intellectually honest enough to admit the same?

I'm not sure why you would claim that ignoring the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" is being "intellectually honest". I would describe it more as being a complete moron. Since you seem to be having some problems in that area, let me help you out.

Here's the definition of atheism. Note in particular entry 1a, which is the minimal requirement to be an atheist, the lack of a belief in any god or gods.

Here's the definition of religion. Note that atheism does not fit any of these meanings. There's no belief in a supernatural power (obviously), no belonging to a corresponding organization, no being part of a religious order, no following a spiritual leader and no zeal or conscientious devotion.

Religious people often try to drag atheism down to their level but it just doesn't follow.