Slashdot Mirror

Robots will legally empower certain groups of people to kill other groups of people. And this will be by design.

There have been nine major genocides since WWII. And there will be more. Technology always facilitates it.

Mass Crimes Against Humanity

Left wing nut jobs in government are just waiting for the ability to round up and kill climate skeptics (like me.)

Jewish homosexuals.

If the Bible is part of its training set, the result is likely to be "Detestable, deserving death."--Leviticus 18:22, 20:13.

That's OK.

Turns out the whole concept of virgin birth was just a typo.

If we shock and awe 30,000 people based on bad information, are we better than a society which kills a few hundred people to eat?

Yes, we are. But the above quote is so awesome, I'll bookmark it for the next time I argue with an America-hating zealot — not all of you would be willing to admit to holding an opinion, America is worse than cannibals.

Although you would not answer my question, you no longer have to, because you've already admitted, that some cultures are worse than others. We remain in disagreement, over just who is better, but we agree, that not cultures are equally good — and that was my point from the beginning.

Now that we've established that, why is it automatically bad ("bigoted", "narrow-minded", "racist" even) of representatives of one culture to view representatives of another as others, to, perhaps, not want to associate with them too much, and resent seeing more and more of them as neighbours?

Perhaps, you think, American culture is so bad, it can be improved by being diluted with as many of those cannibals, as can be persuaded to come over here? And, if not enough willing cannibals can be found in the world, folks who cut off girls' clitorises and who stone people to death over adultery should be used instead?

jackass [...] punk [...] another pile of insults

I have never insulted you, asshole. But not any more, crotch-stink. By calling me names, you not only handed me a victory in this debate (as if anyone had any doubts), you've proven yourself — even to observers most partial to your line of "reasoning" — incapable of participating in an argument. Get off my Slashdot for a few months and scrub those sorry wits of yours daily — they are entirely too dim for you to even turn a TV on without adult supervision.

Since you asked:
http://www.religioustolerance....

I don't deny Islam is the language they use to express their extremism, and to the extent that the Koran and Hadiths lay out some fairly brutal rules Islam does bear some blame.

But you can find justifications for slavery and sex slaves in the Old Testament as well.

Second, this church going statistic needs a bit more elaboration. Because atheists and agnostics have the lowest rate of divorce in the U.S. while fundamentalist Christians have the highest. http://www.religioustolerance..... So do they mean to imply that Christians divorce less or is it that lazy Christians divorce more?

Other than that interesting statistics.

These statistics aren't really useful because they show the percentage of people in a particular group that have been divorced, so groups with higher marriage rates will likely also have higher divorce rates. Plus, people who are divorced multiple times are only counted once. It's much more useful to look at the percentage of marriages that end in divorce if you want to make conclusions about which groups are better/worse at keeping marriages together.

First off that 30k average for a wedding is based off a survey in a high end bridal magazine. So the people who answered that are exactly the sort who would be in the market to spend 30k on wedding. http://resultzdigital.com/wall...

Second, this church going statistic needs a bit more elaboration. Because atheists and agnostics have the lowest rate of divorce in the U.S. while fundamentalist Christians have the highest. http://www.religioustolerance..... So do they mean to imply that Christians divorce less or is it that lazy Christians divorce more?

Other than that interesting statistics.

You are completely incorrect regarding rural or otherwise people's belief in evolution. Back to the ignorance issue, I don't know if their science classes leave it out, or if their sunday schools successfully obliterated that part of their education with the fire and brimstone. I don't know the causative factors, but in my experience, the percentage of people in those areas who believe in *any form of evolution* (outside of the ability of a virus to mutate) is somewhere around 0%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/218...

There's a national poll.

http://www.religioustolerance....

There's a good breakdown by state.

Very few? Come on. You're making shit up now.

"And you use it as a time to get angry at people who believe in God."

When people believe in gods that can't invent wireless camera phones and used the most inefficient method to communicate "his" message regardless of religion (christianity, islam, etc). People have every right to look down at believers in old gods with their ancient texts (which are full of errors).

If gods of our ancestors were so all powerful, why do they seem to have a messaging problem? Note that there are over roughly 30,000 different sects of Christianity alone. If a divine being fails so badly at communication, it's 100% certain that the person claiming that failure as evidence of divinity is gullible and lying to themselves.

http://religioustolerance.org/...

Here is some information about slavery in the New Testament.

It is in violation of the rule of law by showing religious partiality to post it, more than it demonstrates the rule of law by being some other previous society's laws. Also, the original intent for putting them up was religious.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm "The CoS' Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality."

They are not about evil, damage, and chaos. Even if they were, their belief and the lawful expression of that belief is constitutional, regardless of what their belief is. You would have to show that putting up this statue is not lawful. By itself, a religion cannot conflict with the constitution.

One man's preversion...

I agree, neither the 10 commandments nor this statue should be displayed on government property. However, it is an amusing jibe at people who want to disregard the 1st amendment and in general are pretty obviously pro theocracy. For full disclosure, I'm neither a satanist nor a Christian. Shrugs.

What do the french say about Mormonism?

I don't know if the French government took a stand again against the Mormons but they were singling out Jehovah's Witness.

In 1998, the government of France imposed a 60% tax on religious offerings given by Jehovah's Witnesses to their organization, the local branch of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WTS). A lien has also been established against their headquarters and printing plant. The intent appears to be to bankrupt the group. The Interior Ministry has refused to register the Temoins de Jehovah as an "association cultuelle" or "association culte." Thus they assert that member's contributions are taxable at the normal 60% rate for gifts in that country, under a 1992 law. The government has calculated that 303 million in French Francs ($50 million in US funds) is owed to the government. This represents 150 million in tax plus 60% in penalty charges and interest). This represents taxes not collected for the past 5 years. The Minister of Finance has refused to confirm this assessment, citing the confidential nature of the information. They do acknowledge that negotiations continue with the WTS.

source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_franc1.htm#witness

I gave citations in another thread. Note that I was not necessarily referring to early Christian writings, but generally to Church position in the past (it changed back and forth over time). See this for details.

Here is a decent, though not unbiased, treatment of the subject. The hardest evidence in favor is Exodus 21:22-25, which specifies the penalty for miscarriage due to violence. Notably, it is distinct from the penalty for murder.

And here is a historical overview of how the position of Christian church on the subject changed. Note that e.g. St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both only considered abortion murder if the fetus was "animated" - this basically meant that it was capable of moving in the womb, and usually the boundary of 40 days after conception was given as a threshold.

If a Christian family is debasing a gay person they are not devout and especially not Christian.

That's right, a "true" Christian would be putting that gay person to death.

Makes sense, at least in my point of view. I'm a atheist, and I have got into depressions regarding the meaning of life, the un/fairness behind it, a lot of trascendental questions, also a fear of death, which people that believes in a god, with fervor, may not feel, since they may believe there is a life after death, there is a meaning behind everything, that there is a god that loves you, etc.

Except, Googling suicide victims shows (citation citation, there are more) that most of them were religious. Go figure.

Everyone knows that the Earth is exactly 6016 years old: "Most conservative groups within Christianity still follow the estimate of Dr. John Lightfoot, a 17th century Anglican clergyman. He estimated that creation occurred during 4004 BCE. Bishop James Ussher in the 17th century made the same estimate a decade later, and ended up with almost all the credit." http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm

No, but they might bomb you if you offend them by being in a nightclub for people with the wrong sexual orientation.

You may also offend them by being poor, in which case they might just steal your recently born baby.

Of course, these are exceptions. But so is your accusation.

There are quite a few homosexual relationships in the bible.

"O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous."
Chapter 49, Verse 13

and

"God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact God loves the equitable."
Chapter 60, Verse 8

or maybe you'd prefer

"Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden (paradise) whose width is that of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous - Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity or in adversity, who restrain (their) anger and pardon (all) men - for God loves those who do good."
Chapter 3, Verses 133-134

Terrible things have been done in the name of every belief, both religious and secular. I'd be more careful with the generalizations. They have a way have coming back to bite you. Or, you know, keep trolling.

Yeah, maybe man doesn't have some insight after 2000 years, we are doing so damn well now, why bother?
Atheists will come and replace all that is lost from philosophy with their amazing brilliance. What a colorful happy world then!

Try reading in context without bias, you know , like you ARE looking for something. Get a little academia behind it. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htm.

Then when you have a bit of input, you won't sound so much like a cartoon character.

Oh, please.. As if the Bible is that much better?

Remember who gobbled the apple?

There are so many bible verses that I'll just link to some web pages:
First page

Second page

Third page

Yes, the new testament was generally better than the old testament, but there's lots of fun wackiness in both.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 is also a fun read :)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

Actually, they don't care about a goddamned piece of paper. They care about tax breaks and pensions.

And things like these: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

Which of the benefits of marriage are they wanting?

Here's a list of about 1400 benefits that are given to married couples but denied gay couples: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

Homosexuality is a mental defect, albeit a minor one in the bigger scheme of things.

You have just shown yourself to be a bigoted asshole with that statement. Fuck you.

Right.... except that it isn't hard at all to find that different people have interpreted it differently. A quick google search will bring up some interesting articles on the topic. Interesting if you find biblical interpretation debate interesting. I usually attribute my interest to the sort of bemused fascination that comes from having been an atheist who went to catholic schools...

The main quote on the topic is:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 8:22)

Some bibles have reinterpreted this to "Homosexuality is a sin", which would include lesbian acts, etc. Clearly thats a debatable stretch, but, before even debating that part, arguments about the context of the statement lead to different conclusions:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm

many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

Under that interpretation, its kind of hard to use that as a condemnation of all gay sex.

Since the government in the U.S. does not control or own any industry, it follows that all innovations for any industry come from private industry. I was being kind when I gave the government %1, but I would say the burden of proof is on you to prove the 1%, the 99% is self evident. The DOE does not make anything the EPA does not make anything. If you still need a citation, I'll need to know how you want me to quantify it. I assure you, no matter how you count it, innovation belongs to private industry.

Are you suggesting that the government has a "magic" power plant does not pollute that private industry is incapable of using? Strawman.

No, this is not a straw man, this is in fact the core of the argument. I need to know why you think the government can do "it" better than private individuals. What does government posses that private individuals do not?

Rhetorical question, based on complete ignorance of the reason behind government.

I have read more volumes about government than I even care to list here. From Plato to Hobbes to Locke and just about everything in between. Literally dozens of books including ones that I disagree with like Bossuet, Blanc and Marx. That you declare my ignorance on the subject based on that statement speaks volumes about you.

in the world is also the world's worst polluter Citation needed that that is China. The strictest socialist government Citation needed that that is China (on multiple levels).

I guess you've never been to China.

China is the world's worst polluter nation with the highest overall annual emission of greenhouse gases (6,018 million tonne).

And it really does suck: Environment in the People's Republic of China. Did you know, that in China, they use what's called night soil? That is, they use human fecal material to feed their crops. Now, I'm not sure how you quantify "strict'. So here's a try Highest number of people annually executed, massive Religious intolerance the adoption of the Communist form of socialism, the strictest form of socialism, dictating the eradication of all other political thought. I can go on if you require more citations. Ever hear of Tibet?

while most free market companies promote their 'green initiatives' without force from the government. Citation needed.

Here's about 25.7 million You can go though them. But I'm telling you now, it would be more difficult to find a company that doesn't have some sort of "green initiative"

Because they think it will help promote their public image which will result in more profit. Citation needed.

All of the results from the link above were about companies trying to promote their public image through green initiatives. And they do speak for themselves.

The solution to s

Effectively there are two parts to a marriage: the religious / social part which people can argue about and debate within the context of their own personal beliefs and the financial part which requires the government to at least recognize that the people are filing their taxes jointly.

You're leaving out a LOT of benefits/rights that married people get:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Genesis 1:28 doesn't say "have piles of babies", except to the most simple minded. Something that abounds on Slashdot.

So what does "be fruitful and increase in number" mean, then?

Here's a quote from the top-ranking google commentary on the verse:

The meaning is quite clear, and needs little elaboration. God created two humans of different sexes so that they could reproduce. He ordered them to have children and start to populate the world with more humans. There is obviously a limit to the number of children that Eve could give birth to. One might safely assume that God's instruction to Adam and Eve were also binding to their children, grandchildren, even down to the present generation.

(source)

If you're so keen to convince me, why not provide a few links of your own? We can go link for link -- I'll stand you the Wikipedia link.

Here are a few on the cult issue specifically:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong3.htm
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,165166,00.html

Or do you mean helped like the way the Catholic Church maintained a stance of indifference during the holocaust on grounds of "neutrality"?

You mean how he had to walk a fine line between doing everything possible to condemn atrocities without provoking people who could very easily send a batallion to take out the Vatican? Or how he _personally_ saved the lives of thousands of Jews in Italy and helped support the rescuing of hundreds of thousands more? Or how the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Christianity after seeing the Pope's example and took the Pope's first name "Eugenio" as his baptismal name?

These links give a pretty good summary:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm
http://www.zenit.org/article-29766?l=english
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods48.html

Read a little history and don't just swallow the leftie and commie propaganda.

Will your car survive rolling the odometer? If so, 2012 is a safe year, considering it's just rolling the odometer of the Mayan calendar.

At least you didn't grow up with Christian nutters who thought the world would end in 2000. Oh wait, they stopped saying that back in the late 1980's because they didn't want people to remember them as frauds.

A walk down memory land (2000)

Proof that Christians are obsessed with the end of the world.

There's nothing like a good scare tactic to keep people in church.

Really? Pray tell, where in the Bible are Christians forbidden to own slaves? Because as far as I can tell, slavery isn't dealt with at length in the New Testament. Indeed, as that page points out, Paul even returns a slave to his master, despite the fact that that's apparently forbidden in the Old Testament. Further, the whole thing is generally relatively positive about the subject of slavery, with Jesus apparently even enjoining slaves to follow their masters the same way they follow God, which is what I meant about "the full support of the Bible and their pastors".

Of course, despite forbidding the return of runaway slaves in one section, another part of the Bible says that it's totally okay to have them (I guess you just can't go after runaways?) as long as they're not Israelites; Leviticus 25:39 - 55 lays this out. Israelis are not allowed to become slaves, but anyone else? They're totally fair game (Lev 25:44). Of course, bringing up Leviticus is kind of cheating, because it's just chock full of bullshit; even Christians only use parts of it to support their arguments, they don't pay attention to the mixed fibers or shellfish provisions.

So let's look at Exodus, shall we? There, God apparently amended the whole "Israelis aren't allowed to be slaves" thing; now, they can be enslaved, but only for seven years. Of course, if your master decides to keep your wife and children hostage, they can force you to become a slave permanently (Exodus 21:2-6) - and female slaves don't have the whole "seven year escape clause" thing going for them (Exodus 21:7). Clearly, this means that slaves are A-OK in the OT, and even (effectively) hostage holding. Did anything change in the NT? Well, I think that's your side of the argument, isn't it?

But that's all Exodus and Leviticus and the Old Testament and shit - none of that matters to Christians, right? It was all just silly Jewish antics; Jesus changed everything, right? So clearly, Christians throughout history have refrained from owning slaves, right? Well no, not really; indeed, in the 14th century, Pope Nicholas V issued a papal bull legitimizing the slave trade in West Africa - he said basically "Okay Portugal (which incidentally was and is a Christian nation), you can go a conquerin' in West Africa, and anyone you defeat is slaves forever".

Would a Christian - and not just any Christian, but the pope himself - have said something like that if you couldn't make a good case for Christians being allowed to own slaves?

But please, feel free to make your case that Christians are forbidden to own slaves - make sure you cite your sources, though. I'm sorry I didn't do that in the first place.

Name me a 3rd party that puts up candidates worth voting for and I'll consider it. The Libertarians are the ones that would appeal to me on paper but they always seem to nominate idiots. I remember their 2008 Presidential candidate best for waging a campaign against Wiccans in the military. Hardly seems compatible with the notion of limited Government and respect for civil liberties.

I looked for the "none of the above" option in 2008 but I could not find it. More's the pity.

By 'most people' he means those who have a basic understanding of mathematics, geometry, algebra, calculus, physics and most importantly possessing the curiosity to learn.

And this is a perfectly honest thing to say, if by 'perfectly honest' I mean a statement that is technically true only because they use a pathological definition of a common phrase.

Under most normal definitions of 'most people', most people believe the statement "God created man in his current form in the last 10k years". Of course, I could say nearly everyone believes that, if by 'nearly everyone' I mean those that believe the bible is the inerrant and literal truth.

We all have a perverse tendency to think that everyone is somewhat like us, probably fed in part by the fact that we spend a lot of time with people really are a lot like us. It's a rather straightforward kind of sampling bias that leads to absurd results such as extremists on both sides of the political spectrum (now we have the righties acting up, a few years ago the lefties were writing BusHitler and BuckFush) seriously and earnestly believing that they represent the views of the majority of Americans.

[ Disclaimer: I am a physicist. Not that I think it's relevant to the linguistic gymnastics I'm complaining about here, but disclosure is disclosure. ]

Its a matter of disrespect. By burning copies of the Koran, which 1.3 billion people hold as sacred, he is just going out of his way to create hatred for the USA and the West in general. By most people's standards that's wrong, not to mention offensive. The fact is as well that it will endanger lives all over the world. The fact that those lives will be endangered by fanatical assholes who don't even understand their own religion and are using it as an excuse to justify their fanatical desire for power and in some cases (Taliban) merely to defend their control of the drug trade etc, is really irrelevant IMHO.

To put it in a more American setting, how would most Americans feel if someone was organizing a protest that involved a group's members shitting on a copy of the US Constitution in public? I can see a few taking very great offense at that, since they hold that document as being all but sacred. Technically, under that document people probably have the right to do so (other than the fact that they would be violating local statutes involving defecating in public of course). It wouldn't be any less disrespectful though, and just as offensive (and note: I am Canadian, the document doesn't mean anything to me personally).

I am not saying we should cater to the sensibilities of religious fanatics who like to murder people in the name of their beliefs. Fuck 'em. However, engaging in an activity that ALSO offense the other 1.399999999 Billion Muslims who are not religious fanatics who like to murder people in the name of their beliefs, is completely beyond the pall of sensibility.

Bravo to Rackspace in my opinion. I hope they lose the backups of the site as well then delete it. Actually I would like to see the domain name itself passed off to some organization like ReligiousTolerance.org so they can put up a message on the issue intended to deflate the hatred.

The one thing this world does not need is more excuses for religious hatred, violence and divisiveness. Its bad enough already I think. Sadly, its primarily the religions that claim to be peaceful that are the cause :(

There's far more religious people in prison than Atheists.

Also far less crime in countries with high rates of Atheism.

And murder rates seem directly correlated with Christian belief, not inversely as you might expect.

Christians are also much more likely to divorce than Atheists

So on the whole ... if there is a heaven, and entrance is based on good behavior and actions, there's probably going to be more atheists there then Christians.

Killing all Christians and burning all churches = wet dream of every slashdot anti-theist.

No, the wet dream (if we have one) is for them to get a fucking clue, then start actually being the people they thought they were in their delusions.

You ask me How I expect you to refer to people that belive in something other than what your entenched mind believes - How about by keeping your derogatory opinion to yourself.

How many "delusional" people are there who believe in a "God" - Estimated 2.1 BILLION.

How many people who belive as you, less than 150 million (atheist / agnostics). If your just undecided then I will be generous and say less than 750 million (Source 1: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) (Source 2: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm)

So if you do not believe in God or aliens, it is your right but I will point out two things about the scientific credo - 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. So, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe itself has a cause that cannot be detected observationally - the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe contradicts the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Thats why I say crap shoot.

If you do not see science as an antonym of religion and see science as science then your in a bit of a bind with your own beliefs.

Now I have cited some more of my sources and yet you havent cited a single one to support your own belief. We may agree to disagree but I find the fact I get modded down and my karma suffers because I do not always follow the mainstream again deplorable. If you do not want to be called out then do not make a statement you can not back - I have now backed my statements. If you choose not to respond then I will just assume you are a coward who spouts off at the mouth and should be discarded as a crackpot as you so eloquently have labeled me.

Lastly, I believe that based on the article itself Churchhill again did what he thought was right at the time based on how the world viewed things at that time. I do not say aliens do not exist but I can not say that they do either. I guess I will have to take it on "faith" that they may since their is circumstantial evidence linking to that supposed existense.

Now if I have made myself clear, please feel free to respond in kind and if you want more sources I will be happy to provide them.

>>France never banned crucifixes. It was Italy. It's also not about wearing them, but about having them on the school walls.

Get your facts straight.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_franc2.htm

Huh, thanks - you made me go look it up. Here's what one random, but reasonably-credible website had to say:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_cs_can.htm

I suspect you may have greater robustness in practice but perhaps the fundamentals are not as deeply embedded in your constitution?

When I said "selective reading" I meant that they do not follow all the other laws laid down in the old testament.

Now of those passages New Testament none are from the 4 canonical gospels. They are from the pauline epistels which are letters by the first century church leader Paul to his churches. They should be placed in their historical and geographical context. Furthermore the translation is contested.

However, I'll have to challenge you to select other passages from the bible that contradict or refute the ones quoted above. Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda about loving and forgiving sinners, but I don't recall him saying that it wasn't a sin.

If He didn't say anything about it it must not have been a big issue. After all if he found the time to say it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven surely he could have said something ? It's precisely because Jesus was silent on the matter we rely on Paul's interpretation as he communicated it to his churches.

I am a religious freak. And I do not oppose adult stem cell research at all. Hey, my nephew probably owes his life to it. I do oppose embryonic stem cell research, because it creates a demand for dead babies, which I have a huge moral problem with.

So you oppose fertility clinics, then? Cause they create a *lot* of extra embryos and stem cells (the random junk DNA that you call "dead babies") and most of them are either destroyed outright, or allowed to grow until they die on their own due to genetic defects and the like.

What gets me is instead of using these junk embryos that are literally thrown out with the wash, we have to allow years and immeasurable promises of medical miracles due to a bunch of people terrified of pissing off Santa Claus. Er, sorry, "God".

Unbelievable, shameful, and outright immoral.

I take issue with your "most people go to church on Sunday" statement. The percentage of people who say they go to church in Texas is 49% percent, above the national average of 42%. It is not "most people", not even a majority. Sure, the rural texans probably have a higher church attendance than people in Houston or other metropolises but there's another point that's more important: about half those people who say they go to church lie about it. This site has a good run down of actual church attendance versus claimed church attendance, it's about half. So even if the majority of rural texans claim they go to church, it's a good bet that only about a quarter of them do.

The conclusion is that the good old-fashioned red-blooded church-going "real" america that people like you (and Sarah Palin) go on about is a lie, it doesn't exist. Similar arguments can be made for the rest of your statement, but I'll leave that to what the others who have responded to your comment have said.

And the real question here is that why is it that 51% of people in Texas are allowing the minority of people who go to church to dictate their educational curriculum?

There is a good summary of separated homosexual twin studies here. The conclusion is that, if one twin is gay, then the probability of the other being gay is around 55%. Many people misunderstand genetics and statistics, and think that this implies being gay is not genetic, since they expect there to be a 100% probability "because it's genetic and twins have the same genes". This is a incorrect view. Quote from a more detailed explanation of why:

"Assume that 5% of males have a homosexual orientation as adults. Consider two identical newborn twin boys who were separated at birth and raised in different homes without any contact with each other. If homosexuality were caused by something in the environment, then, if twin #1 turned out to be gay, the chances of the other twin becoming a gay adults would only be about 5%. That is because the second twin would have been exposed to a totally different environment during his upbringing. So his chances of being gay would be the same as for any other male -- about 5%. But, studies have reliably shown that if one twin is gay, there is about a 55% chance that the other twin will be gay."

and about 50% of studies find that genetics is a significant factor in homosexuality and 50% do not

If one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has "only" a 48% chance of also developing the disorder. This does not mean that genetics is not a significant factor.

Did it get him your vote?

Nope, I didn't vote for him. I did a write-in vote for "none of the above". Meaningless, I know, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Libertarian given his history and McCain was equally bad on civil liberties.

Don't blame the Jews. Also, your data looks scrubbed because "born-again" and "agnostic" isn't an objective denomination, and you are missing religions that represent larger portions of the population as compared with atheists. Why clump agnostic with atheist.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Those numbers seem to be from a study done in 1999 by an evangelical Christian research organization (Barna Research Group). I doubt any part of the study was intended to paint atheists/agnostics in a favorable light. They do not host it on their website, however they really did get those numbers.

The catholic church does not believe non-believers deserve any punishment. Maybe pre-vatican 2 they did, but the Catholic church has grown and embraces other religions and people.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

Man is a much more mature species then it was in the past, our religions have also matured. Too bad some people still prefer "the good old days", which really means better for me, and better for someone is always worse for someone else...

I see lots of posts that seem to miss the point. The mere _finding_ of an ET would be _dramatic_ for our civilization. Think of all the things that would change (not all religious).

If we can ever _prove_ we're not alone out here, I honestly believe it could sway the attitudes and priorities of many governments. I mean, honestly, if we know there is another alien life out there, that we could potentially communicate with, how many stupid squabbles would end?

Right now, we only worry about ourselves because, well, that's all there is to worry about. The prospect of learning from another civilization, or even just being afraid and try to "defend" ourselves from them (sad, but you never know what spin governments would put on a finding like that) could be utterly revolutionary.

Then again, so many people would dis-believe due to religious and/or conspiratorial reasons would probably be mind boggling.

Only problem is, you seem to believe that people would treat aliens as friendly equals. History shows that it won't be anywhere as clean and simple as that. You do mention that we might just be afraid and try to 'defend' ourselves from them.

The biggest problem from the start is humanity as a species only got to the level we have not because we are kind to each other and learned from each other, but because we kill any and everything we fear. Humans have been traced to the rise of mammals and at the time surviving with the mega-fauna. While some mega-fauna do survive, most of them are gone and the majority being the ones that would kill humans. Some died of natural selection, but the common belief is that most are gone because we killed them. Fear of the unknown causes people to panic and panic leads to violence. We started near the lower ranks of the food chain. Now we have no equal at the top of the chain.

This show of history is also not limited to humans verse animals that cannot be reasoned with. We have the burning times where people killed 'evil witches', slavery of different people (black slavery is the most commonly thought of, but others like Herbrew slaves to the Egyptions, ect...), KKK killing minorities, acts of genocide, other acts/groups of racism/religious intolerance, ect...

Now lets take a whole species that in theory can be communicated with, might be a threat, and is truely unknown in abilities. Combine this with an inability to truly understand their underlying motives to interact with us and see how people act. History makes me lean toward one hell of a mob-like answer.

Then again, always a chance I'm wrong and it can become a wonderful and peaceful outcome. You never know.