Slashdot Mirror

Another way to look at their results is that there needs to be an improvement in the psychological treatment of atheists because there may be some bias in the treatment that tends to push people to appeal to the spiritual. Maybe a bit like AA.

There is a distinct lack of research in the area of atheist vs theist rates of psychological problems. Of the available research, here is one such study that suggests that atheists are less likely to suffer from depression:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/buggle_20_4.html

I haven't done the digging yet but the submitted article smells like the Templeton Foundation may have had an influence.

Which explains why the Vatican was the first governing body to recognize Hitlers election, and why Catholic churches aided ODESSA to move high ranking SS officers out of Germany as the war ended, instead of allowing them to be captured and tried as war criminals.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

http://www.catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_scandal-3.html ...but some of us in the US are not the only ones with seeing things this way...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/10/a_papal_dustup_over_the_holoca

Do you have any citations that are not propaganda sites? As for the Catholic Church recognizing Hitler's election, well, in 1932 when he was legally and validly elected, why would they, along with every other authority recognize it? Isn't that how democracy works. You get who you vote for, even if that person isn't a very good person?

Again, if you have any sites that are validly recognized to support your claim as to why any group recognizing the free election in 1932 was wrong. Then please share it. But leave the propaganda and bashing sites to those who need them to justify their own untenable position.

Which explains why the Vatican was the first governing body to recognize Hitlers election, and why Catholic churches aided ODESSA to move high ranking SS officers out of Germany as the war ended, instead of allowing them to be captured and tried as war criminals.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

http://www.catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_scandal-3.html

...but some of us in the US are not the only ones with seeing things this way...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/10/a_papal_dustup_over_the_holoca

It's even more worrying that civilian instruments are declining with respect to militarism. If it were just cutbacks across the board that caused this, it would be unfortunate. But what we actually see indicates a (continuing) shift in priorities. Military spending is more important to the powers that run the US than scientific spending. Notably, supremacy of the military and disdain for intellectuals are both defining characteristics of fascist states.

Nice site you got there at http://www.rense.com/. David Duke videos? Check. Conspiracy theories about Mars? Check. Chemtrails? Check. Miracle cures? Check. Rampant antisemitism? Check.

Though for what it's worth, the original source seems to be here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=index_23

And the author, Laurence Britt*, seems to have no other credentials than his article appearing in a free, irregularly published journal of, let's say uncertain repute. (Don't forget to pick up his novel, June, 2004,, which depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists, still available new from 5 sellers for just $49.99.)

Of course none of that makes what he says any less true by default. Fascist nations probably possess most of those characteristics. It's also true that serial killers all have many characteristics in common: they have noses, mouths, ears, eyes, hair, and always seem to show up in human form (so far). Be on the lookout!

There are a lot of BS laws passed that are dumb attempts and nannying you. This isn't one of them.

Agreed. It's troubling to see the development of so much cognitive dissonance in American culture. Resist seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws, but accept body scans and patdowns at the airport. Oppose universal health care but legislate equal time for creationism in schools. Resist gun laws but build gated comunities and treat high schools like jails. Be suspicious of government but cover elections as if they were popularity contests.

I know, I know. Every culture has its weirdnesses, without exception. You only have to live in one or two other countries to appreciate this. But you also find yourself appreciating what other countries do right. Broadly speaking, I think that what other developed nations have over the US is an abiding sense of community. For example, with a few notable exceptions (soccer louts and neo-nazis come to mind) Europeans tend to favor whatever makes sense in terms of the common good. Having been through two world wars, they have a firsthand experience of facism and react instinctively against it.

Meanwhile, it's perhaps understandable that the emerging pattern of facism in the United States goes almost unnoticed. I didn't intend my comments here to become a political rant, but I guess they have. Sorry about that. All I really meant to do was to encourage Americans to get out more and maybe gain some perspective from within another culture. It's not good to live in insularity.

You know that Bush's advisors were smart guys, certainly smart enough not to put him on YouTube waving a Bible, so the absence of such a video means nothing other than political practicalities lead to religion being less visible in the West. Just because Bush doesn't go on YouTube waving a Bible, it doesn't mean that his actions weren't influenced by religion.

Bush says God chose him to lead his nation

Bush, Gog and Magog

A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush

Honest. This isn't a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their "common faith" (Christianity) and told him: "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East... The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled... This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins."

Of course, you are still free to believe that all of these people are lying, and that Bush's actions were completely uninfluenced by religion...

Depending on whose head that went *whoosh*ing over, Hitchens did speak at the Vatican when they were considering the beatification of Mother Teresa.

Depending on whose head this went *whoosh*ing over, Hitchens did speak at the Vatican as an advocate against the beatification of Mother Teresa.

You may have done PLENTY of studying of Islam, but you know nothing of it except what you want to see, a religion which dictates war and hate. See, you have a serious problem, you're reading the Koran, and you're taking it literally, unlike the majority of Muslims, who just want to live a simple life of peace. This still makes you an uneducated moron. Go LIVE in a Muslim country, then come back to us and let us know what you experience. And when I say go live in a Muslim country, I mean really live there. Not visit some tourist town.

I wish it weren't so. I wish your relatives the best, I really do. But there's a long road ahead and they are, sadly, VERY much in the minority concerning their interpretation of the Muslim faith.

And who the FUCK do you think you are telling people that they are a minority in their views? Excuse me, but the majority of Muslims are moderate and don't actually follow the book word for word. They are in the majority. They've gotten over the fundamentalist bullshit. You haven't. You really need to get a life. Yes, there are suicide bombings. Those are from minority fundamentalist factions. Guess what Einstein, if you play the news of a minority faction over and over again, people will believe that they are part of the majority.

In all seriousness, though... "worrying" that your religion is "hijacked", and actually standing up en masse and saying so, are two different things. And by and large, Muslims seem just fine letting people "hijack" their religion all day long.

So if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to listen, does it make a sound? Just because you're ONLY hearing about the bad, doesn't mean that nobody is actually speaking up. Take 9/11 for example. While asshats like yourself were busy whining about there not being a response, there actually was.

So why don't we ever hear about these things? Because sex, violence, and hate sells. Why should they focus their reports on people who preach peace when they can focus on those that preach violence? Get this in your fucking skull. If you were to read slashdot, and NOTHING but slashdot, you would believe that all computer users were smart and only used Linux, hated the RIAA, and knew everything there was to know about technology.

If you ONLY hear about suicide bombers, you'll believe that they are the only ones that exist.

I've visited Muslim countries on three different occasions, living with the locals, and I've felt nothing but warmth and kindness. There were no death threats, no "death to america" chants, and certainly no mistreatment of women in everyday life. It existed, and I talked to the locals about the problems and they all agreed that things are slowly changing for the better.

Islamic countries have a long way to go, and rather than focusing on specific verses that preached violence, why don't you focus on the big picture? Why don't you put as much time and energy looking for some signs of progress?

No, that's not enough, but over time things will change for the better, and blithering idiots like yourself will still be around spewing out propaganda bullshit that would make Karl Rove blush.

http://www.favreau.info/misc/14-points-fascism.php and the original http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2

Scary.

At least the EFF is taking this on.

How can people not see what is really happening in the US? Most of these people in charge of homeland security and who are constantly pumping fear into the populace - they do not care about the people at all - most of them would WELCOME another attack as their power would increase (obviously I am not talking about the people at the lower or mid levels of such organizations, I am sure most of them have their hearts in the right places)...basically the people are being manipulated to feel like they only way they will be "safe" is if the country turns into a gigantic jail.

Even if you think this sort of crap has any value you have to know (if you have any technical expertise at all) that any terrorst or criminal would use encryption or some other method to conceal their sensitive data.....So really the only people this affects is the general populace.

America is becoming a textbook fascist state, I don't say that as an exaggeration or for shock value - it is a fact - we meet all 14 points of fascism that Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist identified after studying the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). I am sure that these 14 points have been posted here before so I won't repeat it - if you are interested you can google "14 points of fascism" or go to a site like:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Almost a year ago I had a chance conversation with a couple who lived in Germany during the thirties through the forties - the are terrified and cannot believe what is happening here - they came to America in the 50s convinced that what happened in Germany could never happen here, and both of them say they see the exact same incremental processes happening here.

I wish I had recorded what they told me, but it was a spur of the moment sort of thing. I came across the paragraphs below on a website today and it reminded me very much of what they had to say (although coming from them it was so much more powerful and straightfoward):

"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.

You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves,

So much to respond to, so little time. Picking a few points at semi-random:

There wouldn't be talk of "universal health care", "single payer health care" in that case.

No one is talking about universal health care, they're talking about universal health insurance (although they all try to blur this distinction as much as possible). Using the power of the state to enrich corporate backers is a hallmark of fascist (far right wing) political systems.

Academia is far left wing.

Are you riffing off of the Colbert quip "The truth has a well know liberal bias" or are you serious that you think anyone engaged in the study or teaching of anything is "far left wing"? Would you, for example, consider the faculty of Brigam Young are all far left wingers?

If the media were right of center, we'd be talking about abolishing the Federal Income Tax, abolishing the Federal Reserve

If you are correct there should be several countries that are farther to the right than the US, and thus have no taxation and no national banking system and don't not attempt to regulate the value of their currency. Please name a few. If you can't then either a) the US is farther to the right than any other country, b) your definition is whacked, or c) both.

This should give you a rough idea of my response to your entire thesis.

--MarkusQ

The thing is, there still is some question as to whether he even existed.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/flynn_25_1.htm

Much less as to him being any sort of god. Not that I've ever heard any sort of logical consistency when someone describes their 'god(s)' to me.

But go ahead and keep believing what you want. I'll stick with reality though.

Why yes. It's called Secular Humanism. It was actually the Fundies themselves who first coined the term to refer to what they thought was an implicit religion taught by materials (books, etc.) which were attempting to keep religion out of schools. Later, some opponents of these fundies thought it would not be a bad idea to have a religion that was actually a movement for logic, reason and freedom from religion.

They all apply to Mother Teresa.

Susan Shields was one of her sisters for 9 1/2 years and writes "Three of Mother Teresa's teachings that are fundamental to her religious congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a sister obeys she is doing God's will. Another is the belief that the sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. The efforts to prevent any attachments cause continual chaos and confusion, movement and change in the congregation. Mother Teresa did not invent these beliefs - they were prevalent in religious congregations before Vatican II - but she did everything in her power (which was great) to enforce them. Once a sister has accepted these fallacies she will do almost anything. She can allow her health to be destroyed, neglect those she vowed to serve, and switch off her feelings and independent thought. She can turn a blind eye to suffering, inform on her fellow sisters, tell lies with ease, and ignore public laws and regulations. "

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

From Wikipedia: The Telegraph, an Indian daily, has referred to her as "the Saint of the Gutters", also mentioning calls for "Rome to investigate whether she did anything to alleviate the condition of the poor or just took care of the sick and dying and needed them to further a sentimentally-moral cause".

"In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Monica Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband insist that conventional medical treatment eradicated the tumor."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/05/wteres05.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/05/ixworld.html

Dr. Aroup Chatterjee is the author of the book Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict. http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/index1.htm
http://www.meteorbooks.com/

Letters written my Mother Teresa doubting the existence of God: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119059822005736983.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Many attempts have been made to get information about how and where money is spent to CURE people of various diseases or just WHERE it all goes. Tell me, why would an organization that accepts so much in donations not want to proudly show how it's being used to do 'good work'?

Do I seriously believe what?

Those are indeed anagrams for "United States of America".
I find them funny. I see that you don't.
Maybe you should lighten up a bit.

And work on your punctuation, that last sentence is an abomination.

As for the anagrams themselves:
Neofascism attitudes are ripe in the US
Consider this list:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.

These were all found in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, and they are found in the US today. There's no question that the US is in danger of becoming a fascist police state.

From wikipedia:
"Similarly, the adjective "faustian" has come to denote acts or constellations involving human hubris which lead eventually to doom."

That the US is a federation is not in question, I hope? The "satanic" part is funny because of the Christian fervor that's always been a part of the US.

Oh, and it's funny. Laugh.

You can believe in God and have an understanding of science, just like you can have morals without being religious.

This is a bad example. The former often isn't true. Belief in the Christian God and adherance to the view that the Bible is an accurate description of the natural world has caused and is still causing problems for the advancement of Science and humanity in general. However, the view that irreligion brings with it amorality is just a myth propagated by Christians who either have a fear that, without Christianity, everyone will just go around killing each other or by those who just don't want to risk Christianity weaken when people realize that morality isn't a reason to be a Christian. Here's a good article on the subject of morality without God.

I mean, racism, advocating torture, describing how they want to get rid of folks they do not like etc.

And doesn't Christianity say something about loving one another?

I dont know you assume torture and murder cant exist within Christianity, be advocated by the church and scriptures, and cant be done by Christians. Its historically false to even assume such a thing. Christianity is no pacifist religion . I really wish people would just accept the scripture and history of their own religions instead of making these little perfectionist strawmen. This has been going on since Jesus walked the earth, except now you can thank secular thinkers for giving you the right to free speech to even question your chosen religion.

Christian torture. Christian racism. Christian Slavery. Christian Warfare. Inquisitions (more torture). etc

Forgot to include the link to the original article:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=l ibrary&page=britt_23_2

Which appeared first in Free Inquiry Magazine:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=f i&page=index

Forgot to include the link to the original article:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=l ibrary&page=britt_23_2

Which appeared first in Free Inquiry Magazine:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=f i&page=index

Just read here, here and here.

I've also addressed this issue before.

I can't go so far as to claim that the United States has become totally Fascist (yet), but I stand by my claim that the neo-con ideology is
moving us in the direction of fascism. I'll even go so far as to say that "Neo-Con" is just a euphemism for "Fascist."

So what again are the names of those Atheist charities?

United Way, The Smith Family, Medecin Sans Frontieres, Oxfam, Starlight foundation, etc etc. If you weren't just trolling, have a look here http://www.secularhumanism.org/ for an insight into compassion in secular society.

United Way, The Smith Family, Medecin Sans Frontieres, Oxfam, Starlight foundation, etc etc. If you weren't just trolling, have a look here http://www.secularhumanism.org/ for an insight into compassion in secular society.

I'm not commenting at all on how valid those 14 characteristics are. I wouldn't know, I'm not an expert on facism. My arguement is that these characteristics were obviously created with a political agenda in mind, and not by a political scientist who is an expert in fascism.

He's a member of the Council for Secular Humanism and the article is available online . The article in question is from Volume 23, Number 2 of the Free Inquiry Magazine.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, just that he's no political scientist and you shouldn't just swallow his views because they're scary. There's a good chance he's just fear-mongering as well.

He's a member of the Council for Secular Humanism and the article is available online . The article in question is from Volume 23, Number 2 of the Free Inquiry Magazine.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, just that he's no political scientist and you shouldn't just swallow his views because they're scary. There's a good chance he's just fear-mongering as well.

He's a member of the Council for Secular Humanism and the article is available online . The article in question is from Volume 23, Number 2 of the Free Inquiry Magazine.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, just that he's no political scientist and you shouldn't just swallow his views because they're scary. There's a good chance he's just fear-mongering as well.

Religion is the belief in something that is inherently based on Faith. Regardless of what reference.com or anything may say.

Are you saying that when you say something is a religion you are using the word to mean something different from what it actually means? That's a poor defense.

You have to have Faith to believe that there is NO GOD. That is a leap just as having faith that there is a God. We are creatures of Faith and we use it everyday.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god. This is distinct from the positive belief that there is no god. It's like the difference between "not believing any of the UFO stories you've heard" and "believing that there is no life on other planets". Lacking a belief in god is no more a leap of faith than lacking a belief in Santa Claus or the Bogeyman.

When you get up in the morning you have faith the sun is still in the sky.

No, I have a reasonable expectation based on my understanding of the layout of the solar system and my knowledge that if the Earth stopped revolving around the sun my first clue wouldn't be not seeing it in the sky.

Science is a form of faith based on observable instances.. but it all comes down to theory and assumptions.

No. Science is making observations, developing testable and falsifiable theories to explain those observations, then testing the theories. Theories are never "proven", only tested with increasing accuracy. Science requires an open mind and a willingness to accept change. Faith has no place in science.

Math is based on a point that is assumed to exist.

No. Math as a system is based on axioms that are agreed upon by the participants. When I say it is true that 1+1=2, you will only agree with me if you agree on what the symbols "1", "+", "=" and "2" are. I can easily demonstrate the truth of what the equation means if I have two of something but the expression is a matter of agreement. I can also say 1+1=10 and that is equally true if we agree on a different expression of numbers (specifically, binary).

To answer your question based on your reference.com: #4: Athiesm is a Religion based on a cause, principle, AND activity pursered with zeal or consecientious devotion.

But it isn't. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god. No more, no less. I don't pursue my atheism with zeal and conscientious devotion; I can't even imagine how I would go about doing such a thing. Do you claim to pursue your lack of a belief in the Bogeyman with zeal and conscientious devotion? If so, what does that involve?

You might be thinking of Secular Humanism but you should understand that not all atheists are secular humanists.

Agnostic is the uncertainity that there may or may not be a God. That is where a lot of people live.

Agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not a god exists. It is possible to be both agnostic and atheist, as I am. Most people who claim to be agnostic but not atheist would then claim to not believe in any god. They just don't like the word "atheist".

Well I never made any particular claims to sanity, as it turns out, but at least I'm not an utter fool, know what I mean?

Which coincides with the 1991 National Opinion Research Center and University of Chicago study that 33.5% of Americans take "The Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word," which in this case would makes sense, for every serious Christian will tell you, the Bible says there are no aliens out there.

It seems that school boards often do this to reach some sort of compromise due to political pressure from religious groups.

The idea that there can be some sort of fair time given in science classes to religious theories is flawed.

If a religion posits that "number theory is only a theory", and comes up with some religious alternative, then should math classes give them equal time?

What determines the validity of an alternative viewpoint? Popularity?

Though it may seem otherwise, anti-intellectualism and the desire to subvert bodies of knowledge to preconceived notions is really no more prevalent than it ever was. That is the problem. Aren't we supposed to be advancing?

I wish there were Secular Humanist organizations exerting more influence on our school boards.

Oh, please don't use her as an example. You are welcome to think she was a great person or whatever you want, but her life was filled with morally questionable acts of all kinds. You simply cannot reasonably use her as an example of a "morally spotless life". This is a very interesting interview with Christopher Hitchens about his various 'exposés' about her. It paints a more complete picture in some ways.

What concerns me most is that this is all done under the cloak of "preventing terrorism". There were at least three stories on NPR yesterday with the common theme of protecting us from terrorism: This "national ID card", throwing some leftist zealot lawyer in jail, and then immigration reform.

In his article Fascism, Anyone?, Lawrence Britt lists the 14 defining characteristics of fascism that he identified by examining seven modern and historical fascist regimes (for details on each item, go to the article):

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.

Sounds disturbingly familiar, doesn't it? Is this the direction we want our country to be going?

"We had to destroy your freedom in order to save it."

Big government socialist types, like Adolph Hitler, use persecution and targeted humour to manage the masses.

WTF you doing comparing Adolph Hitler and the Nazis with the Canadian government you idiot? That's both stupid and offensive on so many levels I'm left shaking my head in amazement.

And the Nazi party was a fascist party. If you're going to bring them up, at least get your facts straight. Damn.

Surely you are not suggesting that fascism has retreated since then, are you?

"The Church (now a days) leaves the science to the scientists, and only holds court on that which is moral and spiritual. How things happen is science. That they happened at all is a matter of faith."

This is patently untrue, as Dawkins has pointed out (in an essay, "Either Jesus had a corporeal father or he didn't. This is not a question of "values" or "morals"; it is a question of sober fact.") And factual claims fall under the domain of science.

The Catholic church's history with science is rocky, as you point out: it reluctantly rewords its positions one by one as they are proven wrong, usually after great struggle, but it never says, "Well, we got it wrong." The resurrection, the assumption, the virgin birth - these are all scientific claims that ought to be rejected. The church's official position is that these things actually happened, when in fact they could not have (without upturning everything science tells us about the world). So you are wrong when you claim that they leave science to the scientists. Catholicism does weigh in on scientific matters but then claims not to. It's not as blatantly incomprehensible as the 7-day young-earth position, of course, but I fail to see how, as you put it, a god 'willing the universe into being' is distinct from creationism; so I will continue to lump them together.

Anyway, the eye story is very interesting and shouldn't even have precipitated this tangent. I'm not trying to get into a long debate here, but read the (short) Dawkins essay and see what you think.

You are totally right; this is a civil matter and when corporations get Uncle Sam or Padre Benito to watch the fort, bad things happen.

Like fascism.

When brings me to the most salient point of this document about fascism in World War II and what it consisted of, in so far as this dicussion is concerned:

"9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens."

I'm sorry, I thought this was Slashdot, not alt.religion.kibo.

Don't most people here understand what religions really are? They are memes, that infect human culture. The more successful memes (such as Islam) reproduce themselves through reinforcement of cultural paradigms (although are themselves changed by the cultural meme), and by encouraging begetting. (Think of a computer virus -- now imagine the computer is a human mind. Voila! You have a meme.)

It's actually quite difficult to live without some form of meme infection -- only a few people have achieved this (J.Krishnamurti for example.) My own meme of choice is Buddhism, with a strong flavour of Secular Humanism.

At least one SF write has speculated that memes could be used as weapons by advanced ET races.
Perhaps the true evidence of the existence of ETs may be inferred by looking for their memes, which might serve to render a populace docile and compliant when the alien overlords arrive. :-)

Gah, I suck, that was the wrong URL.

I meant, re: mother teresa, this one

Hm. Do you think that there are any decency standards that, say, an atheist would/could support?

This myth [that secular humanism is a religion] is based on a misunderstanding about how Supreme Court decisions are written, and was finally laid to rest by a Federal Circuit Court ruling issued in 1994.

In the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Such footnotes, known as "dicta," are written to provide factual background to the legal principles in a decision. These dicta never have the force of law. They are merely comments.

The claim that secular humanism can be considered a religion for legal purposes was finally considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District. In this 1994 case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case; they refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion.

Although not constitutional, it is commonly accepted that there is to be a seperation of church and state. This means that there shouldn't be a religion/church which is funded by taxes. Wether you like it or not, secular humanism is a religion(def.4), and it is being taught in schools. Also, to a degree, atheism is taught in public schools, and this too is a religion (although perhaps not "established"). There is no reason my taxes should be paying for a muslim/christian/hindu/linus based school, so why should they be paying for a secular humanist school? Taxes shouldn't pay for it, hence the reason there should be no public schools. The solution is this: if you want your kids to go to school, pay their way. if you cant afford to, maybe some other people from your religion will help you out.

# A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

# Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

# A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

# A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

# A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

# A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

# A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

From the Council for Secular Humanism.

Writing about Karl Popper, he points out that there are only two kinds of scientific theories: those that are demonstrably false, and those that are not yet demonstrably false.

In fact the exact OPPOSITE is true. You can never prove an unrestricted negative.

Some things are inherently impossible, like a married bachelor, or round square. Only contradictions are truly false.

Anyway, here is a good discussion on the subject.

About Mother Theresa's integrity and morale, see e.g. this or this...

Not that much karma to lose, anyhow! :-)

I don't normally write tributes to recently-deceased celebrities, but I'll make an exception in this case. Gould was about the closest thing I have to a hero. He fought the good fight for quality science education and against closed-minded superstition.

I remember he came to speak at the University of Pennsylvania years ago. This was at the height of the creationist nonsense. So great was the appeal of his topic that the lecture was moved twice—ending up in the largest lecture hall on campus—before he even had a chance to speak. At one point during his talk, which was primarily about his and Eldredge's take on the mode and tempo of evolution, he made a dismissive, off-hand remark about creationism that was rewarded with a sustained ovation. In the middle of the Reagan era, when it seemed that the forces of ignorance were unstoppable, it was beyond heartening to hear one of the world's most famous scientists say, in essence, that Jerry Falwell was full of crap.

Gould was also a prominent humanist and perhaps one of the best ways we can honor his life would be to give our support to organizations like the Council for Secular Humanism, as well as to those groups whose missions more closely mirror Gould's own.

I don't normally write tributes to recently-deceased celebrities, but I'll make an exception in this case. Gould was about the closest thing I have to a hero. He fought the good fight for quality science education and against closed-minded superstition.

I remember he came to speak at the University of Pennsylvania years ago. This was at the height of the creationist nonsense. So great was the appeal of his topic that the lecture was moved twice—ending up in the largest lecture hall on campus—before he even had a chance to speak. At one point during his talk, which was primarily about his and Eldredge's take on the mode and tempo of evolution, he made a dismissive, off-hand remark about creationism that was rewarded with a sustained ovation. In the middle of the Reagan era, when it seemed that the forces of ignorance were unstoppable, it was beyond heartening to hear one of the world's most famous scientists say, in essence, that Jerry Falwell was full of crap.

Gould was also a prominent humanist and perhaps one of the best ways we can honor his life would be to give our support to organizations like the Council for Secular Humanism, as well as to those groups whose missions more closely mirror Gould's own.

From the Council on Secular Humanism website:

Atheist: without a belief in a god and very skeptical of the possibility

Agnostic: without a belief in a god and uncertain as to the possibility

I think these are pretty good definitions. Just figured I would provide something from an organization that has a following of people who consider themselves one of the two terms.