Slashdot Mirror

"What I am interested in, is what do people who think that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old, think when they pick up a National Geographic magazine, or turn on The Discovery Channel? Is all this information a big lie to them?"

It's a little tricky. My roommate, for example, is... somewhat of a creationist in the strict biblical sense, but he's also a very intelligent, logical person. He admits that it doesn't really add up with his scientific reasoning. Either way, he's not suggesting that it be added to a biology course.

Furthermore, a lot of the real zealots don't really watch Discovery Channel or pay attention to National Geographic. When you get your science from your minister and some ancient Romans, there's not much call for it. It's also not hard to make the leap to a giant scientific conspiracy, where everyone's just trying to keep their godless jobs -- people do the same kind of things with political factions and other beliefs that don't involve going to hell forever.

"It appears that everywhere around us we are exposed to information about the Earth being millions/billions of years old, and yet half of America does not believe this to be true? I'm not taking a stand on the issue, I'm just really confused about why/how people belive these things."

Another thing to be wary of, as pointed out, is that no one can agree about the nature of intelligent design. A lot of people simply observe the religious parts of intelligent design -- evolution might be the what and the how, but intelligent design is the why. And I'm fine with that. I think it's a perfectly valid religious belief. I'm fine with it being taught in schools alongside other religious beliefs -- in fact, it was part of my high school curriculum, in history class. This survey doesn't really tell us how the respondents defined intelligent design.

In 1952 the Reverend Dr. George M. Docherty, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, preached in favor of adding "under God" to the Pledge. His point was that a Soviet atheist could easily recite the Pledge without compunction by substituting the "Union of the Soviet Socialist Republicics" for the 'United States".

Are you being ironic? Your statement invokes a complete lack of logic. What are your qualifications to express such sentiments about addiction? Logic and addiction have nothing to do with each other. Sheesh.

Okay, I'll take it a step further -- since you're a Godless athiest anyway, it's obvious that you're simply addicted to living, otherwise you'd recognize the pointlessness and lack of meaning in your own existance, and you'd stop worrying about other people willingly and knowingly contributing to their own demise. Logically, you should be committing genocide against the whole human race.

No, I'm not trolling, or I'd post anonymously.

You are confusing your response to faith with your rabid Godless hippie behaviour. The difference is that your brain is suffering from all the methane your metabolizing when your head is up your ass.

You are confusing your response to faith with your rabid Godless hippie behaviour. The difference is that your brain is suffering from all the methane your metabolizing when your head is up your ass.

I have released a good amount of software under an open-source license, but not the GPL. I require that no one can make commercial use of my software.

Then what you are doing is not open source, and should not be called such. Please read the actual Open Source Definition, specifically point 6, rather than just assuming, "Well, I'm not one of those godless commies or smelly hippies from GNU, so I must be Open Source instead of Free Software."

Do what you want to do with your own IP; that's cool. It's your right. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim what you're distributing is open source. Can you identify the license you used on the list of Open Source licenses? No? Then why are you calling it Open Source?

The books at Borders have RFID tags in them. The CDs at Tower have RFID tags in them.

Obviously, this creates justification for copyright infringement! To the torrent trackers I go! You'll not be tracking me right up until the point I open the case and throw the tag away, you godless privacy invaders! Ha-ha!

"Before I'm called some evil Christian, I am a pagan" In this backwards world of your misinformation allow me to correct you: True Chistians are good, Pagan (godless) are evil. To reject god (good) is to support Satan (evil). It's pretty simple. Its black or white, there is no gray...sorry.

Not relevant, we're all godless commies in Europe.

It is rather frightening to see how strange the reasoning of an average American

I swear there is some kind of virgin devaluation thing going on here, last I heard it was said that there were 7 virgins to be had for perishing in some jihad de jeur. Now its 72. Makes me wonder. Either the quality of the virigins is not what was expected and they are trying to make up for it in quantity, there is waning interest from the would-be jihadis and the ante has to go up (unlikely judging by the news), or the jihadis are being influenced by the Great Satan of the Internet and have concluded after watching some of the moving pictures present there that 7 naughty women is what every godless westerner gets without even having to read the Qur'an. Someone figure this out, it might be of a profound geopolitical significance.

I appreciate your argument and agree that there's too much animosity on both sides of the debate.. but I do take some small issue with your position:

Why is it so hard for non religious scientists to acknowledge that we've not discovered all the answers, and indeed, may never do so?

Nobody doubts that we still have a lot to learn. But what is it that you suggest is firmly beyond science's ability to study and eventually understand? What the known universe looked like when it got started? When "time" will end? We are getting closer to such answers but one component will always be left out: meaning. Waving at the great voids in our knowledge as being indicators of some higher being with some purpose for humanity is, if you'll forgive me, immature.

Freud, the self proclaimed godless Jew, suggested that God was the projection of our parents -- someone who could, if only in our minds, make order out of the world; someone we could cry to (no atheists in foxholes). To look around and realize that, in the words of Conrad (i'm not trying to sound smrt), "we live as we dream -- alone" is to be bare and vulnerable.

I respect and almost envy the religious but I think I will always be shackled a little too closely to logic to "believe the believers." And with that quote I refer you to and highly recommend Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal."

I believe this problem to be one of bad logic from Christians ticking off scientists. When it comes to Evolution vs ID pastors love to get up in the pulpit and say things that seem convincing to the gullible but are absolutely not based on any science and do nothing to prove anything. An example would be the bee illustration. It would go something like this, "Brothers and sisters in Christ, there are godless workers of iniquity in this world who call themselves scientists who would have you believe that we are here because of a random mistake. If they are so smart why can't the all of the world's smartest scientists still figure out how a bumble bee manages to fly? Maybe the answer doesn't lay in man's ability to grasp. Maybe it is a mattery of heavenly mystery. Maybe humans can't figure it out because a mysterious god created it to baffle us mortal men."

That kind of statement is nothing but pure propaganda. Just insulting one group of people to make a point. I wish pastors and Christians would stop using subjective reasoning to "prove" that evolution can't possibly exist. I was listening to a talk radio show recently when a guy tried to prove ID by saying how beautiful the sunset is and how there's no way that could have been done by "accident". He may be correct about ID but that is a totally flawed way to prove something.

I hate it when people develop opinions for or against something by saying, "It just doesn't seem/look/feel right." If it's right it's right. It doesn't matter how it looks/feels/seems.

BTW, the logic of this entire post cuts both ways and is not meant to be in favor of either side.

Actually, as this article describes it nicely, there are two different kinds of atheism: the "weak atheism" (which is, as I stated above, a lack of belief), and the "strong atheism", which can be equaled to what you think atheism is. [...] I somehow have a feeling, though, as if you'll still stick to whichever definition fits best what you heared last sunday in the church. Say, isn't it a SIN to argue with a godless immoral (according to dictionary.com) being like me in public?

• That page was written by someone that I don't know, and he states in his opening paragraph that it represents "only one viewpoint" -- his own.
  I prefer more authoritative sources, such as the ones at dictionary.com
• The last time that I was in a church was sometime in the 1990s, and that was only to attend a wedding.
  In the 1980s, I went maybe 3 or 4 times, to weddings and funeral services.
  I've never been to a "Sunday service" in my entire life, that I can recall.
• I'm agnostic (definition 1b) (or a "weak" atheist, to use your definition of atheist).
  Actually, to be more accurate, I'm an "agnostic apatheist", which is a term that I made up.
  An agnostic apatheist is a person who is skeptical (UK: sceptical) about the existence of a god or gods, and furthermore doesn't care whether or not a god or gods exist.
• It's spelled "heard", not "heared", and "Sunday" should be capitalized.

'If you and your "handy pocket dictionary" feel better by calling my stance a "belief" (i.e. an act of faith), so be it. It won't be any more true, of course.'

Im not calling your stance anything. This is an argument about semantics not your faith. The word atheism means that you _believe_ there is no God the whole pocket dictionary thing was trying to stress the fact that this is the very definition of the word across the board.

Atheism by _definition_ means Godless as in you have no God. There is no evidence to prove that you have no God therefore it is a belief. This is a fact. Indisputable perfectly logical fact.

If you simply believe God is impossible to prove you are not Atheist you are by _definition_ an Agnostic. You dont believe in God but neither do you believe for certain there is non. This is the _definition_ of agnostic.

Im stressing the word definition because this has nothing to do with me making myself 'feel better' this is simply the way the English language currently is. This does _not_ imply you believe in anything it implies that you arnt using the correct word.

This whole thing was never about ridiculing atheists it is simply proving that buck wild's original post is perfectly acurate. Agnostics remain the only people, by definition, that do not have a faith.

*Agnosticism* is the state of being without a belief in a god or gods; *Atheism* is the state of believing in godlessness.

No. Please don't correct people's definitions unless you are certain of them yourself. Atheism could pehaps be described as believing in godlessness, but this is the same thing as being without a belief in gods (which, contrary to what you seem to imply, is not the same as reserving judgement). Agnosticism is belief in the impossibility of attaining or having knowledge regarding the existence of gods.

The parent poster had it right. You are just reiterating a common misconception.

sure, let me quote you quoting wikipedia (which for some reason is the end all of most of my office debates lately)

generally speaking, atheism refers to a lack of belief in all deities for any reason(s).

also, dictionary.com:
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

I also note that your first source (dictionary.com) second definition is "Godlessness; immorality", which shows its' bias (the "immorality" part). This "definition" is actually rather offending.

You might also want to check the wikipedia definition, there you'll find your preferred definition only on the second position.

Actually, as this article describes it nicely, there are two different kinds of atheism: the "weak atheism" (which is, as I stated above, a lack of belief), and the "strong atheism", which can be equaled to what you think atheism is. The most atheists that I know started out as strong ones (including myself), to later take the "weak atheism" position, which is more consistent with the scientific way of thinking. PLEASE NOTE, however, that "weak" doesn't mean "more inclined toward thinking there is or there might be a deity of some kind"! It just means "less aggressive and more grown-up".

I somehow have a feeling, though, as if you'll still stick to whichever definition fits best what you heared last sunday in the church. Say, isn't it a SIN to argue with a godless immoral (according to dictionary.com) being like me in public?

Atheism is NOT a belief there is/are no god(s). Atheism is a LACK of belief in any gods. A lack of belief is not a belief.

2 entries found for Atheism.
atheism (P) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)

  n.

1. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
   2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European Roots.]

[http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/eref/buy_HM AFF00004.jsp">Download Now or Buy the Book]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

This is in response to this and the other posts on atheism.

A lack of belief in God does not necessarily mean a lack of belief in anything. You must lack belief in God in order to believe there isnt one.

Dictionary.com definition of atheism.
'Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods'
My handy pocket dictionary backs it up.

The denial of God when there is no scientific theory nor test to disprove its existence is as much a belief as any religeous idea.

There is a get out clause in the 'disbelief' part of the definition. Disbelief can mean simple skeptisicm, however, if you look at the etymology of the word atheism it literally means Godless. Not really any room for it being just a reluctance to believe, more the outright refusal definition of disbelief. This is further backed up by the definition of agnostic that refers to an agnostic as not taking there disbelief to the same extent as a true atheist.

Of course definitions are changing all the time but I really dont think there is much doubt here. An Atheist has a belief, even if it flies in the face of the beliefs involved in religeon. (I have to say before seeing the posts around this thread all the atheists I know of are rather proud of that fact.)