Slashdot Mirror

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

Brothers and sisters,

This is surely a warning against the spirit of the antichrist that has fouled the scientific community since the heathen known as Charles A. Darwin. When you walk away from the path of righteousness, you bring a curse down upon your own house. Those meteor impacts may be the curse that rains down among the people who oppose Intelligent Design in favor of the lie of evolution. Will you open your eyes now to the fact that it is the will of God that Intelligent Design prevails in the christian nation of America?

All of my brothers and sisters in the word, I have a suggestion for yet another way that we can drive the message home to the godless heathens of the American scientific community. They are so dead set against the culture of life that they deny creation. They deny that the world was created by God. They deny that homosexuality is a choice and a sin, not a genetic determination. And they deny that life begins at conception.

In a spirit of brotherly christian love, I suggest that we all change our birthdates to 9 months before the birthdates we currently use. This will acknowledge and commemorate that life begins at conception. Forget your birthdate and practice your LIFEDATE!!! Begin using your lifedate for all official business to clearly send the message to the ungodly that you are a person of the highest virtue. I have already done so. It's not that hard to do. Just start using the lifedate on any form that asks for a birthdate. Cross out the word "birthdate" and replace it with lifedate.

Please spread this message of Christian love to everyone you know. We can win this battle against the spirit of evil by standing up and defending Intelligent Design, opposing the sins of abortion, homosexuality, and liberal politics and spreading the message to all that life begins at conception by using our lifedates. Think about it. Which sounds better: birthday party or LIFEDAY party? I know which one I'd rather be invited to.

Your friend and disciple in Christ,
Bob Mortenson

Because God didn't invent them, only godless heathens after they became impure invented them.

Oh, but there is one very big thing that they do not have in common. The Chinese government hates Christianity. There's something about empowering the lowly that threatens them. In fact, they are so anti-Christian, that the leader of the free world had to put on his pastor's frock and preach over there:

http://www.bennyhinn.org/yourlife/InTheNews-Christ ian-Persecution/Bush-Challenges-China-on-Religious -Freedom.html

Church and state? Who said what?

Odd that the Godless and the Godfull preach the same repression Gospel, isn't it? It's almost as if their intentions were the same. Hmmm.

Please, no more storms. Not only are they terribly worrisome, but the bush administration canot even clean up what's already happened.

It's not Bush's fault you godless heathens struck down Intelligent design. You are about to get Robertson'd.

Take a look at your dollar bills "In god we thrust",

Yes, the "In God We Trust" was placed on the money in the 50s to show how America was better than the "godless commies." It was a mistake, but one that will never be rectified, because no one wants to be painted as "voting against God."

how can a country be cosmopolite if there is a predominant religion

The same way every other civilized country does. Hate to tell you this, but most people believe in a god.

which I bet your constitution embraces.

The Consititution of the United States doesn't. It doesn't mention gods at all. It specifically provides for freedom of religion and forbids the establishment of one. It was written by deists, agnostics, and athiests. And back in the 18th century it was evangelicals who were pushing for seperate of church and state since they were afraid that episcopalians would force their religion on them. Ironic isn't it?

You don't know what you're talking about here. You should get your facts straight, and then make a more coherent argument than "It sucks." Because you look fool.

I even tend to agree with your general argument, but you're making all athiests look bad. So do us all a favor, and shut up.

This law is about as stupid as the law requiring my pharmacist to write down my Driver's License number to sell me Day-Quil to verify that I am, in fact, not a drug crazed meth head trying to score some more dope but a law abiding citizen looking to get my sinus headache to go away.

So now all the meth heads are still making meth, with different and maybe even more volatile chemicals and the rest of us can't buy over the counter drugs over the counter anymore.

Next I won't be able to buy video games over the counter. They (being Big Brother) will track my every game purchase and decide that because I bought Fluffy Bunnies in Space and Grand Murder Chainsaw: Bob's Island that I must be in fact teaching myself how to kill rabbits with chainsaws and that I must be stopped.

The hilarious thing is I heard this on the radio on the way into work tonight and the media blitz is attempting to spin it like "those Godless Heathens at Wal Mart that have no Moral Base for what they do are selling your kids shotguns and tools to teach themselves to kill everyone in your family over the counter for $5."

Ok, so that wasn't the actual blurb, I paraphrased. But the gist is still there. "Won't someone think of the children?"

Oh, and I do by the way. Think of the children. When my daughters want to buy a shotgun and play with it in the house, I tell them no. I *gasp* watch them and interact with them in their daily lives!

We really should move this to My journal where you'll get a better feel for where I'm coming from on this whole issue. It comes down to certainty and facts for me. Neither of which human beings are capable of, as much as we pretend to be.

Fair enough. It is a difficult balance. Yet I believe the correct balance point is much further into the neutral territory than you seem to.

In fact, my very first response is to refer you to my journal- there is no neutral territory between religions, the closest you can get is teaching tolerance of all religions and a lack of exclusion. The link above is to my journal, where I also link to a speech by one of America's favorite anti-science fiction writers on the subject.

All religions? Really? Including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Wicca, and Druidism? How about Satanism? And Scientology? And, for that matter, plain old atheism? And how about the dozens or hundreds of variants within each of those blanket labels, like Catholics, Mormons, and Unificationists?

I have no problem with it- in fact, it would assure at least 3 parties a week in grade school, since the absolute best way to teach young children about various traditions is through parties based on those traditions.

Should all of these religions be taught as Truth? It'll take a very long time to get through the science curriculum that way.

Oh too bad- we actually need to expect the schools to TEACH something.

Or shall we filter them all down the their common demoninator, and teach that? If we do, then we are teaching just the science itself.

True enough- and that's the real role of the scientific method.

Again, there are more than just these three religions, and not all of them teach the same moral codes. It is the state's job to teach the morality codified within its own laws, but no more than that; the rest is up to the individual.

Oh, that's been real useful. Right now in America, we're failing to teach either- just look at our corporate world, where the phrase "It's just business" is used to excuse the worst personal ethical violations.

I wouldn't say that it's half the subject. We haven't even established that the theology of the ancient mathematicians is even relevant to the study of mathematics.

It's relevant because it's the WHY behind the assumptions and axioms that lie underneath all of mathematics- the foundation of the model. Without that framework, there is no why, there is just "because I said so".

But in any case, yes--it's not the job of the public schools to put knowledge in a theological context. It can't be, because there is no context that would satisfy all religions, so it has to be up to the individual.

Incorrect- there is a context- and that context is the human being. Religion is a part of being human that cannot and should not be expunged- do so and you run the risk of creating a new religion when it comes out somewhere else.

OK, haven't we been through this already? It feels like this is where I came in. The word "random" does not imply "godless".

With a God, the universe is deterministic- it was created for a purpose, and everything in it conforms to that purpose according to the scientific laws we are now discovering. Every particle in the universe is a part of that purpose. The only way you can have random is to have an indeterministic universe- one where particles follow random laws that are not discoverable at all. Random laws would be the ultimate proof against a God- it would leave us with only two conclusions, that either the mind of God is so formless and stupid that there are no laws, no purpose, or there is no God.

You have yet to address either of these two problems with the idea of random mutation and variation WITHIN species.

Asserting that there is

I said nothing that would limit us to a CHRISTIAN God.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

But when it gets twisted into freedom FROM religion, that somehow you're protected from hearing about other religions in the public sphere or that science must exist free FROM religion, that's when I have a problem.

Fair enough. It is a difficult balance. Yet I believe the correct balance point is much further into the neutral territory than you seem to.

Education however is NOT persecution, it binds us together as one people; thus all religions SHOULD be taught.

All religions? Really? Including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Wicca, and Druidism? How about Satanism? And Scientology? And, for that matter, plain old atheism? And how about the dozens or hundreds of variants within each of those blanket labels, like Catholics, Mormons, and Unificationists?

Should all of these religions be taught as Truth? It'll take a very long time to get through the science curriculum that way. Or shall we filter them all down the their common demoninator, and teach that? If we do, then we are teaching just the science itself.

And I must argue that education in the wrong religion is indeed perceived as persecution. People use the word "indoctrination" to describe this, and get very upset about it. If people didn't feel strongly about this, we wouldn't be having this conversation. :)

Yes, and the eightfold path, the ten commandments, and the Quran all essentially teach the same morality- but you'd have them banned.

Again, there are more than just these three religions, and not all of them teach the same moral codes. It is the state's job to teach the morality codified within its own laws, but no more than that; the rest is up to the individual.

And yet- you fail to see that you're only teaching half the subject by failing to mention it's religious roots.

I wouldn't say that it's half the subject. We haven't even established that the theology of the ancient mathematicians is even relevant to the study of mathematics. But in any case, yes--it's not the job of the public schools to put knowledge in a theological context. It can't be, because there is no context that would satisfy all religions, so it has to be up to the individual.

You've apparently never read a modern textbook on evolution, where a random universe is a neccessary precondition of the whole idea. Without random mutation and variation within species, atheistic evolution falls apart.

OK, haven't we been through this already? It feels like this is where I came in. The word "random" does not imply "godless". Asserting that there is random mutation and variation within a species does not imply that God is not involved, nor does it imply that God is involved. It implies nothing about God one way or the other. The relation of the Theory of Evolution to God is left to the student.

David

And in a country where blame is shifted from one person to another, where the pop-culture emphasizes sense-gratification, and where people are masters at cheating, lying, and stealing, does it come as a surprise that everyone wants to be Godless?

No, the surprise is that this country is about the most gung-ho pro religion country around.

When Jesus was present, he re-established the principles of religion, but no one was listening to him. "Thou shalt not kill," and yet many Christians see no problem with slaughterhouses. Some Christians say animals don't have souls, but Jesus would have taught "Thou shalt not murder," if he meant it to apply only to human beings. "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart," and yet people don't love God. They love their dogs. Then they cry when bad things happen to them.

The basic tenant of Christianity is "Give us this day our daily bread." But God isn't our order-supplier; rather, we are eternally subordinate to him. Because of our birth in the material world, we forget our relationship with God and think, "I am god, I am this body, and all these material things that connect to this body are mine." And when this sort of person goes to church he thinks, "OK God, you give me this, this, and this, and I'll worship you." And if he doesn't get that thing, he thinks "Well, there is no God."

These people do things like say "If there is a God, let him strike me down on this very spot!" Once again, God isn't our order-supplier, and furthermore, he doesn't need to prove his abilities. He gives us what we truly want. If we don't want to believe in God, he will provide us with logical fallacies that will make us forget his existence, like "Can God create a rock that even He cannot lift?" or "If there is a God, he wouldn't have taken my child away/caused the Tsunami/made bad things happen."

But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions. It means they'll have to think before they act. And in a country where blame is shifted from one person to another, where the pop-culture emphasizes sense-gratification, and where people are masters at cheating, lying, and stealing, does it come as a surprise that everyone wants to be Godless?

That's only if you believe in that Godless evolution claptrap they got all the kids learning in the schools. God made the flu, and if He wants to smite the sinners, He shall do so. It is God's will.

You do know that atheism is not actually a synonym for secular, don't you? There are plenty of people who believe that the matters of man are the matters of man, and the matters of religion are separate from that; yet still believe in some sort of spiritual existence, be it God, or Buda or whatever.

I get so tired of people like you who see the word "secular" and automatically assume "look, godless heathens!"

Also, the lack of a belief in god is not the same thing as a belief in the lack of a god. It is only myopic religious provincialism which boils things down to the childish level where you either believe in the One True God, or you are some kind of damned atheist! The fact of the matter is, even IF you honestly believe in some sort of supernatural being guiding all events in the world, there is still a big question as to WHICH of these gods you should believe in. Then there is the question of whether there is one, or a pantheon of them, who their chosen people are, was Jesus a profit, or a Buda, or the son of God, what foods you are and aren't allowed to eat on which days, who did and didn't get resurrected when... it goes on for quite a while. Only someone who was indoctrinated young, and never once even thought to question their belief could possibly think it was as simple as you either believe in god or you don't.

If you want to know why you might get dismissed by that whopping 10% of the country who says they aren't religious, that last point might have more to do with it than you think. You see, those of us who weren't raised in a particular religious tradition, still have to wrestle with the same moral questions you religious people do, and most of us go out and try to find some answers. While you are flipping through your bible looking for what King James approved as the proper answers, we are finding out what the Greeks thought on the subject, what Hindis think about it, what the Shinto view is, what Druidic tradition says, and yes, even what they say in the Bible. While you are asking your priest the church thinks a particular passage means, we are researching the Thomas Gospel and the Rabbinical interpretations of the Torah.

You see, you are absolutely right that no one should call your judgment into question simply because of your faith. However, calling someone's judgment into question because they are basing their every moral decision, and possibly even their eternal state of being, on a single book out of thousands of other books out there claiming to cover the exact same ground, IS a good reason to call their judgment into question! I mean, your belief says that roughly 67% of the people on Earth have it wrong, and are all doomed to an eternity of damnation. That is a pretty big claim, and when the reasoning behind that is "it says it right here in the book," there is a pretty strong justification for calling your judgment into question. I know you don't see it this way, but some of us have never once in our entire life settled for "God said so" as an answer to any question. So, there is an immediate suspicion of the critical thinking ability of those for whom that is all the answer they need.

hmmmm, let me try...

Dubyah and Hitler are at the pearly gates on judgement day, with Jesus conducting a group admissions interview. One of them says "I did my best to do the will of God, conducting war against your enemies, securing my homeland, and campaigning against the godless.", the other says "But he's Hitler!"

To be sure, the idea that we're descended from apes plays into the notion that if we're just animals, then we should behave like animals, and somehow that moral systems can only arise by Divine fiat is a pretty common one, but I think there's a deeper problem. It's that these people are in fact Biblioloters, worshippers of the book itself, whose belief isn't so much a matter of faith, but of the absolute requirement that the Bible be true in every sense, or it's a complete fraud and their lives are somehow rendered meaningless. Into that come notions that those who do not share their religious beliefs are essentially enemies at war with them. There is a very deep layer of paranoia, a persecution complex, that makes them believe that every time a judge or a politician doesn't give their religious beliefs some pre-eminent and special place, that they are being picked upon. The idea of a pluralistic society that accomodates a wide-range of beliefs is alien to them, and while most are willing to suffer the idea that there will be people of different beliefs in their community, they do want the ability to maintain social control.

If it were presented as this, then fine. But schools are teaching the material as absolute, established fact - they went to court over a sticker that simply read "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The judge ruled that calling evolution a theory was to the satisfaction of creationist parents and for no other reason was a violation of church/state separation.

The decision is over 100 pages long. It's terribly dishonest to imply that the reasoning was so simple and somehow dismissed that point. If you want to attack the actual ruling, I recommend quoting from it and talking about why the decision is wrong rather than handwaving at it in the abstract.

And yes, the biology/geology classes come out and say "this is how the world was formed. This is how man evolved from apes." The words this is how make the clear declaration that said concept is absolute fact beyond question. This is .

Consider the people who trolled me down -2 for no reason other than disagreeing with my stance: do you think for a moment that they would ever accept a teacher being instructed to preface the course material with "most biologists believe" or "it appears that it happened like this"?

The solution to your complaint is simple. We need science education to push more heavily on the philosophy of science. Science education should include methodological naturalism, testability, and the rest of the foundations of the scientific method. It should also point out (but not belabor the point) that these methods are tools and not the arbiter of absolute truth. That would improve science education and it would make the problem you're complaining about go away. Point out what science is and what science isn't. Don't try to redefine science in such away that astrology is suddenly on equal footing with nuclear physics.

What the ID proponents are saying is that science classes are claiming to be the sole arbiters of truth and that the solution to that is to introduce material that flies in the face of the scientific method. That's nonsense, and nobody should be surprised when a judge calls shennanigans after hearing complete arguments from both sides.

> Today in the news: France legalizing file sharing and Canada legalizing group sex

Tomorrow in the news: USA legalizing nuclear pre-empitve strikes on godless sodomite communist countries by President Bush's executive order.

Welcome to the dull American century!

Personally, I think that the government should not utilize the word "marriage". As it is used in our law and our society, the word refers to heterosexual judeo-christian marriage, which in turn is based (due to the genesis of christianity) on roman ceremonies which establish property rights. I believe that this therefore represents a clear refusal to obey the first amendment, as it is a law (or actually, a body of laws) respecting an establishment of religion.

Instead, people should call their unions whatever they like, and the government should recognize only civil unions which IMO should be between any number of people of any gender. After all, marriage is about property rights and we might as well have a more flexible structure for that.

Federal law enforces a christian view of family in which there is one man and one woman. What about unions involving more than two people, formed to provide for and raise a child or children? Why are those so wrong? Because they're godless? Let's see a little more separation 'twixt church and state.

All indoctrination is good, unless it's by those goddamned godless commie LIEberal advocate judges!

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

A comparison meant to show how atheism isn't a religion.

Which is an absolutely valid comparison until you consider that the non-collector of stamps has begun advocating non-collection over collection. And then argues with the collectors about it. And also has a list of reasons why he does not collect, plus some talking points that he can refer to. And possibly very specific grievances against particular collectors. And maybe he has even written a book about not collecting, or at least read a book about it. And he has lobbied or sued the government to reduce the influence of stamp collectors in politics. And frequently makes skeptical comments about the collectors in multpile public forums. And belongs to an organized non-collector club. In that case, yes, not collecting stamps is that man's hobby. Just like atheism is the religion of many atheists.

few atheists live lives devoid of ideals. Atheism is merely the axiom upon which they establish their ideology. Eric Hoffer wrote a book called "True Believers," in which he made a statement that I think is very applicable:

"Though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, shaping the world in his own image."

Wherever there is ideology, there is religion. Maybe not formal, organized religion, but nevertheless it is religion.

Many atheists fool themselves into thinking they have shaken free from the manipulations of religion, but this is mere delusion if they hold any ideals at all. There is no science that has ever claimed to have arrived at the final truth of anyhting, nor established standards for good or evil, nor proven that humans have any sort of rights or entitlements.

Atheism is no more organized than, say, Christianity is organized. It's not an establishment, as Christianity is not an establishment, as Islam is not an establishment, as Buddhism is not an establishment.

As with its theistic religious counterparts, atheism covers a number of sects: Humanism, secularism, hedonism, agnosticism, objectivism, etc. And atheism even has its organized groups of activists, analogous to the various denominations and established churches in theistic religion. They have their own missionaries bent on getting the theists to "leave them alone."