Slashdot Mirror

I am so sick of this lame argument being used against creationists.
ie, that religion & science wrt creation are incompatible.
You are the sort of guy that would believe if you had enough sand and lightning strikes (billions of them of course), you would get a Pentium microprocessor.
God clearly says he enjoys us working out the mechanics of what he intelligently created.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Many_famous_scient ists_were_creationists

If God created the initial rules and mechanics of life; How does this oppose science? All science is doing, is reverse engineering. It's like someone gave you a PC with an OS installed, but no instructions on how to use it. So you spend your life working out how it works. You propose theories, test them. You see if you can replicate them and apply your knowledge to create other things.
Again, how does this oppose religion/existance of God?
Evolution is a religion in itself used to try and justify a Godless existance, in some vain hope that you will not be personably answerable to your creator.
Good Luck!

Why was the great wealth of historical America founded on its slave plantations? Why is the great wealth of modern America founded on its latino chefs and landscapers?

Because there are two forces driving human civilization. One is Capitalism, practiced since the dawn of time. The other I call Darwin's Dirty Secret (in other words, the pernicious effects of random evolution).

First, Capitalism: It is so old that it predates the solar system. Capitalism is an aggregative, extractionist model that requires nothing more than an "us" and a "them". The only restriction is that "they" are bigger than "us," and the only protocol, is to take resources from "them" and bring it home to "us."

In cosmological terms, they call it a black hole, a point in space that sucks resources from its surroundings. Imperical Rome was one such hole, as is New York City, or any small town on the edge of a forest. The capitalist protocol is to chop down trees and bring them into town. As long as you are moving trees from one point to another, you are making money. This applies even on a social scale, the typical "us" in Christian America is the nuclear family, the capital action is for the male to go out everyday, charge high prices for his services and bring money home to "us."

As stated before, capitalism requires a) The environment is larger than the family, and b) There is distinct separation between the two, so that moving resources from one to the other represents a form of potential energy. The problem arises when either one of these rules breaks down. If the family grows large enough to resemble the environment (for example, inner city living), then the result of extracting resources from the 'environment' (aka inner-city drug dealing) is actually a form of cannibalism.

As human society becomes globally interconnected, our desire to make money off of each other becomes cannibalistic. Right now, American prosperity is buoyed by the fact that Mexican labor represents a cheap "forest" we are chopping down for cash. When Mexican labor runs out, we must find another forest. As stated in the Matrix, the human race is a virus that can only spread from one place to another.

***

The second problem is the "efficiency of the free market," also known as Something is Better than Nothing. All of us accept the fact that we were created randomly by Darwinian evolution, aka the pressures of conforming to a changing environment. The problem with Darwin is that it is the LEAST efficient engineering model invented. Why? Because Darwin represents TRIAL AND ERROR. What could be worse than that?

The problem with random evolution is that it produces wild, unbuffered swings from one extreme to another. In a historical sense, we could call them atrocities. The stock market crash of 1929, the mass executions of WWII, the millions dead in the civil war, etc. All of these things were necessary to move society forward, to learn from our mistakes. But it is only because of randomness that our mistakes involve the death of millions of people.

In other words, the worst possible management model is no model, which is synonymous with the Godless evolution we started with. Conservatives would like to sell this back to you as "free market efficiency," but in fact buying Volkswagens from a company that propped up Hitler isn't efficient at all. It's simply better than not having a car, and as long as we are fighting scarcity, the atrocity of randomness will continue to be a weapon of choice.

He's not saying "poison" in the poetic sense you dunce, he's saying it in the technical sense.

What? Did you think I was imagining him cackling and holding a small bottle with a skull and crossbones on it?

Of course I meant the technical sense, and I'm still not convinced that "poisoning" is a good description of what the EU (or whoever else; let's be honest, this isn't just an EU thing) would be doing. "Splitting" or "forking" are more accurate.

"You're an ignorant American" rant regarding "US Values" and the idea that Americans think that Europeans are all "Socialist Cheese-Eating Europeans".

"Poisoning" implied wanton destructiveness on the part of the EU. This didn't describe the reality of the situation (see above).

No, I don't think that all Americans view Europeans that way. But I'll bet a notable minority do; and I wasn't necessarily assigning this view to the guy I was replying to.

First of all, look around in Europe, they have some of the most socialistically set up economies around, so that's a valid point.

I don't think any country in Europe is especially socialist, except in comparison with America, perhaps. Which ones did you have in mind?

Anyhow, the example was a deliberate caricature (and not especially exaggerated) of how some Americans see Europe; and how anything smacking of "socialism" is Godless and basically just communism by the back door.

Also, the internet has nothing to do with values, or America, so please stop trying to turn this into an "Americans think they're so good, blah blah blah" argument.

*I* didn't say that. However, use of a similar argument has been used by Americans elsewhere in this thread. If you disagree with that, please take it up with them.

No government should have a control over DNS at all due to the threat of censorship.

So you're saying the US government don't have a disproportionate influence over the current set up?

As for Europe, here's my issue. Just what have your countries contributed recently compared to the US? Not a threat, not an insult, just a simple question. Name some positive things you have done that come close to what the US has done.

The World Wide Web?

It's sure as hell more usable than gopher. :)

I won't even bring up the issue of WWII etc.

You just did. The EU didn't start that; actually, the EU was set up to avoid things like that ever happening again. If you want to start blaming the Axis powers specifically, be my guest.

It's easy for the literalists:

If God Fearin' folk get hit by natural disasters, it's just like in Job and their faith is being tested.

If Godless goat sodomising strangers get hit by natural disasters, they are evil and are being righteously punished for their sins.

Simple eh?

Fortunaately most Godbotherers are intelligent enough to understand that if you chose to live in a hurricane zone, you will get the occassional hurricane.

Xix.

I have noticed something else interesting lately which is that a lot of the swearing in English is based on religion.

Apart from the common four letter words, there still are lots of (pparently mostly christian based) expletatives in use. Now English is the only foreign language I'm really familiar with so I don't know if it's also true in other European languages (or non European for that matter).

In French, religious swearing sounds very dated for the most part and very little has survived to this day (but then we're godless heathens, we apparently even have a day of prayer to ourselves in some circles in the US).

Well, ok, maybe it wasn't that interesting.

At least in America children are not indoctrinated with godless, marxist ideas. Now, that'd be an awful thing to say, the street runsboht ways.

You know, you're probably right. I mean, they are communists after all. America being superior to the rest of the world in all ways, if our democratic nation's own space agency is having such a hard time safely putting man in space, how can those godless communists possibly manage to do it?

I think the Russians were lying about their space exploration feats as well--They were communists too under the Soviet government. Nothing good has ever come out of a country that is ideologically opposed to the U.S.!

Meanwhile, I know I can perfectly trust our democratic government to be completely honest, just as American mainstream media sources are always 100% accurate. I mean, c'mon it's not like CNN has army psy-ops personnel watching over their operations. And our president would never lie to us about anything.

I'm saying that our traditional antipathy towards science has become outright hostility in recent years, as evidenced by the push for religious instruction in the science classroom. The current movement against traditional science instruction is not something new, it has been building up since the early 1980s.

Back when we were fighting the godless Commies, we recognized the need for science education and we pushed hard for students to excel and the curriculum to be solid. Now we just want science classes to reinforce what we already believe.

Sure FOX has liberals on. But debate between right wing nuts and left wing nuts is not news. It's like calling pitbull or cock fights "recreational sports". And you notice the only "liberal" types they have on FOX are the ones that are on the extreme? And then they try to make them look bad in comparison and it makes the crazy slanted right-wingers on the station who are put up against them look legitimate and sensible.

Anyway, I can't give any weight to a network that had their "news anchor" interviewing the guy who wanted to take the pledge of allegience out of schools (since it was only dumped into schools to indoctrinate kids and scare the godless communists a few decades ago) - and the woman (I think it was "linda vester") asked the guy "what the hell is your problem?!". Yes. That's very professional investigation, interviewing and news reporting. If he had been a conservative complaining about videogames or half-assed attempting to justify killing abortion doctors, do you think she would have said "what the hell is your problem"? Nope. That extremely biased and unprofessional comment would never have been heard.

Doesn't it worry you just a little bit that your religion shares characteristics of classic brainwashing techniques:

- Make sure the message is unverifiable.
- Control access to alternative messages.
- Repeat the message constantly and at all available opportunities.
- Root the consequences of not following the message in fear.
- Isolate and attack dissenters of the message.
- Group those whom you have convinced in order to reinforce their belief.
- Use positions of authority to send the message.
- Invalidate positions of authority which you cannot control.
- If the message must be changed, do so, repeat the new message, and deny the existence of the previous one.

Atheists don't all profess to believe in the same thing, they simply agree that there are no gods. It's "without gods", not the "religion of godlessness".

It's as if you're saying that people with hair on their heads who claim to not be bald are inconsistent because of the variety of their hair color and that that somehow affects their claim to not be bald.

Although you make pretty good point (and in a very amusing way, too!), I think that the idea of the manufacturer is not to prevent piracy by disallowing multiple viewings, but by a two-pronged approach:

1. The introduction of a new format with a hook (i.e. "Disposable, For Your Convenience(tm)!"), which requires a change in player technology.

Thus enabling...

2. The introduction of a non-standard, more "secure" (read: restricted) DRM-enabled player.

I'm pretty sure that Microsoft is patting itself in the back for coming up with this. You see, everybody before them (DIVX, EZ-DVD, etc.) was pre-occupied with making the discs work with existing technology. Not Microsoft!

"We convince people that they need this, and replace all those dartard, godless DVD players people currently own, which allow them to play their movies as they wish, at the same time. Brilliant!" -- says Mr. Ballmer, as a chair flies over the conference table.

Right. Except, it might not work.

        -dZ.

It isn't about running away from anything. I've been fighting an uphill battle all those years. Everyone says "if you don't like things, then get out and vote". Well, I get out and vote. I try to get out and work in the community. I go to city council meetings. I am part of the school board. I write my congressman and Senator constantly almost to the point where I'm a nuisance. All to no avail.

When I have to sit in on meetings about teaching intelligent design in our school system, I try to object that it's not even science at all I get people looking at me like I'm nuts. I even had a guy tell me to move to France as he said they're Godless over there too...to which he had a bit of applause from the group! It's a long story on that one, but you get my point I hope.

So you say it's running away when things happen I don't like. Well, I suppose you would say that anyone that in the past has left an oppressive country and government were "running away when things happen" also? You seem to be one of these people that look down on people that bad-mouth their country...pathetic you call them. You even want to pass a law that if anyone says they want to leave the country would be deported in a month. And how dare I "cry" about it here. Sorry to muck up your perfect world order by my crying. I know you're just spouting off, but I'm not so sure that one day they would indeed pass this law...as our free speech that some still hold dear is eroding away year by year along with other freedoms...like the new bill about how the police would be able to take DNA samples from anyone detained. That's detained, not even arrested. Yes, this means that a minor traffic stop you "could" be required to give a DNA sample. More about this here.

I'm tired. I just now want to live my life in peace and quiet now. This Jack Thompson thing is just another straw on a very over burdened camel.

Agreed. Strongly agreed. However, a stable, democratic nation is rarely concieved through invasion and occupation.

So I guess Germany and Japan are just total flukes then, huh? Yes, just because they happen to represent the last two times America invaded, occupied, and restructured a nation successfully should be absolutely no reason to consider them valid examples. Be sure to throw away any data that conflicts with your pre-conceived notion, as that would probably destroy your argument. And we both know you can't let that happen.

In America, the President surrounds himself with yes-men and loyalists. Elsewhere in the world you get advisors who have been with gov't for years and years and who aren't afraid to actually *gasp* speak the truth.

Yes, that's right, every other nation on the planet has altruistic, truth-speaking, infallible advisors to their top leaders, whereas America is merely a haven for thuggish yes-men who are intent on raping the helpless, pillaging the poor, and eating babies. My God, you are the most amazingly naive person I've ever conversed with.

Why, oh why, would politicians agree with what the public believed and with what the Administration (fasely) stated was true.. What a tough question!

Oh, so when the Administration believes the intelligence reports it's a "lie," but when everyone else (including Bill Clinton) believes it, they're just being hoodwinked. Are you truly this blind to your own double standards here?

Maybe you need to get a clue, go read the current draft constitution and actually DISPUTE what I'm claiming here. Iraq is going to turn into an Islamic Socialist paradise, on YOUR dollar, according to their constitution. I'm glad you're so supportive of that.

Hmmm...looking over the draft Iraqi Constitution, I see provisions for popular elections, women's rights as citizens guaranteed, proportional representation of the various religious groups, free speech, no mandatory religion, right to property, right to public gatherings...yep, it's a veritable classless, godless, Commie state! I'm so glad I have you around to pull these things out of thin air, otherwise I'd just be totally ignorant. Now if you'd care to rejoin reality...oh, but the Kool-Aid is so sweet, isn't it?

Oh, and you forgot to tell me where you bought your infallible crystal ball. You know, that device you keep using to tell me exactly how the future is going to unfold. I really would like one since you seem to be making such good use of yours. Then I can be smug and self-confident of my future predictions of gloom and doom just like you! As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of...well, you know the rest.

It's a tough battle to win, seeing as the West has shat on the heads of Middle Easterners since colonial times.

Ah, yes, the problems in the Middle East are all totally the fault of the Westerners, aren't they? I mean, the fact that billions of American dollars go into Saudi Arabia every year it totally responsible for the huge unemployment rate there. It certainly has nothing to do with a corrupt monarchy, or a Muslim mindset that automatically attributes every slight, every inconvenience, and every disadvantage into some sort of Western oppression. And Iran's exclusion from the rest of the world has nothing to do with its religious intolerance of anyone else. Nope, no matter where you look in the Arab world, they are totally blameless for their current situation. Why, it's as if the crusades are still going on, with bloodthirsty Christians hacking women to pieces and throwing babies into the fire! One wonders how you sleep at night with such attrocities going on!

I remember, as a kid in the early '60s (late '50s?) the Russians photographed the back side of the moon. It was the first time in history, that anyone had seen what was there.
A well-read US 'Science' magazine "Popular Mechanics" (or was it "Popular Science?) later claimed it was all a big hoax, and the godless Rooskies had never photographed the far side of the moon.
Well, 5 or 10 years later the US sent photo missions around the moon and strangely found that their photos seemed to verify that the back of the moon looked just like the original USSR photos.
I don't know if there was ever any attempt to rename "Mare Moscovium" (excuse the spelling), or other features already named after great socialist scientists, as "Mare Washingtonium", or "Sea of Dulles", but it's too bad the Fox network wasn't around then....

I guess Mother Nature couldn't get all the Godless Heathens with the 2 hurricanes she sent, so now on to Plan B...Killer Dolphins! That'll teach those evil, alcohol consuming, stripper watching, heathens down south!

Actually, what I don't understand is this:

It's okay to do business in communist China where they have plenty of nukes and seem quite willing to go nuts on us at any moment and we decry their terrible human rights record. But it's not alright to do business in communist Cuba where they couldn't realistically harm a fly without foreign help.

That's because the expatriot Chinese dissidents aren't concentrated enough to actually effect elections, unlike the the expatriot Cubans in Miami. At least that's the conventional wisdom.

And yeah, the same thing is often done in the states that happened in China (which doesn't justify what happened in China as Yahoo! should have some base set of ethics and morals for their company to run by and those shouldn't be given up just because it's the way things are in a certain region) -

There's alot of "the same thing happens in the US" going around here, but that's a disingenous statement. There's a huge difference between the Chinese and American governments. This man, Shi Tao, is being imprisoned for 10 years for telling how Bejing wanted the Tiananmen aniversary reported. HIs crime was politcal speech. That doesn't happen in the US. To conflate the two governments and their tactics is to do an incredible disservice to dissients that are risking their lives in truly totalitarian regimes.

but the difference is that the Chinese are godless communists. It's okay of an (all but officially) Christian Republic democracy does so.

That's right! And that's why the US must be tough on communism by having the embargo on Cuba! :P

Actually, what I don't understand is this:

It's okay to do business in communist China where they have plenty of nukes and seem quite willing to go nuts on us at any moment and we decry their terrible human rights record. But it's not alright to do business in communist Cuba where they couldn't realistically harm a fly without foreign help.

And yeah, the same thing is often done in the states that happened in China (which doesn't justify what happened in China as Yahoo! should have some base set of ethics and morals for their company to run by and those shouldn't be given up just because it's the way things are in a certain region) - but the difference is that the Chinese are godless communists. It's okay of an (all but officially) Christian Republic democracy does so.

Remember, only a country that pledges their allegiance to a flag and god can be trusted with safely ignoring your freedom!

I'm agnostic (fallen away Catholic), and therefore no "fundi", but IMHO the notion that deities CAN'T exist is just as foolish and arrogant as asserting they NECESSARILY exist. Ultimately, neither position is likely to ever be proved or disproved.

Why is it so important to some atheists to ram the theory of godlessness down the throats of others: a behavior identical to many of those being vilified (the "fundi's" [sic] in this case). There is a dearth of evidence for either position, so it really does come down to one's faith. Belief in nothing is, IMHO, still a matter of faith.

Overall, I personally tend to agree more with science's position: without evidence to the contrary, assume the most "basic" situation exists. In this context, without hard evidence of a God, assume no God exists. But ultimately this is still an assumption. For a long time we had no clue of the existence of gravity, radio, or that light even had a speed at all. Just because we didn't conceptualize them didn't mean they didn't exist. Conversely, just because we DO conceptualize something doesn't mean it DOES exist (Aether anyone?).

But, without "God" (in whatever form), where did we come from? Science seems to be able to track things back to the Big Bang, but before that many leading scientists simply argue it doesn't matter.

Suppose the Big Bang was a local phenomena and part of a larger universe? Before assuming THAT doesn't matter, suppose the two Big Bang-style "universes" come into contact someday -- then it definitely would matter and would nullify our assumptions about our universe. Somewhere down the line something was set into motion that allowed everything we all experience to exist. Was that God? Maybe. Even if I assume that God did create everything lends no particular credence to the specific claims made by any of the current religions.

But, back to the article. Suppose there is life found outside our planet (and I truly hope there is). Does that completely invalidate the "fundi's" position? Not really, one could easily argue that the Bible only refers to our place on Earth, not the universe as a whole and that other worlds would have different relationships with God. Of course, that slipperiness is what makes the position distasteful to me, but I still could relate and accept that reasoning as the foundation of their view of the world.

Most likely I'll never know the answers to any of these questions. Do you, the reader, know? Not just have a few purported clues and decided that Professor Plum created the universe with a chainsaw, but actually KNOW whether God exists? Can you trace everything back to the beginning of all time (not just the known universe)?

Are you really all that certain that whatever God you worship is not simply the play toy of another higher being? After all, "I am the Lord thy God ... You shall have no other Gods besides Me" doesn't preclude the possibility of higher levels of bureaucracy. It just implies that the bureaucracy doesn't matter to us and that we should direct all requests to our designated divine civil servant for proper routing.

If not (and I'm certain that despite any protests the real answer is no -- I suppose that's the only real tennent of MY faith), please stow the over-righteous attitude. It's not helping anyone's quest for the answers.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice--relentless propaganda and disinformation--were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and"terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible wi

As a godless Canadian, a citizen nonetheless of the pan-American empire, I will proudly point my cell phone toward the heavens in the direction of least reception, and prostrate myself in the name of his divine governance, darth whoever-it-is-who's-running-the-military-down-ther e.

Corrected. ^_-