Slashdot Mirror

No, it is not ok, because the sticker is not trying to get the students to question and think for themselves.
The stickers are put their by stupid uneducated (becasuse if they actually read about ID, they would see that it is just nonsense, total dreck) bigoted (they want their religion imposed on others because they think it is better) hypocritical (afraid to say the previous) people.

Let me emphasise: it is not tolerance to question a theory when you dishonestly propse an alternative that is garbage, like, say polywater, or tealeaf reading.

u assume i am against the stickers.
actually, i am for them, because in any honest discussion, the kids wd see that "intelligent design" is lies and deceit, not science at all, and this might lead a few to question the rest of religious nonsense that they are taught.

I agree that the state is imposing its view;that does not mean the parents are honest -
Of course, what the parents shd be doing is asking why the state control apparatus denies them adequate medical care, etc (chomskyism here) but they have been brainwashed into thinking that religion is the answer; in this sense the liberals are part, as you correctly note, of the state control apparatus which strives to prevent these people from wondering about why there is no decent medical care etc.
U r also completely wrong in assuming evolution = godless; as can easily be shown in that he catholic church endorses evolution; u r right in noting that this is about POWER - the state allows people to exercise power in this domain to keep them from asking why their r no jobs, etc

Yeah, it just had to be called "Evolution." Proving once again that those open-source bastards are commie godless heathens bent on destroying the American Way of Life. Might as well have just gone and called it "Al Q'alendar."

America is a God fearing nation of Godless people.

If there *is* a Hell then I expect almost all Americans will end up there. Their blatant disregard for human life in the pursuit of the all-powerful dollar is appalling. And they are so blinded by ignorance and propaganda that they can't even see it!

A morally corrupt puritan state being a world power is scary shit.

Anyway, who created God then, smarty?

The same guy that created your godless Big Bang. Smarty.

Oh, and don't try to propose a continuously collapsing/recreating universe, or I'll just propose an eternal God.

Ok, I was going to reply that your an idiot.. but I won't. I will say that you don't understand what the parent post said. You need to shift your point of view, try some clean slate thinking.

If the system was different, and it can be, how could people receive compensation for creating new ideas, not just gadgets. Hmmm.. they could have a different relationship with the holders of capitol. A programmer could say, I will let you rent my idea (under patent) in return for $300 / month for as long as you need it. But the barrier for entry into this idea marketplace is the cost of legal assistance to manage intellectual property and an employment system that skews future captital creation in favour of those who ALREADY have capital.

The system is made to favour those who already have capital (property) and create a significant barrier for entry for those who don't. Most Americans own a very nice piece of paper called a Mortgage. The middle class kinda made a unwritten deal that said.. ok, in favour of not becoming godless pinko commies, we want a share of the pie. i.e. a high standard of life that we will all contribute to in exchange for the capital (property) holder employing our kids when they graduate from university with a $60k student loan.

Here is the important part. The deal is being changed, pretty soon all bets will be off, and then what happens? Who knows, I am sure the alien invasion will distract us from the fact that the robber-barrons are winning. So.. how about it? Some clean slate thinking?

However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.
But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values"2. But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple3 by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness4. This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different". We have to ask ourselves: "think different than whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to think different than our Christian upbringing, to reject all the values that we have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ!

It appears we have entered a terrible new phase in the Evolutionism propaganda campaign that Apple Computers has been waging. Apple has just announced the "eMac", a Macintosh computer designed specifically to smuggle Darwinism into our schools! According to their propagandistic sloganeering, the "e" in "eMac" ostensibly stands for "education", although it should be obvious to readers by now that it's really a cryptic tipping of the hat to their true agenda: "Evolutionism". However, this isn't the only thing hiding behind this choice of moniker; according to my research, the name eMac is also a referrence to "Emacs", a program that is a standard-bearer for the Communistic Open Source movement mentioned above and whose mascot is some sort of effeminate-looking, horned devil-man. Is there no end to this tangled web of evil?

WKJ: No, not quite, because the true meaning of the declaration of independance lies in our laws - not in this (admittedly beautiful) line.

The laws we have are based on our theory of government and rights. If you believe that human rights come from sets of people, then you will produce very different laws than if you believe that human rights come from God.

Again, the best thing about our founding fathers is that they seperated the foundation from the implementation.

The implementation must derive from the foundation. If you do not understand the foundation, then you cannot completely understand the implementation.

Yes, I agree that the basis of our laws is the Judeo/Christian tradition. That does not logically indicate that such belief systems should be instilled on the populace,

I believe that the preservation of our Liberty depends on the understanding of our people as to the theory behind our laws.

if you believe in the seperation of church and state in public arenas, which I certainly do.

I don't, especially if it requires leaving the public ignorant of how we got where we are!

Pooua: But, more to the point, it would be a very bad school system if it forbade the teaching of the foundations, as is the case on this topic.

WKJ: Not if you view the foundations as somewhat arbitrary.

I don't so view it, and you don't give me any reason that I should. Yes, our foundations are X... but that does not mean that the same conclusions could not have been met if they weren't Y.

Quite to the contrary, if you believe that human rights come from popular opinion, then you can justify the denial of certain rights by saying that the majority opposed. Some people make such arguments, but that is not the basis of our government. Our outcome is not arbitrary; it is a logical extension of its foundations. Logic is not an arbitrary practice!

Again, advanced civilizations have existed long before X ;) Just because X played an important role in our (what I believe to be) somewhat advanced society does not mean X is the only path, and hence, should be instilled over the populace.

An academic point is that this rootlessness you describe is the heart of historic Liberalism.

Outcomes are the results of preceding actions. Though there may be a few simular conclusions reached by various civilizations, none of them will reach all the same conclusions we hold dear, because they have different principles.

I believe the founding fathers emphasized freedom of religion because they knew exactly how dangerous and horrible public enforcement of religion could be, and I am happy to take their word for it (our country was born from the need to escape from religious persecution, after all).

Wouldn't it be horrible to suffer under unjust laws? Does that mean that all laws should be disbanded? I do not believe so. Nor do I believe that our Judeo-Christian foundations should be expunged from public view under the guise that this protects religions or our society.

Just as we should fight to protect freedom of religion, we should also fight to make sure no one attempts to instill a religious belief on us or our children.

We should also fight attempts to force a religious vacuum. Morality and law cannot exist in such a vacuum, as they are the expression of religious belief.

Yes, and we regard most of those civilizations to have been brutal and barbaric, though those practices did not bother their contemporaries until Judeo-Christianity came along. Examples are numerous (the games of the Coliseum, human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the practice of Sati

In terms of a godless, natural-force-only Universe, statements such as the heart of the Declaration of Independence have no meaning. I could cite many more examples, but this one example is sufficient to show that you are incorrect.

No, not quite, because the true meaning of the declaration of independance lies in our laws - not in this (admittedly beautiful) line. Again, the best thing about our founding fathers is that they seperated the foundation from the implementation. Yes, I agree that the basis of our laws is the Judeo/Christian tradition. That does not logically indicate that such belief systems should be instilled on the populace, if you believe in the seperation of church and state in public arenas, which I certainly do.

But, more to the point, it would be a very bad school system if it forbade the teaching of the foundations, as is the case on this topic.

Not if you view the foundations as somewhat arbitrary. Yes, our foundations are X... but that does not mean that the same conclusions could not have been met if they weren't Y. Again, advanced civilizations have existed long before X ;) Just because X played an important role in our (what I believe to be) somewhat advanced society does not mean X is the only path, and hence, should be instilled over the populace. I believe the founding fathers emphasized freedom of religion because they knew exactly how dangerous and horrible public enforcement of religion could be, and I am happy to take their word for it (our country was born from the need to escape from religious persecution, after all). Just as we should fight to protect freedom of religion, we should also fight to make sure no one attempts to instill a religious belief on us or our children.

Yes, and we regard most of those civilizations to have been brutal and barbaric, though those practices did not bother their contemporaries until Judeo-Christianity came along. Examples are numerous (the games of the Coliseum, human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the practice of Sati, etc.).

Wow, brush up on a bit of your history and I think you will find quite a few atrocities commited in the name of Christianity. As for regarding those civilizations as brutal and barbaric - I agree... and I also think that, unfortunately, not all that much as changed since then. I can think of a few brutal and barbaric practices that are being enforced by our goverment at this very instant.

WKJ: "No, it isn't."

Pooua: If you do not understand our Judeo-Christian foundation, you will be unable to understand a simple phrase like,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In terms of a godless, natural-force-only Universe, statements such as the heart of the Declaration of Independence have no meaning. I could cite many more examples, but this one example is sufficient to show that you are incorrect.

WKJ: And regardless, no matter what the foundation of our laws may indeed be, that does not mean you should require that those foundations be taught outright.

It wouldn't be much of a school system if it did not teach the foundations. But, more to the point, it would be a very bad school system if it forbade the teaching of the foundations, as is the case on this topic.

WKJ: A pagan society could also determine similar laws, even though the foundations may seem very different.

There may be the occassional simularity, but it would not be our system of laws and our understanding of human rights. In particular, our understanding of human rights differs greatly from those who claim that people--whether governments or the majority of voters--are the source of human rights, as we see in the culture war.

WKJ: And keep in mind that there were advanced civilizations long before Christianity.

Yes, and we regard most of those civilizations to have been brutal and barbaric, though those practices did not bother their contemporaries until Judeo-Christianity came along. Examples are numerous (the games of the Coliseum, human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the practice of Sati, etc.).

WKJ: I reiterate - no one should be denied religious expression, and we should all fight and die to protect that right if necessary -- but that is NOT what is at issue here.

Then why did you bring up the issue of separation of Church and State? You asked me a question, and I answered it, and now you say that issue has nothing to do with this issue.

Pooua: That would be an argument for the elimination of the public school system.

WKJ: I think this point is only valid if you do not see the difference between a religous belief and a scientific one. ... If it does require someone to share your faith, I am still not convinced why that should be taught in public schools.

I am unconvinced that children should be taught in classrooms in which discussion of God is banned.

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

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.

It's really quite fascinating how some Christians (haven't had a theological debate with a non-Christian faith) simply can't comprehend that a godless, souless person could possibly have similar values and morals as their own.

For some reason it seems to scare them. Or perhaps that godless people aren't entitled to them; that perhaps these are supposed to be exclusive to believers.

Does this attitude arise because it simply makes it harder to demonize and differentiate non-believers, or is it something more complex - and frightening - that perhaps, for example, these people fear that without god in their life they'd become some sort of monster?

I know several people that have lost their faith (as strictly defined by the good book anyway; thanks to weird "church" groups/cults), and vice versa.

In both sides of both directions in these transitions, these people were not monsters.

Some people are quite impressionable, and are easily swayed into adopting a particular set of values, beliefs and morals (good or bad).

Most people are capable of holding any set of beliefs and morals ("good" and "bad"), irrespective of faith.

Remarkable. I'll never understand humans.

If God meant for us to use Nuclear power or renewable energy sources He'd've made it easier for us to use them. As it is, His Will is clearly for us to use oil and coal, don't fall into the godless liberals' trap.

"I've tried this a little bit with my 7-year old godless daughter. ..."

It's a joke her dad started. I'm her "godfather" in a way, but a staunch atheist, so he calls me her godlessfather.

I've tried this a little bit with my 7-year old godless daughter.

?

The idea of programming a game from scratch which is anything like a game you'd buy and play is certainly hard now. When I started (with Basic on an Atari 800), I could find the code for an entire game printed on something like 12 pages of a magazine. Obviously that's not feasible now, not for games which seem like commercial games.

But there are also good tools now which there weren't then. Here's some thoughts, only one of which I've tried.

Neverwinter Nights comes with an extensive toolset to build your own modules. It can be a lot of fun just building a dungeon and putting monsters in it, but you can also do really fancy scripting if you want (the scripting language is C-like, missing some important stuff, but also missing many of the opportunities to screw yourself). There are "wizards" to help put together scripts, which you can then edit. So, a 12-year old who likes the D&D kind of thing can get creative and do coding, while riding the coattails of graphics engine and 3D art which is already done.

I'm sure much the same is true of other games. That's the one I know. I've tried this a little bit with my 7-year old godless daughter. She didn't get into the scripting, but had some fun building a little space where (for instance) two dragons tried to kill each other.

There must be plenty of other possibilities. How about Flash? I haven't done anything with Flash myself, but it seems like fun minigames could be made with that.

Maybe the real way to teach kids about computers is denying them software. (I'm a mean dad.) When I had those early computers, we had games that were kinda fun, but really by far the most fun thing you could do with the computer was one or another kind of hacking. Now, particularly if there's net access, there's a zillion other interesting things to be done.

Then we'll counter-retaliate! Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out! Damn godless comets...

I also offered some sheets and various home items to a woman who asked for quite a list of things, and had them refused becasue I am a "godless heathen".

Wow! What kind of sheets were they to get that kind of response?

You're right. The problem is that nowadays the mention of God immediately draws the image of Christian Fundamentalism, which people are immediately turned off to. Religious or not, each one of us has much to gain by re-establishing our relationship with God.

Unfortunately so many people are arguing about these little details in the book and missing the religious concepts in them.

Again, this is correct. Many of the most popular religions suffer from biased priests, skewed teachings, warped concepts that go against, etc. Because of this, they become godless, nescient, or impersonalist.

But Just as there are many theories concerning scientific observations, there are also other ways of explaining God. Specifically, the Bhagavad-Gita will open your eyes back to the science of loving God. God is everywhere around people, but they are so unfortunate that they have no attraction for Him.

People initially think: "I am this body." They say "This is my house, my car, my family." They understand "my", but not the "I". The body is constantly changing, it is the soul within us that is staying the same. (consciousness is the symptom). That's why an old man feels like the same person in spirit as he did when he was a young man, and a boy.

The atheists believe, "There is no God," and they have made their decision to deny God, thus he will never reveal himself to them.
The nescients believe, "There might be a God, but we can't be sure" and this reflects their dissatisfaction with the material world and their hope for a solid science of loving God. (What, if they would read the Bhagavad-Gita!)
The impersonalists / voidists believe, "God cannot have a personality, it is an all pervading force." But god is unlimited, they are artifically placing a restriction on him. I invite all readers of this to check out the link in this post. Don't worry--it's not some fundamentalist attitude, it's compatible with other religions, and you just might find yourself thinking more than, "Well, the universe just randomly happened, I'm just a random combination of chemicals and nothing will happen after I die, so let me party it up now while I still can, trying to find temporary happiness in this materialistic world!"

It depends on where you are, it looks like. I eventually unsubscribed from my local list because people were DEMANDING anything from "anything needed for a baby" to "a car" to "complete home furnishings". I also offered some sheets and various home items to a woman who asked for quite a list of things, and had them refused becasue I am a "godless heathen".

I didn't mind the volume of polite requests, but the demands are a bit much.

Lea

Internet piracy is, surprisingly, still alive and doing very well, despite the FBI's latest attempt to discourage individuals from doing so by holding them personally accountable for their actions.

"We understand how much our clients are suffering," reports Jonathan Smith, head FBI agent of 'Operation Fastlink'. "I mean, can't these pirates see what they're doing? They're dashing all these poor companies hopes of making their money. And without money, how can their employees enjoy their temporary, godless, materialistic life?"

Neither side seems willing to budge.

"Them reality-lubbers be causin' lots of trouble in the cyber-seas," says one pirate who wished to remain anonymous. "we be tryin' to pay for nothin' and do nothin'. Yearg, but it's never good to see one of your own walk the plank."