Slashdot Mirror

...the cyber-fundamentalists that North Korea is behind that movie.

I mean, they're godless communists, right?

Threat to who or what?
Other religions? Why? Shouldn't their faith protect those who believe from Islamic influence? It's not a disease.
Atheists? How? They don't believe in that mumbo-jumbo anyway?

I'm having a feeling that by "Islam" you actually mean something else. Something more along the lines of "them people" as opposed to "us".

BTW... that phrase... "current threat"? That kinda means now, as opposed to some other time.
Islam was just fine and perfectly ignorable a decade or two ago.
Heck... It was even favorable, compared to godless commie bastards.
You know... back when the THEN "current political situation" was more agreeable to it.

We worry that other countries will have nuclear bombs, but we've proven our Godless leaders are capable of USING THEM. Things that make you say hmmmm....

So, if I have faith in running my next 10K race in 40:00 this is based in evidence? Which evidence if I may ask? Your evidence would imply travelling forward in time and back again to provide the evidence.

I have faith in tomorrow being a tranquil day at work (in this godless Dutch country Good Friday is a working day!)... but shit can happen, Jesus with a flaming sword can appear to announce his Second Coming and set a server ablaze by accident!

Viewing religion as a positive belief in some set of entities from which normative conclusions are drawn, then "atheism" as a simple non-belief in said entities, is indeed not a religion.

However, in a different analysis, one might regard "religion" from an institutional perspective --- as a particular self-reinforcing bundle of beliefs/views/behaviors/social-interactions that actively informs and guides adherents (while impacting non-adherents). In this case, "atheism" is more likely to fall into the same analytical category as (theistic) religions, distinct from "apinkunicornism."

Very few people actively take into consideration the non-existence of pink unicorns when pondering philosophical/normative questions. Many "strong atheists," however, specifically use the "godlessness" of the world as a key motivation and organizing principle for developing non-theistic worldviews, highlighting and deconstructing philosophical issues previously addressed by appeal-to-deity. Furthermore, they specifically seek out and interact with others on the unifying ground of "atheism," forming institutional structures larger than isolated personal non-beliefs: hence the production of atheist conventions, books, and even shoes (which have not developed around "apinkunicormism," aside from when that is used as a proxy for atheism).

From an institutional analysis perspective, "atheism" is developing similar structures to religion (and competing with, or filling the void left by, older theisms). As such, atheists should be self-reflective that many institutional problems ascribed to religion may also be operative within atheist communities. A reflexive revulsion to at least occasionally thinking of oneself as "having a religion" creates a barrier to challenging the shared institutional dysfunctions that can exist in both theistic and atheistic communities.

you have something against clip-fed machine gun owners asserting their right to bear clip-fed arms? Let me educate you, you godless leftie, nothing says "Stay out of my face" to the King of England than a clip fed machine gun wielding patriot.

I'm not denying that they exist, merely that they're representative of the whole. I'm aware that they're out there. I just don't know any personally, despite having grown up in the church. In fact, I learned about those principles while attending a private Christian school, back almost 20 years ago now (and no, I didn't learn them as "these are evil ideas that Godless people will try to tell you are truth", despite the stereotypes and Internet crazies that might lead you to believe otherwise :P).

[...Continued due to some kind of limitation in /.]

Combined back due to my preference to keep related things together.

The universe is expanding, but that doesn't mean it would contract all the way back to a singularity if we could see it in reverse.

Not in itself, but to make the observed expansion consistent with the math of the general relativity, a singularity is required.
Add to that the cosmic background microwave radiation, the relative distribution of various elements, and the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies and you get a pretty strong case for the big bang.

You do realize, I hope, that the big bang was at one time just one of many competing hypotheses and grew to dominance due to its merits.

I do believe in god, but I still question by beliefs, the same as I question everything. Frankly I feel this to be a good thing.

Let me ask you this: is there any (hypothetical) event, observation, etc. that will make you reverse your belief? In other words, can there be (hypothetical) evidence that will convince you that god, as you currently define it, does not exist?
If your answer is "no", then you do not really question your beliefs.

Many atheists so blindly want to deny the existence of a god, that I personally find them to be more closed minded than me.

Most atheists feel that there is not enough evidence to warrant a god (or gods) and the currently prevalent theories do fine without the supernatural, thank you very much, and model the universe better than any theory that includes it -- and therefore choose to apply Occam's Razor and not believe in god(s).

Specific religions or portrayals of god(s), on the other hand, are something that an average atheist can feel he has evidence against (not only a lack of evidence in favour). Thus, an atheist may be opposed to, say, Christianity, but so can a Hindu or a pagan.

I automatically get accused of believing the earth is 6K year old and want to kill people for some "sky god" or some other BS.

Then maybe you need to articulate your beliefs better.

Fine. then the existence of god is beyond the scope of my religious model.

What exactly is your "religious model" then?
I really would like to know because I am not familiar with many religious models that consider the question of god's existence immaterial.

And you said yourself, as long as I claim it to be beyond the scope of the model I choose, I no longer have to worry about it.

A model is a tool, useful for a particular purpose.
A hammer is a very useful tool for hammering nails but is useless for screwing screws. A tool-box is good for many things (as it contains a hammer, a screwdriver and other tools) but is useless for legal advice. You could say that jurisprudence is beyond the scope of the tool-box.

The big bang theory does not attempt to explain how the universe behaved before said bang, therefore it is outside the scope of that theory. It may well be case that the cause for the big bang was a divine entity saying "let there be light", it would not change the math one bit.

You felt the need to call me clueless just one sentence prior.

And you chose to ignore the the context. I did not call you clueless because of your beliefs. I did so because you claimed that accepting a scientific theory is similar to faith-based beliefs, when the two are nothing alike. Just out of curiosity, how well are you versed in the philosophy of science or, for that matter, of theology?

Did I call you a godless heathen destined to become Satan's bitch? No. That would be rude and counter productive.

Calling me godless would be a statement of fact that I would have to agree with.
The heathen part is more prob

But believing in the Big Bang is logical?

Nope. We have lots of evidence that the universe behaves as if 13+ billion years ago everything sprang forth from a singularity of infinite density.We cannot claim with certainty that this is exactly what happened but, as long as the theory fits our observations and makes accurate predictions, it really does not matter. It is a useful model, not an absolute truth.

Like I said elsewhere, it's a workable theory for now. But I personally feel it's still incomplete and somewhat naive, but we don't have anything better. The universe is expanding, but that doesn't mean it would contract all the way back to a singularity if we could see it in reverse. I'm not accusing you of this, but many just accept this without question, that it all sprang from a singularity. Even if you don't like it, that is closer to faith than science. I do believe in god, but I still question by beliefs, the same as I question everything. Frankly I feel this to be a good thing. Many atheists so blindly want to deny the existence of a god, that I personally find them to be more closed minded than me. I don't make fun of them by telling them they are going to burn in hell or what ever. But I automatically get accused of believing the earth is 6K year old and want to kill people for some "sky god" or some other BS.

Where did it come from? What caused it to explode?

That is beyond the scope of the model. It is about math, not metaphysics.

Fine. then the existence of god is beyond the scope of my religious model.

You said it yourself: "we really don't have a better explanation, and it seems to be a workable theory to for now". As long as the math works out, belief has nothing to do with it.

And you said yourself, as long as I claim it to be beyond the scope of the model I choose, I no longer have to worry about it.

I know, that's a sure way to get modded as a troll.

Stating your beliefs? Not so much. Conflating a belief in the supernatural with an acceptance of a validity of a scientific theory (a "model", if you will)? There's no "clueless" mod AFAIK.

most religions tend to worship a god that tells us to be good to each other

Do you really need a god to tell you that? Can't you arrive to that conclusion on your own?

In an ideal world, no. You felt the need to call me clueless just one sentence prior. Did I call you a godless heathen destined to become Satan's bitch? No. That would be rude and counter productive. And, yes my last statement was meant as nothing more than a joke.

[Continued in next post...]

Thanks for posting through slashdot. We will now trace and destroy you.

Unfortunately, this is no longer funny. Thanks to such freedom-loving devices as the Patriot Act and that lovely little thing known as FISA, "interested" organizations can march up to Slashdot, demand all sorts of records under total secrecy (at least until yesterday's court ruling), use them as a basis for back-tracking, and apply pressure to foreign entities that would allow them to repeat the process all the way down to drawing cross-hairs on a drone-strike map.

Don't forget that post-9/11, your American citizenship effectively ends when you leave the boundaries of the USA. And, for the most part enter a US airport. You can also effectively lose your citizenship if someone chooses to label you an "enemy combatant". We no longer cling to the 200-year old archaisms that Once an American, Always an American, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, or other such quaint and silly "self evident truths". We may have been able to hold onto them while the Godless Communists of the Evil Empire were howling at the door, but mention the word "terrorist" and we soil our underwear.

We are not yet at the point where it is unsafe even to mention such things, or I wouldn't. But we're close enough that it's possible to receive a visit from certain people who might strongly advise keeping silent - and to more than advise keeping silent about the visit itself.

The true enemies of freedom and democracy are not the foreigners without, it's the Guardians within, The people who feel it necessary to destroy freedom in the name of saving freedom. The so-called Liberal "nanny state" might want to take away your Big Gulps, but the nanny state that you should really worry about is the one with the flags and the eagles. And offshore prisons.

Considering the media operates with not only with an expectation for godlessness but an appreciation thereof, I suspect such an admittance might actually be conceptually difficult for them. We'd never see it even in fact a universal supreme being (God) were discovered to exist.

arts organizations who are scrambling to make their productions more interactive

That's all swell and spiffy, but consider that popular culture has been given a general dumbing-down, for decades.
You can blame a lot of people, e.g. Godless Commies, and the Semi-Conscious Liberation Army, the Tri-Labial Commission, and so forth, but the bottom line is with the individual. We all have to spend time finding useful bits of culture, and preserve them.
By the time my little guy is a teen, we'll go enjoy that symphony. I myself have been mostly a slacker in this regard, but the occasion of being a father and understanding the importance of passing the torch to the next generation cannot be understated.
It's about our Precious Bodily Fluids.

So, you characterize mcgrew as "religious right" based on a post where he claims "the US is in no way a Christain nation" and that what gays do "is none of my business"? I'd love to live in your country --- our religious right is far worse here, and makes mcgrew look like a godless commie.

Did religious folks help? Of course.

Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old.

Would progress in science have been faster if all the contributors were anti-religion?

Quite likely.

Ok - what non-religious country in the past one thousand years do you feel pushed/allowed science to advance better than the Christian countries? You encounter some Christians that don't believe in evolution and decide that this is a common theme. This is as fair as taking 2000 years of history and only citing examples where the churches hindered science. This shows how close minded you are.

If I pointed to non-Christian or godless countries and pointed out their human rights records, would that prove anything to you? If I told you I knew some really hate-filled, intolerant atheists, would that prove something to you? I doubt it, just like you knowing some ignorant people does mean anything to me.

I sincerely hope that the anti-religious folks keep pushing harder and harder against people that have faith. Eventually, you are going to push people to the point where they start speaking up for themselves.

I don't have a hangup on the name, and we don't have a naming conflict in the law books (which is all that matters in this context; namespaces, they are one honking great idea!). Simply extending the legal definition of marriage to cover same-sex couples is the easiest and most natural transition. Everything else is jumping through the hoops that you are placing in the air yourself beforehand.

If your argument is that dropping the notion of "marriage" in the legal system and switching it to "civil union" wholesale would make it easier to garner support, then I find it dubious. The same folk who are now decrying same-sex marriage on the grounds of "sanctity of marriage" will decry that, too - because the godless evil gubmint refuses to recognize and honor their God-ordained status. Remember, we're talking here about people who think that the Ten Commandments should be hanging on the wall of every courthouse.

They wouldn't mind if these drones were used to catch people smoking a joint or exposing someone for being a godless faggot.

Excuse me commie lover, this is not a case of pot calling the kettle black whatsoever.

This is a human rights issue.
Here in America, we strike special medals to honor our cyber soldiers pentagon medal.

Mandiant is merely highlighting the fact that Chinese cyber units get no comparable recognition of the sort.
Once again, these godless commies are exploiting cheap labor and trampling human rights, while we Americans are obviously holier-than-thou.

The question changes everything we do if there is a creator. Without one, morality is not an issue. With one, morality becomes important. Philosophy, Philanthropy, Sociology, Psychology, etc.. all are sciences dealing with those issues.

I would tend to disagree with you : the way you approach morality is different if you believe in a creator or not, but saying atheists cannot have any morals would be false. And if you look at the age of Enlightenment, a lot of their breakthroughs was to show that was had been, until that point, taken for granted from religions, could be also explained by observation and scientific reasoning : morality does not need religion to exist in a society, governments can be established without invoking divine right...

If you look at the way science progressed through history, a lot of discoveries were about explaining phenomenons which only had imperfect or mystical explanations until then : just think about thunder, 3000 years ago, people thought it was Zeus or *insert deity's name here* throwing a tantrum. We know a theory that explains thunder, but that doesn't mean there is no creator.

Same thing with morality, you can explain through a variety of arguments that don't invoke god or a creator.

Whether you believe in a creator or not, the world as it is is the same : a combination of events that have been explained, will be explained or will stay a mystery. You can attribute the unexplained to a creator, but having material, final proof of the existence of a creator defeats the very notion of faith.

Lastly, if what you claimed about atheists not caring was true then we would not see them using rhetorical fallacies trying to discount people that believe in a creator.

Atheists mostly don't care about other's people, or lack of thereof. I'm an atheist. I understand how someone can have faith in a religion, and respect it.
Atheists care when other people impose based on beliefs they don't share, the same way you would care about living in a country which rules itself on religious beliefs opposed to yours, instead of finding common ground.

As for the arguments made by atheists, it's not about proving believers are wrong, it's about proving that there is no definite proof that a believer of a given faith is right, and that therefore, they aren't entitled to change society to conform with their beliefs.
And that being an atheist doesn't make you a godless savage that cannot be trusted with opinion on morals or society.

<quote>They figure given the asteroid's speed the cost of the speeding ticket could balance the budget.</quote> Brilliant!!!! Now the only problem is who to send the ticket to...

According to Fox, we are becoming a godless nation so... God?

Rather than wanting to live a life "without accountability" or being "without hope" you’ll find that most (ex-Christian) atheists don’t believe for one or more of the following reasons:

The concept of an immortal being makes no sense to us.

The concept of an all-powerful being makes no sense to us.

The concept of an all-knowing being makes no sense to us.

Throwing the three together into one being cubes its already dispositive implausibility.

We tend to have a good working knowledge of the age, size and history of the Universe. The idea that a being would create the entire thing – with 400,000,000,000 galaxies, EACH with 100, 000,000,000 starts and even more planets, then sit back and wait 13,720,000,000 years for human beings to evolve on one planet so he could “love them” and send his son to Earth to talk to a nomadic group of Jews about sheep and goats in Iron Age Palestine (while ignoring the rest of the 200 million people then alive) makes no sense to us. We can’t help but ask ourselves, “did God make the Jews or did the Jews make God?”

The answers usually proffered for what we see as basic logical flaws in Christianity – “you have been blinded by your lack of faith” “God moves in mysterious ways” “God is outside the Universe” or “our minds are too small to understand the greatness of God” are never satisfying to us. We see a retreat to mysticism as the first refuge of the cornered fool.

The common argument, “well, what caused the Big Bang?” with the implication that, because we have only theories and no iron clad explanation for the Big Bang yet, the Judeo-Christian god must have caused it – does not make sense to us. “I don’t know” does not equal “god” to us, much less the Judeo-Christian god. We feel the answers to such a question are much more likely to be found in Einstein’s equations, quantum physics, large particle accelerators and radio telescopes than in Genesis Chapters 1 through 20. We’re crazy aren’t we?

We do not see miracles in things like tornadoes missing a certain trailer in a trailer park, cancer going into remission or Tim Tebow winning a football game.

We understand that Christianity is one of many, many religions in the World, and we don’t think that we were lucky enough to have been born in the one part of the World that “got it right”. Likewise, we know how all faiths evolve, morph and change over time and do not think we were lucky enough to have been born in the one generation that “got it right.”

We tend to have a basic knowledge of history and know that there is nothing magical or special about the supposed history of the Jews, gospels, letters, apocalyptic story (Revelations) and other materials that found their way into the Bible, in that they are largely indistinguishable from the other mythology and religious writings of the pre Dark Ages Mediterranean.

Human beings are terrified of their own deaths and we see the various religious beliefs that try to “wish it away,” such as reincarnation, living happily ever after in Heaven with Jesus, having your own Mormon planet etc. as nothing more than childish stories for the more naive, timid minds among us.

We do not see morality as predicated upon a belief in the supernatural. We accept that one can be moral without believing in the supernatural and that doing so is no guaranty that one will conform to the norms of society that people call “morality”.

“You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is not a convincing argument to us, or even a relevant point, because an inability to disprove something is a far cry from it being true. We cannot prove that the Hindu gods Shiva or Vishnu do not exist either, nor Santa Claus for that matter, but that is hardly a reason to believe in them. It is not even evidence for their existence. It i