Slashdot Mirror

The problem here is that any argument (I hesitate to call it debate or even discussion) involving evolution vs creation is that it immediately degrades into an "us" vs "them" fight.

To the hardcore evolutionists, all creationists get lumped together. It doesn't matter if their stance is "I don't think the big bang was an accident" or "the Bible says the Earth is 4000 years old, so that's how old the Earth is". You're a superstitious and mentally deficient nutjob who is at best to be ignored and at worst should be sterilized and exiled.

The converse also occurs. To a fundamentalist creationist, anyone ranging from "I could see how evolution might account for certain things" to "evolution is the correct and only possible explanation" is a godless empty shell of a human who at best should be shunned and at worst should be burned at the stake.

Modern science is built around the idea that you can never actually prove a theory, only disprove it and build a better theory. When you stop trying to disprove your models and accept them as truth, you stop being a scientist and step into the realm of faith.

It's been my experience that fights are not between scientists and zealots; they are between zealots and other zealots.

I think us Americans should be more concerned about what's happening with our great democratic allies such as the French, with random censorship that would make Chairman Mao proud, than to worried about the godless commies in China.

you need to remember this is Slashdot so, to see any conservative views, you need to make it a point to read all of the posts that have been scored -1.

NOTE: This alert should be posted on all politically sensitive topics!!!

Yes, because there are no conservatives on slashdot. This site is a teeming hotbed of GODLESS COMMUNISM and MUSLIM TERRORISM.

Judging by the video, the people he sprayed got pissed and collaborated to get him into trouble. There were a bunch of Russians in a group, its not unforeseeable they would make shit up. I am not trying to profile people, but the Russian's Ive met before tend to have a higher percentage of hoodlums, most likely because they had a rough life over in Russia.

AKA "I'm not a bigot or xenophobe, but..."

Maybe Captain Condom there thought he was protecting America from godless commies?

All right, no problem.

I think that one of the big lessons of WWII is that if your country tries the isolationist mode and sits around in your own borders minding your own business while a ideology that is actively hostile to your own spreads around the world, then you only set yourself up for a bigger and more deadly war later as that ideology grows and spreads from a minor annoyance to a major threat, and potentially to an unbeatable one. It sure looks now like millions of lives could have been saved if, say, Nazi Germany was confronted before they became so big and powerful that if wasn't certain whether we could defeat them at all.

I know the US has a long history of trying to export Democracy, but I don't think all of those efforts can be directly compared as there were several different reasons behind them. Most of the regimes set up during the Cold War, what was important was that they were friendly to us and hostile to the Soviet Union so as to prevent the spread of Soviet style Communism, not so much that they were legitimate democracies. It doesn't look so good when the regime you helped overthrow was arguably more democratic than the new friendly one, but the end result was the defeat of Communism and the overall worldwide acceptance of Democracy as the only form of legitimate Government. What I mean by that is that only a few hundred years ago, most countries in the world were ruled by some sort of dictator, and anyone who objected to the idea that they were entitled to rule however they felt like would be laughed at or shot. Now, even the nastiest dictators feel the need to at least pretend to have real elections to legitimize themselves.

As for what I consider surrender, what surrender essentially means is giving the other side everything they want so that they give up fighting. But what does the other side in this war really want? Some people think that what they are fundamentally upset at is our throwing our weight around in the middle east, generally interfering with things, and they really just want to be left alone. If you think this is true, then isolationism certainly looks more appealing. But I don't think that's what they really want.

Every world power since pretty much the beginning of recorded history has been interfering with foreign countries, especially in the middle east. Why were none of them ever the focus of international terrorism from radical Islam? To get closer to the truth, look at what Osama was saying way back at the beginning of their campaign, before they started trying to manipulate the western media. What they demanded then, and what I think they still really want, is to completely stop all foreign influence by media, music, movies, literature, ideas, everything into the middle east. These religious zealots were already mad enough that we were flouting the laws of their religion and yet were far more successful than their more pious countries, and now all of the horrible, godless, hedonist culture that we produce leaks into their countries and addicts their own citizens, who they think should be following their radical interpretation of Islam instead. In their view, they had no choice but to lash out against us until we made it stop. But we can't really make it stop, because we were never actively trying to reach their people in the first place - they actively sought out our culture because they liked it better than Sharia law and the so-called pious life these guys were selling.

I think their real endgame goes even further than that - they aspire to no less than world conquest. These guys have long been experts at concealing what they really want to manipulate westerners. Look at what the Palestinians say in English to the west compared to what they say in Arabic to their own people. In English, they all talk about how much they want peace, and in Arabic, they never stopped calling for the total destruction of Israel and the death of all of the Jews there. There's lots of literature supporting that radical Muslims believe that conquering and rul

This is where it gets funny. Republicans of the traditional stripe don't have any problem with evolution, but pretend it's in doubt for political expediency. But climate change denial is dear to their hearts, because they think it's going to cost rich people money to deal with it.

Here's where it gets sinister. When Republicans need to "rally the base" around climate change denial, they already have an army of active poor and middle-class voters who are used to mocking the findings of "a bunch of Ivory-tower, librul, Stanford professors". The "University Elite" who sound off about AGW are cut from the same cloth (And funded by the same eeeeeevil government) as the Professors who preach godless, satanic Evolution. Therefore, it MUST be wrong!

Libertarians will applaud this. What right does the government have to regulate robots. On the other hand libertarians would want to freedom to shoot the faggots that are running the robots. Without government problems eventually sort themselves out. However sometimes the solution to those problems is to form a regulating entity called a government.

The fundamental problem is that the faggots have taken over the government, and believe that the USA is a for profit entity. What do you do when the faggoty ass gangstars are in charge of the police force, and the state is running the numbers, guns, and alcohol rackets?

-In miss the days when it was the brave Mujahudeen, and the noble United States fighting against the godless commies. Those days were fun.

haha! So Muslims and Christians should probably re-read it then, because NOBODY that I know actually expouses that.. Here's what a classic Muslim would say:
1) Accept Allah as the one true god
2) Accept the profit Mohammed (may peace be apon him)

Here is what a modern Christian would say
1) Jesus is God
2) Jesus is God's son [and please ignore my apparent stupidity]
3) Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit so we're condemned to eternal damnation - as unfixable sinners.
4) Accept Jesus as your personal savior (your sacrificial lamb to quelll your original sin), or perish in a lake of eternal hell fire.

There's no mention of love, or neighbors.. Just God and your acceptance of Salvation from an apparently 6,000 year old forbidden fruit..

All the parables are for naught, because... We should NOT help the poor, because they'll just spend it on sinful things.. We should TRY and enrich ourselves (because a passage in the old testiment referred to as the Jabez passage) says if we ask God to enrich our life (so that we may exault his), then God will do so. We SHOULD conquer other Infadel nations and spread the 'good word' (because some prick non-Jew named Paul started the trend in the new testiment). We SHOULD ready the end-times by facilitating ancient prophecy in Israel (even though for 2,000 years nobody has been even close to a fullfilment, and mathmatically everybody has their own calculation based on BS numerology). We should NOT give up our wealth, because it's better spent looking fabulous in a papal gem-studded-robe or televangelist palace - praise be to JeSUS. We should NOT love they neighbor if they are: jewish, muslim, homosexual, left-handed, speak in a different language, seem animal-like and thus not derived from Adam (e.g. black), reject Jesus openly, have some contractable disease (they're being punished by God of course), or have a tiny nuance difference in the view of how to worship rules 1 .. 4, etc. We should NOT pay taxes because Ceaser kills babys (and not enough grown men).

But, you are technically correct, If modern Christians did actually have a prioritized critical analysis skill of any sort (as opposed to meme-repetition), then it's pretty clear that the 'greatest commandments' involved love. And the parables did center around forgiveness, kindness, charity, non-violence, social-aclimation (e.g. paying taxes, and getting along with your arch-enemies across the river). You know, the crap godless Hippies and Athiests expouse.. Go figure.

Though there was some crazy period mysticism crap in there.. The whole fake-rise-from-the-dead ritual (Lazereanism), baptism ritual (zorastrianism), placebo healing rituals (gee, that would be most religious, except maybe Judaism), Jewish rituals of course. Still, most people think Jesus invented / originated those rituals (and some crazily think they were 'magic'/divine because somebody wrote about it in a biography). Why would a biography lie? If they were true, and if God wanted the 'good news' to be heard, then he wouldn't let people lie about it, right? Which is why thousands of books had to be burned prior to the canonicalization of the modern New Testiment in 300AD I guess. :) But the logic works if you squint REALLY hard.

Aren't scientists all supposed to be godless atheists? ...According to all the non-scientist atheists out there who want the scientists on their side. ;)

"[Astronomy] is the most noble and sublime of all the sciences, and presents to our view the most astonishing and magnificent objects - whether we consider their immense magnitude, the splendor of their appearance, the vast spaces which surround them, the magnificent apparatus with which some of them are encompassed, the rapidity of their motions, or the display they afford of the omnipotent energy and the intelligence of the Creator." - Rev. Thomas Dick, "The Philosophy of a Future State," 1831.

Ask R.Goddard - patents go poof when the gov't requires it.... When the Soviets launched Sputnik and the cold war suddenly became a race to the high ground of space, do you think the USA spent ONE DIME to compensate the patent holder for a lot of rocket technology?

I'm sure they were spending too much money and time wooing Nazi slavers to think of Goddard. It's really funny how fast Nazis switched from being evil incarnate to our best hope against the godless Communists, who had been our only hope against the Nazis.

Why would anyone be surprised? That's why we moved our manufacturing over there. That and the child labor. *We* care about the environment and fair labor laws. Those godless commies are the awful ones.

Of course we're still the ones causing the pollution but it's ISEBY instead of our own.

On the one hand they say that they understand everything and so do not need a "God Concept". On the other hand they say that they do not understand and so God could not have possibly done it. As someone who holds a Ph.D. I realize that people with that degree feel a need to have something totally new, unique, and significant to say. This article is no different. A deeper understanding of God is possible through the study of science. But when it comes to saying things like, "... no fall toppled man from a state of innocence.", we are going too far. We dig ourselves deeper into a Godless society thereby.

Then you have nothing to worry about from me. :)

I just get equally riled up when I hear "all our problems come from (worshipers of X divinity), because of their stupid devotion to their imaginary friend." As I do when I hear "those godless heathens and their satanic ways are what's dragging our god given country to its grave."

(And similar rhetoric. I do not segregate the two. I am not meaning to accuse or anything, but that's how I feel about it.)

There's the churches with theologians, the lay preachers of varying education, the big tent Jesus shows, the outright cults, the barely disguised merchants in the temple and the blatant franchises. "Bible thumpers" IMHO haunt the more commercial side of the above and many see the educated as their deadly enemies whether Jesuit or Scientist. A better term is probably "Godless Christian" for those that preach hating their neighbours and how the poor are cursed by God and unworthy in every way.

> But the faithful are pretty dangerous people at times when they feel they have to defend their faith.

True enough but some are more dangerous than others. Take those who are godless for example, believing that the ends justify the means. When the utopia their 'faith' (theory) expects doesn't actually occur when they achieve power they never give up, they always double down and make a hell on earth. See Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Stalin, Castro, Hitler. The worst the Christians ever did was the Inquisition. Islam is taking the evil up to a new level but they still have a way to descend to reach Progressive body counts. Too bad Islam appears intent on taking the Satanic Crown for making a Hell on Earth.

That's interesting. In the USA almost all Swedish policies are seen as left-wing. That is to say that conservatives think Sweden is all godless government control and leftists think it's policies are sensible but too socialistic to gain popular support here.

However, privatizing Social Security is seen as extremely right wing. Investing our main retirement fund in the stock market would be a huge boon to companies in the short term, but who knows what the effects would be in the long run? All US liberals (equivalent on a good day to EU Social Democrats), socialists, progressives, most moderates, and even a good portion of conservatives want social security to remain a state entitlement program.

You should read what you just wrote. There was a time in this country when if you said that to an average citizen you would be called a godless commie and told to get the hell back to Russia because here in America we don't have to worry about how things might look to authorities because we have rights and freedom.

I mean that seriously. This erosion of rights is insidious. What scares me the most is how many people are forgetting how to think like free people.

If the TSA is going to have the checkpoints, it's on THEM to do it right or go home. Fed-Exing everything doesn't fix the problem, it's just learning how to think like Winston Smith. The TSA cost a lot of people a lot of time and money while they stood on a stool shrieking with their skirts pulled up. They deserve ridicule.

Personally, I think the country would be a lot better off if we just disbanded the TSA. We could have Obama announce that since Saddam is dead and Bin Laden is dead we no longer need the TSA (not that it really follows, but I assume some face saving and spin would have to happen). The psychological effects of all this fear and hand wringing is part of what is continuing to damage our economy.

It's only a problem and no solution can be found if you're a communist. Capitalists see problems as solutions waiting to be found, which is how we got this far. The thinking that we are in an unsolvable problem is related to the communist takeover of our world, and is, in fact evidence of that. If you think this is a real problem then you have already been eugenically modified into a subhuman by the godless communist religion of political correctness.

I'll take it even further and point out that "God" was added to the pledge of allegiance and the national motto "In God We Trust" was adopted in response to the "godless communists" making the intent as an endorsement of religion pretty straight-foward.

Thank you. The adoption of the motto was a clear statement that the US is a christian nation, not a godless (communist) nation.

Exactly, I really don't see how all the Christians here can deny that fact, you'd think they'd be proud of it.

If the bar for showing religious endorsement is set that high then thousands of rulings about state establishments of religion should be over-turned.

Yes, they should be. I agree. There is a lot of judicial malarky that is based on the culture of victimhood that we've created in our free land, this being just one part. (And criminalizing public speech because it may hurt someone's feelings is this malarky writ exceedingly large.) But then, state governments may have different constitutional protections and limitations, so what happens in state courts isn't necessarily relevant to the US Constitution.

Again with the specious arguments. Expecting people to religiously follow a law that wasn't to be written yet for over a decade is ridiculous.

You don't get it. You claimed that the fact that the Continental Congress was formed 13 years prior to the Constitution meant something with respect to ("regarding") the prayer being used to open the session. The only way that could be true is if they thought it was OK for there to be some establishment of religion in the government then and only later (in those intervening 13 years) changed their mind about it and wrote the 1st amendment to prevent it.

Sorry, but that's the ridiculous argument. From the days of the Pilgrims (long before that CC) the existance of a state mandated church was an issue. It was an issue in the CC. Everybody knew about the Church of England and that a state-mandated church was a bad thing. The members of the Continental Congress were not undecided on the matter. They knew what they were doing and what they didn't want happening in the new US. The fact that they still had a chaplain open the session with a prayer must not have been what they were worried about enough to eventually codify it in the 1st Amendment. If it was ok for them to do it for the first CC, then it could not have been unacceptable enough to merit an eventual amendment to prevent it.

They would not have needed a law in place to prevent them from inviting a Reverend into the session, if they truly thought that doing so was an establishment of religion as meant by what they later wrote as the 1st amendment. And indeed, many of the same people were involved in both processes.

Well, except for the fact they explicitly left out any mention of God in the constitution itself.

So what? They left out the word "persimmon", as well.

Shall I point out that they did include the word "God", as well as several references to his Being, in the Declaration of Independence? Funny how declaring the independence of one's government from another using a plea to God for his forebearance and consideration doesn't "establish religion", but putting a simple motto on money does.

I'll take it even further and point out that "God" was added to the pledge of allegiance and the national motto "In God We Trust" was adopted in response to the "godless communists" making the intent as an endorsement of religion pretty straight-foward.

You are still wrong. Not a single word you are complaining about establishes ANYTHING. No churches popped up the day after those words were added, and nobody runs to church just because they heard them said (or read them on their money.) Certainly nobody who doesn't believe in God is harmed in any way by the existance of those words, nor is their opinon of God or the lack thereof modified in any way. Now, it may hurt their feelings to find out that other people don't agree that "there is no God", but then, this whole discussion arose because of how stupid it is to base laws on whether someone's feelings get hurt.

By the way, I noticed you changed your argument from "establishment" to "endorsement". If that's what it takes to win, ok. You win. The President endorses religion every time he goes to church, so sue him. He endorsed it repeatedly during the campaign when he told us he was a regular attendee. He