Slashdot Mirror

Would that solve the perennial liberal-conservative fights? And who would come out ahead?

Short answer... no.
Liberaltopia would be invaded so that Conservatopia could "spread democracy to the godless heathens in Liberaltopia" or some bit of jingoistic nonsense like that.
 
Here's a better idea... let the lead-paint-eating nuts who are trying to take over congress marginalize themselves to they will become wholly unelectable in any future elections. (not that they are particularly electable right now). If any of them make it into office, I'm sure that they will do enough to get booted right back out in 2-6 years.

don't they know God gave the Monopoly Rights to the US?

How does real knowledge change you?

It seems to me that you have to assign some sort of value to the knowledge before the knowledge has any power at all. Does a fact come with its own meaning attached?

We can say that fact is truth, but most seem to want a meaning to go along with it. That abstract value is not something that we can discover with a scientific method. Thus, religion is more often a pursuit of the Good and not simply the True. Whether religion ends in goodness is a different question altogether.

Those who cannot distinguish the good from the true tend to see religion as a thing full of sub-human animals striving to fill their existential void with lies. It is no wonder, then, that the greatest atrocities in history have been perpetrated by godless men. It is easy to do such things when you believe that "most aren't intelligent enough to think."

Getting involved in a war would be even more of a thorny mess for superheroes. Whose side do you believe in a war? Governments lie all the time, and use propaganda to deceive their people. Taking sides means picking a truth to believe in, and often you'll find out later you picked the wrong one. In one decade you're helping Saddam and Osama Bin Laden, the next you're fighting against them. At one point you're fighting against the Indonesian government because Eisenhower tells you they're godless commies out to threaten the world, a few years later you find out that was just a bunch of CIA horseshit and you were actually fighting the good guys.

There was an interesting take on this in a short story I read many years ago. Übermensch! by Kim Newman tells the story of an alternate history Superman whose rocket landed in 1920's Germany instead of Kansas. It's a harsh new look at the Man of Steel and how easily our environment can influence who we are, who we become, and what we decide is right or wrong.

1. OMFG, China is making a lunar land grab.
2. Great job China, you're just 50 years late (smug).
3. We've done this before. Nothing to see here. Move along (more smug).
4. Socialist!
5. Not content with polluting the Earth, China is now throwing junk on the moon.
6. We must stop the expansionist Godless pinko commie heathens.
7. Meh, China's economy is doing too well, so it is bound to crash and their space program will cease.

Anything I missed?

Atheism is a religion, a godless religion. Atheists have faith in a belief system that can't be proved. Purely rational people must be agnostic if they are honest with themselves. But, we have a lot of atheists and other religious people because so few are purely rational. And, if you are sitting on the fence, you can still be agnostic even if you aren't purely rational. You might simply be undecided. That's completely understandable when the facts aren't clear.

Back to your atheist friend, most atheists that I know are stronger in their faith than most who claim to be Christian. So, I'm not surprised that he/she was offended. A lot of terrible things are done in the name of religion. That is a fact, and it confuses and bothers a lot of people, religous and otherwise.

I almost didn't want to mention the organized religion "cop out". The religious activity in games tends to be organized and state supported, which adds another layer of confusion. I don't mind confusion in complex games, it's part of the fun. In a game context, i don't see it as a religious commentary.

In fact the Genesis said "the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being".

Since "life" in the bible does not refer simply to a heart beating, see "the book of life", I think the passage means, for believers, that man have an earthly origin plus something (divine/spiritual) instilled by God.

Does not contradict Darwin's theories. It contradicts those who use Darwin as propaganda to theorize a mechanic godless world.
Problem is, you don't need darwin to be atheist because God doesn't currently show up and if something godlike did there is no way for a trascendent god to prove itself in an immanent world. You cannot distinguish the root admin from a guy stealing the root password by looking at the logs.

I think the debate between creationism and darwinism is a waste of energy.

Judges, trial lawyers, and others who hang out in court rooms will readily tell you that both assumptions are demonstrably false.

Those of the religious persuasion --judges, juries -- having the religious test preceding anything else you say, will then apply their dogma to what you say. So either you lie, in order not to awaken the idiocy, and thereby compromise your integrity, or you tell the truth, and thereby risk compromising your case.

As for the tax load question, consider the alternative. They pay their own taxes and are no longer enjoined from, as in institution, being a part of the political process.

They're a huge part of the political process right now. So clearly carrying their tax load is ineffective as a tool to keep government free of religious influence. As far as I'm concerned, the constitution's prohibition against makings laws that respect religions should stand strong with regard to making laws that exclude religion from carrying the same burdens everything else does. Further, the free exercise of religion should allow them to participate in the political process. While I object to the ideas they push, I don't say they shouldn't be able to push them. What I was trying to get across is why, as an atheist, I am concerned with my being compelled to support and endorse religion.

The government isn't allowed to do things like put "in god we trust" on the money; the fact that it does so simply demonstrates that the legislators are willing to violate their oaths. But that doesn't mean that the religious shouldn't be able to walk up to a legislator and say anything they like, including expressing their dissatisfaction with the godless way the government is constructed. It just means that the legislators are forbidden to act on those inputs. The constitution enjoins the feds, and indirectly, via the 14th, the states, to not create law that respects religion. It does not enjoin the religious from speaking, and I think it was a massive error to erect such an idea. I can think of no reason whatsoever that is sufficient to stop a preacher or a supplicant from speaking in any general public venue they please, about any subject they please. Including from their pulpits.

Furthermore... if the religious can get a big enough head of steam going, there's a mechanism in the constitution (article five) that will allow them to change the government into a purely religious one, or make any other changes, large or small, that they like. As it stands now, however, the constitution says no law that respects a particular religion may be made. In the language of the time, that means supporting any religion or religious outlook over any other. It doesn't say religious organizations can't be taxed; in fact, it says they can't be taxed differently. And it doesn't say the religious can't speak to their ideas, no matter what I, or anyone else, thinks of them.

It's bad enough that the SCOTUS has decided that corporations can enjoy the privileges of citizenship.

I'm with you there.

Look at history. Whenever a "new world" was discovered within our own planet, missionaries came across the oceans to teach "the heathens" about their god, whether those godless barbarians wanted it or not.

People take a vast journey usually for one reason: Money. The church comes along because it's politically fortuitous to do so.

Chances are, any beings from outer space are going to be similarly motivated. They are going to come here to take our natural resources, make slaves of our people, and of course, convert us to their one true religion, whether we like it or not.

And unless we've got some hideous super-virus (like the common cold), but we don't get wiped out ourselves by their version of The Flu, their technology will be far more advanced, and therefore, they will rule this planet, and for the next 20 generations we'll all talk about how the green man is keeping us down.

So the left has committed itself to the godless religion of political correctness because it appeals to a lot of voters. What they miss is that political correctness is not science, it is a religion, and thus a lie. This doesn't bother them except that the opposition is a better liar. So they are like the monkey whose hand is stuck in the jar of peanuts and won't come out because he won't let go of the goodies. Both sides are simply pushing their religion on a society that doesn't want a religious state.

I am willing to bet that if they did they wouldn't find much of a difference over all. Political Affiliation has influence of your environment your emotional response to particular issues and only a small fraction of actual rational thinking.

Environment
Left Wing Parties. Tend to have supporters who are people who directly benefit from government support. Live in Cities where they need governments to keep the infrastructure up so they can survive, or are students where the government invests into their futures.
Right Wing Parties. Tend to be in Rural areas where there are little government services, work in institutions who get little government funding or support. And often see the government as a hindering their success.

Emotional Responses
Left Wing Parties. Wants a world where everything is fair and on equal footing. People who have more should be giving even more. People who have less should be getting some more.
Right Wing Parties. Are more on "Tough Love" where if you mess up in life then you will need to suffer the consequences, if you are successful you need to reap the rewards.

Any particular facts which are true are almost purely accidental. Statistics and numbers can be taken and analysis to mean many things, that will prove anyones point. Politics are all about geting the emotional factor in.

Right Wing Parties are Evil because the support the theoretical Rich man who sits on a pot of money and does spread a dime except to pay off people to keep him there.
Left Wing Parties are Evil because they are Godless folks with no morals who wants to bankrupt the American Worker.

Or do we believe that people in other countries shouldn't be able to express negative opinions about our leaders?

Finger-pointing time: The Republicans started it by deciding that non-Americans are godless heathens who weren't granted inalienable rights.

On a serious note, I keep hearing that the next World Wars will be fought over resources.

WWII in the Pacific, and the preceding regional wars right before it, were all about resources: Japan had little, and wanted more. Or at least that's the simplified version we get taught.

Same with Russo-Japanese war.

And many, many others, I'm sure. It's either about resources, or land. Or a football (soccer) game! (there was more to that than just soccer, yes.)

Peak Oil is a theory (and this part of the comment's really meant for all in general, not directed at the parent,) not fact. "Black Gold Stranglehold" offers a story of a well in Louisiana which went dry, only to be wet again 6 years later. Russia has a theory that Earth makes oil continuously, not depending on a finite supply of fossils. The catch with that one is you need to drill deep, and I mean 12km deep. The book does mention such wells do exist, offshore Vietnam, built by Russians.

I see these reports from Germany and the US, and think of the huge post-mortem the US and Russia (and anyone else with half a brain) did of the whole mess, and what killed Germany wasn't war, what killed Germany was no oil. Supposedly Patton said "Once I saw them using horse-drawn carts, I knew it was over."

Concurrent to that, Russia went off the deep end in oil exploration (pun very much intended), and the US established the Strategic Reserve. The US stuck to the fossil-fuel model, Russia explored other possibilities. The book suggests rather directly that the big reason we didn't go along the continuous-production theory was simply because that theory came from Godless Communist Soviet Union.

In other words, I'll just subscribe to something Spock said in some flick: "The universe will unfold as it should." Reports, talking heads, experts and internet fora be dammned. Not a one of us, or them, or anyone, can say with such authority that "it is so." Global warming could well usher in an Ice Age. And other such paradoxes and all. Maybe we instead get an oil-glut again. Anyone remember that? No? The surplus after the 70's and 80's? Way back when, not so long ago, really, we were told by now there'd be no oil. We were taught that by 2000 it was all going to be gone. Feh, I say, to that, as I mash my foot to the carpet and listen to my fuel-hungry 1.3l wankel go "whiinnne!" Long live internal combustion!

(is there a trek version of godwins law?)

If there is a peak-oil and we do get into a mad max scenario, it's not the end of the world. We'll adjust. That's what we do. Those who don't, die. Or live miserably. All about choices.

You are wrong.

These words, in the context of ethics, are subject to the principle of universalization. Not from a normative perspective, but judging from our de facto practice.

Habermas' work on the formal pragmatics of communication aims at the very core of our ethical language practices just in order to show that, for all time and all rational beings, there is a Right and Wrong.

The prospect of ignoring other (human) beings' sufferings is not one that can be made true in the internal workings of our selves, and only goes to show profound (or rather fundamental) ignorance that in the end is also hurtful to the self.

My point being, patience young padawan. You don't see the trees for the forest.
And I realize this reply was not intended for you alone (but I'm writing on my Nokia:)

I am a philosopher and happy, godless heathen, by the way:)

Really? That is your analysis? A search for "tea-party patriots god" on Google? You are seriously incapable of doing a deeper analysis than that? By the same method I can do a search for "tea party atheist" and find there are atheist tea partiers. The godless heathens.

It is true in any random group of Americans you will have mainly christians (yay christian democrats!), but what brings tea-partiers together are economic issues. Hope you learn to do better analysis because your current sucky methods (which seems to be googling for evidence that support your current viewpoint) are really blinding you.

World religions hava a narrative about how all came to be.

Science has a different narrative that requires no deities to arrive to th same end result, all of which is thoroughly studied and documented for anybody to inspect it and falsify it if they possibly can.

In the field of expertise where DR Hawking is moving his discoveries point in a direction of a godless universe. The Pope John Paul II understood this very clearly and when they coincided in a conference of some kind he recriminated the scientist for trying to contradict religious teachings.

This is a fantastic argument against Christianity. Why would anyone want to worship what sounds like pure evil?

That's an odd choice of words. The concept of evil doesn't even make sense in a world where there is no God. In a Godless world, evil is just a matter of opinion, not something quantifiable. Still most of us are readily able to identify something truly evil. Ironically, many atheists claim the God of the Bible is evil, and therefore doesn't deserve to be worshiped. That means either they believe that God exists but isn't worthy of worship, or they don't believe he exists, which negates their ability to refer to him as evil in the first place.

As to why anyone would want to worship "what sounds like pure evil", it's quite simple. You can't ever be good enough to earn your way to Heaven, so God gave you an easy way in.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I suppose that makes you a pot-smoking prius-driving sandal-wearing dirty unshaven godless commie UFO-worshiper with a Himalayan Salt Lamp and a tiedyed hemp shirt.

My officemates and I thank you for this!

I see. I suppose that makes you a pot-smoking prius-driving sandal-wearing dirty unshaven godless commie UFO-worshiper with a Himalayan Salt Lamp and a tiedyed hemp shirt.

Or maybe you're just a brainwashed idiot with a penchant for rabid political rhetoric who is reading way too much into a single sentence. If you honestly think you can read his ideological leanings from that one sentence, you really do need to lay off the booze.

Being a moral atheist is a total win win, compared to being a mere Theist.

Version 1:

Dead Atheist: Oh!, um hi God..., didn't think you existed, oops!

Deity: No problem, it's not like I left any useful clues... Welcome to my heaven.

Dead Atheist: Nice... How come I qualify?

Deity: Because you were a moral and ethical being, because you lived by a code of ethics; you understood that love was the right thing to do even in a universe that you had good reason to believe was completely and utterly godless. You were moral because you chose to be, not because you "believed" in some silly magic book; or were too scared, or weak minded, to think for yourself.
You chose to do the right thing, even when you did not have to; you lived by a moral and honorable code, not by some mythical manifesto of terrorism and fear...

Dead Atheist: So what happens to all the myriad god followers, "believers", the Theists, martyrs, crusaders, suicide bombers, terrorists, etc?

Deity: Tricky one that! They are not really worth anything much, because they never thought for themselves ethically speaking... What do you suggest?
Anyway, no hurry, they can wait outside indefinitely while you decide what to do with them. Welcome to heaven!, go pick yourself out some virgins...
Etc...

Version 2:

Dead Atheist: Hello, Anyone There...! (nothing, nada, zip, zilch, silence, nope...)
Dead Atheist: Thought So! (vanishes in a sudden total existence failure)

So........

Looks like a Win Win to me!