Slashdot Mirror

Except, of course, that Hitler was a Catholic. He was baptized, served as an altar boy. His early poilitical campaigns were run as a crusade against the "godless movement." He wrote in Mien Kampf, ""I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." He was quoted in 1941, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

Campaigning against the "godless movement" was how Hitler got his political start, do you really want to follow his example?

You're doing it wrong. He's on /. so he must be a dirty, Godless commie.

What evidence do you have that cows march happily off to the slaughterhouse?

Fundamentalists don't need evidence. They will just claim whatever "facts" support their political agenda, and then it must be true. If you disagree, you obviously are a Godless anti-American.

Many human behaviors and characteristics which are hard to explain by evolution, have an alternate, better explanation from the creationist perspective.

You illustrate precisely why special creationism is worthless. The method of science places constraints on our models of the universe that allow us to know when we're wrong. Creationism is not subject to any constraints; the shoulder-shrugging "God made it that way" "explanation" explains nothing at all precisely because it unconstrained.

The corallary to your insinuation that some things are hard for evolution to explain is that there is nothing that can't be "explained" by claiming it was "created [by a deity] that way".

Nobody has ever found a culture or ethnic group that does not practice some form of religion.

1) I think you're making that up. Or, perhaps you're just considering a broad enough definition of "some form of religion" to include everyone, making the definition meaningless. Many modern European "cultures" and "ethnic groups" practice no form of "religion". I do not practice any form of religion, and there are many like me; do we not constitute a "culture or ethnic group"?
2) Just because it's popular doesn't make it correct. Stop using this argument.

The Bible tells us...

The Bible "tells us" many things, including that its claims are completely reliable. That's the intellectual equivalent of "because I said so!", and obviously does not constitute an argument that its claims are correct.

They can if they want to observe God's creativity.

That's begging the question! There is no evidence that there must exist any god at all, and are many reasons to believe that there is no such god.

Some scientists actually do appreciate God's creation.

Well, they believe it is that which they are appreciating, anyway.

God considers atheists to be fools...

So monotheists, and their "holy" scriptures, often claim. But we have only their word that they are correct. Polytheists and their "holy" scriptures claim that the gods consider atheists to be fools, and again we have only their word on the matter; no evidence that it is so, and much that it is not.

even though he...hopes they would turn from their folly.

A being with such supposed power need not merely hope. If he wanted them not to be fools, he was either mallicious or incompetent at "creating them such that they could not believe".

The wicked person plots against a righteous one and grits his teeth at him.

Perhaps, but people can be righteous without being Christian (or even theistic), theists (and, of course Christians), can be be wicked.

The Lord laughs at him because he has seen that his time is coming.

So the Bible claims.

Godless fools say in their hearts, "There is no God."

So the Bible claims. This is a transparent crowd-baiting tactic, well within the capability of a below-average author, that only works on the weak-minded and cowardly: "Only idiots disbelieve me. You don't want to be an idiot, do you? Do you?"

So, let's see just how effective that tactic is, even when the claimant thinks it's true:
Only idiots believe in special creation. You're not an idiot, are you? Are you?

...Which is why it is a mystery from an evolutionary perspective....

Many human behaviors and characteristics which are hard to explain by evolution, have an alternate, better explanation from the creationist perspective. Altruism and superstition, for example, can be grouped under the larger category of religion. Art and creativity are other aspects of human behavior that are better explained by the creationist model. Nobody has ever found a culture or ethnic group that does not practice some form of religion.

The Bible tells us that God is love and he proved that love by sending Jesus Christ. The Bible also tells us that man is made in the image of God and therefore also has been given the ability to love. Scientists observe the universe and living things. They can if they want to observe God's creativity. Some scientists actually do appreciate God's creation. Because God loves beauty and is creative, man also does to art, music, great architecture and on and on.

Laughter does not only have to occur in response to something funny; it also occurs as a response to foolishness. We humans to laugh not only at funny stuff, but also very much, derisively at a fool. God considers atheists to be fools and laughs at them, even though he still loves them and hopes they would turn from their folly.

Psalm 37:12 The wicked person plots against a righteous one and grits his teeth at him. 13 The Lord laughs at him because he has seen that his time is coming.

Psalm 14:1 Godless fools say in their hearts, "There is no God."

I didn't say they are religious - many of them are not. They are political and financial groups at heart with a convenient tax free status and enough influence to affect some of the actual religious groups that are less motivated by profit.
Think back about ten years to when this weird climate change backlash started and where it started. Also think about how all scientific debate on the subject is repeatedly deemed irrelevant. IMHO this is really all about politics and anti-intellectualism with climate change as the soft target that can be scoffed at by any idiot with a daily weather report that does not want to consider the long term.
It's complicated in the USA because it also became a Republican vs Democrat thing. Elsewhere it is almost completely restricted to what you've called "religious nutcases" above and I would probably call "Godless Christians" only in it for the money and power.
It is quite disgusting really and is all about manipulation of followers and to try to seperate them from the influence of the rest of society. IMHO that is what the demonisation of science and scientists by these groups is about.

Back in 1984, it was understood that IngSoc (Socialism!) was a stand-in for Godless Communism, and thus related to Liberalism, that vast nanny-like plot to take away our Freedoms from us for our own good, against only the likes of Saint Reagan could stand with his flaming (atomic) sword. So the impression I had was DEFINITELY that 1984 was Conservatism's Bible.

Unfortunately, the USSR crumbled, so Reagan had to step in and do the job himself. It was on his watch that you were forbidden to listen to selected parts of the radio spectrum and had to prove your innocence of being either an illegal immigrant or a drug addict before you could be employed. Silly us, before then, we used to think that people were innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. God Bless you, Ronald!

That Evil Democrat Party Liberal wanna-be Bill Clinton was too busy chasing skirts to get any serious gummint control done, despite Hilary's best efforts. But fortunately, W brought us back on track, God Bless him. Now Ve musst show "our Papers!" when we travel, disrobe, and only drink from very small bottles. Because We're Free! Oceana, 'Tis For Thee!

Your idea of predictable, naturally-explainable weather patterns is just a theory. In Kansas, we teach that tornadoes are caused by an intelligent designer. This designer would never send His tornadoes to spread disease amongst His people without a good reason. It is our faith in Him that allows us to relocate this dangerous facility without fear. In fact, it is better to get this building as far away from the godless sodomites in NYC as possible. His will be done, amen.
</caricature>

> Maybe as a country, we have just lost our 'will' to do things?

Partly. But it is also rational. Remember why we did it in the first place. We had to beat the 'Godless Commies' to the moon so we were willing to spend whatever it took and men with balls of steel were willing to climb into rushed spacecraft. And we won a major engagement of the Cold War with only three casualties. When the historians finally settle on things it is likely that Kennedy's Apollo and Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative will be remembered as major contributors (the other two major ones being Reagan's "Focus of Evil" and "Tear Down this Wall" speeches) to the failure of the Soviet Union so it was worth the investment. After we planted the flag the game changed. The stated goal was to land on the moon and return, we had never set a goal of building a moonbase or anything more permanent. It was no longer worth spending such a large percentage of the US Federal budget, the need to take such risk dropped, etc.

I have long said we went to the moon fifty years before we were ready and because of that we will probably lose another fifty years before returning. Because after the moon landings none of the things we should have been doing to work our way to the moon the 'right' way were/are inspiring enough to sustain the political support needed to do them as big government NASA style jobs. So we will now have to wait until the tech gets developed enough that private industry can do it as part of profitable ventures. And we are seeing the first signs of that finally getting going. But it will be at least fifty years before any of the private ventures can work their way back to the moon.

And there IS profit to be made 'out there' so go we will. Private companies are already making real coin in the launching business. NASA is trying to outsource suppling the ISS, mostly because they wish they were rid of the white elephant but whatever.

For that matter, there's already the issue of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. This was added in the 1930's or so. I was Jewish when I was in grade school, but I'd certainly feel very uncomfortable today if I was asked to make that pledge -- I really see no reason it needs to be there.

It was added in 1954 at the behest of the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Knights of Columbus so that you Americans could distinguish yourselves from the fearful godless Communists on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

The godless religion of political correctness is the stalking-horse of communism. By preventing criticism of religion they allow the communist takeover of their country to proceed unimpeded. All countries that follow political correctness have fallen toward communism, which is why their economies are shrinking. Capitalism is a law of nature, communism is a religion.

Religion is proof that there is no god.

examine the wording

atheist
"noun: one who believes that there is no deity" (Merriam-Webster)

atheism "can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist." (Wikipedia)

atheist
"1571, from Fr. atheiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea)." (Online Etymology Dictionary)

atheism
"derived from the Greek word atheos, using the Greek prefix a- (an- not, without) ... derived from the Greek word theos (a deity...)" (MyEtymology)

etc.

A smug teen who's downloading files from 'Pirates Palace' and 'Tune Weasel' finds his world unchanged when he, like millions of others, is never contacted by the authorities because, well, they have better things to do with their limited time and reduced budget than enforce expensive-to-prosecute file-sharing laws. The smug teen plays the files, deems them worthless crap and is glad her money was not wasted on artless, DRM-encumbered drek peddled by out-of-touch media distributors preying on artists they despise and teens they treat like godless terrorists. Later that day, she is molested and murdered by someone who HAS NEVER ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADED A FILE and who is never apprehended by the authorities because they are distracted by having to reply to repeated requests to enforce file-sharing laws.

AIDS is a form of divine wrath; punishment for the fornicators. Using science to cure AIDS is an evil, godless pursuit.

Just make thinking about sex illegal, period. Otherwise you're just encouraging the godless masturbating perverts. Think of the children!

Godless heathen! You'll burn in hell for that!

"Take, for example, HIV treatment. Most people probably couldn't afford the cocktail that keeps them alive. But I don't think its too terrible to throw in a couple bucks of year in taxes per person to help another guy stay alive, as long as he doesn't bitch about Republicans, in which case, I'd vote to cut him off."

You are so right!

Those fucking Democrats want to take our hard earned money and give it to fags to keep them alive. Fucking godless socialists and communists.

Oh snap, you got me!

I admit now that I've never read anything negative about Microsoft in my entire life. I blindly use Microsoft products trusting they know what's best for me as a mindless consumer of all things expunged from the brightly shinng, fresh-scented arsehole of a godless mega-corporation.

You've just outed me to the entire world. I am shamed and humiliated. I will now cry in the corner while cutting myself...

But the under-achieving glue sniffer has his own smarts - he knows that he doesn't need to work hard, just hard enough. He also knows not to get his nose too close to the glue because that stuff is hard to get off once it sets . . .

some people believe if we allow gays to marry, we also have to accept pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy...

Not I. My bone to pick is that right now Men and Women have different rights in the US. Not gays. All men have one set of rights. All women have another set of rights. Therefore, if we correct the differences in rights, any one subject to the US/States constitutions can have a legally binding marriage with any other person subject to the US/States constitutions.

Pedophilia is explicitly illegal, and that legality is applied equally regardless of gender.
Beastiality is explicitly illegal (in most states), and that legality is applied equally regardless of gender.
etc...
etc...
etc...

Either men and women are equal under the eyes of the law, or they are not. Currently, they are not.

or howabout: if we try to control assault weapons in the usa, the government is inevitably going to take away all guns in the usa

Again, not I. It's a moot point now. Regardless of what firearms I may or may not possess, the State and Federal government control such a superior force, that the 2nd amendment is largely worthless at this point.

or: if we teach evolution in schools, soon everyone will be a godless atheist

Yet again, not I. I'm already and agnostic married to an atheist. And I fully intend on educating my son on as many religious studies as he is interested in learning about. Religion is an intensely personal decision, and as such almost all schools and the vast majority of churches utterly lack the ability to truly connect a person to a spiritual truth. So why teach something the wrong way in public schools?

you believe if we accept child tracking by gps, we're on an unstoppable slippery slope into a black hole of everyone being tracked by gps

You sure like making assumptions about what I'm thinking, but yet again, you are wrong.

I said that such ideas can lead to social acceptance and generational gaps. Life styles change from generation to generation. Some of that is due to technology, and some of it is due to social norms. This tidbit introduces both of those forces of social change to bear together.

Will it be a slippery slope? Maybe. Will someone manage to get a law passed resulting in large sums of money trading hands based on this technology? Probably. Will the Supreme Court and election seasons keep the abuse of this technology largely in check? Hopefully.

Is it something I am going to lose sleep over tonight? Not in the least. It is something though, that I will keep an eye on from a legislative point of view and would likely write my senator about if any bills start showing up dealing with additional monitoring.

There is a huge difference between speculating about the future, being mindful of the risks, and taking appropriate action in response, and fear mongering.

For example, if I had said:

On September 11th we learned just how important it is to be free of these types of tracking devices. These vile devices empowered the terrorists to target innocent people. And the price of 9/11 was too high for us to bear again. We must prevent these terrorist devices from destroying our civil liberties at all costs. If we let the 9/11 like attacks on or freedoms to persist, they will absolutely bring about another bubble and bust on Wall Street. Crushing Main street just like someone crashed a plane into it. Only an America hater would buy one of these!

Now THAT would be fear mongering. Or a Dick Cheney speech. One or the other. /shrug

-Rick