Slashdot Mirror

Yes, but there were people living at that time.

So what? There were people living at the time of Hercules but I don't see you worshipping Zeus. Clearly the simple fact that homo sapiens has existed for 300,000 odd years isn't sufficient is it now?

If you deny historical accounts of Jesus existence, you deny all historical records.

No, I really don't. I only have to deny the veracity of the Gospels - putting a whole dent in that 'Gospel Truth' phrase.

In the scientific method, people formulate hypothesis. Time and time again these hypothesis are discovered to be incorrect and reformulated.

Uh, yeah. That's kind of the point. Remove everything that is false and assume what is left is true. That's how it works.

That bother you? Science is not for you then.

Evolution will never be able to answer this particular question you will end up refactoring it indefinitely.

Oh, you want definitive answers. Again, that's mathematics down the hall, just ignore that Kurt Godel fellow or you might get depressed.

Otherwise you'll just have to accept the fact that self-correction is a strength, not a weakness.

This is just your personal opinion.

No, it really isn't. There are no scientific alternatives. That's not an opinion, just a fact. (Sorry, ID advocates screaming that it is scientific does not make it so. They are liars. People lie - religious people doubly so - that's just a fact. An uncomfortable one for you but one nonetheless.)

Science preceded evolution. The Roman Catholic church preceded evolution. Before evolutioon came along, science was not athiestic.

No. The method has always being atheistic even if its adherents have not. (Would you at least spell it right eh?) How exactly is the RCC relevant here? Are you trying to say older things are more true? If so, I've got some tribal belief systems that should be right up your alley!

Just because a few people decided that science can only be athiestic does not make it so.

That is correct. The problem is that just because you have decided that your god must be involved there doesn't mean it can. Hey, you want to believe that science is the search for the face of your god or something knock yourself out. Science can't actually say anything about it though. Science doesn't give a crap about human egocentrism.

The problem is that you have the concept floating around in your tiny head that atheism entails all sorts of things it doesn't. This is quite common for those who inform themselves about epistemological matters through Wikipedia. But, here, let me lay it out for you because I'm a generous man: atheism = without gods. That's it. Anything else is superfluous.

Now - here's the problem for you. If you want to say, "SCIENCE IS NOT GODLESS!" then which god is it not godless of? I suggest that once you have undone the great East/West split and rolled all the Protestant churches back into Catholicism, merged back with Judaism and incorporated Islam - then absorbed Hinduism, Buddism, Taoism and so forth - you know, when you god guys have figured it all out amongst yourselves - then you might be able to make a case. Until then Science Is Atheistic is a mantra that serves you just as well - even if it were not just a fact of the system being totally unemotional.

You other comments are irrelevant from a scientific perspective.

Excellent, you are learning.

Personal opinion.

Sorry, you lose again. Stating it's my personal opinion does not make it so. But then since your entire knowledge of science seems to come through a distorted lens of Catholicism it is hardly surprising. Don't you have enough embarrassing things to deal with without making yourselves look even more outdated?

Scienc

"Personally, I've never really understood the concept of morality apart from some belief in divine judgment."

Any bible, just hurry before they are godless! Throw something fast!

That ignores the fact this sort of religion has no checks and balances, making it especially easy for "Bolsheviks" to take over, so they do!

I'll ignore your misuse of the Bolshevik term, as it just colours you as a rabid "the Commies are coming" nutjob. In fact, Islam is the *only* religion that specifies system of government that embodies democratic principles. It is the reason Muslims want unity of the church and state, because we believe that a godless state is a state in the hands of the whims of men. Modern Middle Eastern nations are *not* Islamic, they are de facto dictatorships, propped up by more powerful geopolitical bodies. The Islamic idea of "shura" is actually the foundational concept behind the corporate board meeting. Islamic government died about 100 years ago, and was replaced by a bunch of crackpot loonies sponsored by the Allied powers who won WW1 and divided up Africa and the Middle East for their own colonial purposes. Muslims do not want Saudi to be the center of the world, we want the West to stop sponsoring the Saudi government. If the US stop supporting the Saudi government and other Middle Eastern nutjobs with military hardware, we, the Muslim people, will do the rest for you.

Wow! Does this mean that U.S. cell carriers might get around to ubiquitously adopting WiFi capable cell phones!? (That would allow the malls, public utilities and governments to subsidize data delivery?) Nah, then we wouldn't need Edge network data plans.(Of course AT&T already figured out how to overcome that, just require a data plan for activation of your iPhone.)

I wonder if the NSA could use this type of service to try out behavior modification ads on Extremist Sleeper Cell members... I can see it now. For each Cell member who turns himself or converts to Christianity, either the NSA agent or the clergy ad-specialist wins a free trip to Haiti's Hedonism III.

And how long before this system delivers "Issue Ads" to people on their way into the polling place... Ding! - "Remember to vote for Alby Zeinya for Congress; He'll protect you from the Godless Somnambulists!

-- Waiting for God, Yo! --

> Yeah, because that had nothing to do with the Shah being a despot who tortured
> and killed political dissidents.

No argument the Shah was a real piece of work by our standards but probably above average for the region. History will eventually decide whether Cold War "Realpolitik" justified propping him up. It was a different age. But before stamping 'villian' on him now consider this:

There is a substantial 'pro-western' minority in Iran almost three decades after the Shah fell and the mad mullahs took over anything 'western', dress culture, ideas, etc. Have you considered the possibility that those folks learned of us and were exposed to our ways under the Shah's rule? Exposed hard enough that after all these years the imprint hasn't wore off?

But more to today's discussion the fall of the Shah gave the Islamic Radicals their first nation state and the ability to put Sharia back into practice. All the other countries in the region were either Soviet client states who were more prone to Bathist (Islamic Socialism, an oxymoron) systems or just pure dictatorships. Our client states tended towards pure dictators, but our puppets at least paid lip service to human rights and some like the Shah actually encouraged things like women's rights and education, including sending large numbers of his subjects here for a western style education. Now you get to make the argument you seem to be implying that the Mad Mullahs were an improvement.

> Firstly, quoting Ann Coulter, let alone saying she is right, kills almost any chance you had
> of being taken seriously as an intellectual.

Reading is Fundamental people, and just learning the words isn't enough, ya have to move on to reading comprehension.

Try rereading what I actually said. I'm saying Ms. Coulter's rather extreme solution would WORK. And even worse that if we got hit really bad a couple more times we might get panicked/angry enough to actually do it. But it should have been pretty clear from this line right before that I didn't think it would be a very good idea long term:

> We had better face it head on and find a better way of dealing with it than the default answer
> we will end up being left with if we don't.

If a critical mass say "screw it, it's them or us and it ain't going to be us" we will do something mega violent. And yes we COULD do it and it would WORK. And the side effects would set up yet another problem a generation later. So we need to be find a better answer. Not sure what it is, not even sure there IS a better one, only that we really need to be working on the problem NOW instead of waiting until we run out of time to do anything other than be driven by events.

The problem is Islam is stuck in the dark ages. Christanity evolved (fundies would say became corrupted and debased but screw em) during the enlightenment because it had to, thus it became compatible with the key ideas underlying modern civilization. Islam didn't have that advantage. And as it exists today it is totally incompatible with our civilization. The radicals AREN'T the ones misinterpreting Islam. Their book has all the nasty bits in it that ours does, maybe more, we just choose to ignore the incompatible bits and they don't. So we are faced with four choices:

1. Surrender, Adopt Islam and Sharia law. Over my cold dead body.

2. Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Seriously. Trying to yank em all the way to harmless Godless European Socialists probably wouldn't be possible. But just switching em to a different holy book probably would be given a willingness to use over the top mega violence. (That would probably destroy our civilization in the end, unintended consequences.....)

3. If you didn't like #2 you really won't like this one. Kill em all and let God/Allah sort em out. End the threat by ending Islam. Practice of Islam punishable by death. Anyone suspected required to publicly curse the name of Allah

The conspiracy nuts seem harmless enough to me. There actually was a conspiracy that no one denies. U.S. gave weapons to the Taliban to fight the godless commie Russians. After they were done with that they turned on us and started harboring other religious nutcases. These guys then conspired together to attack the WTC.

After the event, politicans in the US conspired to use the public reaction to the event to gain support for eroding civil liberties, invading the Middle East, and printing tons of new money for Homeland Security, conveniently doled out to the states, thus reinforcing the Congress's power.

Does it really matter any more whether the official story about the attack is accurate?

A new Saudi backed Islam textbook blames all mass extinctions on The Jews.

The text book notes that while dinosaurs do not exist and are merely a fiction perpetrated by Godless infidels; nevertheless the dinosaurs can convincingly be shown to have been killed by the Jews. The Jews, taking time off from grinding baby bones to use in their bread, threw a large asteroid at the Earth killing the dinosaurs.

The textbook concludes with a statement that the Jews are the sons of pigs and monkeys and Allah willing they will be beheaded in the name of Islam.

George Bush condemned this textbook. Saying it has no basis in fact and simply repeats many of the blood liable found in the popular book "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Democrat and European sources quickly condemned the Jew Puppet Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburtin statements as Islamophobic. They further suggested that 100 million in taxpayer money be redirected to the Suadi's to help fund research into this very exciting possibility that Jews cause mass extinctions. The EU specifically wondered if this may finally prove that the Jews caused the Holocaust.
Hillary and Obama issued a joint statement that this research may help provide the Final Solution to Peace in the Middle East that the Democrats and Europe have long been searching for.

she should not even have been in the theater.

In fact, the theater should have been blown up as a tool of the Great Satan and of the godless west.

Mullah Omar would have had her shot in the head with a Kalashnikov in an ex-school-playground. (There are no secular schools allowed in the Califate, only Madrassa.)

Different strokes for different folks is all I'm saying here.

But the RIAA and MPAA would be up a fucking creek, wouldn't they.

SHUT UP! I have not finished purchasing my stock options in the various sunglasses makers! On top of this, I should turn your ass in to the FBI and Treasury dept so they can freeze your assets for causing harm to the glorious project of Iraqi restoration by teaching insurgents counter techniques. Thanks to the new laws coming in you have NO legal recourse against me for turning your ass in to be hauled off to any of the secret foreign prisons we use so that we don't have to be bothered by those Godless liberals and their laws about torture!

* sigh *

When society finally moves past this silly "god" idea, as it has with a lot of other silly superstitions, we will all be _so_ much better off. I really don't mean this in a disrespectful way (i'm perfectly willing to be your friend, even if we disagree on the "god" thing, and I can respect people for a lot of reasons, even if we differ on matters of religion), but it's really what I think / feel. It's done waaaaay too much harm, and the sooner we jettison it, the better.

Regards,

John, your friendly neighborhood happy-go-lucky heathen godless atheist :-)

Goy (gentiles...I.E. those who are not Jewish), are to stupid.
Submitted by You can not stop us (not verified) on Fri, 2007-07-20 15:21.

Of course we as a country should have no rules.

No conduct.

We should be able to subtly program small children into the ways of perversion, lust, greed and self-centered living.

We do this through "slip of the tongue" statements, and we hide very well under the "freedom of Speech" amendment in order to do so. We are experts in subterfuge, we the zionist-talmudic-Jews who run the media and the ADL and the ACLJ and the ACLU.

We are the most effective at hiding our nefarious actions, we can program your children while you work your life away (YOU DUMB WAGE SLAVE YOU)....while we program your children to discard you, disobey you, become perverted and generally godless.

America, you are in our grasp (the zionist-talmudic-cyrpto-so-called Jew), and their is nothing you can do to stop it.

Dead cannot think:
Psalms 146:4 His breath goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

It also says the soul dies at death:
Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinning, it shall die.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

1. Plants absorb CO2 from atmosphere.
2. Plants get turned into ethanol.
3. The ethanol get burned.
4. The CO2 (which came from the atmosphere in the first place) returns to atmosphere, resulting in no net-change in CO2 levels.
5. GOTO 1.

Notice how the CO2 keeps getting recycled? The carbon sinks are the plants themselves. You can't release more CO2 from a plant than it absorbed in the first place (in actuality, you release less, since plants lose a portion of their biomass during development, and they produce quite a bit of underground biomass in the form of mycorrhiza and deep root systems that don't get recovered during harvesting). Every plant you grow only ever releases as much CO2 as it absorbed in the first place -- that's the neutral part.

Let's compare that to petroleum:
1. Petroleum is pumped from underground.
2. Petroleum gets burned, releasing sequestered CO2. CO2 levels increase.
3. GOTO 1.

Notice the difference?

The point here is that plants already absorb and release carbon dioxide (not to mention a huge amount of energy) in a natural cycle -- but bacteria and fungus harvest most of the energy stored in the plants, rather than us. Converting some of that biomass into ethanol lets US use it rather than them. When you convert plants to ethanol and burn it, the CO2 that is being released CAME FROM THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. CO2 released from petroleum was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago, and is no longer part of the carbon cycle.

Now, one can certainly have an interesting discussion about overly intensive farming, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's impossible for a plant to release more CO2 when burnt than it absorbed in the first place. There's no particular need to harm forests to make farms - although taking deadwood from forests is a perfectly good source of biomass. There is a lot of research going on to determine better ways to farm intensively without doing so much damage to the land; genetic engineering is already producing plants that require less fertilizer, fewer pesticides, and which are more nutritious.

Of course, many of the plants that are useful for producing ethanol just happen to grow wonderfully with virtually no effort at all. It's a major challenge to prevent hemp from growing -- just look at how much money the US spends trying to save America from the evils of prosperous hemp farms.

believing anything people tell you about.

Most tellingly, you'll notice that even the critics of biofuels aren't stupid enough to claim that they are the same as petroleum -- anyone with an IQ over 70 understands that getting energy from plants is carbon neutral. That is, it doesn't cause a net-increase of atmospheric carbon levels, wherease petroleum DOES cause such a net-increase.

I'll state this again, so that you can realize the depths of your stupidity: even the scientists who most strongly criticize the concept of biofuels do so only because their analyses suggest that it will require using more energy from petroleum than the energy we will actually get from the biofuels. Now, if you were making THAT argument, you wouldn't be a fucking moron. But you're not -- you're making the stupid, idiotic argument that the carbon in plants was generated by magic, so burning them is no different than burning petroleum.

Well you see, its because the liberal media is just Bush bashing all the time when all of today's problems really were all caused by Clinton or other liberals. Our glorious leader in his infinite wisdom has even explained it to you Godless liberal heathens. "You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda".

What...do you want the headlines to read 2012 "All Major Issues Fixed, No Platform For Reelection Available" How the hell are people going to get elected without pointless emotional kneejerk reactionary issues to drive the apathetic public to the poles to vote for their hero? You wan't them to actually DO something?! PFt...fool.

Amusingly, and somewhat related to point 2, there is a lot of resentment in Ireland at the moment to a huge wave of immigration from Eastern Europe.

"Ah feck, these people are coming here for a better life than they can get back home in their own countries - it's not right I tell you ! We Irish have always abhorred such godless migration and habits."

He meant "we" as in us in the free world, not those Godless Commies in France.

Incorrect. Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable. In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. In other words, it is not possible to have knowledge of God, period...not that there is just insufficient evidence.

Atheism, however, is not restricted to those that assert the nonexistence of God. Its original meaning ("ungodliness") is no longer in common use. It has been applied to those that lack a belief in God, as well as those that assert the nonexistence (sometimes referred to as "strong" and "weak" atheism). Depending on your dictionary, you may have any of several definitions, but here's one that disagrees with you, and one that agrees:

wordnet: atheism

# S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

# S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Another word has come into use which perhaps more accurately reflects the second postion: nontheism (literally, "not theism"). This essentially equates to "weak atheism" or a lack of belief in God, without assertion. However, the "a" prefix is commonly used to mean "without," so "without theism" is a reasonable definition of atheism.

It would be nice if everyone used the same word to mean the same thing...but they don't. Most self-described atheists I know do not assert the nonexistence of God. Most theists I know consider atheists those who do assert the nonexistence (although from a Christian judgement point of view, the distiction is basically meaningless). Agnosticism is a more complicated topic than simple "absence of faith," and should not be used as an alternative to "weak atheism."