Slashdot Mirror
What the Candidates are Running
An anonymous reader writes "
Linux Journal has an article about what the presidential candidates are running their web sites on. It also has some reference to the Republican vs. Democrat uptimes.
"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Vote Linux, vote democrat!
Meh.
Seriously though, if the leader of the free world runs IIS, I'm scared. . .
You are not the customer.
What about the Green party? The Libertarians?
Where's my fair and balanced coverage?
This space for rent.
(yes, you were in the armed services; very nice. now put down those scissors and go play.)
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
Over a year up for Linux, not bad guys. Now lets see if it survices the /. effect
It seems that LinuxJournal has succumbed :P
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Does anyone really think the candidates know, or even care? 'Course they don't. They say "go make a web site" to some design/hosting company and that's that.
In Soviet Russia, candidates who are running hump YOU!
I am the Russian Humper !!
have average uptimes of less than a week.... ...or they're running msblast all over the place.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Given Clinton's antics perhaps it's important to know how often the Democrats go DOWN on us.
The Army reading list
It can be inferred that the average time between patches requiring reboot on W2k is 16.91 days?
Might not be relevant but is certainly of interest to the geeks who hang around here.
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
What about the third parties?
What is Hillary running?
She has the job locked up.
She can't be beat.
Learn how to say "President Hillary Rodham Clinton".
Clinton / Clinton '04!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The fact that this is reported is proof that democracy is very flawed in some of the basic assumptions. Not to single out geeks (and I admit, I looked at the article with some interest I suppose) but people just don't know how to select who to vote for. The mainstream picks their candidate based on likability and how attractive they are and whether they wear the right colored suit or seem smug. You can have a great set of policies that are very sound but wear the wrong tie and you'll lose a few million people. Candidates need to start standing on policy, not the junk that gets reported (OS, favorite food, hair color, etc.)
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Do you people really think that these politicians actually chose the platform for their web server? They probably don't even know where it's hosted, if they even care at all.
It also has some reference to the Republican vs. Democrat uptimes. /.ed?
What about LinuxJournal uptimes? Shouldn't they be embarassed that after less than 20 commenst posted that their server is hoplessly
From the article:
Is there any significance to what Web server/platform combinations 2004 presidential candidates are using?
I'm glad this was posted to 'The Lighter Side'. However, that probably won't stop people from drawing ironclad conclusions from the data.
Hint: political candidates' performance is not linked to the performance of their webservers.
"Up next: inferring a person's religion based on his choice of toothpaste."
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
There was an interesting piece on NPR the other day about Howard Dean and how he's actually a technophone - doesn't like computers much. Ironic because his online fund raising is stellar. They said the most tech-savvy candidate is Lieberman, who can't do without his BlackBerry. Apparently Al Gore introduced Lieb to all the gadgets that let him keep in touch with people.
-Ster
If his underpants were made by a poor exploited kid with big sympathetic eyes (oh, and who lives in southeast asia, taking jobs from Americans), you can bet your ass the press would make a big deal out of it.
I swear I thought this said "What the Canadians are Running From" at first glance.
I thought the article would actually be interesting instead of this stuff. Like a candidate actually decides what software to use. That would be like letting the government decide what kind of software I can use... oh wait. nevermind (deCSS?).
Not one of these candidates knows WTF Apache is, let alone IIS.
:) but that is beside the point.
Sys Admins and Webmasters make those decisions and I'm betting the ones running the Democrat candidate websites have to worry about where they spend money. Thus they us OSS software.
Of course they are also running the better webserver
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
now without the mess.. ;)
lynx --dump --head http://www.site.com
[alk]
...used to brag about all his downtime, but I think he meant something else...
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Democratic National Committee: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware. Republican National Committee: Because rebooting is for adding hardware, adding software, regularly scheduled downtime, and should also be done on a daily basis to keep the machine running.
Oh, come on...
You know some geek out there is going to decide his vote based solely on this article.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Third of the people on Slashdot are not Americans, another third are H1Bs and L1s located in America but cannot vote, and the last third of the readership are actual US citizens, but forgot to register to vote, since new Gnome came out that day.
Ask any of these guys this question:
What operating system does your web server run?
Do you think any of them could answer that question? I don't think this reflects the candidates, it reflects their IT staff.
He buys his underpants at K-Mart. Definitely. Definitely K-Mart.
and they're even up to date! scary isn't it? :)
i see this more as an attempt at humor than anything else. joke fodder for months to come!
Howard Dean is a raciast.
A goverment may deal with companies that reflect their economic values (ie/ republicans go for big company, microsoft, product).
Meh.
While waiting for the article to crawl out from under the Slashdotting, here's an aside I thought was interesting: a recent article talking about Howard Dean's succesful use of the Internet for fundraising noted that perhaps the first candidate to use that method successfully was -- that Judge Roy Whatever in Alabama with the 10 Commandments statue in his courtroom.
Not someone I would have picked as a high-tech visionary, although he obviously is pretty shrewd about media manipulation.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"GQ" is running an article on which designer ties each candidate is wearing, "Veneer Quarterly" has a sidebar on what color, and how many coats, of paint the candidates used on their houses, "Breakfast Meats Bi-Monthly" is leading with the in-depth feature "Bacon, Steak, or Sausage: The Candidates Decide," and the cover story of this month's "Limousine Owner's Gazette" tells us wa-a-a-y more than we need to know about the contenders' choice of Regular, Premium, or Ultra.
Gosh, with so much relevant information available to voters, it's easier than ever to make an informed decision!
I cannot think of a more pointless waste of time, especially when 99% of geeks on the web do not know any PLATFORMS(that is political ideas, not hardware) the candidates are running on.
Basically, if you want
1. high taxes if you are an Achiever.
2. Non-achievers will recieve goodies pillaged from the Achievers
3. more ignorance on national security, with more 'do nothing' responses popular under Clinton.
4. medical care as bad as France( going bankrupt with long wait times like Canada)
Vote Democrat.
Repubs have their issues as well,
but they pale in comparison to the Socialist agenda of the Demos:
http://www.nationmakers.com/com_man.htm
Obviously the democrats have chosen a superior platform to host their *cough* platform. The Republicans have apparently adopted inferior technology in the name of capitalism (go big business!!!). That, or their web admins are horribly inept.
Either way, this report does not reflect well on the IT abilities of the RNC.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
The sad thing is, you've just committed a felony. Don't worry, the FBI will be there shortly.
that W can even spell IIS, no less explain what it is. Look at how much trouble he had with WMD.
> lynx --dump --head http://www.site.com
Very nice! Actually, I had thought about snipping the HTML response, but left it in there after much soul-searching. But I'll use that Lynx trick from now on.
The Army reading list
No wonder no one reads the articles.
Cleanse Your Soul
A Fat Bald Man if he ran Linux? A few geeks would, nobody else would, not even if he were sent directly by God. Collectively, this country is an idiot.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
If we were electing the nation's Sys-admin In Chief instead of Commander In Chief, I might care about this. As it stands, this isn't going to influence my vote one way of the other. I will still not be voting for Carol Moseley Braun, regardless of the fact that her website runs on FreeBSD.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
"I want people with Tux stickers on their cases, and I want people with Best Viewed Under IE 6.0 on their web pages. The Democratic party needs a big tent!"
> and they're even up to date!
Well, they're one version behind now that 1.3.29 is out... but they're pretty close.
The Army reading list
"Up next: inferring a person's religion based on his choice of toothpaste."
I don't like the implication of this statement. I'm an Atheist, but I still brush.
Political information that I can:
1) understand
2) use to vote
[for the humor-impaired, this is called sarcasm]
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
What possible conclusions can you possibly draw from this? Most of the candidates probably don't even know they have a website. Somebody in their campaign hires a firm to stick up a website and they do. This has nothing to do with the polititcs of the candidates.
There has already been some buzz around Howard Dean making a potential guest appearance on Lessig's blog. He also seems seems to have some peripheral interest in and empathy for our positions (sorry for the very broad generalization here) on many issues that are important to the Slashdot crowd.
If he had shown up in this article as running Dean For America on IIS on 2K Server, I'd seriously have to reconsider his appeal as a potential geek candidate... And question his suitability as my representative on issues of privacy, open standards, intellectual property rights, etc.
Good work, Howard. I'm glad my contribution to your campaign didn't end up in Redmond as a license fee payment!
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
I'm not so sure about Nader wanting to use modern computers at all. Those new hardrives could be "Unsafe at Any Speed" He's probably running that Commodore 64 that was recently updated with ethernet capability :o)
Eat a Chicken, You know you want to.
What I find funny is when people try to point out that the republicans push security and lower TCOs.
The truth is that GWB is pushing MS everywhere possible inside of government, except for when the group states that security is the overriding consideration (NSA, CIA, etc).
OMG that's funny, if I had any MOD points I would be modding this one up.
Dennis Kucinich actually knows what Linux is, and he believes strongly in the free software / open source community.
I would be very shocked if any candidate knew what webserver or OS their site was running on. Personally, I would hesitate to vote for a candidate who was spending time tweaking httpd.conf.
- Donny was a good bowler, and a good man.
> As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.
...
>
> Draw your own conclusions.
uh, Republicans can't keep it up? but we've known that since Bob Dole started doing ED ads
and they always win. va is very very republican.
I think it is important. It shows you where they put their money. If they have a Windows server it obviously is not a wise decision. And they may not know it is Windows but they chose the person who chose the Windows so they are probably more impressed by Microsoft Certified blah blah than reality where they have to actually think about who they are hiring and what that person has done in the past.
-------------------------------------
Technically, we are beyond survival.
running for office?
At least the Communists have a clear choice: Arm & Hammer, surely.
They're still hiding from angry Democrats after having siphoned votes away from Gore in 2000, delivering the election to Bush.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
No, I'm New Here
I don't like the implication of this statement. I'm an Atheist, but I still brush.
And those around you appreciate that.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Because the real answer to the question "What are the presidential candidates running?" is - obviously - "They are running FOR PRESIDENT, dumbass!"
I have to say the only one that surprised me was Lieberman. It makes total sense for Bush, Gephardt to run windows. It make sense gor Edwards to kinda hide that he is running IIS. It makes complete sense for Dean and Carol Mosley-Braum to be runnin FreeBSD. Al Sharpton "Which one of these is not like the others..." Clark (and the Army that raised him) rely on Linux. Kerry and Kucinich are playing things safe and mainstream liberal. But how did Lieberman choose FreeBSD? -Jaxn
There really should be a means test for voters. Not monetary, not intellectual, not age, but instead being able to discuss the important issues, or some such criteria.
Of course, who decides what the criteria are (also known as who watches the watchers)?
In wake of Arnuld's landslide victory, I've been hearing a lot of this "people should have to pass a test in order to be allowed to vote" crap. I'm sorry but this is just completely at odds with the original intent of the founding fathers. You, yourself, seem to realize the problem with these tests ("who decides the criteria?") but you still seem to think this is a good idea. I wonder if your feelings on this matter are clear, RetroGeek?
What are "important issues?" Who decides? Yes, I'm sure that the attractiveness of candidates influences their chances of being elected. And yes that kind of bothers me. But I think an equally intelligent human being could argue that since attractiveness seems to influence people on a subconscious level, why shouldn't that come into play when you cast your vote? After all, we are electing people that we hope have some leadership potential. Obviously, we hope they are idiots but most of the tough thinking will be done by advisors within their adminstration. I think Steven Hawking is a brilliant man but I would never vote for him if he were running for office. Why? Because even though I have complete faith in him, I fear that the other elected officials he would have to interact with wouldn't take him seriously.
Tests are quite simply a bad idea. For everyone out there who keeps saying we need to institute some kind of qualifying exam, I'd like to hear some particulars from you. And explain how you're going to make this exam cheat-proof too, while you're at it.
GMD
watch this
Colgate in Argentina
"To avoid reliance on self-reference criterion during the marketing plan development process, the international marketer carefully researched Argentina's unique cultural elements (i.e.: geographic setting, social institutions, religion and aesthetics, living conditions and language)... The information gathered through these analyses helped the international marketer to identify key strategic issues and to formulate actionable strategies for the introduction of Colgate Total toothpaste in Argentina. "
The candidates hosting company may be running such and such, NOT the candidate! If you can point me to a candidate that set his/her site up on their own and did NOT use frontpage or office for it....I might vote for them.
If you can point me to a candidate that actually runs his/her website off of a homebrew box running linux or a bsd that he/she built themselves, I WILL vote for them.
Most likely they chose whatever they chose because it was the cheaper option offered by their "web host".
That being said what point would this have in choosing a candidate. They most likely have no clue anyhow.
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
...that *BSD isn't dying. 30% of presidential candidates use it, after all!
dinner: it's what's for beer
Yes, these candidates made a conscious decision on what OS to run their web sites on. Yes, they know what they are running. Yes, they all know they even have websites.
:)
Quick, base your votes on this!
As to the "reporter" who thought this was a worthwhile test of a candidate, go back to the New York Times.
In fact, if you mentioned Apache to some of the Democrats, they'd immediately start crying about how offended they were.
Hillary Clinton would then step in, call a press conference, and start a special investigation into the use of the Apache name for server software.
News reporters would be knocking down doors, looking for Native Americans and asking for quotes denouncing the shameful use of Apache.
Dan Rather would "editorialize" for several minutes tonite on the fate of Native Americans tonite on the national news.
99% of presidential candidates don't know anything about computers, other than that they're fancy typewriters and they can send and recieve e-mail. Do you think they even KNOW what OS their websites are running on? Anyone who actually applies this to their voting decision is a complete idiot.
You would think that in this day and age of concern about "security", that they would all be doing that. At the very least, the government and GWB would be. How funny.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes, but your toothbrush came about by random chance over millions of years of mutation, and begans as protein and plasma. Whereas mine was created by a Intelligent Design.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
The Linux Journal is slashdotted?!?! A LINUX site is SLASHDOTTED?!?!? Oh, the horror. The HORROR! We're doomed, I tell you. DOOMED!
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Solaris????
dinner: it's what's for beer
At first I thought "...running" meant on their desktops. That would be interesting. Why do I care what their site runs on (when it was probably set up by some intern who just called the first hosting company that popped in in a google search)?
As we swing into the thick of the 2004 electoral playoffs, it's interesting to see what kinds of platforms are running under the candidates' official campaign Web sites. Netcraft has a handy feature called "What's that site running?" that lets us see combinations of Web servers and OS platforms. So here's a quick rundown, in alphabetical order:
For what it's worth, the Republican National Committee is running Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000, while the Democratic National Committee is running Apache on Linux.
As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.
Draw your own conclusions.
Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal.
Don't you know that AL invented the Blackberry, the RIM, the PDA, the PC and the internet, all on one day and without violating any patents?
What a guy!
I am amazed at the support I see for either of these parties. "Vote Republican!" "No, Vote Democrat!" blah... How can so many people be so blind? Suppossedly superior intelligence geeks at that!
They are both corrupt! Look around you. Open your eyes! Do you really think it is always somone
elses fault that we are again and again at War? Why does anyone go hungry or uneducated in our own country? Why is the economy in such bad shape? And on and on... Niether of these parties offer us truth.
There's no conflict. Atheism is a religion just like the null string ("") is a string. :)
You have never seen plak, but believe it is real?
This is a clear demonstration of the way the parties likes to spend money.
The Democrats like value for money.
The Republicans like to spend a lot of money on things that don't work well, like invading countries.
Greens: apache on linux
Libertarians: apache on freebsd
Communists: apache on linux
Socialists: apache on linux
Lest you want to draw unwarranted conclusions:
Halliburton: apache on linux
Tobacco.org: apache on freebsd
Whitehouse.gov: apache on linux
Oddly...
ATF: netscape on solaris
US Army: webstar on OSX
whitehouse.com: IIS on linux (so netcraft claims!!)
fun fun fun...
Another clinton chasing women. Of course, the budget will be balanced and we will have an open government.
I mean, seriously. What does it matter that much to know what these people are using? Are we going to somehow draw a conclusion on these people, or draw a conclusion on what they are using BECAUSE they are using it? That could be a rhetorical question, but it doesn't seem to be. Can someone convince me to why this isn't a completely useless idea?
Linux Journal: Apache on Linux
Uptime: Down faster than a drunken cheerleader on prom night
George W Bush: IIS on Windows 2000
Uptime: Still going!
HTH HAND!
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
His defrauding the court system with the Tawana Brawley case might count for something. And you might want to talk to Yankel Rosenbaum's family. Sharpton is no f**king joke.
But this is modern America where monsters are treated with kid gloves. Even O'Reilly treats Sharpton like some harmless, goofy fuzzball.
You just know the Green River killer will wind up with a talk show.
--- Ban humanity.
Come my M$ comrades, let's take this wonderful opportunity to bash those damn *nix users! Look at the irony, a Linux site reporting on uptime and obviously slanted against M$ is down!
We may not get this chance again...Glavin!
Yours is brilliant: "he seems to be a brighter tack...." Maybe not lol, but certainly ctm (chuckle to myself).
Ah, but what's the power set of the null set?
Seriously. I can't remember. My last set theory class was years ago...
All's true that is mistrusted
I don't like the implication of this statement. I'm an Atheist, but I still brush.
OT, but I'm anal like this.
Atheism is a religon--that is, it's an answer to the question of "what's up with all this god stuff?". It being a negative doesn't mean that, as far as politics and law care, that it isn't a religion.
(You could, I supposed, call it "theology" or "spiritual beliefs" or "opinion on god" if you really want to--but "religion" is a bit more entrenched and just as easy a synonym.)
Wesley Crusher (AKA Wil Wheaton, AKA CleverNickName on slashdot)!
C'mon! Let's all draft him! I mean, if a bodybuilder can become Governor...
I am the webmaster for declared Green Party pre-candidate David Cobb. It's a Zope/Plone site running on BSD. i also run the site for Cynthia McKinney, but I haven't put much time into her site recently, and don't plan to until she gives a stronger indication that she's interested in us.
Cobb's site will be growing in the near future, as the web team expands.
And for those of you who want to post crap about Nader spoiling in 2000, first read this, this, and especially this, which contains a whole string of surprises.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
And what candidate is based on whitehouse.com? I should have voted for her.
Uh-oh, ten minutes to Judge Wapner...
As an atheist you have to brush. A Christian could simply pray for fresh breath.
It could also be that they are using Akamai much like www.microsoft.com so it LOOKS like it is running Linux.
Also, isn't www.whitehouse.com a pr0n site? I think the parent meant www.whitehouse.gov.
Why do the politcal trolls have to be Democrats. Why can't their be Republican trolls? Do conservatives not feel the need to troll forums?
atheism espouses no belief in a supernatural being, it's not a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship, and it's not (necessarily) a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Therefore, IT'S NOT A RELIGION.
21:27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
Only problem is that most voter don't give a damn what servers run which candidate. They'd rather maximize their time for more general issues.
I ran on a technology platform while running for the student government during my college years and found that:
1. Most geeks don't give a damn about politics even if a fellow geek runs.
2. Most people on campus don't give a damn about technology as long as they can surf the web and type up their term papers in the computer lab.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Atheism is a religion in much the same way that baldness is a hair color.
It's not a "theology", a "spiritual belief" or a religion.
It's simply a lack of belief.
Which is not to say that there aren't atheists out there who are making the positive assertion that There Are No Gods. I'm not one of them, but they're out there. Those people are only a subset of atheists though, not the entire set.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Since when? The Republicans in this state are pretty much a bunch of liberals. And in this last local election a bunch of libs won hands down. Southern VA is quite republican but Northern VA is Liberal and out numbers the southerners
"We can no longer live as rats... we know too much." -Secret of NIMH
I seriously doubt if many governmental types even look at their own email, let alone get involved in what their web servers are running.
We may as well judge them by what brand of gasoline their drivers use on their limo's.
Yes, but you still sound like a ignorant, uneducated moron if you use the latter pronunciation.
Therefore, IT'S NOT A RELIGION.
:) And, of course, every time some random /.ing atheist tells me that atheism isn't a religion, I wind up laughing that the non-religion belief system has the kind of zealots that Catholics would kill for.
Only if you define religion such that it isn't. For the purposes of common conversation and the law--you know, two places where we want freedom to believe what we want to believe--I prefer a definition of "religion" that includes atheism, agnosticism, and every other formal or informal system of beliefs.
Or, if you can prefer, we can exclude atheists from the word "religion" entirely--in which case, the first amendment's freedom of religion won't apply, and atheists will be legally discriminated against.
Not sure what you mean with "potential guest appearance", but he did "guest host" the blog while Lessig was gone. He didn't write much due to time constraints, but there was a LOT of comments; some of which he replied to.
Great guy, I might almost wish I were an american if he wins. =P
Republican policies support companies like Microsoft. They prevent the regulation of industries, which leads to monopolies that enter other markets with an unfair advantage. They support property rights over the freedoms of the individual, which promotes ridiculous licensing schemes. Every large monopolistic corporation has the Republicans to thank for their privileges and Microsoft is no exception.
(If you cruise over to Larry Lessig's blogJohn Edwards is guest blogging on a variety of tech topics this week.)
We use a handful of open-source tools here at Campaign HQ. Why? Cost and reliability. The same reason you guys choose this stuff.
Oh... And our entire Web Team runs on Mac OS X. Contrary to one of the comments posted earlier, Senator Edwards made it clear during Tuesday's debate that he prefers his Mac.
I hope you folks have a chance to learn more about John Edwards.
If the government dictated what style of clothes are legal to wear, you'd probably be very interested in that GQ issue...
Taken as a stand-alone statement, that's fair enough, I suppose -- but how on earth does this relate to the thread? Are you trying to imply the government currently dictates or will in the future dictate what web server it's legal to run?
Atheism is a religion in much the same way that baldness is a hair color.
Yes, exactly. And when a man with no hair gets a driver's license, it would be proper to list "bald" as their hair color.
It's simply a lack of belief.
Nope. Atheism is the positive belief that there is no God. You're thinking of agnosticism--the belief that man has insufficient knowledge if there is or is not a god.
It's easy enough to confuse Atheism and Agnosticism, just as it's easy enough to confuse Hinduism, Shinto, and Bhuddism. But there is a difference--and in my opinion, the major reason that agnostics consider themselves atheists is the noisy, zealous, and annoying atheists.
Not to say that all forthcoming and open atheists are annoying. Just a good deal of them.
I am a voter as well, so I appreciate any attention a candidate might give to issues I care about. Especially if I agree with them.
Now, obviously, it wouldn't be wise for any of these guys to place their entire focus on a niche issue such as this (however important these issues may be to a small part of their potential constituency). However, little things like this might make the difference between who votes for you and who doesn't where all other things are equal.
It's already been pointed out in other posts that the candidates probably have no idea what their web sites are hosted, but someone in their organization does understand this. It wouldn't surprise me if politics entered into the question when the platform was chosen in a few cases. Bravo, if it did! I'd like to see more candidates pay serious attention to issues such as these.
I don't even particularly care if Howard's a total luddite. If he can take political action I like on my issues if and when he's elected, that's all that matters. I want him to be a consumate politician, not a 733t webmaster.
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
Your average voter probably doesn't know the difference between a senator and a representative, doesn't know how the state legislature works, doesn't understand the electoral college, couldn't tell you what the majority whip does, or define the role of the speaker of the house. They couldn't name any of the cabinet postions. We don't let you drive a car without at least some knowledge. We have tests before you can do alot of things in this country, maybe voting should be one of them?
Why? Why should a voter need to be able to answer questions like this before we let them vote? I don't know what the hell a majority whip does. Are you saying that means I'm so stupid I shouldn't be allowed to vote? BTW, I have a Ph.D. from one of the most respected scientific institutions in the world.
Sure, I'd love it if people would take more time to really study the issues and the candidates positions on those very issues before heading to the polling place. But I haven't really seen a compelling reason why this should be mandated by law. Let's make sure there is a very real need to take people's rights and freedoms away before we do so. Not some "anyone who voted for some ex-pro-wrestler guy shouldn't really be allowed to vote" kind of argument.
I do have some problems with it. First this is going to give a huge voting advantage to the rich. I would guess that a higher % of wealthy voters would pass this test versus poor voters. Even if you gave free classes to educate the voters a poor person is going to be less able to take the classes.
Well, we can agree on something. I'm sure any of the tests that would ever be agreed upon would be tests that would discriminate against the poor. Since the poor would not get a sizeable vote, their concerns would not get raised and they would remain poor. I don't like the idea of that.
GMD
watch this
If only Bob Dole were still doing those ED commercials....then we could really compare the parties' uptimes....
This is incorrect.
n s.html for more information.
The positive belief that there is no god is one type of atheism, called "strong atheism". The other type is the simple lack of belief in any gods (called "weak atheism").
Agnostiscm is the belief that it is not possible to know or understand the nature of a god or gods. Thus, you can have agnostic atheists (it is impossible to understand the nature of a god and I lack a belief in any such entity) as well as agnostic theists (I believe that the universe was created by a god but its nature is unknowable).
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitio
As consumerism becomes the foundation of our society and our individual identities, is it unreasonable to expect the public to identify with those who share their consumer preferences? I think not -- it is just one of the unpleasant side-effects of our wonderous modernity, right or wrong.
============
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
It would be better if his underpants were made from poor, exploited, southeast asian kids.
ahhh for the days of good ol' Pol Pot.
Think of it - the little fucking slopes reproduce so fast that we'd always have an abundant supply of raw underpants material and we could take what's left after we skin them and burn it in coal plants for energy - it'd be cleaner and better for the atmosphere.
Republican policies support companies like Microsoft.
Only the ones like GWB do. Libertarian-leaning Republicans are better in supporting more equitable deregulation and not the buddy-buddy shit we see in piss-poor attempts at free trade, for example.
Don't use people like GWB as a defense for Democrats, because it only cloud the truth: the two major political parties are pretty much a lost cause, unless they can find an honest way to reform themselves from within and run real canidates who aren't puppets for special interests and the party line.
They prevent the regulation of industries, which leads to monopolies
Regulations don't prevent monopolies, they reinforce them.
They support property rights over the freedoms of the individual
Property rights and individual freedom are one and the same.
Quite honestly, I'm very tired of people pointing blame at corporations, when the root problems are corporations merely playing the cards dealt to them by the government. Of course, corporations will sneak around the system...it's their job, and we should see this crap coming from miles away. People who want protectionist feel-good legislation to protect them from corporations are simply putting on the blindfold, pulling down their pants, and painting "get me know and get me good" on their chests. It always has been the case and always will be the case that the only person who can protect you from evil corrupt corporations is you.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
One of the questions of one of the graduates was what the candidates were using, Macs or PCs. I think more candidates mentioned PCs with the exception of Lieberman(i think) saying he uses wireless. Right away I thought that was a dumb question though. It also looked like a pre-prepared question from the Mac camp. With all the things going on in america and all the concerns young people have, with a time constraint on the program and all, I thought to myself: how dumb does one have to be to ask such a question? Why is it relevant what they use to work with every day? Why would that be relevant to their points of view and promises they were making? It was simply nothing more than a question meant to fuel the OS flamewars going on on Press/Internet the next day that's all. I question the integrity and purpose of such questions.
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
IIRC, a majority (or minority) whip is responsible for making sure their party's members show up for important votes. It's an organizational role, essentially.
Having a Ph.D. does not automatically impart knowledge of civics or a sense of civic responsibility, which I would definitely like everyone voting to have.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
In certain areas of the south, hookworms are common.
That doesn't make them sanitary.
I'm willing to believe he mispronounces it on purpose to identify with anti-intellectuals, much as he insists on harmful but trivial environmental policies just to piss off the Sierra Club.
Congrats, you are the first.
The positive belief that there is no god is one type of atheism, called "strong atheism". The other type is the simple lack of belief in any gods (called "weak atheism").
Semantics. Which, of course, all names are--if Paul and Mohammad had both had their followers call themselves "Jews" we wouldn't have the problems we do today in the Middle East, even though the theololgical differences are so apparant.
Getting back to the original point: Atheism is a religion, as much as Wicca or Christianity or Santera. And it doesn't matter what specific words Webster's or the OED use to define "religion"--except when catagorizing religions, or as fodder for some kind of straw-man argument, atheism is a religion and should be treated by atheists and non-atheists as such.
Freedom of religion includes the freedom not to have one.
well gee, if we're going to conform the definition of atheism to whatever you want it to be, then how about this: the definition of "God" is now "my cock". Have a problem with that? It's every bit as valid as claiming that those that have no religion have a religion because you say so. And for your information, jackass, I'm not an atheist. I just know how to use a fucking dictionary. It's all good though: go back to loving "God," because "God" loves you back.
Libertarians: apache on freebsd
Very appropriate (think licenses).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Yes, exactly. And when a man with no hair gets a driver's license, it would be proper to list "bald" as their hair color.
No, it would be proper to list "n/a" or to leave it blank.
For what it's worth, the Republican National Committee is running Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000, while the Democratic National Committee is running Apache on Linux.
As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.
Draw your own conclusions.
The Republicans are putting on security patches and the Democrats aren't?
Where else are you going to find a political organization with enough tinfoil hats per capita to do so?
Exactly. Which is why atheism--"not a religion"--needs to be treated as a religion by EVERYTHING that isn't a private party.
you mean broken arm with hammer don't you?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
This begs the question: in this world that is getting ever more technological, when is the geek vote going to come into play? Will there be an election in the next decade or so where an important issue is Linux vs. Microsoft? Technology has not been a major political issue much in history, will it ever? How big is the Slashdot community, compared to the entire constituency of the US?
This side up.
Contrary to most opinions here, I do think it matters as to which platform the candidates are running for one simple reason:
/. will slate companies whose web services rely on IIS and .NET
Fiscal responsibility
The choice of platform may not show that a candidate has a superior knowledge of technology than another, but it does show that some are more prudent with how they spend the funds available to them for a project than others.
While it is highly unlikely that any of the candidates campaign managers rejected bids because of the proposed webserver, it is very likely that they did so because of cost and the potential results.
We all focus on the opinions of financial analysts who study the minutia of company reports and strategies. Indeed, many on
Why not apply the same logic to a potential president (or an acting one, for that matter). If s/he is going to fritter away money on license fees, what's s/he going to do with my tax dollar when it comes to "homeland defense" or medicare?
I'm not an american, but I care. I think as geeks we can use these results introspectively and consider what it says about the business decisions these men and women are making.
This only means that more linux geeks are out of work and have time to donate to the DNC.
Of course it matters what the definition of the word actually is. You only claim that the OED is irrelevant because it disproves your point.
Your claim about Paul and Mohammad is somewhat bizarre. Both catholics and protestants call themselves "christians" but there are certainly a lot of problems in Ireland, where they seem to have noticed their theological differences. I can see no reason to assume things would be different in the Middle East.
This is actually a debate I have had many times with many different theists. The typical response at this point is to repeat "Atheism is a religion", perhaps adding "La-la-la-la-la I can't hear you." Argument by assertion is typical of theists, who desperately wish that atheism was a religion so they could try to meet it on equal ground. Theists would like to be able to claim that atheism is solely a matter of belief no more valid then their own religion when instead it is simply an open-minded lack of belief in the absence of evidence.
If you decide to respond, please do so with something other than argument by assertion.
I remember being astonished and impressed that a company had so much faith in its code that it was available for review. This was in 1993-94, I think.
I think they changed the policy. The rest of the civilized world went their original direction.
Sometimes I feel like voters would rather do away
with the DNC and RNC and instead have multiple "issue" political parties. We could have the NRA party, Gun-control party, Abortion Rights party
etc. etc.
Voters only hear the one or two issues of interest and ignor the rest, usually with disasterous results.
by your reasoning, the fact you haven't commited murder doesn't mean you aren't a murderer; you're just a different kind of murderer. Specifically, the kind of murderer that doesn't murder. That's some mighty fine logic you got there, guy.
come on guys, for George W. Apache is a Helicopter and IIS a space station..
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
One Republican, nine Democrats. You call this a valid sample?!?!
Let's see the figures for every congressman and senator. Then we might get some numbers that mean something. And even then it's meaningless.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
This gets modded informative? GWB spent most of his infant (but born in New Haven, CT) and elementary school years in Midland, TX. That's where the accent is from.
I assume the poster is mistakenly referring to Bush's prep school teen years in New England.
FACTS: 1) Ninjas are mammals 2) Ninjas fight ALL the time 3) The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people
Hey, that works for me....
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
If the leader of the free world...
I'm in the free world, and he's not my leader.
Admittedly, the US has some influence over my country's government, which varies with different leaders here, but there are still a number of issues on which we have stood our ground against bigger countries like the US.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Ever since Dean and Clark decided against a merger, I suspected their platforms were not entirely compatible...
Thank you Netcraft!
--------------------
% telnet www.lp.org 80
Trying 65.113.119.99...
Connected to www.lp.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:58:32 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.2.3
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.2.3
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Connection closed by foreign host.
--------------------
% telnet www.greenparty.org 80
Trying 209.120.182.113...
Connected to www.greenparty.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:58:42 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_fastcgi/2.2.12 mod_perl/1.26 PHP/4.3.3 FrontPage/5.0.2 mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6b
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Connection closed by foreign host.
IIS on Linux is almost always the result of Akamai.net mirroring an IIS based site. Microsoft is the classic example, they use Akamai which is based around Linux.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And how well did YOU do at Harvard?
I have a B+ average, and this is because I'm taking hard classes and don't care much about my grades. For instance, I don't cram much for tests, because in the long run I don't learn anything that way. Instead, I spend my time programming, raytracing, maintaining my website, doing outside reading, and Slashdotting.
Now, I don't know if this was true at Yale in W's time, but these days grades are so inflated at most colleges that not getting a B average is pretty disgraceful, something like the bottom 10% of the class. There are plenty of classes here in which it's rare not to get an A. Once upon a time (100 years ago?), there was the concept of a "gentleman's C"; that is, if you didn't like a class, you could stop putting effort into the work and still pass with a C. Today you can usually get a B+ with relatively little effort; you have to be either lazy, inept or extremely unlucky to get worse than a B-. I managed to get a C+ once, and it was a through combination of extreme laziness, unluckiness, and dislike for the class.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Also, isn't www.whitehouse.com a pr0n site? I think the parent meant www.whitehouse.gov.
.com (porn) and .gov (evil suppressing bastards) were listed in the original comment.
It most certainly is porn, but both the
the definition of "God" is now "my cock"
Come up with a good enough agrument for it, and I'll believe you. But that'd have to be pretty good. (I doubt that your reproductive organ can do enough to even be "a god", much less the Almighty Himself.)
I just know how to use a fucking dictionary
Dictionaries are descriptive and unitive, not perscriptive. For a rather impressive ammount of things, going to the dictionary to specifically define a word is insufficient. (Another poster linked to a website that pulls together several definitions of atheism--and notes that they are imprecise.)
Just to make sure you're getting my point: Whenever the government or a business can ask about or deal with "religion", "atheism" should be treated as just another religion.
If your uptime is 445 days... you need to patch your kernel.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
abacuxen surely
Green Party: Debian & Apache/mod_perl.
My desision is made.
There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
I think the point is, that most atheists have some other form of religion.
It would be like me declaring that being non-wiccan is a religion. You claim that nobody would claim their religion only as non-wiccan so I decide to come up with laws descriminating against anyone who isn't wiccan.
You are arguing against the wrong point. Atheism just states that the person isn't a believer in a theist religion. It says nothing about what they do believe. Lots of people in the world are atheists but they aren't all the same religion.
ah yes, wasting your vote on a third-party candidate. how very productive.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Both catholics and protestants call themselves "christians" but there are certainly a lot of problems in Ireland, where they seem to have noticed their theological differences.
I think that the catholic vs. protestant issue in Ireland is just a figurehead and excuse for them to keep fighting. The real problem with Ireland is that it's full of Irish, who'll fight for anything as long as the fighting's good.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Should what OS the candidates' websites are running determine how you should vote? Well, not directly, no, but I'm surprised at the number of posters that claim it to be utterly irrelevant. I don't think that it is.
I think that, to some degree, it reflects the style and nature of both the candidates themselves and the organizations that they have created. Bush believes in government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations; maybe he got a price break from M$ after he had Ashcroft back out of the Netscape lawsuit against them. Gephardt is a union stooge; the collective bargaining agreement with his IT staffers must have specified nothing but Windows and Microsoft Word to be used or they'd strike. Sharpton demonstrates that he is linearly independant from the other candidates by running Solaris. Dean, whose website alone made him $25M and the Democrats' front runner, has hard-core geeks and a tweaked Apache server running FreeBSD.
It may not make or break the campaign, or determine who I'm voting for, but the IT choices made by the candidades' organizations sure seem to me to be oddly appropriate based on who those people are and who they're campaigning for.
In other words, where you say "proactive", there's plenty of people who say "reckless, foolhardy, and ally-alienating".
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
BLOG and BLOGGING are not words. Try using the words journal and writing in their stead.
First we find out that Bob Dole uses Viagra. Now we learn that Republican party both use Microsoft Windows and IIS. So we have one Republican who has trouble getting it up and the rest have trouble keeping it up.
do they have a valid Windows license? I really, REALLY hope the BSA does an audit to find out.
Sig? What sig? Do I have to have a sig!?!?
Easy enough. I'll start with a rebuttal.
Both catholics and protestants call themselves "christians"
No, they call themselves Catholics and Protestants. And they started fighting because of the feud between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, which can be blamed on Europe's feudal nature, which can be blamed on the aborted Islamic invasion of Europe via Spain, which would never have happened if the Muslims had considered the Europeans to be of the same brotherhood, as they would have if Paul and Mohammad had instructed their followers that they were all "Jews." (Or some other term.)
Leaving that claim aside, let's get on to something more worthwhile: if atheism should be considered a religion. (We COULD argue the definition of "religion" until we're blue in the face, but that'd be about as worthwhile as debating if the blue I see and the blue you see are the same exact color.)
In affirmation: I didn't say that the OED was irrelevant. Merely that it was not perscritpive--that is, its sufficient to garner the general meaning of a word, but the general meaning of a word is insufficient for ground of ethics, public policy, law, or a host of other things, as I have said elsewhere.
More specfically, Atheism SHOULD be on equal ground with "theism" (and "spirituality" and "transcendence", while we're painting religions with broad strokes)) wherever they meet, so that each belief may win on its merits and not on a mere technicality. The playing field should be level, or else the game will be foul and we as a species and civilization would not advance. ("Advance" to a better understanding of everytyhing or anything.)
Now, there are doubtless religions that are false and wholly incorrect. Pick any given religion, and at least half of the others will strongly disagree with that religion--and for most tenets, they cannot be objectivly disproven. It is for this reason that all religions should be given equal ground in public society; we simply cannot tell which one is right and which one isn't.
Were Atheism a mere absence of religion, an indecision that does not attempt to answer religious questions, there would be no reason to treat it as a religion. But Atheism does answer religious questions--there are proponents and missionaries for atheism, who for whatever reason publicize their faith in the same manner and mediums that the various formal religions of the world do.
It is for this reason--that there are atheists who, as atheists, seek to shape the world just as christians or jews or wiccans seek to shape the world as christians or jews or wiccans--that Atheism should be considered a religion.
As a final rebuttal, can you elaborate on how you feel that Atheism is harmed or wronged by being considered a religion? Atheists are certainly no more disliked by believers of other religions if because they are called "atheists" instead of "unbelievers". And weak atheists are no more wronged by strong atheists being treated like any other religous group than weak christians are.
What about people like me who could give a FLYING SHIT. I don't believe in God, I don't not believe in God. I dont think that it's possible to understand God. I just don't care either way if there is a God or not. I'll find out when I die. Until then it has no bearing on my life and arguing about it is just a waste of everyone's time.
So what does that make me? So far it rules out Athiest and Agnostic both (I used to think I was agnostic).
I need to know what to put on my busines cards!
Religion isn't a verb. It's a belief. You don't "do" religion, if it required action then most of the > 75% of Americans who label themselves as christian would be lying because they haven't attended a church service since they were twelve. but they aren't lying because all it means is they believe in something.
So your analogy is incorrect.
My rule of thumb is, if you can safely build and run a nuclear reactor, you don't have to pronounce it correctly. Call it a fringe benefit.
Since 1964. The last time Virginia voted for a democrat in a presidential election.
/ ec /data/partyvotes.htm
http://www.electionreform.org/ERMain/priorities
Staff member: oh the irony.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The two main Libertarian candidates:
Gary Nolan - Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on Solaris
Michael Badnarik - Apache on Linux
Check them out at http://www.garynolan.com and http://www.badnarik.org
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Bah. I thought it might be the English speaking world.
If you want real regional variation, try understanding a strong Geordie accent (Newcastle, England), or maybe a really strong Scouse accent. I can't even understand a strong Geordie accent.
Big as Russia is, it doesn't have regional accents*, yet a little country like the UK has huge differences. Weird, no.
*In Moscow they have longer 'a's. Apparently.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I love Linux more than Windows in terms of stability and security, but let's think of this more in techno-political form: consider that Bill Gates is a big Republican and probably donates Windows (and the behind-the-scenes tech support) to the Republican candidates.
Besides, under Clinton, Microsoft was under attack for alledgedly monopolistic and illegal antitrust practices. Under Bush, the sins of Bill Gates et al have been forgiven. Tell me YOU wouldn't donate software for being saved a $40 billion expenditure.
Seth Anderson BTW, I'm not 23 anymore -- I am TexasCowboy26 now. =)
The only information available in that article is the web server and OS software used to publish those websites. We have no other information that can be extracted without assumptions being made. Besides, if this excercise in entertainment was really worth bothering over; what does it show that none of the listed candidates ran a platform on Apple's OSX?
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
It seems obvious to me that the Republican admins know a lot more about what they're doing. 445 day uptimes? That's just plain silly for most applications, webservers included. Good admins won't have very long uptimes.
That aside, I _do_ find it interesting that all but one of the Democrats use Apache/Linux --- I would have expected there to be a more balanced mix. Of course, one can't draw any conclusions from it (it is even less than statistically insignificant and utterly meaningless), but it's interesting nevertheless.
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
... because it reflects the type of people they hire. Doh't let anyone fool you, these candidates (especially the presidential candidates) know what is going on in their offices. They who's cousin to hire to make a website, for example.
You are all fartheads.
no, atheism is not a religion. It is a belief in the lack of existence of a supernatural entity in control of the universe. One can be athiest and a member of a religion.
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
God yes. Anybody who has time to fiddle getting mod_perl to do what they want to do is obviously not concentrating on the real issues.
There is no geek party in the USA.
Since you're able to categorize everybody who thinks differently than you as someone less able to think as well as you, and are filling in their arguements for them (which, by the way, is a much lower sin of debate than "arguement by assertion"), it's hardly worth responding to you.
It always amazes me how self-righteous some atheists manage to be. I guess when you are all you have, that's where you put your faith.
IIS needs to be patched and rebooted. less uptime would actually indicate that the RNC is patching. a longer uptime or IIS would indicate a lack of patching. draw your own conclusions, and then draw a penguin.
Umm. You mean Democrats. The Democratic party held the House and Senate for nearly 40 years.
I knew what you meant. Also to the grandparent post, Regan's big tax increase wasn't a tax increase, but a clearing of abused tax shelters.
-- Len
It most certainly is porn, but both the .com (porn) and .gov (evil suppressing bastards) were listed in the original comment.
And answered the question I had, which was "what about whitehouse.com?" :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
Damn, and not even anonymously!
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
Yeah. You go ahead and vote based on that oh-so-insightful set of ideas, mmmkay?
The fact that someone even cares what OS/web server the candidates are running floors me. What's next, a list of the shade of blue in each candidate's tie? The brand of toothpaste they use? You tell me, Obi.
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
No way I'm voting for some pseudo-science scammer charlatan from the SCI-FI channel.
You seem like you might know the answer to this: what is a born-again Christian? Can someone explain them to me? Also, what is an evangelical Christian and how do they fit in with Christianity?
Thanks! I'm Canadian but am not a Christian...and some of thos classifications seem to be unique to USA for some reason...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
No, they call themselves Catholics and Protestants.
... perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but ... in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds." Moronic definitions like this paint Atheists as weaklings and hypocrits and must be fought. Or at least bickered about.
If you were to ask a Protestant or a Catholic if they are Christian, they would say "yes". They are admittedly quite different categories of Christian, but I think it stands to reason that if both Muslims and Jews called themselves "Jews" there would still be conflict in the Middle East.
Now, there are doubtless religions that are false and wholly incorrect. Pick any given religion, and at least half of the others will strongly disagree with that religion--and for most tenets, they cannot be objectivly disproven. It is for this reason that all religions should be given equal ground in public society; we simply cannot tell which one is right and which one isn't.
I agree with you, although you assume that at least one is correct and I don't agree with that.
Were Atheism a mere absence of religion, an indecision that does not attempt to answer religious questions, there would be no reason to treat it as a religion.
But Atheism is merely the absence of religion/a belief in gods. It's not so much an indecision as the recognition that there's no reason to make a decision. I'm not indecisive about the existence of unicorns or sidhe. If I were to encounter evidence of the existence of a god I would have reason to consider the possibility. As for answering religions questions, Atheism answers a single one: is there a god? And the answer? "I have no reason to believe there is." Not a very forceful answer but there you go. Religions attempt to answer far more questions than that.
To answer your final question, there are a couple of reasons why I object to Atheism being called a religion. The first is that it simply isn't one. Nor does it act like one.
1) Religions require faith. Atheism doesn't.
2) Religions prescribe specific moral codes. Atheism doesn't.
3) Religions have followers. Atheism doesn't. Atheists like me may enjoy debating the subject, but we're not followers because there's nothing to follow.
4) Religions make promises to their followers. Atheism promises nothing.
5) Perhaps most importantly, religions make positive assertions. Atheism (in general) doesn't.
Now, that last point doesn't apply to strong Atheism. Strong Atheism still isn't a religion but it does make a positive assertion and one could argue that strong Atheists should be required to prove that there is no god. Of course that would mean that Christians would have to prove that there is no Odin and followers of Asatru would have to prove that there is no Yahweh, etc, etc. In practice, no one bothers.
The second reason, which just applies to me personally, is that when I discuss this with people I find that if I don't challenge the assumption that Atheism is a religion then it's a short trip to "Atheism requires faith just like my religion" and other erroneous arguments. I find it's just more efficient to challenge the initial assertion.
As a final rebuttal, can you elaborate on how you feel that Atheism is harmed or wronged by being considered a religion? Atheists are certainly no more disliked by believers of other religions if because they are called "atheists" instead of "unbelievers". And weak atheists are no more wronged by strong atheists being treated like any other religous group than weak christians are.
I don't recall saying that I thought Atheism was harmed by being considered a religion. But it sounds like the actual question is "Why do you care if people call Atheism a religion?" The reason that I argue against that assertion is that it leads to misunderstandings about what Atheism is and definitions like Jacques Maritain's "Practical Atheism". According to him, "Practical Atheists" "believe that they believe in God (and
Strange comment in light of your sig.
There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
People running linux don't patch their systems.
He was BORN in Maine, but was mostly raised in Texas.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
you are assuming the president is making a statement wtih this web server! He probably doesnt know, the joys of a 'nix. He is being brainwashed Just as we all where when starting out... yeah, Linux is total commie, FreeBSD is for the enlightened.
Wesley Clark is also quite fond of his Blackberry. During commercial breaks in debates, he'll quickly check messages.
Clark is also an avid watcher of sci-fi movies.
from Dixie
this heah river dont go anywheres near Aintree!
Language changes. Deal.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"" is an empty string (i.e. with a length of 0); in most languages, this is not the same as a null string. So the question is, which one is Atheism?
Got any links, assertion boy?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This topic made me recall of an older article I saw in linuxworld. It was some UK magazine, and they were referring to Russia's intelligency with regards to choosing the operating system. They did a comparison between Windows and Linux, and the results show that Linux was much more powerful than Windows. So they will try and implement Linux into the near future with planned actions.
China, too is also moving into Linux as for its research into an area (I actually forgot what area it was, probably something to do with space).
And, there is no question to as to whether what the pentagon is running on with a news that was aired a few months ago claiming that US wants Ms to focus more on security....
There you have it.
oh yeah?
Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
Well, the set of all subsets of {} would be {{}}, since {} is a subset of itself.
Always, always make sure you know the difference betewen whitehouse.com and whitehouse.gov
Some do, including Ralph Nader.
I'm going to try one more time here.
Firstly, let's discuss your straw-man argument. You said earlier in this debate that people trot out the dictionary definition as a straw-man argument. Well, when the debate is over the Definition of a word, your claim is flatly wrong, and serves to show you don't actually know what a straw-man argument is. The issue being discussed is whether atheism is a religion. Several times now, your argument has been based on anti- discrimination laws (a textbook straw-man argument). You do realize that US law has no bearing on the definition of words, right? Besides, I think our current administration (and frankly, all those before this one) has shown that the government claiming a thing is true doesn't make it so. Oh, I could argue about how anti-discrimination laws would still apply to atheists without having to assert that atheism is a religion, but since it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what atheism means, I'm satisfied with leaving the point alone.
Moving along, let us discuss your "going to the dictionary to specifically define a word is insufficient" assertion. In order to have a meaningful debate (or conversation, for that matter), there has to be a mutually agreed upon language with clear meanings behind the words. Since I refuse to accept you as a more authoritative source of the definitions of words than WEBSTER, and I presume you would say the same about me, I submit to you that you either agree to use the dictionary as the mutually agreed upon source of words' meanings, or you agree that my revised definition of "God" to "my cock" is valid and meaningful.
The government should do as little as possible about obesity and motorcycles, because that falls under the category of "protecting us from ourselves".
Now, I do agree with thing like mandatory seatbelt laws. This ensures that all cars will have seatbelts so that they are available to those who need them, and encourages parents to be responsible with the lives of themselves and their children (the children might not be able to decide for themselves yet, and the parents should be around to raise them).
Mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles? Maybe. That falls into the category of "really, really good idea", something like seatbelt laws but not quite as strong. I support mandatory bike helmet laws for minors.
But obesity? Nutritional information is already available for food sources from the government (check out "Nut" on freshmeat), and pre-packaged food must be accurately labeled. There is a ton of information out there. No one needs to be fat if their desire to lose weight is strong enough to overcome their desire for the things that make them fat. Different diets work for different people. If there are fake diets that work for no one, they will go out of business or get busted for fraud/false advertising.
What do you suggest? Fat quotas? Social security number checks when you eat fast food to make sure that you're not eating it too often? I know, I'm being silly, but I don't see how the government should reasonably be expected to do more than it already has. Obesity is a very personal issue, and people are perfectly able to fix it themselves. There are reams of information available for free, and good food is cheaper than bad food.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
It is a belief in the lack of existence of a supernatural entity in control of the universe. One can be athiest and a member of a religion.
Ah--WHAT?
Atheism is the belief that there is no god--that the Christians, Hindus, and all the others are essentially deluded fools who either believe lies or have seriously misinterpreted reality.
While you can be a follower of a religion and not really believe, that doesn't make you an atheist--just a bad follower of that religion. Atheists are not members of any other religion--if they were, they wouldn't be atheists.
(Which, actually, is a good argument for treating atheism as a religion.)
I agree with you, although you assume that at least one is correct and I don't agree with that.
;)
... perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but ... in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds." Moronic definitions like this paint Atheists as weaklings and hypocrits and must be fought. Or at least bickered about.
Well, yes. But I also believe that Christ was/is the Messiah, and my jewish friend does not. We agree that this is a difference of religious belief.
Sociologially speaking, it doesn't matter if any religion is right--though if we count Atheism as a religion, then one is certainly at least close to being right.
But Atheism is merely the absence of religion/a belief in gods. It's not so much an indecision as the recognition that there's no reason to make a decision.
The public actions of atheists disprove this statement. When people who call themselves and identify themselves as atheists bring lawsuits to stop school prayer, or oppose the congressional chaplains, or change how schools teach the Pledge of Allegiance, they're proving that Atheism is more that mere non-belief.
Now, of course, most of the "seperation of church and state" lawsuits are valid, and many of them I agree with--but that's because they favor one religion over another. I don't want the government to favor no religion over membership in a religion--hence, the core reason I want Atheism treated by public instututions as just another religion.
(As far as government and other public institutions are concerned, religion isn't "does the divine exist", but rather "do you believe in the divine?")
As to your points about religion:
1) Religions require faith. Atheism doesn't.
Not all religions require faith. Gnosticism and Bhuddism are good examples.
2) Religions prescribe specific moral codes. Atheism doesn't.
Not all religions prescribe moral codes. Modern Satanism holds no code but self-will; some versions of Christianity have no more of a specific code than "follow the will of God", and expect each follower to find God's will on their own.
3) Religions have followers. Atheism doesn't. Atheists like me may enjoy debating the subject, but we're not followers because there's nothing to follow.
See above: this is a false statement. Atheism does have people who go out and attempt to shape society as Atheists, and people who identify themselves as atheists--followers, if only for lack of a better word.
4) Religions make promises to their followers. Atheism promises nothing.
Satanism and Wicca promise nothing; they merely make a statement about life and have popular interpretations and lifestyle adjustments to that statement.
5) Perhaps most importantly, religions make positive assertions. Atheism (in general) doesn't.
Now, that last point doesn't apply to strong Atheism. Strong Atheism still isn't a religion but it does make a positive assertion and one could argue that strong Atheists should be required to prove that there is no god. Of course that would mean that Christians would have to prove that there is no Odin and followers of Asatru would have to prove that there is no Yahweh, etc, etc. In practice, no one bothers.
Again, I have no interest whatsoever in requiring proof for public society; doing that would wind up creating a new religion, and is generally a bad thing to do if we value the seperation of church and state.
But it sounds like the actual question is "Why do you care if people call Atheism a religion?" The reason that I argue against that assertion is that it leads to misunderstandings about what Atheism is and definitions like Jacques Maritain's "Practical Atheism". According to him, "Practical Atheists" "believe that they believe in God (and
By all means, let us work to stop such false and horrid statements. (Mr. Maritain seems mo
The issue being discussed is whether atheism is a religion.
No. My issue is that atheism, be it technically a religion or not, should be CONSIDERED a religion by all public non-religious institutions: the government, all public corporations, and all political parties.
We have laws that prohibit religious organizations from unduly affecting government, and laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion. I believe that these laws should apply to Atheists and Atheist organizations, and I wholly suspect that you do so as well.
One last point:
In order to have a meaningful debate (or conversation, for that matter), there has to be a mutually agreed upon language with clear meanings behind the words.
Not quite. English, as I alluded to before, is a living, fluid language with variying definitions of words depending on context. When engaging in a dialogue off of the evening news, participants in said dialogue are empowered and required to adjust the technical meaning of a word such as best suits the dialogue.
you agree that my revised definition of "God" to "my cock" is valid and meaningful.
I say again: form a good argument for re-defining the technical definition of God to your cock, and it shall be valid in this context. But it is most childish to attempt to re-define the technical definition of a word so far that it is incompatable with its common definition, and this should not be done so save in circumstances where a wholly new world would be needed and cannot be easily constructed.
Defining "religion" as "a catagory the government puts you in based on your stated belief system" instead of "an organized belief system" is easy enough, and defining "atheism" as "the religion of those that believe in no gods" instead of "the absence of an organized belief system" is equally valid.
(On a side point, saying that all who don't believe in God are atheists is like saying that all who aren't Christians are Pagans. While technically accurate, in common usage it's foolish to do so and is only done as a gimmicky way to allow the minor religion to count far more than logic and reason accredit them for.)
I don't want the government to favor no religion over membership in a religion--hence, the core reason I want Atheism treated by public instututions as just another religion.
This is, I think, the core of the desire of many to treat Atheism as just another religion. If they can convince the government to view things this way then they can push for religion in schools, in courts, etc.
(snip exceptions to my characterizations of religions)
I agree with all of your points. Nevertheless, while all religions meet at least some of these criteria, Atheism meets none of them.
By all means, let us work to stop such false and horrid statements. (Mr. Maritain seems more like a Satanist than an Atheist, truth be told.)
Maritain is actually a Catholic philosopher, the author of The Range of Reason.
To shift gears--if your worry about atheism is misunderstanding and faulty definitions, it seems to me that the best way to counteract this is to form a body of some kind, to argue as a whole for the rights of atheists and aid in the public understanding of atheism. God knows that there are odder churches in the country.
My biggest concern is actually the spread of religion into government, where it has no place. Allowing the government to erroneously categorize Atheism as a religion would pave the way for such things. Fortunately for every Judge Roy Moore who tries to foist religion on the public there's a Fred Phelps to show people why that's a bad thing.
My biggest concern is actually the spread of religion into government, where it has no place.
On what basis, exactly, do you make this claim?
The first amendment prohibits government from interfering with religion--it doesn't disallow ministers from weighing in on political actions, or require elected officials to put aside their faith.
Allowing the government to erroneously categorize Atheism as a religion would pave the way for such things.
That's a slippery slope argument. You might as well disallow doctors from spreading into government, based on Dr. Kevorkian. (You know as well as I that for every Roy Moore or Fred Phelps, there are thousands of judges and priests who meld their religion and their jobs and their politics just fine.)
More than that, the argument doesn't even make sense as a slippery slope. How can limiting atheism allow religion greater influence on government? I fail to see any reasonable means that this transition can occur. (The only way I see that it could happen is that atheism's influence would be reduced--but Atheism-as-Atheism shouldn't be a goverment stance. Public contstructs like government are properly Agnostic, neither themselves atheist nor religious.)
On what basis, exactly, do you make this claim?
On the basis that no religion has demonstrated any evidence of validity. There is no difference between Bush saying "God told me to attack Iraq" and him saying "The Lucky Charms Leprachaun told me to attack Iraq". If you're looking for Constitutional basis, there's Article VI, which states that no religious test shall ever be required to hold an office in the United States.
That's a slippery slope argument. You might as well disallow doctors from spreading into government, based on Dr. Kevorkian. (You know as well as I that for every Roy Moore or Fred Phelps, there are thousands of judges and priests who meld their religion and their jobs and their politics just fine.)
First of all, there's nothing wrong with Dr. Kevorkian so he's not a particularly good example but I understand your point. As long as judges can deal with the law without allowing any religious interference there's no problem if they themselves are religious. But it is never correct for them to make decisions or rulings based on religion.
Public contstructs like government are properly Agnostic, neither themselves atheist nor religious.
Agnosticism is not a third choice between theism and atheism. There is no third choice. Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god or gods can be understood, not whether or not such entities exist. Your point above seems to suggest that you believe atheism is anti-religion; it isn't. It is the lack of religion, which is exactly what we apparently agree is proper for public constructs like government.
On the basis that no religion has demonstrated any evidence of validity.
Demonstrating evidence of validity has never, and should never, be a requirement for influencing government. The only way to prove political or economic theories is to set up a test country, and that's simply not a good idea. (We can't afford to only stick with what we have seen.)
Religion, by and large, is harmless in government, for the simple reason that the only religions that grow to significant size in a country are those that are aligned with the ethics and morals of said country. If you're going to ban religion, you might as well ban political parties and socio-economic theorists from government as well.
Agnosticism is not a third choice between theism and atheism. There is no third choice.
The definitons that you use are far too vauge for this usage. Strong Atheists share all of the faults of fringe religions, and a "weak atheist government" could in its own way be as bad as a Strong Atheist, or Catholic, or Wiccan government.
Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god or gods can be understood, not whether or not such entities exist.
Yes, exactly. Government shouldn't, and by and large doesn't, make a stand either way on whether or not deities--or spirituality of any kind--exist. Government is properly Agnostic--it should simply assume that religious questions cannot be answered by government or law, and act accordintly. The law shouldn't care where the ideas of public officials come from, just so long as they're consistent and roughly aligned with the moral compass of the nation.
Your point above seems to suggest that you believe atheism is anti-religion; it isn't
As a practical matter, whenever you find "Atheism" you find it working against religion. As you've said yourself, atheism does very little but say "your religion is wrong and shouldn't have power over me."
Of course, this gets us back to my original point: Atheism should be treated as a religion by government and public society. Government, Science, and Economoics should be agnostic, and essentially ignore the religious questions that Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence answer.
Any claim an Atheist makes based on Atheism should be given no more or less weight than a claim made by a Christian based on Christianity, and the religious belief of an atheist or a christian should matter no more than the state and town that they call home. A scientist that draws a scientific conclusion that "there is no god" should be greeted with the same skepticism than a scientist who claims to have found evidence of the soul is greeted with. A business that forbids religious missionary work should simply forbid religious discussion of any kind.
Religion, by and large, is harmless in government, for the simple reason that the only religions that grow to significant size in a country are those that are aligned with the ethics and morals of said country.
I don't agree with this statement. Religion is far from harmless in a government.
If you're going to ban religion, you might as well ban political parties and socio-economic theorists from government as well.
This is a strawman; no one has suggested banning religion.
The definitons that you use are far too vauge for this usage.
The definitions I use are not even slightly vague. A theist is anyone who possesses a belief in one or more gods. An atheist is anyone else.
Strong Atheists share all of the faults of fringe religions
No strong atheist has ever fooled people into believing that they would go to paradise by drinking poisoned kool-aid or killing themselves to catch a ride on a comet.
a "weak atheist government" could in its own way be as bad as a Strong Atheist, or Catholic, or Wiccan government.
A religious government would have every vulnerability that a weak atheist one has, plus additional ones resulting from trying to enforce rules that have no basis beyond their presence in bronze-age texts.
Yes, exactly. Government shouldn't, and by and large doesn't, make a stand either way on whether or not deities--or spirituality of any kind--exist. Government is properly Agnostic--it should simply assume that religious questions cannot be answered by government or law, and act accordintly.
You persist in refusing to accept that atheism doesn't state that "God does not exist". The situation you talk about, not taking a stand on religious questions, is atheistic.
As a practical matter, whenever you find "Atheism" you find it working against religion.
Please present evidence of atheism "working against religion". I have never seen such a thing.
As you've said yourself, atheism does very little but say "your religion is wrong and shouldn't have power over me."
The first part of that statement can be presumed correct unless evidence to the contrary is presented and the second part is unquestionably true.
Of course, this gets us back to my original point: Atheism should be treated as a religion by government and public society. Government, Science, and Economoics should be agnostic, and essentially ignore the religious questions that Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence answer.
You persist in using the word "agnostic" where you should be using "atheistic", and you have yet to present a convincing argument that government should ignore what atheism is so that the religious can feel they're on equal grounds.
Any claim an Atheist makes based on Atheism should be given no more or less weight than a claim made by a Christian based on Christianity
No governmental claims are based on atheism; the concept is preposterous. "I don't believe in a god so therefore we should bomb Iraq." It just doesn't happen. Christians, on the other hand, do make governmental claims (such as "abortion should be illegal because a soul enters the body at conception" or "God told me to bomb Iraq") based on Christianity, a belief for which there is no evidence.
the religious belief of an atheist
This is a contradiction in terms.
A scientist that draws a scientific conclusion that "there is no god" should be greeted with the same skepticism than a scientist who claims to have found evidence of the soul is greeted with.
You'd have trouble finding a scientist who claimed they had scientific evidence of the non-existence of god.
A business that forbids religious missionary work should simply forbid religious discussion of any kind.
A business is not a government and is thus irrelevant to this discussion.
*sigh* I'll attempt to keep this short--verbosity merely clouds the discussion in needless rebuttal.
Point the first:
If you're going to ban religion, you might as well ban political parties and socio-economic theorists from government as well.
This is a strawman; no one has suggested banning religion.
There was an implied "in government" corollary to that. To restate: if you're going to unilaterally ban religion from influencing government on the basis that it is unproven, you might as well ban political parties or socio-economic theories, as well.
None of these are harmful to government, simply because any truly dangerous idea would very unlikely make it through the democratic system--and, quite frankly, the risk of a dangerous idea being democratically instituted is less dangerous that the certain dangers of limiting free discourse in government or relying on a non-democratic form of government.
Point the second:
Please present evidence of atheism "working against religion". I have never seen such a thing.
Quite simply, you haven't looked. The most recent example is Michael Newdow's Supreme Court case. He is acting, as an atheist, to alter what he sees as a religious expression, on the basis that it is a religious expression.
Another one is related to a person you mentioned. Larry Darby, "former Alabama state director of American Atheists, who led the protest to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building in Montgomery." (quote from linked article.)
A third example is the case of Michael and William Randall, who were plaintiffs in one of the landmark cases that exempted the Boy Scouts of America from anti-discrimination laws based on the BSA being a private party. (The Randalls were atheists who refused to swear the BSA's religious oath.) [This example is a good example, btw, of atheism being treated already as a religion by the government.]
Atheism, either as lack of faith or faith in the nonexistance of god, is only organized to the extent that it is organized to counter religion's influence in our culture.
Point the third:
You persist in using the word "agnostic" where you should be using "atheistic"
No, I don't. The goverment should not believe in any god, and neither should it have belief nor actual absence of belief in any deity or religion. Goverment, and all other public bodies, should be agnostic--unless religion is important to them, as it undoubtedly is to some, they should simply be of the opinion that they, as public bodies, cannot answer any religious question at all.
I have four small rebuttals, and then I'll make my last point. (Feel free to reply to these, but I will not counter-reply unless specifically invited.)
Rebuttal 1:
Christianity, a belief for which there is no evidence.
There IS evidence for Christianity. Just not enough to be scientifically conclusive. (Were we to hold jury trials to decide the veraicty of religions, much of the evidence for religion would be quite admissable.)
Rebuttal 2:
No governmental claims are based on atheism; the concept is preposterous.
The concept is hardly preposterous. I can concieve of a variety of claims that could be put forth to governemnt wherein a major factor was the falsehood of religion. One example would be an objection to euthanasia, based on the belief that there is nothing after death. Another would be the somewhat repugnant petition of some social clubs for religious tax-exemptions based on religion's supposed falsehood. (Many religions are, essentially, charities, and atheists can simply not provide them with any funds but donate their dollars elsewhere, or keep them for themselves.)
Rebuttal 3:
You'd have trouble finding a scientist who claimed the
None of these are harmful to government, simply because any truly dangerous idea would very unlikely make it through the democratic system--and, quite frankly, the risk of a dangerous idea being democratically instituted is less dangerous that the certain dangers of limiting free discourse in government or relying on a non-democratic form of government.
All of the major religions in this country have commandments or rules that violate the constitution and the basic principles of this country. I would disagree with you that promoting them is not harmful to the country. As for the idea of any truly dangerous idea not getting through the democratic system, well I guess there's something to be said for pie-in-the-sky optimism. But the fact of the matter is that dangerous ideas such as the Patriot Act (which has no religious basis and is just intended as an example of danger) do routinely make it through the democratic process. Religion is far from the only cause of such dangerous ideas but every cause that can be eliminated, should.
Note that I'm not suggesting that theists should not have influence in government; that would be ridiculous. The United States (incidentally I've been assuming you live in the U.S.; it's where I live so it's the country I'm concerned with) is for everyone and all voices should be heard. But I stand by my belief that no religious reason can validate a position, no matter how otherwise reasonable that position might be. For example, murder isn't wrong because the Christian God says it is. It's wrong because it ends the life of an innocent person.
Please present evidence of atheism "working against religion". I have never seen such a thing.
(Snip examples given)
If you consider any attempt to prevent the government from unconstitutionally respecting an establishment of religion to be "working against religion" then yes, people who understand the First Amendment (atheists and theists) will continue to "work against religion". Note that none of these examples is actually someone trying to harm or destroy religion.
You persist in using the word "agnostic" where you should be using "atheistic"
No, I don't. The goverment should not believe in any god, and neither should it have belief nor actual absence of belief in any deity or religion. Goverment, and all other public bodies, should be agnostic--unless religion is important to them, as it undoubtedly is to some, they should simply be of the opinion that they, as public bodies, cannot answer any religious question at all.
You just did it again. The position you describe, with government not believing in any god, is atheistic. You keep talking about government having neither a belief nor an absence of belief as though there were some third option. There isn't.
That is not a contradiction in terms. An atheist does indeed have religious beliefs--be they Strong Atheists or Weak Atheists, strict agnostics, empirical agnostics, or Free Thinkiers, atheists and all those who can be grouped under the unbrella of Atheism do have religious beliefs--and these beliefs should be protected and treated as religious beliefs, the same as any other.
You keep asserting this as though your mere assertion made it so. A lack of belief is not a belief. If you think atheists have religious beliefs, list them.
Which, again, gets me back to the original point. I'll even expand it, so you don't get hung up on definitions that even atheists themselves get hung up on.
I'm glad linked to this page since it argues quite effectively against considering atheism is a religion, in the response to the questions "OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?" and "OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) i
All of the major religions in this country have commandments or rules
Kindly name some tenets of Wicca, Bhuddism, Baptism, or "mainstream Protestantism" that are in opposition to the law of the land.
You keep talking about government having neither a belief nor an absence of belief as though there were some third option. There isn't.
Yes, there is. When discussion such vagarities, we have a word constructed by a "weak Atheist" to describe those who, rather than answering the question, consider the question unanswerable: Agnostics.
You are getting hung up on semantics, which reflects poorly on your intellectual ability. I said that government (et al) should be Agnostic--not that they should or shouldn't be Atheist.
Essentially, you're reflecting the single worst fault about Atheists. Atheism is a creed, like Christianity or the Black Panthers or the Republican Party. NO ONE is an atheist who doesn't consider themselves an atheist--and everyone who does consider themselves an atheist is an atheist, even if they're utterly convinced of God's existance.
Now, YOU don't need to consider anyone who doesn't fit your definition atheists, and you can certainly call anyone an atheist that you want.
Which, of course, gets me (yet again) back to my point--the government, that shared body that makes decisions that effect us all--should treat Atheism as just another religion, and say the @#$ out of the debate.
[Y}ou continue to assert that atheism should be treated as something it is not without providing reasons for doing so.
Fine. I shall spell it out for you.
Government, businesses, political parties, and a good many other secular elements of our society have prohibited themselves from discriminating against people based on religious belief. We have Constitutional Law that explicity states that private parties are allowed to discriminated based on said religious belief. And, finally, there is a well-set inertia against any religious body having an undue influence on the government.
I do not want Atheists discriminated against, I do not want them forbidden from congregating based on Atheism alone, and I do not want Atheist organizations having a disproportionate influence on the government. If Atheists want to, as Atheists, congregate or express their beliefs or influence the government, they should be treated by the same rules that they helped created to restrain and protect religion.
Religion is far from the only cause of such dangerous ideas but every cause that can be eliminated, should.
I simply disagree--and I suspect that most great statemen would also disagree. No source of ideas should be silenced out of fear--in fact, no source of ideas should be silenced at all.
Or, as I said in the post that you replied to: "the risk of a dangerous idea being democratically instituted is less dangerous that the certain dangers of limiting free discourse in government or relying on a non-democratic form of government. "
Kindly name some tenets of Wicca, Bhuddism, Baptism, or "mainstream Protestantism" that are in opposition to the law of the land.
Wicca and Buddhism are not major religions in the United States. I thought from the context that it would be clear that "major" referred to number of followers and visible influence in government but I guess it wasn't. I apologize for confusing you. I expect at this point that you will get bogged down in the semantics of what "major" means. I acknowledge in advance that the word can be applied in many ways and in certain ways Wicca and Buddhism might be major religions. I have clarified my meaning above. As for Baptism and "mainstream Protestantism":
Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.
Reality: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
Yes, there is. When discussion such vagarities, we have a word constructed by a "weak Atheist" to describe those who, rather than answering the question, consider the question unanswerable: Agnostics.
You persist in trying to redefine atheism to mean strong atheism only and to redefine agnosticism as meaning weak atheism. Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god can be understood, not whether or not such an entity exists. I know a man who believes that there must be some god that created the universe, that it could not have come about by itself, but that the nature of this god is beyond his comprehension. He is an agnostic theist.
You are getting hung up on semantics, which reflects poorly on your intellectual ability.
No, I'm hung up on honesty. Trying to change the definitions of words is a common theist tactic but it only works on the dim. As for the ad hominem, fallacies like that won't save you.
Atheism is a creed, like Christianity or the Black Panthers or the Republican Party.
No it isn't. The only thing that atheists have in common is that they do not possess a belief in any gods. That is not a creed. You might be thinking of Humanism.
NO ONE is an atheist who doesn't consider themselves an atheist--and everyone who does consider themselves an atheist is an atheist, even if they're utterly convinced of God's existance.
Wrong. Words have meanings, and the meaning of the word "atheism" precludes anyone who is "utterly convinced of God's existence". You are parroting the words of Maritain, who I mentioned earlier, with his pathetic attempt to define a "Practical Atheist". I'm going to be honest here and admit that I was very surprised to see you write this, as I had come to the conclusion that you weren't a typical theist. Just goes to show the benefits of keeping an open mind and adjusting to new evidence as it appears, I guess.
I do not want Atheists discriminated against, I do not want them forbidden from congregating based on Atheism alone, and I do not want Atheist organizations having a disproportionate influence on the government. If Atheists want to, as Atheists, congregate or express their beliefs or influence the government, they should be treated by the same rules that they helped created to restrain and protect religion.
The first reason given here is irrational. There is no concern that atheists would be forbidden from congregating since the First Amendment specifically acknowledges the right of the people peaceably to assemble. As for the second, the only reason atheist organizations exist is to block theist organizations that attempt to take away our First Amendment rights.
You seem to have this perception of atheists gathering to discuss and celebrate atheism the same way theists do their religion. In general, we don't. I mean, what is there to discuss? "Hey, do you believe in any gods?" "Nope!" "Me neither!" Hardly worth the drive, especially with gas prices these days. In general, atheism is not something we dwell on too much; a lack of belief does no
Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.
Which is an argument for seperation of church and state. Bad example.
No, I'm hung up on honesty. Trying to change the definitions of words is a common theist tactic but it only works on the dim. As for the ad hominem, fallacies like that won't save you.
Bullocks. If anyone is making ad hominem attacks it is you. YOU are the one who is misinterpreting what I'm saying because you have an irrational dislike of atheism being treated as a religion by the government.
You seem to have this perception of atheists gathering to discuss and celebrate atheism the same way theists do their religion.
No, I don't. And I've said as such. To paraphrase: "Atheists only organize to the extent that they do organize to oppose religion." They don't gather as Atheists to celebrate, to donate to charities, or to form communities.
When an atheist does any of these things, they choose from secular and even religous extant bodies, and if they must form a new body, they generally won't label it as "atheist" unless they specifically want to counterbalance the influence of organized religion.
This is, of course, their right. But "Atheist" organizations should be treated exactly the same as "Christian" organizations by all such organizations that are neither Atheist nor Christian.
The position that you claim you want government to hold is (weakly) atheistic. You seem to have some sort of problem with the word "atheistic" so you want to substitute "agnostic". You seem to want to redefine atheism to mean strong atheism. Well, we're not having it.
(We?)
The term "Agnostic" was coined to mean PRECISELY what I'm using it for: a third choice between, to use your crude bungling of the language, atheism and theism. Atheism is a loaded term that is imprecise for the purposes of our discussion; thus, it is appropriate to use the newer term of "Agnostic" to define a position that is neither for nor against religion.
Furthermore, I am not attempting to "redefine" what religion means. I simply recognize that language is a flexible thing, and for a good deal of contexts, atheism can indeed be catagorized as "a religion." But I suspect that you'll fail to grasp the fine point or the imprecision of our language.
Quite simply, you have fallen into zealous and rote repetition of dogma even though it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. While I am urged by my ethics, morals, and religion to seek love and understanding, I fear that no more understanding will come from this discussion.
Quite simply, you have fallen into zealous and rote repetition of dogma even though it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Pot. Kettle.
Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.
Which is an argument for seperation of church and state. Bad example.
You requested an example of a Baptist/Protestant religious rule that contradicts the laws of the land. I provided one. You're welcome.
Bullocks. If anyone is making ad hominem attacks it is you.
This is an odd thing for you to say given the insult in the message I replied to plus the ones in your latest message that I will be quoting later on.
The term "Agnostic" was coined to mean PRECISELY what I'm using it for: a third choice between, to use your crude bungling of the language, atheism and theism.
"Crude bungling of the language" is ad hominem. Hope that information helps you can watch out for that sort of thing in the future. As for your actual point, you're wrong. "Agnostic" was coined to describe the position "That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty." This position, when applied to the question of the existence of a god, results in atheism. Weak atheism, to be precise. You continue to claim there is a third choice between having a belief in something and not having a belief in something but you fail to specify the details of what that choice is, just spouting the word "agnostic" as though your mere use of the word made your point for you. It's as though you just expect me to "see the light" and abandon the position of rationality. Read any Jack Chick tracts lately?
Furthermore, I am not attempting to "redefine" what religion means.
I do not believe you are attempting to redefine "religion". You are expressing a desire to treat atheism as if it were a religion even though you seem to understand that it isn't. I see no benefit to atheists were that to happen, although I can see how theists would like to be able to claim that atheism is just another religion and act as though it required proof the same way their religion of choice does. You'll forgive me if I don't fall all over myself to accommodate theists at my own expense.
I simply recognize that language is a flexible thing, and for a good deal of contexts, atheism can indeed be catagorized as "a religion."
You keep saying this and you keep failing to provide examples of these "good deal of contexts". One thing you need to learn about atheists is that we tend to require evidence before we accept a person's assertions. If you really are "seeking understanding" you'll start providing some.
But I suspect that you'll fail to grasp the fine point or the imprecision of our language.
This is another ad hominem. Just so you know, ad hominems usually work best when you have a third party audience of idiots. Your use of them would be an insult to the other people reading this discussion if there were any. I'm guessing that you and I are the only ones here so you needn't bother with the attacks.
I'm also guessing from your final paragraph that you are seeking an end to this conversation. To be honest, you sound like you're getting really stressed out about this. I don't expect to convince you of anything and based on your existing "arguments" (for lack of a better word) you shouldn't expect to convince me of anything. Please feel free to not respond if you're getting stressed. This discussion is not provoking an emotional response in me so I have no problem continuing if you do decide to respond. It's up to you.
Which explains your fairly irrational dislike of the idea of Atheism being considered a religion.
In all honesty, you should admit that this is the state that we live in now, not some theoretical adjustmet to the state. Atheists are protected by the "Freedom of religion" clause in the First Amendment, and there have been a fair ammount of cases wherein they have benefited from the specific provisions of said law.
One last point:
"Crude bungling of the language" is ad hominem.
No, it's a comment. An ad hominem attack would be if, in addition to noting that you're bungling the language, I claimed that said bungling defeated your points; I made no such claim. (The closest we've gotten is your assertation that religions, as a "source of bad ideas", should be limited in speech.)
To explain my comment:
Essentially no one calls themselves "theists", and as an opposite for atheism (as you used it) it's only tenably acceptable. A much fairer grouping of options would be a list I provided earlier: Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence. We could even add "Spirituallity" to the list if we wanted to.
Now, of course, there ARE cross-overs between the groups, but the six words I chose are good broad catagories for individuals to find their religious belief within (even if said belief is "there's nothing out there").
One more thing, since you asked:
I simply recognize that language is a flexible thing, and for a good deal of contexts, atheism can indeed be catagorized as "a religion."
You keep saying this and you keep failing to provide examples of these "good deal of contexts". One thing you need to learn about atheists is that we tend to require evidence before we accept a person's assertions. If you really are "seeking understanding" you'll start providing some.
Sure, but I'll be repeating myself.
Atheism MUST be considered a religion:
When speaking in the context of agnostic government institutions or other public bodies
When applying Civil Rights laws
When evaluating scientific claims that do not pertain to theology or sociology. (i.e., in a physics paper, any mention of God or gods save by parable should be striken, be it pro-God or anti-God.)
Atheism CAN be considered a religion:
By individuals seeking a religion that fits their beliefs
By Sociological or Theological academia working from an agnostic or non-atheist point of view.
In statistics research.
Atheism MUST NOT be considered a religion:
In Atheist "anti-religious" marketing materials, such as an "anti-tract" or a Strong Atheist website.
When dicussing the benefit or harm of religion on society.
When speculating on hypothetical future mergins of religions.
Now, I'll admit that the last catagory is a bit sparse--but, in intelletual honesty, I couldn't find three good contexts where atheism should not be treated as a religion.
You have made claims that religions require proof (they do not), and that atheism is somehow harmed by being considered a religion (I cannot see any just way why this is so). If you would care to take the time, kindly elaborate and provide some supporting logic for either of your claims.
In an attempt to keep your answer clear: Public Bodies supposedly require proof for religious (or otherwise) claims because they are agnostic--they simply do not consider the religion question.
(I believe that we can both agree that "Agnosticism" and "Weak Atheism" are essentially synonyms. Please state "All Atheists" or "Strong Atheists" if you mean more than mere disbelief or followers of the Atheist creed.)
In all honesty, you should admit that this is the state that we live in now, not some theoretical adjustmet to the state. Atheists are protected by the "Freedom of religion" clause in the First Amendment, and there have been a fair ammount of cases wherein they have benefited from the specific provisions of said law.
No. Atheism is protected by the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. The default position of government is atheistic (the U.S. government does not possess a belief in any god) and the aforementioned clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from promoting any religion.
Essentially no one calls themselves "theists", and as an opposite for atheism (as you used it) it's only tenably acceptable. A much fairer grouping of options would be a list I provided earlier: Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence. We could even add "Spirituallity" to the list if we wanted to.
Theist is the opposite of atheist. It's not some word that I just made up. There is no justification for you to describe it as "tenuously acceptable". No one calls themselves "theists" outside of texts discussing religions. Essentially no one calls themselves "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" outside of scientific texts but that doesn't mean the category is non-existent or in some way invalid. The two basic categories are atheist and theist. Theist can be further divided into monotheist, polytheist and pantheist (and probably others as people develop new types of beliefs). These categories can be further divided. Monotheist can be divided into Christian (which can then be further divided), Islamic, and so on. Some people don't bother acknowledging the distinctions but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Atheism MUST be considered a religion:
I said evidence, not more assertion. You fail to provide evidence for any of these points. To respond to each:
As for when it can be considered a religion, well, there's no stopping people from failing to understand simple definitions.
I find it interesting that you claim that atheism must not be considered a religion when discussing the benefit or harm of religion on society. That again seems to indicate that you acknowledge that it is not a religion so it seems that you just have some reason for promoting confusion about the term.
You have made claims that religions require proof (they do not)
Actually, I believe I used the word evidence, which is distinct from proof. They do not require evidence in order for people to believe in them (this much is obvious) but they certainly require evidence in order to be taken seriously by people who do not believe in them. And for every religion out there, non-believers outnumber believers.
In an attempt to keep your answer clear: Public Bodies supposedly require proof for religious (or otherwise) claims because they are agnostic--t
He says his entire web team runs on Mac OS X, but Netcraft says he is a liar!
And yes, he does use Slash, but he also ripped out the X-Fry header quotes. YOU BASTARD.
And all that is far worse, to me, then his lies about Bush not doing anything about North Korea and making the situation worse when it is clear that the Bush administration has been heavily engaged with North Korea and had a huge success in getting six-way, multilateral, talks going for the first time in many years (bilateral talks have been a major part of the problem with North Korea). Sure, there's work to do, but it is excellent progress, and it's a simple lie to say Bush has been "disengaged" with North Korea, has not been making significant progress, and to say that the ongoing diplomacy has been a "failure."
When asked what Edwards would do, he said, "I would sit with North Korea in a very tough way and negotiate." Right, because aligning Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, and the U.S. against North Korea, all in the same room, is not "sitting with North Korea in a very tough way and negotiating." He's so full of it.
He's also full of it on tort reform (he, a former trial attorney himself, gets most of his campaign money from attorneys and their employees), on support for the war (he fully supports the war, but think Bush did it the wrong way, even though at the time he fully supported it), and on the economy (Bush's tax cuts HURT the economy before they went into effect, but now that they have taken effect and the economy is coming back, they certainly can't get any credit!).
But I could vote for him regardless of his position on North Korea, and taxes, and tort reform, and the war, if only he would come clean on his use of FreeBSD!
I'm not sure why you thought I would just agree to use your erroneous definitions when much of the argument is about those very definitions.
Arguing about definitons is foolhardy. I was conceding your use of terms as you mean them and asking that, for accuracy's sake, you specify when you were discussing more than mere weak atheism or the rights of those who call themselves atheists.
Where you trying to trick me?
No. I was attempting to clarify the discussion. Were it convenient, we could use complete nonsense words (or numbers, or letters) to stand-in for contested phrases.
You again, for your own zealous reasons, refuse to accept my opinion that government should be agnostic. You can take this to mean "non-Strong Atheist" if you like; I find such terminology needlessly complex, and prefer the single term of "Agnostic."
Agnosticism: The position that it is an error to believe an assertion without evidence. Often applied to the subject of gods as the position that it is impossible to know the nature of a god or gods.
The term "Agnostic" was coined specifically in a religious context. Your continued definiton of "Atheist" as "someone who does not believe" is emminently compatable with "someone who is of the opinion that we do not have sufficient evidence to believe in God" and, for the purposes of this discussion, "Agnostic" is essentially synonymous with "Atheist."
There is no dishonesty here, merely an attempt to clarify positions. Your refusal to accept an alterate and emminently reasonable usage of words seems, to me, a sign of a closed mind.
Back to the root of the matter:
I said evidence, not more assertion. You fail to provide evidence for any of these points. To respond to each:
You fail to provide evidence against. I am discussiong "shoulds" and "musts" as theoetical and intellectual prioriites in keeping with the principles of jurisprudence and liberty.
* You misspelled "atheistic" as "agnostic" when describing government institutions or other public bodies.
That's a childish maintenance of your near-zealous definition. You are free to call the government "atheistic", and I am free to call it "agnostic." We both agree that it should take no stance on matters of religion, and that mere religious evidence is insufficient grounds for government action.
Because of the necessary liberty of freedom of religion, the government should treat someone who identifies themselves as an "atheist" the same as someone who calls themselves a "christian", "muslim", "jew", "Jedi", "Scientologist", or "Freethinker." In a like vein, an organization that identifies itself as "Atheist" should be treated the same as an organization that calls itself "Pagan", "Christian", "New Age", or "Mormon."
* I pointed out your First Amendment error above; atheism does not need to be treated as a religion in order for the rights of atheists to be protected.
Most civl rights laws and anti-discrimination clauses use language similar to "no discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion." Atheism should be considered a "religion"--wherever a body is allowed to discriminate on the basis of religions, it should be able to exclude atheists, and wherever a body is unable to discriminate based on religion, it should not be able to specifically exclude atheists.
* You seem to think atheism is "anti-god". It isn't. I think this is the basis of your objection to the term. It seems to make you feel better to erroneously use the word "agnostic" instead of "atheistic" but it simply isn't accurate.
1: Strong Atheism is anti-religion, and a good deal of the public propaganda labeled as Atheist is in intent or effect anti-religious. Moreover, I specifically identified anti-religious material; my statement specifically excludes material that is not aimed against religion.
2: My objection, as you call it, is based in sm
The term "Agnostic" was coined specifically in a religious context. Your continued definiton of "Atheist" as "someone who does not believe" is emminently compatable with "someone who is of the opinion that we do not have sufficient evidence to believe in God" and, for the purposes of this discussion, "Agnostic" is essentially synonymous with "Atheist."
However, the majority of my preference of the use of the term "agnostic" is that is clearer and more accurate than "non-Strong Atheists" or "Atheist in the matter of weak atheists".
The problem is that this isn't true. Not all agnostics are atheists and not all atheists are agnostics. Not even all weak atheists are agnostics. There is not a 1 to 1 correlation so it is simply not correct. You are asking me to accept an inaccuracy for no reason other than that you don't like the word atheism because it has bad connotations for you. You can keep calling me a zealot until you're blue in the face and it won't change the reality of the situation.
Your main point about considering atheism a religion is your fear that atheists will be discriminated against because such discrimination would not be considered a violation of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause of the First Amendment. I don't accept that this is a threat because allowing discrimination against atheists in favor of the religious would violate the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. You think that an entity forbidden to discriminate on the basis of which religion would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of no religion. History does not support that position.
Tomatos aren't vegetables, women aren't men and pet fish are pets. You have stated cases where people have decided to promote a deliberate inaccuracy because it was easier than the alternative (change the law to cover vegetables and fruits, change laws all over the place to cover women and men and rewrite rental agreements, respectively). I do not agree that there is any necessity to do so in this case and given the confusion that already exists regarding the meaning of the term "atheist" I think that any such action would be harmful to atheists.
The whole thing boils down to the idea that weak atheists should call themselves "agnostics" to make things easier for people who don't want to think about the subject. I decline to cooperate. I, much like the United States government, lack a belief in any god so I am an atheist. There are no creeds, no religious beliefs, no vast conspiracy to destroy religion. I will not pretend otherwise for anyone's benefit.
Tomatos aren't vegetables, women aren't men and pet fish are pets. You have stated cases where people have decided to promote a deliberate inaccuracy because it was easier than the alternative
No. In legal cases, how the law is written at the time of the cause of action is what must be used--and judges do not have the power to re-write whole swaths of law.
If you want to argue about how the law should be run, feel free--but that's outside the purview of our disucssion.
The whole thing boils down to the idea that weak atheists should call themselves "agnostics" to make things easier for people who don't want to think about the subject.
Where did you get that idea? Atheists are free to call themselves whatever they want--and when the Census Bureau wonders where to put down "Atheist" on a Census form, "Religion" is still the right slot.
I decline to cooperate. I, much like the United States government, lack a belief in any god so I am an atheist. There are no creeds, no religious beliefs, no vast conspiracy to destroy religion. I will not pretend otherwise for anyone's benefit.
Point 1: Large parts of the US government have a non-agnostic, non-atheist religion. Government service compels these persons to seek secular corellation for any religious conviction they seek to set into law. It does not, and should not, require them to put aside their religious view.
Hence, calling the US Government "Atheist" is, at the least, as misleading as calling it "Chrisitan."
Point 2: For someone who claims that Atheism is merely a word and not a creed or religion, you seem awfuly admant about not being called anything else.
No. In legal cases, how the law is written at the time of the cause of action is what must be used--and judges do not have the power to re-write whole swaths of law.
I agree. Thus, it is easier and more useful to accept a deliberate inaccuracy than to try to get Congress to rewrite a whole bunch of laws. I agree that it makes sense in the cases that you list; I do not agree that it makes sense for the topic we are discussing.
Where did you get that idea? Atheists are free to call themselves whatever they want--and when the Census Bureau wonders where to put down "Atheist" on a Census form, "Religion" is still the right slot.
I got the idea from the fact that in an earlier message you asked me to use the term "all atheists" to refer to what are merely strong atheists and stated that I should agree that "weak atheist" and "agnostic" are synonyms, which they are not. As for your census example, you are assuming your conclusion; the census taker would write "None" in the religion box, not atheism as it is not a religion.
Point 1: Large parts of the US government have a non-agnostic, non-atheist religion. Government service compels these persons to seek secular corellation for any religious conviction they seek to set into law. It does not, and should not, require them to put aside their religious view.
Hence, calling the US Government "Atheist" is, at the least, as misleading as calling it "Chrisitan."
You are treating the government as the collection of people who serve in it, in which case calling it "agnostic" is also wrong as that does not describe even close to a majority of government officials. I am treating it the organization it is which, since it lacks a belief in any god, is atheistic. There are no parts of the government that have "a non-agnostic, non-atheist religion".
Point 2: For someone who claims that Atheism is merely a word and not a creed or religion, you seem awfuly admant about not being called anything else.
You are attempting to make the following argument:
Premise: You are adamant about what you are called.
Premise: Only people who follow creeds or religions are adamant about what they are called.
Conclusion: You are following a creed or religion.
Your second premise is obviously false. For your information, it is not that I am not willing to be called agnostic. I am in fact an agnostic atheist. What I object to is theists attempting to redefine atheism as something it is not. One reason I object to this is that it confuses people about what atheism is and causes them to draw incorrect conclusions about me when I describe myself as an atheist.
I can't help noticing that you seem awfully adamant about redefining atheism as merely "strong atheism" and classifying it as a religion. You seem to be able to accept that there are a lot of people who don't have a religion; why do you object to the word "atheist"?
You are attempting to make the following argument:
No, I'm not. You are, for the Nth time, committing a logical fallicy of reading more into what I'm saying that I'm saying.
I was merely noting the odd nature of your position with regards to being called an atheist. The implication that Atheism *IS* a religion (rather than merely falling under some definitions of religion for certain purposes and contexts) is one that you are making, not me.
I can't help noticing that you seem awfully adamant about redefining atheism as merely "strong atheism" and classifying it as a religion
You notice wrong. I am perfectly willing to accept your usage of the word "atheism." My preference for other words does not negate this. (Note that I have not said that the USA's government is not atheist; merely that it is no more "atheist" than it is "christian.")
Your actions, in general, are consistent with a classification of "atheism" as a religion/creed/party of some strong sort. You certain stick to your opinions with the same zeal as any Christian I've met.
While I can appreciate a desire for accuracy, my experience has been that accuracy in such matters is best served by putting aside terms which the parties have "religious-like" opinions on and focusing on the root of what is being discussed.
I was merely noting the odd nature of your position with regards to being called an atheist. The implication that Atheism *IS* a religion (rather than merely falling under some definitions of religion for certain purposes and contexts) is one that you are making, not me.
No, when you say "For someone who claims that Atheism is merely a word and not a creed or religion, you seem awfuly admant about not being called anything else." you are implying that my position on the subject means I privately consider atheism a creed or religion. You keep trying to put words in my mouth, as in the paragraph to which I am replying, but I have made my position on the subject clear.
Note that I have not said that the USA's government is not atheist; merely that it is no more "atheist" than it is "christian."
I know that this is what you keep saying; it doesn't change the fact that government (as an organization) is completely atheist and not at all christian. The people who serve in government come from various religions and lacks thereof, but the organization itself has no religious beliefs.
Your actions, in general, are consistent with a classification of "atheism" as a religion/creed/party of some strong sort.
This is not the first time you've made this assertion. Let's see some evidence. In what way are my actions consistent with classifying atheism as a religion/creed/party? What religion concerns itself with the importance of using the word "atheism" accurately? What's the URL to the creed I am espousing? Who's the leader of the party that follows that creed?
You certain stick to your opinions with the same zeal as any Christian I've met.
You imply that only Christians have strong opinions. This is obviously false.
While I can appreciate a desire for accuracy, my experience has been that accuracy in such matters is best served by putting aside terms which the parties have "religious-like" opinions on and focusing on the root of what is being discussed.
You have argued that the term "atheism" should not be used to describe weak atheism and I have argued that it should. It is unsurprising that your "solution" is to abandon the term "atheism", which just coincidentally matches your position. Naturally, you don't say how this will make things more "accurate". You just continue to assume your conclusions and argue by assertion. I continue to be unimpressed, and unmoved.
We have laws that prohibit religious organizations from unduly affecting government, and laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion. I believe that these laws should apply to Atheists and Atheist organizations, and I wholly suspect that you do so as well.
I've already explained that we atheists are protected by the "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" part of the First Amendment and therefore do not need to lie about our position to avoid being discriminated against. Such a lie benefits only the theists.
Defining "religion" as "a catagory the government puts you in based on your stated belief system" instead of "an organized belief system" is easy enough,
Easy enough, but also irrational and done only with the agenda of giving people the impression that organized religions enjoy the same unimpeachable defensibilty associated with the absence of a belief in gods. Not a valid or useful definition at all.
and defining "atheism" as "the religion of those that believe in no gods" instead of "the absence of an organized belief system" is equally valid.
Well, "0 == 0" is true so I suppose you could say that both of your redefinitions are equally valid. They're still not worth taking seriously. You also use the phrase "the absence of an organized belief system" as though that were the true definition of atheism, when in fact you know it is actually "the lack of belief in any gods".
(On a side point, saying that all who don't believe in God are atheists is like saying that all who aren't Christians are Pagans. While technically accurate, in common usage it's foolish to do so and is only done as a gimmicky way to allow the minor religion to count far more than logic and reason accredit them for.)
Translation: I am threatened by the word "atheism" and don't want people to realize just how many atheists there are out there so I'll try to classify them as just another religion and hope nobody pays too much attention to the utter invalidity of all of my arguments.
Your attempt to subtlely describe atheism as a "minor religion" is noted and rejected. It is, however, good that you acknowledge that is is accurate to say that all those who don't believe in a god are atheists.
Easy enough, but also irrational and done only with the agenda of giving people the impression that organized religions enjoy the same unimpeachable defensibilty associated with the absence of a belief in gods. Not a valid or useful definition at all.
"unimpeachable defensiblity" is not something that mere absence of evidence can never give. Organized or not, Strong or Weak, Atheism is an answer to a religious question, and secular civilization simply cannot determine one answer's worth when balanced against another
Translation: I am threatened by the word "atheism" and don't want people to realize just how many atheists there are out there so I'll try to classify them as just another religion and hope nobody pays too much attention to the utter invalidity of all of my arguments.
Sheesh.
That's an ad hominem attack that doesn't even attempt to refute my point.
I am actualy very curious as to how many people identify themselves as atheists, agnostics, "disbelievers", 'undecided', and just about any answer you could give to "what religion are you?"
It is, however, good that you acknowledge that is is accurate to say that all those who don't believe in a god are atheists.
I said it was "technically acccurate." As in, "sure, it's technically accurate to call Hindus Pagans, but it's a useless overextension for modern discourse."
By your definition, the government would count people who attend church every day with their children but don't really believe as atheists, even though said persons would never identify themselves as atheists.
Your attempt to subtlely describe atheism as a "minor religion" is noted and rejected.
It is. Face it.
"unimpeachable defensiblity" is not something that mere absence of evidence can never give.
In the lack of any evidence of the existence of any god, a lack of belief in such is not open to rational attack. If you dispute this, launch your attack. Explain to us why it is irrational to lack a belief in any god.
Organized or not, Strong or Weak, Atheism is an answer to a religious question
You say that as though the fact that "I lack a belief in any god" is an answer to the question "do you believe in in god?" means that atheism is a religion. Naturally, this is foolish. "I lack an interest in baseball" is an answer to the question "Of what baseball team are you a fan?" but that doesn't mean that an "abaseballist" (to coin a term that I'm sure will catch on fast) is just another type of fan.
and secular civilization simply cannot determine one answer's worth when balanced against another
Secular/Atheist civilization can determine the relative value of belief versus lack of belief by seeing which position matches objective reality, the only realm in which civilization operates.
That's an ad hominem attack that doesn't even attempt to refute my point.
You don't have a point. In the message to which I replied you said "While technically accurate, in common usage it's foolish to do so and is only done as a gimmicky way to allow the minor religion to count far more than logic and reason accredit them for." You assert that it is foolish to use the correct definition of atheism and erroneously refer to it as a "minor religion" even though in other messages you have admitted that it is not. You do not provide any evidence or reason behind your assertion but instead just expect everyone to accept it because you have spoken. I have explained to you repeatedly that I, and most atheists, do not simply accept assertions without evidence. If we did, we'd probably be theists.
I am actualy very curious as to how many people identify themselves as atheists, agnostics, "disbelievers", 'undecided', and just about any answer you could give to "what religion are you?"
It would be interesting to do an actual honest study of how many people lack a belief in any god but it would be hard to accurately count the people who don't actually follow the teachings of any religion but still list themselves as "christian" to fit in and avoid conflict as well as those who actively disbelieve but still attend a church because they have no choice (in the case of kids having to obey theist parents) or fear persecution (particularly in countries with official religions).
I said it was "technically acccurate." As in, "sure, it's technically accurate to call Hindus Pagans, but it's a useless overextension for modern discourse."
Your analogy is defective. You fail to specify how it is a "useless overextension" to correctly count anyone who doesn't believe in god as an atheist. The only reasonable conclusion from your continued refusal to accept the true number of atheists in the world is that you are threatened by the fact that an increasingly large number of people do not believe in your god or indeed in any god and by the fact that these people are doing just fine without those beliefs. If you believe you have been misjudged then this is your opportunity to explain in detail why you have a problem with all of the people who lack a belief in any god being correctly identified as atheists.
By your definition, the government would count people who attend church every day with their children but don't really believe as atheists, even though said persons would never identify themselves as atheists.
These people are atheists; how they choose to identify themselves is irrelevant. If you were born in the United States and were a U.S. citizen but did not wish to refer to yourself as "American" it would not change the truth of what you were. Atheists who hide the
Dude, you're my hero. I quit responding to this guy a while ago when I realized you were doing a better job than I could hope to.
Thank you very much. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who disagrees with what this guy is saying. If you see problems with his arguments you should continue to post; the more voices contributing to the discussion the better.
:)
As an aside, I just looked back to the start of this discussion and it's pretty funny that the whole thing started with someone making an offhand joke about inferring a person's religion based on his choice of toothpaste and someone else responding that he was atheist but still brushed. Being on slashdot, I'm surprised it didn't turn into an argument about whether or not Linux is a religion.
The only reasonable conclusion from your continued refusal to accept the true number of atheists in the world is that you are threatened by the fact that an increasingly large number of people do not believe in your god or indeed in any god and by the fact that these people are doing just fine without those beliefs
Again with the ad-hominem attacks.
Please cite some staistics for the number of people who don't believe in a divine being, who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian divine being, and the number of people who consider themselves atheists.
Until then, please don't assume that your allegation that there are a great number of atheists in the world as fact. There may very well be, and I would be interested to see some real numbers, but your allegation that there are is no more valid than the opposite interpretation.
You have given what you call your reasons and I have refuted every one of them
No, you haven't. You have ignored many of my arguments, responded to several with
(I will re-state one point: Religion is not strictly without evidence. There are numerous instances and recollections that, while insufficient for scientific determination, do meet the standards of evidence for litigation.
Of course, how much or how little evidence exists for religion isn't relevant here; we're discussing grammar, remember?)
I never claimed that it was irrational to lack a believe in God. Rather, I simply asserted that it was no more rational or irrational to believe or not believe.
I understand your assertion; I just don't agree with it. In the absence of evidence, it is less rational to believe in something than it is to not believe in it. Otherwise, how can a person justify not believing in all religions simultaneously, not to mention unicorns and leprauchauns?
Reason and morality are neither synonyms nor strongly related.
"Moral" may not have been the best word to use; my point was that I am not trying to use the word "irrational" as an insult, merely as a descriptive term. I would however argue that there is a case for a strong relation between reason and morality, based on the works of Kant and other philosophers. This would of course be even more of a digression than where we are now.
Please cite some staistics for the number of people who don't believe in a divine being, who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian divine being, and the number of people who consider themselves atheists.
You are missing the point. "Atheist" is a term that includes people who lack a belief in any god and people who make the positive assertion that there is no god. You wish to exclude the first category, thus reducing the total number of people referred to as "atheist". That this would be the result is not subject to debate since the set of people in the first category is not zero. For example, I am in the first category.
No, you haven't. You have ignored many of my arguments, responded to several with
Which arguments have I ignored?
irrelvenant attacks (why is it relevant AT ALL what I or you believe for the sake of this discussion?)
My beliefs were brought into the discussion by your questions about what my stake was in insisting on the use of the correct definition of "atheism". Your beliefs were brought into the discussion by me as mere speculation about your possible reasons for insisting of the use of a definition that you have agreed is incorrect (even if you use the irrelevant modifier "technically"). You have failed to present a valid argument for the use of your admittedly incorrect definition (your discrimination concerns were dealt with by the First Amendment) so I speculated that you were threatened by the word "atheist". This speculation was fueled primarily by your description of the term as "anti-religion" but also to a small extent by similar discussions I have had with theists who objected to the word.
faulty logic (rational minds can disagree; my disagreeing with you does not make me irrational, even if you are rational)
Your disagreement with me does not make you irrational. I described your behavior patterns as irrational in the sense that they are not based on reason; you did not disagree with this description.
unnecessary inflexibility with regards to the definition of what you claim is a mere word
You have continually failed to describe why it is "necessary" to be "flexible" (inaccurate) about the definition of the word atheist. As you point out later in your post this is the basis of the whole argument, so your objection to my steadfast refusal to abandon my position and adopt yours on the basis of your staggering collection of no arguments at all is surprising.
unfounded allegations of malice at any suggestion on my behalf to clarify issues in an attempt to further the discussion
To paraphrase Arthur Dent, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "clarify" that I wasn't previously aware of. I've explained the basis of my speculation about your motives above and have, in my prior message, invited you give an explanation of those motives.
In the past you claimed that you were concerned that atheists would be discriminated against because they would lack the protection of the "... prohibiting the free
I propose that we table, as talked-to-death, my original point--and instead move on to things on which we may be able to actually come to an understanding. ... insisting of the use of a definition that you have agreed is incorrect
Now, I never agreed that the definition of "atheist" or "atheism" that I was using was wrong--merely that your use was "technically correct", with an immediate note that I felt it to be impoper.
"Atheism" is a tricky word to use, because it is an invented word that has both entered the vulgar lexicon and been used as an identifier of a "movement" of sorts, despite that movement's subsequent fractionalization into finer shadings of meaning.
It doesn't have the same easy-identification that other adjectives such as "Christian" or "right-handed" do. Hyopthetically, if we were to conduct a poll to determine the ammount of atheiests in America, what sort of questions would we ask? Heck, what would be consider "atheist" for the purposes of the study?
IMO, this hypothetical study would be best served by using specific terms: "self-identified atheists", "strong atheists", "undecideds", and some other term for those who follow religious traditions but believe the religion's stance on the divine to be false.
To paraphrase Arthur Dent, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "clarify" that I wasn't previously aware of. I've explained the basis of my speculation about your motives above and have, in my prior message, invited you give an explanation of those motives.
I believe you are referring to the following (from this post)
(I believe that we can both agree that "Agnosticism" and "Weak Atheism" are essentially synonyms. Please state "All Atheists" or "Strong Atheists" if you mean more than mere disbelief or followers of the Atheist creed.)
Now, your respone of denying the first belief is, IMO, at best a technical rebuttal that ignores context; when discussing religious beliefs (or, if you prefer, "the existance of God"), an "agnostic" and a "weak atheist" have essentially the same position for essentially the same reason.
The odd part is your apparantly emotional reaction to the second part of my statement. Perhaps I phrased it too simply; allow me to specify better:
I know that I cannot alter your usage of "atheist", and I have no reason to attempt. However, for the sake of clarity, can you please specify when you are referring to Strong Atheists or disbeliving persons who do not consider themselves atheists?
Are you abandoning your position on classifying atheism as a religion or are you just trying to avoid the hard questions?
No. I am merely attempting to bring order to the discussion in hopes that a real understanding can be reached. I think you can see as well as I that neither of us will gain any understanding at all without some order to this chaos.
My use contradicts yours, which is why when you describe mine as "technically correct" you describe your own as "technically incorrect". I do not believe you will be able to point to posts you have made in the past where you describe your definition as technically correct.
Your use of atheism is different, but not contradictory, to mine. I believe that you have said that "atheism is not anti-religion", which means that it clearly is not the mere opposite of religion.
Now, a simple view is to term atheism as a mere inversion of "theism"--instead of "there are gods", "there are no gods." By this term, we could classify Bhuddism, Shinto, and some variants of Humanism as Atheist. And, were we discussing the characteristics of moral systems that do and do not include gods, this would be a fair distinction.
However, in the common vernacular, "Atheism" has a more specific meaning than "A religion that doesn't belive in gods." It is commonly understood to include a lack of belief in not only in divine all-powerful beings, but also in souls, reincarnation, and a good deal of other spiritual or theological concepts.
Using Atheism to mean something more than what it means--by applying it to people who are not atheists and would neither consider themselves atheists nor likely be considered atheists by atheists--strikes me as contributing only to the confusion and upset regarding atheism that you so stridently hope to avoid.
Hence, "technical correctness" is so misleading as to be effectively "wrong" for our purposes. It is "technically correct" to call Hindus, Native Americans, and Bhuddists "pagans", but such a broad catagorization lacks understanding and should not be used outside of a few very specific contexts.
"Atheism" is a tricky word to use, because it is an invented word that has both entered the vulgar lexicon and been used as an identifier of a "movement" of sorts, despite that movement's subsequent fractionalization into finer shadings of meaning.
Your assertion that atheism is a "tricky" word appears to be baseless; the word atheism traces back to the Greek "atheos" and I do not see how you can deride it as an "invented word" as it is no more "invented" than any other word.
The fact that a word bases on a Greek root does not imply that it dates back to ancient Greece; merely, instead, that its inventor had a knowledge of the grecian language.
I did a quick search, and discovered a site that claims that the modern usage of the term "atheism" (and "theism") dates back only to the time of the French Enlightenment.
Etymology aside, Atheism remains a "tricky" term because it has so many distinct shades of meaning. A common dictionary search, returning 3 sources, lists "godlessness" as a second definiton for each one, and a search for godlessness returns those same three sources, each of which defines "godlessness" as "wickedness".
You'll have to explain what you mean by "vulgar lexicon"; the use of the term "vulgar" has a negative connotation that I do not believe you can apply to atheism.
No, it doesn't. "Vulgar lexicon" is a synonym for "vernacular." I.e., the common tongue spoken without jargon or specific contextual redefinitions.
You will also need to provide evidence of an atheist "movement". There are atheist organizations, but then there are organizations for stamp collectors and golfers; the mere existence of an organization does not constitute a movement.
It does when, prior to a certain period of time (say, the French Enlightenment or thereabouts), there was essentially no Atheism, and it would be fairly easy to research and learn that atheism has spread and become both more popular and more accepted as centuries have passed.
These are not merely "technical" differences, they are actual, significant, important differences that cannot be ignored.
There are differences. For the context of "is atheism a religion", they can be ignored--or, to phrase it better, glossed-over--so that we can discuss the larger issue.
I merely proposed what I did because I saw that confusion was arising from the difference of the terms.
Your attempt to "simplify" matters by ignoring or downplaying these differences is not acceptable in the context of this discussion,
We are not discussing the finer points of atheism or agnosticism. A common search reveals that approximately half of the definitions of "agnostic" refer specifically to divinty or religion. Ergo, it seems prudent to ignore each other's usage of "atheist" or "agnostic" and instead focus on the larger picture of the discussion.
which is why no matter how many times you ask me to abandon my position and accept yours I will not do so.
I am not, and have not, and will not, ask you to abandon your position on the meanings of the various words--though I will remind you, yet again, that English dictionaries are all descriptive and not proscriptive--that is, they are used best to learn new words or understand unfamiliar ones, not as an authorative source to settle issues of real merit.
Instead, I will simply re-state my suggestion that you cease both your juvenile "corrections" of my use of "agnostic" as "atheist" and we move on to matters of actual substance and not mere tit-for-tate squabbling.
The only reasonable conclusion I can make from your post is that you wish to ignore the points I made and questions I raised in my prior message in favor of bringing up old arguments in a way that falsely implies that you have provided any rebuttal to my position.
Not so. There are numerous reasonable conclusions that you could draw from my actions.
The plain truth of the matter is that your myraid of points were, fairly often, the kind of rote repetition and droll verbosity that serves only to cloud the issue. My non-response should not be taken as acceptance--the reasonable matter in discourse when a point you feel to be pertinent is not replied-to is to inquire as to the reply and the stasis. I will note which points I concede, as is proper form.
If there are prior points that you wish me to reply to, kindly denote them (specifically, in quotes or in links) and I will endeavor to respond.
You started by asserting that atheism is a religion. This assertion was rebutted so you moved on to claim that although atheism is not "technically" a religion it should be classified as one.
No. I re-stated my position that, even though most dictionary definitions of "religion" specifically mention divinity, it is nevertheless proper to consider atheism "a religion." Specifically, I have maintained that public entities should treat Atheism the same as Christianity or Judaism or Wicca or Islam, and I have provided instances and practical applications wherein it is useful to answer questions such as "what is your religion?" with "atheist."
You gave a reason to back up this assertion but it was rebutted. You failed to respond to that rebuttal and failed to provide any additional reasons.
Kindly refresh my memory as to what you consider your last rebuttal to be.
If you are referring to my supplied context as to when it is and is not proper to consider "atheism" a "religion", your rebuttal was little more than a repetition of your previous allegation that "atheism is not a religion".
I did a small bit of cursory research, and found a summary of a Supreme Court case, ESA v. Rylander, in which the court found that "religion" should be interpreted very broadly when it comes to the law--and, ergo, my contexts wherein "atheism must be considered a religion."
I believe that I should add a fourth and fifth context wherein atheism must be considered a religion: Whenever discussing the religious beliefs of a population or the workings of religion in public life; and Whenever civil servants are compelled to self-censor their religion.
As it stands now you have no argument that atheism should be classified as a religion, which I speculate explains your desire to drop that part (the main part) of the discussion.
Not so. I merely felt that the argument had reached and intractable deadlock, and simply chose to focus on other, more negotiable avenues of discussion. Hence, by current subdividing of this topic into several managable sub-threads.