Fathers of Linux Revealed: Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus

An anonymous reader writes "The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, which published the results of their very thorough investigation today, turned out to be right. Linus really isn't the father of the Linux operating system. After having been found out, Linus had no choice but to admit -- this is what he has to say: 'Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.'"

Comments

Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I gnu it!

Re:Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

tee hee.

Re:Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

On the AdTI website, their 'mission statement' includes 'helping the spread of democracy.' Does this most closely resemble MS or Linux?

Furthermore, their link to 'Accomplishments' is broken - presumably because there aren't any.

Even worse than that is that the Accomplishments page is hosted on Geocities page, seperate from the rest of the site!

Re:Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

But did you really gnu that where one of these rare exports come from?

Re:Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say neither. Linux is communist, while Microsoft is a dictatorship

Familiar pair for atheists.

[Thinkit4]

Linus is on the Celebrity atheist list. I had a hunch when I heard the tooth fairy and Santa Claus being mentioned together. They are often examples given of non-existent beings (that grant wishes).

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

Education has the highest correlation coefficient to lack of belief in a personal god. By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god. It doesn't surprise me one bit that Linus is an atheist -- I already knew he was smart and educated.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case they really do exist and handed him the source under his pillow and in his stocking?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, Don Knuth and Larry Wall are Christian.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

OTOH, Don Knuth and Larry Wall are Christian.


There is no "on the other hand." I merely stated that I was not surprised because it fits reasonably well with statistics.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet what is implied by your words is a quaint example of correlation without causation.

Scientist (or at least, science-lover), indeed.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

Who modded me as flamebait?!?! Demonstrating a lack of surprise due to the parent poster's findings' congruence with well-known studies is not flamebait. I guess it's true what that sig said about never saying anything portrayable as anti-religion on slashdot. Even if it's not, you're headed to the karma cellar.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

I did not make any claim of causation.

I call straw man.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[s20451]

Education has the highest correlation coefficient to lack of belief in a personal god. By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.

I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.

In fact in most churches a prerequisite to joining the clergy is an advanced degree. Furthermore, the "professional degree" that you need to be a priest or pastor is a Master of Divinity, which normally requires an undergraduate degree, much like a law degree. There are no shortage of top universities that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.

As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God. Furthermore God can easily escape whatever assumptions a scientist may make (or, as one Vatican astronomer put it, "God is not a boundary condition"). By the same token our understanding of God can't do much to illuminate science, because when (for example) the bible contradicts a scientific observation, the observation must win. Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.

In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God. One either believes that God exists or doesn't exist, and that belief affects the remaining propositions in one's life as any other axiom might. In no way is this incompatible with a career in science. In fact, if one believes (as I do) that God exists, what we know about the universe contributes to a sense of awe concerning the greatness of God. And, as one theologian suggests, this is one important aspect of religion: the "fear" of God puts you and your petty problems into perspective.

Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[UserGoogol]

Larry Wall invented Perl. If that doesn't show the mind-twisting effect that religion can have on some people, I don't know what does.

Of course, Knuth is an absolutely wonderful computer scientist, so clearly religion goes either way.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.

That's why it's a correlation coefficient. In fact, it's not even very high; most Americans believe in God.

As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

Wrong. Religion claims to answer the whys, but there's no reason to think they get it right. Here's how Richard Dawkins put it:
Or there is the notion that science can answer 'how' questions and religion
can answer 'why' questions, as in this item from a television discussion of
science and religion.

Science can tell us how chemicals bond but only religion can answer the
why questions, why do we have a universe like this at all?

But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is
a different matter. Anyone can say that. Anyone can say anything at all. But
since the answers religions give are not true, it is not clear why their
answers to the 'why' questions are any better than their answers to the 'how'
questions, or any other questions. Richard Dawkins, again, puts the matter
well:

I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to
explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my)
ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of
physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible.
"Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where
I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the
chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike
chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions.
But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims
seriously?

Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.

It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.

In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God.


That doesn't make it an axiom, it makes it an unneccessary hypothesis!

Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

Religion is a human invention, and as such means different things to different people. To many people, it means the things you disavow.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Deraj DeZine]

You provided no links (especially from reputable sites) to back up your claims. I think the moderation is somewhat fair, although I think a Funny mod is more appropriate.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Corbin Dallas]

That was as poetic as I could ever have hoped to express my feelings. Well written. Figures that I don't have any mod points right now.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

This is one of the surveys:
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/HooveronR eligion.ht ml

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Exatron]

Still, they called the tooth fairy a legend and now it's head of the FBI.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

Poetry is pleasing, but is has no bearing on the veracity of his claims -- and he's wrong. Never confusing what is comforting or fulfilling with what is true. They're not mutually exclusive, but there's no connection. Otherwise, you've commited wishful thinking.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[s20451]

OK, I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time to debate this. But I will say the following. What Dawkins writes is typical of the intellectually lazy attacks that science has for religion, because he is dismissing the discipline out of hand. He may as well say that we should ask the gardener or the chef about questions of sociology rather than a faculty member of the sociology department.

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans. I should point out that none of these contradict anything that science knows. From these three simple axioms you can use logic to basically "derive" much of western philosophical thought. In much the same way, only three axioms lead us to the entirety of Euclidean geometry.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Pseudonym]

Wrong. Religion claims to answer the whys, but there's no reason to think they get it right.

Read what the parent poster said again. The post never claimed that religion answers the "whys". Let me quote again:

Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.

For example, in the case of morality and ethics, science tries to find out what we can do, but philosophy tries to find out what we should and should not do. Science, for example, has resulted in technology that can keep people alive on machines long after they would otherwise have died. Philosophy asks: Is this a good idea in all cases?

Simiarly, science gives us tools to help determine who committed a certain crime. But it cannot (and should not attempt to) answer the question of what is "justice".

Dawkins falls into the same trap that many scientists (whether theist or atheist) fall into, namely, assuming that every field of human endeavour is science. They are not. Most touch on science in various ways (just as most touch on philosophy, for that matter) but they are not science.

Another example: The biology of perception and cognition touch on the fine arts, such as music. But the study of the fine arts isn't the same study as the study of science.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[a_karbon_devel_005]

religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

Ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
...and of course you can have compassion and not be religious OR believe in a god.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

He may as well say that we should ask the gardener or the chef about questions of sociology rather than a faculty member of the sociology department.

Wrong, he is asking why we should give credence to what a priest says about the "whys." What reason do we have to believe that the answers they give are worth anything? There's no reason to think that priests will do any better with these question than all the hows they've gotten wrong in history. The same can not be said of your sociology example.

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

You're begging the question. You're starting out by assuming the thing you mean to prove or support.

I should point out that none of these contradict anything that science knows.

No, but neither do millions of unsupportable beliefs you don't have faith in. The reason it doesn't work is that you are mistaking burden of proof. Those that claim there are deities have the burden of proof, just as if they had claimed there are tiny teapots orbiting our sun. There's no reason to believe it, even though it does not "contradict anything that science knows."

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[peragrin]

I always take the middle road when it comes to God. Somethings Science just can't grasp, and there are things that Religion can get right.

I find the truth usally somewhere in the middle. I beleive that we were created in some one's image, and that the Neanderthals where chosen as the starting point for some unknown reason. It's why there is no missing link it's because there was a forced jump of evolution.

I ask this of any really religous person, Why did God after 4,000 years of Fire & Brimstone suddenly stop using those methods and instead send one emmissary of peace???? In the 2,000 years since Jesus(yes a real person he was & he probally did die on the Cross) Why haven't cities turned to salt?, Why haven't the heavans drowned us sinners in a flood? Why did it cut off so abruptly? Or did it even exsist that way, and there are other reasons for each of those diasasters.

Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.

Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?

Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.

Whoa! Pulling a fast one. All nickels are coins; not all coins are nickels. You can't conflate religion will philospohy, and then go on to use philosophy to support your argument.

For example, in the case of morality and ethics, science tries to find out what we can do, but philosophy tries to find out what we should and should not do.

True, but religion tries to do that, too. Dawkins' point is that there is no cause to lend their claims an ear.

Science, for example, has resulted in technology that can keep people alive on machines long after they would otherwise have died. Philosophy asks: Is this a good idea in all cases?

Simiarly, science gives us tools to help determine who committed a certain crime. But it cannot (and should not attempt to) answer the question of what is "justice".

Steven Weinberg, an atheist who won the Nobel prize in physics, put it well in his book "Facing Up":
"There is one limitation on the scientific world view that I am glad to acknowledge. Science may be able to tell us how to explain or to get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value. Moral or aesthetic statements are simply not of the sort which it is appropriate to call true or false. I think Midgley would agree, but I am not sure whether Atkins would, and certainly many others would not. According to the British press, the Bishop of Edinburgh recently argued that, since people are genetically preconditioned toward adultery, the Church should not condemn it. Whatever you think of adultery, it is simply a non sequitur to draw moral lessons from genetics. Ronald Reagan made the same mistake when he argued that abortion should be banned because science has not yet decided whether the fetus is alive. Whatever definition of life scientists may find convenient, and at whatever point in pregnancy a fetus might start to match that definition, the question of the value we should place on (say) a newly fertilized human egg is one that is entirely open to individual moral judgment. (Not that this is the only issue in the debate over abortion, or even the one that necessarily motivates opponents of abortion.) Science can't even justify science; the decision to explore the world as it is shown to us by reason and experiment is a moral one, not a scientific one."

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Corbin Dallas]

You are a bad man. I hate you. You made me cry. I will now burrow back into my hole and dream a dream that can't possibly have any bearing on real life just because some people have questions about it's origins.... Kinda like this Linux story eh?

See, I'm still on topic. ;-)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

OK, this is just an ignorant thing to say.

The fact that you're posting that ignorant comment means that neither you nor your parents died from a childhood disease. Thank a scientist.

In fact, it's not likely that you had any siblings that died in infancy. Thank a scientist.

And you probably more had more fat kids than undernourished in your school when you were a kid. Thank an agricultural scientist.

You probably had the opportunity to know your grandparents, since they probably lived to be about 75 years old or so. Thank a scientist.

You never had to worry about getting yellow fever from a mosquito bite. Thank a scientist.

When it gets dark out, you don't need to go to bed. You can stay up and read to get an education. Thank a scientist.

Hell, you can fricking educate yourself all day long. You don't have to scratch in the dirt just to eat. You've got the luxury of spending the first couple decades of your life just feeding your brain. Thank a whole shitload of scientists

I could go on and on and on, but it's the unvarnished truth that BILLIONS of people are alive today because of what scientists have done. On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.

I think you owe a lot of scientists quite a lot more than an apology, but I doubt they'll get it from you. Just like a bully in grade school, it's just too much damn fun to beat up the smart kid.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.

What?! What about chimpanzees and dolphins?

Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?

Many corners of the planet have a flood myth too. That does NOT mean that Noah's myth is a historical fact.

Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.

Just because science can't hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean religion can. It's called the divine fallacy.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. It's called argument from incredulity, and it's just as wrong.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Jeremy Erwin]

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

You're begging the question. You're starting out by assuming the thing you mean to prove or support.

Ah, but perhaps he's using a reductio ad absurdam proof. Let's keep watching and see if he finds a contradiction.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[grendelkhan]

I have a higher education and I believe in God. I'm a Christian and I have no difficulty in being a rational believer in God. I find more evidence for belief than disbelief.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God.

The problem with this is that you have no way to convince other people why they should adopt these axioms. While that may not be a problem for you, if you're not out to convert people, a large number of religious people do want to convince non-believers.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

Those are acceptable (unverifiable) axioms. One might equally well assume that God hates all humans.

The problem comes in the conclusions that people try to derive from them ("eat fish on fridays", "no gay marriage"), and that they forget that they are only arbitrary assumptions.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I look at it is both of you (parent post) sound intelligent and rational, but the parent came across as thoughtful and helpful, whereas you sounded relatively defensive and kind of bitter.

I'll take parent's view based on that, any day.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[skasingularity]

You never had me really convinced that you were open-minded, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt until you stated:

It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.

Saying something is true because statistics show that something to be true most of the time is, in fact, a stereotype. What you are saying is that because a vast majority of the african-american people at my school are loud-mouthed and annoying, I have the right to say that (please noone take offense, I don't believe this at all) blacks being big-mouthed fucktards is a statistical reality.

One more thing, you seem to be trying to say that noone's answers are any more real than others, so why should I listen to you? Also, does this mean every person ever should recreate ever experiment required to *prove* something to be true, because we shouldn't believe that anyone has the credentials to tell us what's true and what's not? Thats an awful waste of time if you ask me.

Once again, I'm sorry if anyone is offended.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[el-spectre]

Here's why scientists are more likely to be atheist (altho I call shenanegains on that 90% number):

Scientific theories are built up from base principles. If we forgot everything we know back to the stone age, man would eventually figure out the speed of light, gravitation, etc. Evidence + time + observation = truth.

Religion only works if you get the whole book at once, or at least in big chunks. You can't build it up from base principles... you can't build it up at all, you either believe or burn.

Since this pretty much contradicts how science works, it makes sense that many scientists reject it.

Many scientists are very religious... A stance I find confounding, but it's their life, not mine.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

He may as well say that we should ask the gardener or the chef about questions of sociology rather than a faculty member of the sociology department.

If the sociologist's answers are merely an argument from authority, or assume their conclusions, then we may as well ask the gardener.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

Saying something is true because statistics show that something to be true most of the time is, in fact, a stereotype. What you are saying is that because a vast majority of the african-american people at my school are loud-mouthed and annoying, I have the right to say that (please noone take offense, I don't believe this at all) blacks being big-mouthed fucktards is a statistical reality.

I wasn't making a claim about christians from personal anecdotal data. I successfully refuted my parent post's claim that "it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old." It's actually pretty mainstream.

One more thing, you seem to be trying to say that noone's answers are any more real than others, so why should I listen to you?

I most definitely did not say that! Cultural relativism is bunk, and science is not just another faith.

Also, does this mean every person ever should recreate ever experiment required to *prove* something to be true, because we shouldn't believe that anyone has the credentials to tell us what's true and what's not? Thats an awful waste of time if you ask me.

No, but they should be able to!

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[AndreyF]

Einstein considered himself very religious.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[s20451]

You're starting out by assuming the thing you mean to prove or support.

The reason it doesn't work is that you are mistaking burden of proof.

Tell you what. How about you go look up "axiom".

Did someone say "intellectually lazy"?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Lumpy]

who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.

It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.

a large portion of americans believe we have 49 or less states and can not name all the states in the union...

Does this makes a large portion of americans horribly dumb or undereducated? let alone comprehend an advanced theological/scientific concept like relativity.

we DO NOT know for a fact that religion is a human invention and only fools say such things without irrefuteable proof. the rest of us simply accept it's existance and choose what we like or dislike knowing full well that the existance of a "higher being" or God can never EVER be proven or disproven.

What blows my mind is the atheists that go to great lengths to convince others that their beliefs are right yet bitch about "believers"...

Hey kettle, the pot is calling.

I have an idea, I'll believe what I want, you believe what you want and we get working on the neat stuff in life.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LordK3nn3th]

My sig? I'm glad I'm noticed :)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[skasingularity]

Not trying to make a flame war here, I was just wondering how you know that the youth of the earth is a mainstream Christian idea?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LordK3nn3th]

It's very uncertain on what Einstein was, and it doesn't matter. Even though there is no doubt as the the importance of his findings, he is not a "model" scientists-- he wrongly rejected quantum mechanics based on feeling.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly my thoughts. I'd choose the parent's view
any day. too.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[kmmatthews]

> But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is a different matter.

Ah, I think the original poster meant that religion can do this in an individuals perception, which, to that individual, can be more real than, well, reality. [How else can you explain, say, Utah or Texas? <g>]

For example: Daoism. I am a complete atheist*, but I enjoy daoism because it makes me feel good - not that it's based in any way on subjective reality, I like it because it makes me perceive things in a manner more acceptable to my world view.

Oh yeah, I forgot I'm talking about religion.. *waves goodbye to his karma*

[*I'm not sure of the proper term for what I believe - I believe nothing, no heaven, no hell, no consequence beyond human invention. Just the cessation of existance upon death. But I can't say I've ever been interested enough to find out the proper label for it. *shrug* Some have accused me of "secular humanism." [Whatever that means, anyone care to explain?]

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Pseudonym]

Whoa! Pulling a fast one. All nickels are coins; not all coins are nickels. You can't conflate religion will philospohy, and then go on to use philosophy to support your argument.

All I can say is: Go back and read the original post, and respond to what it said, not what you thought it said. The original poster deliberately did not suggest that it's religion's job to ask questions like "why".

I love the Weinberg quote, BTW.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[madcow_ucsb]

Bah that's why I'm agnostic. I lean towards atheism, but I don't know and, quite frankly, I don't really care.

The way I always saw it: who's a "better person"? The one who's a nice guy for the sake of making things better for everyone else or the one who's a nice guy because he thinks he'll be cast into a pit of fire for all eternity if he's not?

Now if I see heaven open up and god comes down and says: "Hey! I'm real!" and I can convice myself that I'm not seeing a byproduct of that weird chili pepper I ate at lunch then I'm all ears. Otherwise it's 2000 years worth of hearsay...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Rutulian]

But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is
a different matter. Anyone can say that. Anyone can say anything at all.

Well, I consider religion to be a philosophy. You're right, it can't answer the why's absolutely, but it can speculate. Such speculation, in its purest form, would be intellectual discourse. Of course we all know that is almost never the case, but the point is you either accept the premise of a religion or you don't. You either agree with the idea of God or you don't. There is no way to prove you are right or wrong. It is just a way of life. However, that doesn't prevent it from having influences on things like morals and ethics because there are some things people will generally agree on.

But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?

If you consider the chaplain a philosopher that is familiar with theology and has spent his life pondering such subjects, I would say he is a good person to turn to. He won't necessarily be anymore right than Socrates was, but he can discuss the subject and help you come to your own understanding.

The only thing that makes religion different from other types of philosophy is that it is very old, highly specialized, and people tend to believe in it more fervently than other matters. As with any other philosophy, discussion, debate, and differing opinions are good.

Religion is actually an interesting subject to study from a sociological point of view because it is a structured belief system that has existed in every culture for as long as we have records for. Its effect on human behavior and tendencies is a fairly good testament to how people react when their belief structures are threatened or forcibly changed, religious in nature or not.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[10am-bedtime]

to call what must be proved an axiom is a super efficient shortcut, i.e., a demonstration of being intellectually lazy. (but whatever, the shiny word has its place in another conversation...)

i think it is not outside the scope of science to find compassion and equilibrium in human relationships. the scientific method is a means to reach beyond one's personal biases and prejudices (compassion is not too far out of reach if you can do this). and the results of scientific inquiry often must harmonize w/ past results to be accepted (equilibrium in human relationships is not too far out of reach if you can do this, as well).

you characterize scientists as sorely lacking the desire to address these goals, but maybe if you got to know more scientists you would understand their mindset and behaviors as not so lacking, after all.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[James Lewis]

In reference to your Richard Dawkins quote, I think he fails to realize that what the gardener or the chef believe is simply their "religion", whether or not they call it that. Religion is people's beliefs about the answers to quesitons about the world we live in. The more rational amung us only use religion for the asnwers to questions that science is unable to answer. It doesn't matter if religion was wrong about things in the past, as those were simply beliefs held by certain people at the time and says little about the truth of a current belief. No one has suggested that we stop taking science seriously, despite the embarrassingly large number of times science has offered false answers.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[SEE]

It must be remembered that we bother with Euclidian geometry at all because it corresponds simply and closely to the real world.

On the other hand, your set of three axioms require massive contortion to apply to real life, since the existence of a loving creator is, at a glance, inconsistent dozens of natural phenomena, from disasters to disease, and that's only in the "DIS" section of the dictionary. If Euclid's system had required such contortions, it would have been forgotten long ago.

A rational being would dismiss #3 out of hand. It's much simpler to believe that God is either indifferent or sadistic; many difficult problems of the Loving Creator model resolve themselves immediately.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[10am-bedtime]

it means you have come to the understanding of "belief" being not so important. perhaps you see that what is believed is always personal, and that some people have ability to change what they believe, and yet remain comfortable with themselves. perhaps you are like this, yourself.

communicating your understanding (whatever it may be) to others is always an interesting challenge.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[aussersterne]

There are no [yale.edu] shortage [duke.edu] of [nd.edu] top [ox.ac.uk] universities [uchicago.edu] that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.

As someone studying at one of these top universities who has some familiarity with the Divinity school, I am going to humbly suggest that you might be surprised at the percentage of divinity students who are (gasp!) atheists.

To study religion is not the same thing as to want to be employed by it. The bulk of religion scholars want to be academics, not clergy, and they tend to study things like violence and religion, exploitation and religion, nationalism and religion, war and religion, mental illness and religion, history of religious conflict...

So yes, it's the study of religion at a top university, but by no means does this mean that all of these people hope someday to be pope.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[damiam]

The connotation of a stereotype is that it's untrue. If the majority of black people are big-mouthed fucktards, then that's a statistical reality. If someone held that belief, but it wasn't true, then they would be stereotyping.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

as opposed to dumb Wall and Knuth.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[sashang]

Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.
I don't think you can have it both ways. You either take the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God in writing or you admit that it's wrong and Christianity is not true. In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom.
The existance of the universe is evident. Anything further is wishful thinking, even if you want to clothe it in a fancy word 'axiom'. If you truly believe that you know God, well done and congratulations. Just don't expect other people to believe you.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you said:
It doesn't surprise me one bit that Linus is an atheist -- I already knew he was smart and educated.

You obviously were intimating a relation between the two. Otherwise, it makes as much sense to say: "I'm not surprised he's an atheist -- I already knew is favorite color is blue and he likes apples."

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[MC_Cancer_Pants]

Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.

Darwin can.

If any species starts to gain on any other, one quickly vanquishes the other.

You're saying that "because there is no one competing with the Roman Empire right now, they have always dominated the world"

The truth of the matter is, the evolution of species is a much longer process that the evolution of society--one which we can not date back further than bones we find.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[homm2]

This must be the rant of a troll, but since it somehow got modded up to (5, insightful), it needs to be responded to.

Where in the parent's post did he say we shouldn't be grateful for science? Where does it say that we shouldn't credit science with all the things you angrily listed? What evidence can you provide that the parent has anything but the utmost respect for science and scientists? Maybe the parent shouldn't have singled out scientists as uncompassionate, but to jump to the conclusion that the parent discredits science is shockingly prejudicial (on your part).

On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.

I know you must be trolling here, since without the efforts of Mother Teresa and others that followed in her footsteps, a lot of people wouldn't even be aware of the plight of the poor within Calcutta's slums. But science is the answer to all of the world's ill's, isn't it? Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?

Sure, give science the credit its due, but don't assume that it can deal with moral problems. That is exactly where the visionary leadership and compassion of moral leaders such as Mother Teresa is needed.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Slime-dogg]

It is a tenet in Judeo-Christian belief that God exists, created the universe, and loves all humans. It cannot be tested, and is therefore an axiom for those religions. The single biggest issue, however, is not if there is a God, but who is God.

The majority of people with a higher education believe in some God. Those with an education in science may follow the tendancy to not believe that there is a higher being, but they are definitely not the majority. The highest form of thought, philosophy, and the majority of philosophers out there have established that there is or was a God. There are the few that pointedly disbelieve, but if you really examine those philosophers, they in themselves are supporting themselves as Gods.

In the end, it comes down to whether or not you believe that someone can affect your destiny and situation in life, what you experience exists or is a delusion, and whether or not it is because you experience it, or because you believe it. On the one hand, you have empiricism, which basically states that man is the measure (and measurer) of all things. On the other, you have Platonism, Kantian belief, Spinozan belief, Christian belief, and a sleiu of others.

Religion is not a matter of logic. You cannot prove that faith is logical or not. You might as well prove to me that the color that you call green is the same exact color that I experience and call green. You can't. If you state it as so, you'd be "begging the question." The point is that with religion, it is an a priori belief, something that has to be accepted as true, even though it cannot be proven true.

Logic is the invention of man, which helps man to become the center of his own universe. If man can look at it and prove it, then man has mastered and understood it. Science and logic are just another religion that someone can subscribe to, with man being God. There really is nothing more to it.

It doesn't matter "how" or "why." What matters is what is . Do you have faith in God? If so, what God do you have faith in?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Those that claim there are deities have the burden
> of proof, just as if they had claimed there are
> tiny teapots orbiting our sun.

There are tiny teapots orbiting our sun. I've got one right here.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fredmosby]

Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?

But the dragons from different cultures all look different. When westerners saw references to magical beasts they just called some of them dragons so they could use a familiar word.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

You go around trolling on slashdot using a computer connected to the internet for those you can thank an engineer the scientists can bite it.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Artifakt]

So, you are agueing that God cannot be treated as an axiom? I've noticed a lot of Athiests who assert God's non-existence as a theorem, rather than an axiom in their philosophical system, and then invoke the arguement against the requirement to prove a universal negative. (As you are doing in a reduced form with the phrase "burden of proof").
The problem is, to make your theorem the negation of my statement "God exists", my statement also has to be a theorem. Look up the rules of formal logic if you don't believe me - the opposite of an Axiom is another Axiom, and the method of disproving an Axiom is fundamentally different from disproving a Theorem. You prove your view is right, but only by redefining my view so that you can claim a universal negation of my axiom can somehow be a theorem. You also either offer a theorem without being willing or able to show a derivation, by claiming the burden of proof falls on me instead, and require me to prove an Axiom by means which only work for theorems, or alternately, you yourself believe in the non-existence of God as one of your fundamental Axioms, which means you too are begging the question by your own definition.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[s20451]

Actually I am a scientist, and I have to say that there are plenty of good, compassionate people in my field, but also plenty of people with huge egos. Perhaps not so different from any other human endeavour.

As for my appeal to an axiom, I don't think you can have it any other way with God. God is by nature untestable; maybe it's lazy to give up, but it's more productive than banging one's head against the wall trying to prove (either affirmatively or negatively) what is unprovable.

In any case, my comment of laziness was directed at the great-grandparent(?), who seemed ironically keen to argue against what he wished I had said rather than what I had actually said. In that sense the poster is not much different from most other scientists who are armchair critics of religion, arguing against what they think it's about rather than what it is actually about.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[rohan_leader]

But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is a different matter. Anyone can say that. Anyone can say anything at all. But since the answers religions give are not true, it is not clear why their answers to the 'why' questions are any better than their answers to the 'how' questions, or any other questions.

This argument of course assumes that the answers religion give are not true. How do you prove that it is not true?

Just because we haven't proved, scientifically speaking of course, that the answers religion gives are true, doesn't make the answers untrue.

Negative proof as a logical fallacy

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[theLOUDroom]

You quoted:
Education has the highest correlation coefficient to lack of belief in a personal god. By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.

And said:
I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.

This made me laugh out loud. Of course there are plently of educated people who aren't scientists, that does not dispute anything in that second sentence.

It's like me saying., most people with doctorates make a pretty good living. 90% lawyers make in the neighborhood of 100K/year.

Well, of course not EVERYONE with a doctorate is a lawyer, but saying that does nothing but show that you missed the point.

Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
Suppressing your own ego how? By believing that have found the one true religion? By claiming to "know" things about god based on unverifiable, anedotal evidence, that was meant to be allegorical?

Compare that to a scientist who submits his ideas to things like peer review and independent verification by impartial third parties who is expected to hold himself to a high standard of credibility.

In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God.

Arguments like this are funny. I can say:
"I have an undetectable Nerf Ball that floats above my head and follows me everywhere I go."
Guess what?
You can't prove me wrong!
Why not?
Because the statement is specfically formulated to be that way. It's not a REAL axiom, it's more of a play with words and semantics.
See, what a Nerf Ball is, is already defined. If it's "undetectable", then it's not a Nerf Ball any more than George Bush is. Realistically, "undetectable Nerf Ball"=NOTHING. This means my statement can be restated as:
"I have nothing that floats above my head and follows me...."

There reason your "axiom" is not getting disproved is because the contruction is logically flawed to begin with.


As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of.

Actually, this shows a "nasty prejudice" on your part. Did you every stop to think that these scientists might have made logical, reasoned conclusions, rather than snap judgements, and maybe the reason most of them don't believe is because it does not make sense? That and perhaps they have even the slightest grasp on the history and psychology of man.

Calvin: What makes the wind?
Dad: Trees sneezing.
Calvin: Really?
Dad: No, but the real answer is much more complex.

If you want to spend the rest of your life arguing the intracacies of "trees sneezing", and making progressivly ridiculous exceptions in order to keep your theory from being disproven, I can't stop you, but don't be suprised when scientists don't take your "axiom" very seriously.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Bush Pig]

He probably won't reduce it to an absurdity. Remember that any formal system which is powerful enough to say anything useful has statements which are true but unprovable, and false but not disprovable.

I call theology a formal system deliberately - that's why I'm interested in it - it's just that it's less rigorous than, say, Euclidean geometry (and has fewer useful models than most other formal systems as well).

Disclaimer: I've been an atheist since I was 15 (nearly 40 years now).

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[TheLoneDanger]

But science is the answer to all of the world's ill's, isn't it? Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?

He wasn't saying anything about science, he was attacking the idea that scientists are less compassionate.
From the great-grandparent poster: Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

He was assuming that scientists are necessarily less compassionate than people who are religious (never mind that those groups are not mututally exclusive). As for why the Third World is worse off, do you seriously want to blame that on science or scientists? Scientists have come up with many ways to solve many of the world's problems, but it is those who hold power that control how their discoveries and inventions are used. WE HAVE ENOUGH FOOD TO FEED THE ENTIRE WORLD. It's just that not enough of us with power (especially political and financial power) are willing to sacrifice to do so.

There are many, many scientists that want to use their abilities to help people. Do you really think that all of the good things that science has done came about from scientists who had no compassion for their fellow man? You're right that science can't deal with moral problems, but even science has an ethical code that is supposed to be followed. If a scientist doesn't follow those ethical guidelines, is it any different than a religious person not following the ethical guidelines of their religion? Finally, if science isn't being used to do all the good it could do, is that really the scientist's fault?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Bush Pig]

It's not (any longer) a mainstream christian idea, but it certainly seems, from sunny Australia, to be a mainstream _American_ idea.

Which I think was the point being made originally.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

"(W)ithout the efforts of Mother Teresa and others that followed in her footsteps, a lot of people wouldn't even be aware of the plight of the poor within Calcutta's slums."

So what basically amounts to reporting is all it takes to get on the path to sainthood nowadays?

"Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?"

How could the things you mentioned fight poverty? There is a difference between improving crop yields, health, reducing mortality, etc. and fighting poverty, and neither the scientific fields you indict or religion were tasked with such the last I checked.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you have some stones to recover or something?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[CaptainFrito]

I always found this to be an extreme irony. Or is it arrogance... People famous for "creating" sophisticated works of intellect maintining it is impossible for themselves to have been created. But, what is more sophisticated: a computer operating system; or, a living organism capable of creating that same computer operating system?

If Linux gets better through a guided, conscious stepwise refinement (evolution) effort, how does it happen in nature without such a guided, conscious effort? Who plays the part of the coders in the real-life version of evolution? If there is a requirement for sentient guidance for one case, there is a requirement for the case other also. Anything else is simply illogical (yes, that's right, it is an act of "faith" to believe in evolution, at least because it is obviously a contadiction to everything that we know and experience in our own acts of creating). Moreover, despite popular opinion, evolution is still an unproven theory according to the tenets of the scientific method. Consider the debate that rages between "panspermia" and "abiogenesis" -- it is not even agreed which theory is correct, never mind having proven one or the other.

After reading Linus' comments on 'Celebrity atheist list', I sense his problem with more with 'organized religion' and its socio-economic impact (and the unliklihood of said same of being backed by the superintelligence that created all things), rather than with the idea that there is a supreme God and Creator. And he is correct, at least according the the Christian Bible (despite what they clergy says as it defends its own eco-political survival). God does not back the overwhelming majority of religions we see today. Revelation 18 speaks of "Babylon the Great" as the representation of false religion, and that it will be urtterly destroyed prior to the battle of Armageddon, which is called 'God's war against the ungodly.'

Great. There goes my "Excellent Karma" :\

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[ImpTech]

Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.

Indeed? What probabilites are those? You have a sample of types of lifeforms in which a high percentage of them became intelligent over billions of years? Please, share it with the rest of us! Anybody who says he can calculate the probability of intelligent life forming is lying to you, or making bad assumptions.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you expect? His dad was on Moscow's payroll for years

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

.......intellectually lazy attacks that science has for religion.........For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.
If assuming what you want to prove as an axiom isnt intellectually lazy then I don't know what is.
Definition of axiom :
1) A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
2)An established rule, principle, or law.
3)A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
With Euclidean geometry, the axioms, at least the first few that I know of, are "self evident" and are thus true. Anyone can see that.
What do you have to smoke to make your three "axioms" self-evident ?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Ninja Programmer]

Of course, Knuth is an absolutely wonderful computer scientist, so clearly religion goes either way.

Yeah, but he decided to spend years of his time designing and implemented TeX, and CWEB. Sure these are great pieces of technology, but Knuth's real contributions are his analysis of mathematics and algorithms.

Now he's going to waste some enormous amount of time rewriting TAOC from scratch since 30+ years of computing have found better solutions here and there for some of the things he discusses.

Ok, Knuth's contributions are great, but they would probably be greater if he just outsourced the rewritting of his first three volumes to some grad students armed with google and he went ahead and wrote the other volumes.

Knuth just reminds me of Galois. A genius of high order who let irrational things get in the way him realizing his full potential which just delays the rest of humanity from benefitting from what could have been discovered.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

This must be the rant of a troll

Oh I see, It's easier for you to call your enemies trolls than to reason with them. I may have a fucking offensive name, but I'm also an engineer for a company that loves Linux.

Where in the parent's post did he say we shouldn't be grateful for science?

Anyway, you start off with a strawman. As far as I can see, he didn't say that, but that wasn't what I was criticising either. He questioned scientist's compassion, and I was pointing out that compassion means NOTHING without actions. The actions of scientists have saved billions of people from death.

to jump to the conclusion that the parent discredits science is shockingly prejudicial

What are you talking about? I didn't have to jump to a conclusion, I just had to read it. The slur against the character of scientists is right there in black and white.

As far as Mother Theresa goes, I'm not trolling. Read the Wikipedia article on her, there's plenty of criticism there.

a lot of people wouldn't even be aware of the plight of the poor within Calcutta's slums.

Scientists have figured out how to solve their problems, but the politicians won't implement them. And even Mother Theresa, whom you defend, was opposed to the birth control that would have eased the burden of raising millions of unwanted children.

Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?

Because people like you would rather unfairly criticise those who have solved the problems, but you cannot see the mote in your own eye. The evil that snatches the food from the babies' grasp is part government, and part superstition. The good that has succeeded in making the technologies that CAN solve serious problems is science.

Sure, give science the credit its due,

That would be ALL of the credit then.

don't assume that it can deal with moral problems.

And what makes you think that religion can deal with moral problems? So far, it's not doing too well. Mother Theresa would have done more good if she had gotten a PhD. and turned her hovels where people went to die into real hospitals.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[homm2]

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, but I think I basically agree with you. When I asked why the Third World is worse off than ever, I was implying that this question has very little to do with science and is essentially a moral problem. I was arguing against the parent's disdainful attitude for a real hero (Mother Teresa).

Finally, if science isn't being used to do all the good it could do, is that really the scientist's fault?

No, of course not, and that's essentially what I'm arguing. Some people (the grandparent) seem to ignore the need for a moral vision. They apparantly argue that scientific activity can be a replacement for discourse on morals. Let me quote what s/he said again: "On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint."

Of course religion's track record is poor, when you only think that religion is some kind of illegitimate substitute for science. It's not--religion addresses a very different set of questions.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

INFORMATIVE? Whither hast all the intelligent moderators gone?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[handslikesnakes]

If you can't use logic as a base, then I don't see how it is possible to know anything.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[pNutz]

You're absolutely right. I seriously doubt there are enough divinity students around to fill up the clergy. I don't belive I've ever met a priest that majored in Divinity.
If you ask a priest what they major was in seminary, they'll most likely tell you Biology or some other science.
Ask one. They're nice people and generally open to discussions about religion in general.
A priest, though, not a pastor. They'll just throw a Bible at you.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[killjoe]

Axioms must exist to serve a purpose. For example take the axiom "any mumber multiplied by one is itself". This axiom makes sense because it's possible to build a comprehensive algebra based on it (and a handful of other axioms) using nothing but deductive logic.

I and many other people refuse to accept your axiom because it serves no purpose and frankly it's a silly axiom to begin with.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[killjoe]

It's very important to realize that god does not say homosexuals should not be married. He says homosexuals should be killed.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[handslikesnakes]

Apparently you've never heard of "genetic algorithms". Computers don't need sentient guidance.

Gravity is still an unproven theory according to the tenets of the scientific method. I hope you've invested in heavy boots.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[pNutz]

Religion is always built up from base principles.

"God loves you" "Neptune lives in the sea" "Your dead sister's soul lives in that rock"

The basic, most fundamental concepts are taught first, and the rest is built up from that. 'If you get the whole book at once'? You don't think missionaries go to Indonesia just to hand out Bibles and leave? They need to explain the basic principles of their beliefs before they can expect someone to follow all the laws and rules built up over centuries in whatever book they are handing out.

Did these books just fall out of the sky? That's a pretty religious assumption. Religions evolve over time. Beliefs and rules fall out of fashion or become more pronounced. Explainations of natural events change.

But yes, religion does not operate in the same way as science. Strange though how hardcore athiests try to judge it like a science instead of a philosophy. Also strange how some fundamentalists consider religious doctrine as scientific fact. I think they both suck, personally.

Man, this is OT--but much more interesting than Linus' response to some bogus 'findings'.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[el-spectre]

Atheists only try to judge religion like a science when folks try to treat religion as though it were a serious competitor for science.

I'd be interested in a lengthy discussion on this, but I just decided that atheists are possible bigger assholes than bible-thumpers (rationalists should know better and are thus more annoying), so I shall not.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[dot-magnon]

And, it's a fact that even if you do believe in a God, or not, a scientist will have to understand that there are things that religion explains for the common guy that science will not. At least not in a very very long time.

There are many sides of religion. You state two very important ones. Religion, if chosen solely by yourself, could aid you in hope, and as you say, having compassion and responsibility. When religion is forced upon you, things get political. That's when it gets nasty. And that is why I say I'm an agnostic - I do not deny the fact that there is a truth in what religion states, but I will not be a part of the political misuse of religion that has caused the world.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

Theology is certainly entertaining in the way you describe. I find solipsism similarly entertaining: how can you prove that there is any world outside of your own imagination?

The problem is, too many people ignore the fine print on religious texts stating that they are For Entertainment Purposes Only. Not to be Taken. (They do still print that, don't they?)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[zerocool^]

To study religion is not the same thing as to want to be employed by it. The bulk of religion scholars want to be academics, not clergy, and they tend to study things like violence and religion, exploitation and religion, nationalism and religion, war and religion, mental illness and religion, history of religious conflict...

Not to mention that most of the people who are practicing clergy didn't get their theology degree from any school you or I have heard of, and most of these schools are unacredited (for example: bob jones university). Also, check out Bill Schnoebelen's Biography - he's the fundie that Jack Chick always quotes when dealing with anything about the occult (quote-unquote). This guy got his theology masters from some school of theology, but it wasn't oxford or chicago. It was a catholic school, and he got his degree before he was "saved" and while he was a wiccan, a mormon, a mason, a gnostic, a catholic, and a UFO watcher simultaneously.

~Will

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

I find the truth usally somewhere in the middle.

This seems to be an assumption based on your culture. Why is the truth between the Judeo-Christian religion and science as opposed to the Hindu religion and science? Only one side of the road is constant, and that is science.

Why did God after 4,000 years.....reasons for each of those diasasters

I am not a theologian, but others have given some answers to these questions over the years. The general theme is that Jesus was sent when humanity was ready for his message and from then on all the killing and death should stop. God would no longer allow man to fight wars (love thy enemy) so he would no longer help them. Furthermore, the final race of humans had been established so he didn't need to wipe the slate clean (Noah's flood) anymore.

why is there only one Intelligent species

It does make some sense that there might be one species that was the most intelligent. There are other species (dolphins, apes, pigs, dogs) that can learn to perform simple tasks and some can even communicate to humans through machines or sign language.

a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures

The entire world has reptiles, and they're all strange or scary to some. Therefore, a large, flying, insert fantastic power here reptile would be a common fear.

Also, even though a man has never seen a dinosaur, dinosaur skeletons have been found everywhere. Modern paeleotologists have found remains that look exactly like dragons and griffons and any other myth you can imagine.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[F1re]

God also says that you shouldn't wear clothing made from two different types of cloth (Leviticus 19:19). Hope you aren't wearing a cotton/polyester blend...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[antime]

In Finland, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are often used as examples of non-existent being regardless of your religious views.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[JohnGalt00]

But axioms are not arbitrary. I can't claim "God exists" as an axiom. An axiom is a truth that is self-evident, or can be accepted as true without proof. Axiom .

It is obvious that "God exists" is not an axiom, because if it were, we wouldn't be debating right now.

I'm not defending athiests using the argument you've provided, just pointing out that "God exists" can't be an axiom.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Chuck Chunder]

Read what the parent poster said again. The post never claimed that religion answers the "whys". Let me quote again

Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

I suppose it depends what you take "illuminate" to mean. I took it to mean something similar to "provide answers"......

If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.

If it helps what? Philosophy and religion are significantly different.

Philosophy, like science in some ways, is based on inquiry, theorising, logical deduction and to some extent testing those ideas as to how well we can apply them to our world. Philosophy doesn't so much seek to give us definitive answers. Rather it seeks to give us answers that are useful in interracting with the world.

Religion on the other hand is based largely on the acceptance of predetermined and absolute "truths", answers that are absolute and definitive.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. It's called argument from incredulity, and it's just as wrong.

It's called Giving Something a Fancy Name Makes It So.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[CAIMLAS]

It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.

So you're saying that because it's a statistical reality, it's not a stereotype? Does the fact that it's a 'statistical reality' mean that it's truth that all Christians are "loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that the world is four thousand years old"?

In that case, since it is a "statistical reality" that black kids do poorly in school, it must be true that black kids are all less intelligent.

I do hope you catch my sarcasm.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Jace of Fuse!]

Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

It's also something a lot of religious people could use.

I mostly associate myself with educated, scientific people, and they are by far more honest, forgiving, opened minded, and nicer people than ANY of the religious people I know save for maybe one or two.

But that's just in MY experience. I do live just outside the Bible Belt(TM), so this may have something to do with my observations.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Pseudonym]

Fred Brooks is also a Christian. I believe that two thirds of the "RSA" team, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman, are Jewish (Shamir is, not 100% certain about Adleman). I know Amr Sabry (who you probably haven't heard of unless you're into programming language research) is Muslim. Mitch Kapor teaches Transcendental Meditation. I also heard somewhere that Guy Steele is religious, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am both a scientist and a Christian. And, by and large, I detest religion.

Religion IS manmade. It's a bunch of rules and regulations and philosophical ideas that man has come up with in order to try to be like what they think God wants them to be like. I have heard of a church service where there were folks at the door stopping people who had fingernail polish on, and scrubbing it offer before letting them into the church. Ummm... that's stupid!

I believe the Bible, and it doesn't say anything about fingernail polish. It also doesn't say that the earth is six thousand years old. By following the genealogical descriptions, we can determine that God created Adam about six thousand years ago, but based on various passages in the Bible, I believe that the earth is older than that. How old? As old as true science shows it to be.

True science DOES line up with the Bible, and the Bible DOES line up with true science. (True science being the science that bases its findings on facts, not theories. Theories are fine, but until you can prove them, you've got nothing.) And there are lots of religious ideas about science that Christians believe (or even cling to dearly) that have absolutely no Biblical basis.

What is Christianity? Is it a bunch of rules to follow? No, although you'll learn a lot about what's right and what isn't. Is it a new philosophy on how to treat others? No, but you'll get better at that. What is it? It's a relationship with God. And God knows all about science, and according to the Bible, all that He has He wants to share with us... He's not trying to hide facts about Himself from us, nor is He trying to hide facts about science from us.

Unfortunately, I would venture to guess that most atheists decide to become so "thanks to" some Christian's help! Some well-meaning individual that hardly has a clue about God rattles off some religious-sounding phrases, and nonbelievers (quite understandably) think that the Christian is a flake...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Pseudonym]

Religion on the other hand is based largely on the acceptance of predetermined and absolute "truths", answers that are absolute and definitive.

If you'd ever had a conversaion with a theologian of a mainstream religion on this topic, you'd know better.

By "mainstream", of course, I conveniently ignore any lunatic fringe/extremist elements, thus defining any religion which doesn't fit my argument as not "mainstream". I'm fully aware of this. Nevertheless, if you speak to a theologian of any mainstream religion, chances are you'll find they have more questions than answers.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'm wearing poly/cotton *and* I ate a shrimp cocktail and a pork sandwich. I'm going to hell.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are describing is not an axiom. It's bullshit.

Let's see: "God exists, but he (of course he's a he! men are inherently more god-like than women!) choses not to reveal himself *in any way*."

Something that you can't see, or lead to something happening that wouldn't have happened otherwise *does not exist*.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LittleBigLui]

Who plays the part of the coders in the real-life version of evolution?

Random mutation plus the constant stirring of the gene pool by fucking each others' brains out.

how does it happen in nature without such a guided, conscious effort?

As every righteous XP advocate will tell you, all you need are test cases. Code passes the test case or fails it. Phenotype doesn't aid in surviving, creature carrying genes for phenotype dies.

If there is a requirement for sentient guidance for one case, there is a requirement for the case other also

Linux has a purpose (see for example Tanenbaum for definition of an OS). Now what purpose does life have? Obviously if it doesn't have a predefined goal there's no need to for anyone to guide it towards that goal, isn't it?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[killjoe]

He says people who wear two different types of clothes should be exiled.

God really cares about weird shit.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[zygsel]

The fact that you're posting that ignorant comment means that neither you nor your parents died from a childhood disease. Thank a scientist.

Let's say I've thought that I could be infected with HIV and I've made a HIV test and it was negative. Say whatever you want but I'll thank the God for negative test's answer and certainly not some scientists who have created a way to check your condition.

OK, let's look at the other aspect and at your point of view. Science has got far in healing but the presence shows that it cannot heal us from all diseases and viruses. Why is so? Many modern viruses and diseases are new, they haven't existed in medieval ages. There are many speculations that they are human creations. HIV, SARS etc.. Thank a scientist.

And this is where religion comes in it's all beauty. Religion doesn't teach how to create a virus to kill, to revenge and so on. In oposite, it teaches us to love every man, every creation in this world. It gives us a belief. A man cannot live without any belief, even scientists have their own.

Religion doesn't negate a science, but for some reason science does. In science the meaning of 'to be' is the ability 'to prove'. I would like to ask if one cannot prove something it doesn't exist? We cannot even take for granted that the world exists unless we prove that it exists. One cannot prove one's own existence even. How do you know that you're existing? Where's the syllogism by which you have deduced the consequence of your existence from a premise? What is the proof that can be establish the truth of your own existence? Bring the argument and let us see waht it is that tells you that you really exist.

In fact, it's not likely that you had any siblings that died in infancy. Thank a scientist.

Or thank yourself instead. If you ever was interested in yogic philosphy you probably know what Karma is. You don't believe in it because one can't prove it, right? Why I'm not surprised... So what if you don't believe in it. This teory motivates you to be kind, to be helpful to your friends, family and all the other people.

Religion doesn't try to bite the science but unfortunatelly science tries to do that everytime. The point of my comment is that a war between science and religion is an evil game. The aim of science and religion is to help people to live. Religion is always helping. Science most of time also does it. Then why the **** it tries to deny the God even if this belief helps one when you're having hard time?! Why can't the science to cooperate with religion to improve the quality of human life? Why it has to satisfy it's own ego instead?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[astflgl]

axiom (aksZ m) n.1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. how is "god exists" self evident? how can you call someone intelectually lazy when you take possibly the most massive shortcut it's possible to take in philosophy/religion? and how did you get modded funny?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[melikamp]

Religion is a human invention, and as such means different things to different people. To many people, it means the things you disavow.

Science is too a human invention. It did not always exist, and it keeps changing. It was not always so easy to say where science ends and religion begins. Plenty of serious scientists can be named who thought that they were discovering universal laws instantiated by a deity.

The very scientific method is not a subject of science today, and it never was, to be sure. Aristotle already distinguished between physics and metaphysics, and that gap grew wider with years. Consider, for example, that even the foundation of modern mathematics is not mathematical. The axiomatic method which allows us to be perfectly objective in our reasoning also forces us to make a subjective choice of axioms.

As you noted so insightfully, religion means different things to different people, and that's precisely because its purpose is to provide us with subjective knowledge, as opposed to science, which seeks objective knowledge. Religion is there to shape one's sense of identity and to enable one to make deeply personal choices. Atheists are not religious in a conventional way, but they too have a metaphysical foundation to their notions and beliefs, which is entirely subjective and therefore non-scientific. In the modern world, their very escape from religion was prompted and shaped by the said religion.

Wait, where am I going with this?.. Oh yeah, a claim that scientists today are mostly non-religious, if by that we understand a disbelief in a personal god. Well, big deal. As I indicated above, they still believe great many things irrationally. In a most amusing fashion many of them believe that the scientific progress is good; they value very highly things like freedom of speech, unrestricted access to information, high degree of tolerance to various religions, cultures, lifestyles, etc. (I speak now as a scientist, and as one who shares in these beliefs, or at least is empathic to them.) Neither of these beliefs is rational or is rooted in their scientific research, and all together they may be said to constitute their version of religion.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[TheLoneDanger]

It's not--religion addresses a very different set of questions.

Ok, that made more sense to me. Too bad that historically, religions just hasn't been used to address those different questions properly. What I'm getting at is that historically, it's been used by those in power to justify their actions after the fact instead of actually guiding their actions, such as some of those in the church and say... the White House.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fucksl4shd0t]

I suppose it depends what you take "illuminate" to mean. I took it to mean something similar to "provide answers"......

Many definitions, so I'll just link to it.

Where I come from, illuminate is the word that represents the thought "to make visible or understandable". So if the light turns on, the room as become illuminated. Similarly, if I see a pile of shit on the floor and my wife tells me that a dog was seen in the house recently, then she has illuminated the source of the shit. She has *not* answered the question "Why is there shit on the floor?" She has only provided me with facts that enable me to draw a logical conclusion which will help me to understand why there is shit on the floor.

An alternate explanation may still exist and be true, rather than the obvious one, in light of her facts. Perhaps one of my kids shit on the floor, perhaps the cat that the dog chased out of the house shit on the floor but nobody saw the cat, and so forth.

Philosophy, like science in some ways, is based on inquiry, theorising, logical deduction and to some extent testing those ideas as to how well we can apply them to our world. Philosophy doesn't so much seek to give us definitive answers. Rather it seeks to give us answers that are useful in interracting with the world.

I find philosophy to be very interesting. ;) It's not religion, but religion has always influenced it (just like it has regular science). If I were to try to define philosophy without the aid of a dictionary, I'd have to say that philosophy is the application of the scientific method to the observed world in an attempt to understand why the world is what it is, and more importantly, how we should interact with it. So I suppose we're on the same page, here, but philosophy does tend to attempt to provide morality, and more and more it has attempted to do so without the help of religion.

But in the case of science, philosophy, and religion, all require you to accept certain things without proof, whether they're called postulates, axioms, or observations. All three of them currently call for peer review, as well! Jesus doesn't dictate that God exists, he challenges you to find God yourself (or so I've heard, and I've read enough of the Gospel to see that interpretation present in the writings). Science requires your peers to have the same observations in order to review your experiment. What good is it if you say you discovered electrons based on the observation of electricity and some experimentation if nobody else ever observed electricity? That, of course, leads right into philosophy, and if nobody else observes it, did it really happen? ;)

On a final note, Confucius say "Man who go through turnstile sideways going to Bangkok".

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Um, because he's a big-mouthed fucktard?

;)

Yeah, I'm thinking that pure, unadulterated, the earth is only 5,000 years old, creationism is a minority. A very loud one, but still a minority. Seems that most people are willing to let science and religion exist side by side, without necessarily reconciling them. Just like many of us say "There's no proof for or against God, so I'll just get on with my life and not worry about" and are happy with this ignorance, seems that most creationists are perfectly happy to say "The bible doesn't really say how old the Earth is, and science doesn't yet know for certain, and that's fine. They're both right, and it's not for me to understand His Mysterious Ways" and are perfectly happy with their ignorance.

All of us are far more similar than we're willing to admit and waste far too much time fighting over things that will eventually prove themselves, one way or the other.

As an intellectual exercise, though, I quite enjoy debating the existence of God. If I ever meet a Christian that is willing to do so solely as an intellectual exercise without getting all emotionally-charged, offended, and generally upset, then I'd like to do so. ;) But that is a type of Christian I have yet to meet.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Chuck Chunder]

Religion on the other hand is based largely on the acceptance of predetermined and absolute "truths", answers that are absolute and definitive.

If you'd ever had a conversaion with a theologian of a mainstream religion on this topic, you'd know better.

I'm not sure what to make of that statement. I'm not suggesting that religion prescribes everything in terms of absolute truth or definitive "word of god" but that at it's root religion relys on such a truth for it's footing.

Theologian's may well have a lot of questions but I'd guess they are a tiny minority in any religion. For most people I'd expect the absolute truth from a "word of god" is a critical aspect of a religion.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Alright, I'm going to attack one minor part of your post for one simple reason. And it's not because in context my username is almost certainly more profane than yours.

The actions of scientists have saved billions of people from death.

Um, no. Scientists have so far been completely unable to save any person or group of people from death. All they have managed to do, to date, is prolong people's lives.

Why is the distinction important? Simple. There is a very common idea in America today that if we wish hard enough, we won't die. Look at all the PR stuff. Don't do drugs, you'll OD and die. Don't smoke cigarettes, you'll get lung cancer and die. Don't do this, don't do that, don't do anything, because you'll die die die die DIE .

And when it comes down to it, if you listen to all the PR and don't do any of that stuff, whatever it is, you will still die.

So quit hiding from it, and quit rewarding scientists and others for saving people's lives. They haven't. The fireman who pulled you out of the burning building? He didn't save your life, sorry. He certainly contributed to prolonging your life, no argument here. But you're still going to die, no matter what that fireman does.

You can't ban death, and we have yet to either outwit it, or render it obsolete through scientific advancement.

I know, you're not even addressing that, and for you I've just completely blindsided you.

Too fuckin' bad, muthafucka. ;)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Man, you came so close. IN the following quote, s/archaeology/science

"Archaeology is the pursuit of fact. If it's Truth you want, check out ..." the philosophy class down the hall. (Sorry, memory gave out and I forgot the rest of the quote)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[jhunsake]

You obviously don't know the definition of "correlation coefficient", nor that a correlation coefficient of 1% could be the highest.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[citdude]

I have a nice list here of well-educated people who you have likely heard of who believed in God.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Robert Boyle (1791-1867), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) (1824-1907), James Clark Maxwell (1831-1879), Max Planck (1858-1947), Albert Einstein (1879-1955),

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

There are too many things that appear to be "coincidences" than for me to believe that there was no grand design for this universe. -Scott

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Decaff]

Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

That is a shameful thing to say. There is no evidence that scientists have any less compassion than other people, religious or not. In many areas scientists have shown far more compassion and respect for others. Scientists generally aim to increase human knowledge and educate rather than indoctrinate.

Unlike religion, science shows respect for the human intellect and assumes that people have the courage, dignity, and lack of ego, to accept their place in the universe, whatever that is revealed to be, and does not attempt to comfort with cosy stories of personal gods and paradise. It is religion that encourages an egotistical belief that humankind is special.

[ Reply to This ]

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually philosophy means 'the study of science' as in, studying how we study.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[jhunsake]

You don't prove or disprove axioms.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Decaff]

The majority of people with a higher education believe in some God. Those with an education in science may follow the tendancy to not believe that there is a higher being, but they are definitely not the majority.

The majority of people, even those who are educated, have virtually no understanding of physics or biology. These sciences encompass the areas of human understanding that were, until very recently, assumed to require divine intervention.

All your statement indicates is that people trained to understand the world tend to have a lot less belief in a supreme being who intervenes in that world.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[jhunsake]

Actually if you look at the history of mathematics, axioms were "created" whenever the mathematicians needed them to continue on.

Thus axioms are created when they are needed. And that one guy is doing exactly that. He needs God, so he creates the axiom that there is one. Of course, now much of what he deduces can't be deduced by those that don't accept that axiom into their logic.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[jhunsake]

There is an error in your analysis.

A large portion of Americans believe it.

That says that a large portion (whatever that means) of Americans believe a certain thing.

It doesn't provide any justification. It is entirely possible that he asked every single person in America, and they all told him the truth.

What you are saying is that because a vast majority of the african-american people at my school are loud-mouthed and annoying, I have the right to say that (please noone take offense, I don't believe this at all) blacks being big-mouthed fucktards is a statistical reality.

No, that's not what he's saying at all. You're talking about statistical inference, which he doesn't use at all. He provides no justification whatsoever, no statistical inference, nothing. Thus all you had to say is: "Please justify your statement."

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[jhunsake]

Maybe to you it's a connotation, but a lot of us prefer to use the correct meaning.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[rainman_bc]

I still want to know how, when Noah beached his boat on a mountain in Turkey, all the Kangaroos and Koalas decided they'd somehow (fly? swim?) make their way to Australia and only Australia. Did their God teleport them or something?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hutkey]

i will just say

"science is also a religion"

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[awol]

There are no [yale.edu] shortage [duke.edu] of [nd.edu] top [ox.ac.uk] universities [uchicago.edu] that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.

Whilst your post seems trollish, I shall bite simply because it gives me a chance to quote "Yes Minister". But your assertion about the contribution of theologians to science is somewhat specious. It is certainly true up until the industrial revolution when the church had pretty much a monopoly on the ability to do research due to the nature of the human condition at the time. Less so up until the time of the late victorian period and I would say almost non-existent in the 20th century and later (perhaps the first world war did more to kill the role of god in science than any other single event). By any measure, the marginal change of theologians contributing to science is negative and increasingly so.

Not that I am saying that no scientist belives in god (I certainly believe to do so is a flaw and in a scientist particularly so, but there are smarter persons than I that do believe and so who am I to judge :-) Besides studying divinity, even being a member of the clergy does not have a prerequisite of belief in God; (various "Yes Minister" quotes from "The Bishop's Gambit")

"An atheist clergyman could not continue to draw his stipend, so when they stop believing in God they call themselves 'modernists'."

"The bench of bishops should have a proper balance between those who believe in God and those who don't."

"Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church of England."

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fourharpoon]

I am indeed thanking scientists for many things in my life. But as sure as sun is going to shine again tomorrow, I will never depend on scientists for anything. Ok, there are many good scientists out there, but name one who can guarantee a 100% assurance on anything, say, dare to claim that there won't be a piece of her/his hair should drop from his head in the next minutes. Human can only work in a range of 0%x100%, never touches the extreme points, no matter how good she/he is. This is one reason why I believe in God. If there is no God, what's the point of doing good to others? Fear of the law? Hell, I can do some tricks here and there, just to avoid the law, and I believe many of /. ers are even more capable of doing so. Why some people born rich, while others wish they have never been existed at all. Just some random events you say? No, I won't buy that. Now, can God existence answers that? Yes it can. Well, I don't know much about mother Theresa, but I never have believed that she provides a place for poor people just to die. That's not a very wise accusation. ~ a good thing of being stubborn, you have noone to blame

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[peragrin]

Ever heard of gravity???

We don't understand it, all we know is that it exsists and some very basic properties of it.
So do we understand Gravity or just it's effects.
The difference is between using a gun, and building a gun, and the bullets. One any fool can understand, the other requires deeper thought. We haven't yet obtained the information on Gravity yet. So We don't understand it but we do know it's true.

I never said Noah's flood was fact, Iactually like the view I heard on the history channel for that and it was the tigris that flooded and pushed him out into the persian sea.

As for intelligence I was refering to the ablitiy to see a probelm from multiple angles and solve it, something chimps can't do, and we haven't figured a way to test dolphins.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[meringuoid]

But, what is more sophisticated: a computer operating system; or, a living organism capable of creating that same computer operating system?

It gets worse. What is more sophisticated: a living organism capable of creating a computer operating system, or a god capable of creating a living organism capable of creating a computer operating system? And yet you seem prepared to accept the existence of a god without requiring an explanation for it. How does that work?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[peragrin]

Well I said religion not just Judeo-Christian Each Religion has it's good points.

If Jesus was supposed to be the emmisary of peace, when then did 1600 years later 400 solidiers in the name of God and Country conquer and slaughter South America? It apparently didn't work. For which ever reason it failed, He did not overcome our basic fears.

That is a very logical aruguement for Dragons and one in which I like. I will have to keep that around.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[mOdQuArK!]

Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.

Heh - that doesn't take science, it takes common sense. The first thing any newly-intelligent race is going to do, is eat the competition. :-)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[KjetilK]

So, you are agueing that God cannot be treated as an axiom?

Of course they can't. That would lead to completely absurd deductions. Oh, wait, it does, that's the problem. :-)

I've noticed a lot of Athiests who assert God's non-existence as a theorem, rather than an axiom in their philosophical system,

Then you haven't been paying attention to what they've had to say. Atheists do not assert God's non-existance at all, whether as a theorem or an axiom. It simply has no place in their philosophy.

But there is a fight over definitions here, so let me state mine, rather superficially:

• Agnostics: Someone who asserts that proof of God's existence or non-existence is impossible to obtain.
• Atheist: Someone who finds that the concept of God is of no value in their philosophical system.
• Imtheist: Someone who asserts God's non-existence.

It is not uncommon that clergy lump these two latter categories together under the name of "atheism", to better raise straw-men and generally suppress the ideas behind these positions.

What I mean by "no value" is a very, very long story, something that is a topic for a different forum than /. But it is generally a "huh?" position.... :-)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[meringuoid]

This is one reason why I believe in God. If there is no God, what's the point of doing good to others? Fear of the law?

If there is a God, what's the point of doing good to others? Fear of hell?

Seriously, if your only concept of right and wrong is based on the threat of punishment, whether by the State or by some deity, then you have real problems.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Decaff]

"science is also a religion"

Religion:
"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

Science:
"The study of the natural world through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanations."

Belief != Study

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hutkey]

thnx for the elaboration

but i think both science and religion are art of living while following certain rules in life, that's why the similarity

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Davoid]

While I agree almost entirely with the ProfaneMuthafucka... you do have a point.

Perhaps he should have said premature death. Which is what, I would like to think, most people would understand his statement to mean.

Other than that... I wouldn't congratulate myself too much if I were you. All you did was state the obvious. Whoopdyfreekindo.

-DU-...etc...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[walterbyrd]

>>Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

Maybe that's what religion is/isn't about to you. But, to many people, religion certainly is about strapping a bomb to yourself, etc.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Decaff]

No. Science is about questioning the rules.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[term8or]

"Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old."


Let's look at your axioms. If God exists, and if he/she created the universe, then he or she is entirely capable of (for example) placing evidence of the big bang and dinosaurs on the earth as a test of faith. If God exists, the physical evidence is utterly irrelevant since god created the evidence.


"Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you"

Nope. Religion is not in itself about compassion or any other emotion. There are more religions than Christianity or Buddhism. A Religion is a system of belief that requires members to behave within certain constraints and moral principles. What these beliefs and constraints are depend on religion. Indeed, the belief in God is not a requirement for all religions.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

by nature you can't perform an experiment on God

Oh really, why should that be? You are saying: "There is no way to construct a statement, which has measurable repercussions in the observable world, that is TRUE if God exists and FALSE if God does not"; equivalently, "Any statements about God is non-falsifiable". Your assertion has nothing to do with the fundamental nature of divinity, but rather the irrelevence (in your view) of divinity to the observable world. Thus you can only make this statement as a deist or atheist. Otherwise it is just a cowardly attempt to insulate "religious" and "irreligious" viewpoints from each other without actually resolving anything.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Minna Kirai]

In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God.

Sure you can! Ok, you can't perform an experiment to demonstrate the existence of gods in general (which includes Zeus, Loki, etc), but there are simple tests that can be conducted to learn if the Christian God exists (or at least, if He is accurately described by the Bible and church teachings)

First, pick the attributes of God to experimentally measure. I selected a common prayer and choose "good" and "great" (which I interpreted as a synonym for "powerful")

Now for the test: go outside and walk down the street until you encounter an unescorted girl of age 8 or less. Pull her into an alleyway and bludgeon her to death with your fists. Check if God smites you down or otherwise intercedes.

If not, then we have verified that no entity that is both "good" and "powerful" was aware of your actions, or he would've put a stop to it. You've proved that not only was God not observing you, but also that no police officer was within view either (cops are neither as good nor powerful as God, but they are law abiding and carry guns)

The occurence of evil action is experimental evidence disproving the existence of any entity (a) good, (b) knowledgable about the action, and (c) powerful enough to stop it. If God didn't know or couldn't stop the action, then He's not all-powerful. And if he didn't want to stop it, then He's not good.

Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell

Surveys have found that the top 90% (at least) of all faiths completely disagree with you. But it's actually quite possible that you're right, and they're just liars.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Minna Kirai]

Scientists have so far been completely unable to save any person or group of people from death.

More than 30% of the 6 billion humans alive today are still alive only because of the actions of scientists. While you may claim that those people will die eventually, they haven't yet, and thus currently constitute "billions saved from death".

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

An axiom is normally used as something that you assume to be true to get on with life. I don't go around checking that 1+1=2 every time I do a sum, I just know it to be true without checking.

God however, I don't know to be true unless I check - hence, his existance isn't an axiom.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Minna Kirai]

Einstein considered himself very religious.

Einstein used a non-standard definition of "religious". He meant a sense of glorious wonder about the natural world.

He personally documented his distaste for traditional major religions many times. For example,

1. "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible- in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him"

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Eivind]

Yes it makes a difference. It's surprising to me that this needs to be pointed out.

When the question is what christians believe, then it is, indeed, relevant what christians believe. This should come as a surprise to nobody. Thus, an argument that christians commonly believe the world to be like 4000 years old, can indeed be supported by evidence such as polls showing that a large percentage of american christians do indeed believe this.

When the question is how many states the US has, then it is irrelevant what some people believe.

There's a differnece between saying: "Many americans believe there are 49 or less US states" (a demonstrably TRUE statement) and saying: "There are 49 or less US states" (an equally demonstrable FALSE statement).

To answer your other question; no this does not make those American dumb (though some of them are doubtlessly dumb, the fact that they don't know how many states there are does not demonstrate this), but it does indeed demonstrate that they are uneducated, atleast in geography.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Oligonicella]

"Logic is the invention of man"

Hogwash. Logic is no more the invention of man than math is. Logic was "discovered" by man. It pre-existed, as did math.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Minna Kirai]

ould be infected with HIV and I've made a HIV test and it was negative. Say whatever you want but I'll thank the God for negative test's answer

"Thank you, God, for killing those other 10 million people with AIDS, but not me!"

There are many speculations that they are human creations. HIV, SARS etc.. Thank a scientist.

Trying to get yourself passed over as paranoid/credulous, huh? Well it won't work... even if HIV and SARS were artificial diseases (laughable thought), they'd still be God's responsibility.

If you believe in God, then every time you "Thank a scientist", you should "Thank the God" too. But there are many things beyond the power of science- for those things, good or bad, you can still "Thank the God"

How do you know that you're existing?

That's simple, actually. I think I exist, so I do. The circularity of that argument is no weakness. Regardless of what the definition of "existence" might turn out to be, we can show that some things meet it.

In oposite, it teaches us to love every man, every creation in this world.

It does not... the Christian Bible is full of examples of the rightness of killing and vengeance. However, even if I accepted that relgion attempts to teach love for others, a look around will tell you that it has failed. The USA is one of those most heavily Christian places on earth; especially according to its own president; and yet it also maintains the most powerful killing force this planet has ever seen.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

I also enjoy that intellectual exercise, but given your manner here and your posting history, I believe(based on evidence similar to that which brings me to believe in GOD) that you would devolve to obscenity and emotionalism and therefore I would cease to enjoy the exercise.

I once carried on a 3.5 year debate of that very nature.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Oligonicella]

Cute. But now you have to show the teapot and how and where you obtained it. Cute, but stupid.

You've done no more than make the empty claim that (a) god exists.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[JayAdams]

Come on, people, everyone knows the world was created in 1776!

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Laur]

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

I sure hope you're not talking about the Judeo-Chrisitna God. Let's examine your "axioms:"

God exists

Okay, Christians certainly believe that.

God created the universe

In seven days, acording to Christianity. This does not jive with observation, and so is demonstratably false. Here's a simple observational test, go outside and look at the stars. If you can see any stars which are more than a few thousand light years away (hint, most of them) then the universe is more than a few thousand years old.

God loves all humans

Oh, now I know you're not talking about the Judeo-Christian God. Read the Old Testament sometime, try searching for Caanites or some other non-Hebrew tribe.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

Six thousand years, If you are going to propogate a stereotype at least get the facts straight.

I am an American Xtian and I believe in a young earth.

I believe that the salinity of the oceans, and the dust on the moon are two evidences of this.
If pressed I believe I could name all 50 states
I also understand the difference between a state and a district. I believe that the electoral college is an effective means of protecting states rights and I'm getting OT so I'll stop.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Minna Kirai]

I beleive that we were created in some one's image, and that the Neanderthals where chosen as the starting point for some unknown reason.

No serious biologist or paleontologist believes that humans are descended from Neanderthals.

Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted?

One has: Neanderthals. They were a separate species from homo sapiens that was also pretty intelligent.

They became extinct, of course- and probably with active help from humanity. And that is science's explanation for the non-existence of other "Intelligent" life on earth: that ecological niche is already filled by a widespread species that will bear no competition.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[JayAdams]

You aren't, by chance, the author of "Letters From A Skeptic", are you?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156476244 0/102-5303817-8643369

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

Walk... land bridge.. I'm guessing that they migrated for the same reason as many migratory animals...
a food supply
b we just don't know

There are plants that are likewise only found in Australia...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Minna Kirai]

But the dragons from different cultures all look different.

They all look like big lizards or snakes. Dragon skin in Europe and Asia is scaly, while Americans had feathery dragons...

Of course, there is a very obvious answer to the poster's question: Sure man was too late to see live dinosaurs, but not too late to dig up fossils. We can't assume that fossils only started to be excavated 200 years ago. (Especially since we've observed that some cultures like to destroy fossils for magical ingredients)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[JessLeah]

I like your post, except for one bit. I would hardly call the first two decades of life a time of "luxury" in feeding one's brain. In fact, what a student does with her/his time is highly regulated-- in fact, it is force-fed to the student by teachers and parents. Most of the brightest people I know were/are extremely upset during those first two decades of life, since 99% of one's time is dictated by teachers following pre-programmed lesson plans. What with homework, studying, tests, and classes (all of which seem endless), there is little to no time to pursue one's true intellectual interests. And for the brightest few (note that brightest doesn't necessarily mean "fastest"-- I have an IQ in the 140-150 range, but I am very slow at all things intellectual.. so NO, the bright folks CAN'T simply finish their homework in five minutes...), those first couple of decades are simply eaten up by meaningless busywork...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

Well a previous poster posted a survey of scientists showing a high percentage of atheists so I'll go with you on that

what was interesting was that only a very small percentage(15-17%) were agnostic
indicating that scientists tend towards either belief or knowing as opposed to indifference or agnorance.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

Ok, Jack Chick is certifiably loonie.

As a representative of Xtianity he falls down. He lies, plagiarises, and makes stuff up.

If he were to die a horrible death and all his tracts were to spontaneously combust the world would be a better place for everyone, and Christians would be able to better discuss and debate the existance of GOD.

Many Christian seminaries are unacredited, Many are acredited. They have their reasons. Some are acredited by groups that are not nationally recognized

but one thing they are not are diploma mills.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Oligonicella]

When one becomes pedantic to "win a point", it merely displays the lack of logic and evidence on the side of that person.

Pulling a child out from in front of an onrushing car is "saving the child from death".

You only blindsided yourself, mo'fo'.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Oligonicella]

"What is the proof that can be establish the truth of your own existence?"

I answer, therefore you and I exists. Yeesh, sophomoric logic on your behalf.

"you probably know what Karma is"

Yep, a superstituious belief.

"Religion doesn't try to bite the science..."

Fundamentalism.

"a war between science and religion is an evil game"

Then the religious should quit initiating the conflict, son.

"...it tries to deny the God..."

More self-centered delusion, science is *unconcerned* with god(s).

The breadth of your misunderstanding is amusing.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Cap'nMike]

Yes, many scientists do show compassion on a daily basis and this drives their research, I work with many of them every day. But look at the scientists who develop weapons, landmines, chemical warfare agents, do you not believe that they could show a little more compassion in their daily lives. Personally, my research deals with chemical warfare agent decontamination, so I have some idea of the lack of compassion some scientists show. The point which should have been made is that if nearly everyone could be just a little more compasionate, the world would be better off. If you think that most religions in the world are out to hurt people, you have missed the point.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

Nope, I'm just a guy.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Oligonicella]

"Oh really, why should that be?"

Because god is an abstract construct.

I noticed you didn't provide an experiment that can be executed in the real world which would provied a TRUE if god exists and a FALSE if god didn't.

Now, why was that?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[zygsel]

That's simple, actually. I think I exist, so I do. The circularity of that argument is no weakness. Regardless of what the definition of "existence" might turn out to be, we can show that some things meet it.

I could say the same about the existence of God ;-)

It does not... the Christian Bible is full of examples of the rightness of killing and vengeance. However, even if I accepted that relgion attempts to teach love for others, a look around will tell you that it has failed. The USA is one of those most heavily Christian places on earth; especially according to its own president; and yet it also maintains the most powerful killing force this planet has ever seen.

Oh my, did I said something about specific religion (about Christianity in this case)? Can you give me the facts about the rightness of vengence and killing mentioned in a Bible? Do you see something common to religion when you think about those Cristians who think about God only on Sundays in a church? That's absolute nonsense. Either you do believe in God every minute of life or you don't at all. What I have in mind when I do talk about God and religion it's yogis. Not Christians, not Muslims... These modern religions aren't right, they tell do that and that, but don't even think about doing that because you'll commit a sin and you'll be burned in hell. That's absolutely wrong. In the past I've had a chance to communicate with priests but I was die hard atheist for many years. And later fate have droped a yogi in my way, who has achieved a Samadhi state (don't know how you call it in english). I've had a nice conversation with him for about 3 hours. We've talked about life, religion, philosphy etc. And this is when my point of view have turned 180 degrees. So arguments when talking about religion comes to a specific branch of religion (let's say Christianity) it makes me laugh. This is because of my own experience.

P.S. BTW, you have chosen probably the worst example of all Christian places in the world. The USA is known for it's commercial and economical achievements. There's a cult widely known as a money. Where the money is the highest worth of life there cannot be not even a drop of religion.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, in the case of morality and ethics, science tries to find out what we can do, but philosophy tries to find out what we should and should not do.

And religion is different again - it tries to tell us what we should and should not do.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Minna Kirai]

I have a nice list here of well-educated people who you have likely heard of who believed in God.

That list proves nothing.

Firstly look at the most recent name: Einstein, although a genius, was not well-educated. Nor did he believe in God; he said "I am agnostic" flat-out.

Of the rest of those men- how can you possibly know what they believed? All you can know is what they said.

And why might a person to say something he doesn't believe? If it's to his benefit to do so. If stating a belief will either gain an advantage or avoid a threat, then a rational man may claim to believe regardless of the truth.

Prior to the 1700s, there was a significant risk of being flat-out killed if you publically proclaimed a disbelief in God. Galileo faced lethal accusations of heresy for simply describing the heliocentric solar system- if he had mentioned actual disbelief in God, then he'd be lucky to escape the torch.

Even as European society improved to the point where heresey wasn't a capital crime, there remained strong biases such that a professed atheist would find his life made much more difficult. An atheist scientist would find himself socially shunned, his experiments sabotaged, and his publications suppressed. (Who knows? Maybe there were smart atheist scientists back then, and we never hear about them because they were crushed by the church?)

So, noting that those men went along with the predominant religious system in their homelands gives us no information as to whether they really approved of it- for what choice did they have?

Compare with a Christian martyr: martyrs are respected because they profess their faith even though they will be punished for it. But one cannot claim that a non-martyr had no faith- only that he valued his physical safety more than the chance to express that belief.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Oligonicella]

"As for intelligence I was refering to the ablitiy to see a probelm from multiple angles and solve it, something chimps can't do, and we haven't figured a way to test dolphins."

Bzzzzzzzzt! You are incorrect on both counts.

You should read more.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[CrimsonAvenger]

The problem comes in the conclusions that people try to derive from them ("eat fish on fridays"

Well, no. The "fish on Friday" thing is not divinely ordained, and never was. It was a rule invented by a Pope in the Dark Ages, ostensibly for the purpose of stretching the food supply during an extended food shortage.

In fact, the original rule was "Fast on Friday". By the time people got through splitting hairs about the meaning of "fast", it had reduced to "don't eat meat on Friday"

Note, by the way, that "Meat" didn't mean the same thing then as it does now - compare a modern Bible to a King James Bible for changes in the use of the word "meat" over the last 400 years.

The "fish" thing came about because fish wasn't meat! Therefore, it was perfectly acceptable to eat it on Friday, and obey the Papal Decree at the same time. A couple of centuries of tradition piled up, and before you know it, people (like yourself) assumed that "Eat fish on Friday" was a Divine Directive (AKA Commandment), when it was, in fact, an attempt to deal with a purely temporary, local, problem.

As to "Gay marriage", you should look to the purposes of marriage in cultures throughout history. Please note that "have sanctioned sex" was never one of them (adultery isn't about what unmarried people do in their bedrooms - it's about what married people do when their spouse isn't around). Historically, marriage has served political purposes, as well as social ones, as the primary method of insuring that children were properly taken care of (easy to prove who the mother is, harder to prove who the father is, and hard to convince a man to work to take care of someone else's child).

"Gay marriage" today isn't even nominally about "having sanctioned sex" - it's about survivor's benefits and such. It is considered desirable so as to allow people who would be considered "common law" spice (to use the neutral plural of spouse) to work around government regulations forbidding certain things to someone who is "not family".

So, "gay marriage" is something that serves no purpose from the historical perspective of marriage. On the other hand, as a Lutheran, I understand that "marriage" is NOT a religious activity, but a gevernment function (read Martin Luther's discussions on the subject if you doubt me), and thus it is up to the government, such as it is, to define "marriage" to suit itself. If the government decides that two people of the same sex can marry, then that is its prerogative, just as it is if the goverment decides that two people of the same sex canNOT marry.

What I want to know is, how long will it be till polygamy is legal again? After all, the same arguments that are used to support "gay marriage" can be used to support "plural marriage". I expect that if the US Supremes are ever required to rule on the Constitutionality of the subject, that some Mormons are going to push polygamy back into legality on the same grounds. Should be fun to watch the screaming and crying then. By both sides.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Minna Kirai]

What I have in mind when I do talk about God and religion it's yogis.

So the examples you use are completely different from the big majority of religious people (which are Christians and Muslims)

The USA is known for it's commercial and economical achievements. There's a cult widely known as a money. Where the money is the highest worth of life there cannot be not even a drop of religion.

That reinforces my point that if religions are trying to teach a set of humble, generous values, then they aren't doing it very effectively.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Cro Magnon]

Six thousand years, If you are going to propogate a stereotype at least get the facts straight.

I am an American Xtian and I believe in a young earth.

So, how do you explain the dinosaur fossils?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[zygsel]

So the examples you use are completely different from the big majority of religious people (which are Christians and Muslims)

Well... maybe. The God is the same, it doesn't matter if it's God, Alach or Krishna, it's just a name. But what differs it's the way how religions define him. Yogis believe that the God is everything as a whole. People, animals, air, water etc. They think of a world as a one organism. E.g. if you hurt a part of a body it's fuctionality will decrease. The Christianity, however, says that God is in a heaven and there's a Devil awaiting you for commited sins the hell too. Maybe the problem lies right here...

That reinforces my point that if religions are trying to teach a set of humble, generous values, then they aren't doing it very effectively.

Yeah. Back to my previous statement. The people don't care what is waiting for them after death (if it's waiting at all). That's the main problem of Christianity. The people want the effect now. This is where yogic philosphy really shines. If you'll massage a hurting leg or arm, whole organism will feel better. If you'll help your neighbour, you'll feel better too because he'll be in a better mood and you will too. That's is how people should be encouraged to do something good. Not be forced by some fear of hell and devil.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fraudrogic]

I'm not a religous person (not an athiest either), but this was one of the most logical and thought out posts I have read defining what a religion should be as opposed to the fanatical extremists we find in the "bible belt" or in the middle east.

Thanks for the good read...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

Catastrophic flood...

just like the fossils created by recent floods.

Fossils are created by pressure and lack of oxygen and can appear fairly quickly. google for mt st helens fossils and judge for yourself.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[caudron]

It doesn't surprise me one bit that Linus is an atheist -- I already knew he was smart and educated.

Without exception, the smartest and best educated people that I know personally are all religious.

I hold a degree in religious studies. I have an I.Q. that places me well above the norm. I believe in God.

Of the atheists I know, the smartest of them ackowledges the leap of faith that they too must make in the skeptical debate. The best Skeptical thinkers in history have done the same.

This entire thread is riddled with half-truths and unsound arguments.

The whole thing began with a reference to the Celebrity Atheist list, which, if you will notice lists the Dalai Lama, of all people, as ambigious on the topic. The validity of this list is questionable at best and deceptive at worst. The critieria used to establish the Dalai Lama's ambiguity betrays an astounding misunderstanding of the terms "atheist", "agnostic", "religion", and "God".

People in this thread claim that "A large portion of Americans believe [in literal creationism]." Bullshit. Very few people, Christian or otherwise, believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. Better would have been to argue that Christians don't believe in evolution. Still not true of the whole, but at least a few more Christians are of that bent than those that only believe in a 4000 year old earth.

Of course, later you claim, with surprising innocence given your earlier tone, that you "merely expressed lack of surprise that Linus is not" a believer. Bullshit. You expressed that because he is smart and educated, it logically follows that he would also be an atheist. It was an insult, pure and simple, and you cannot now pretend you weren't trying to troll the thread.

I will put my intellect and education against any atheist you can muster. It doesn't do any good (and I should know, since I've had these debates ad naseum) but make no mistake that whereever atheists want to spread FUD, I'll be more than happy to beat them back a few steps. I couldn't care less whether someone believes or doesn't believe. Makes no difference to me, but when they tell lies to others (like the idea that only the less intelligent and less educated masses hold faith in God) I will gladly stand up to take the challenge.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude...if you don't have faith in anything remotely "religious", why are you so concerned about karma?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

I have less of a problem historically and politically with plural marriage than with Gay marriage. Since plural marriage provides for "spice" and the protection and raising of children.

As a Xtian I have moral problems with both as sanctioning that which is either sinful and/or divisive, but something can be legal and sinful or illegal and not sinful. So I try to balance that which is profitable politically and that which is spiritually right. and just because something should be legal doesn't mean I will or should do it, but simply it should not be forbidden.

For example Genesis says that all green herbs are "good for food" cannibis, and coca are green herbs. Make the connection. Many Xtians won't.. I will. BUT just because they are "good for food" doesn't mean I have a divine mandate to consume them. It means that to use/eat them is not sin, but it is criminal and thusly to use them would make my light shine a little dimmer so I don't.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

Ok, counter-point to observation regarding stars. speed of light is demonstrably slowing down ... Ergo it was faster at some point in history. So it is POSSIBLE that it approached infinity at some point in time. So the universe COULD be a few thousands of years old.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day, there were plenty of "tests" for God's existence. If you could climb up a high enough tower into the clouds, you would see God. God fixed the four corners of the Earth in place and scattered the sun, moon and stars around it. God created all of the universe in a single week. God's Chosen People will prosper while those who oppose them are smitten.

Of course, every single one of these tests has long ago proven false. Since no one has conceived of a test which "God" would actually pass, saying "God's existence is untestable" has become a fashionable way to avoid offending God-ists without actually committing to anything. The result is a totally meaningless belief, akin to "Seattle is made of green emeralds, but no one can see them except me", or "Invisible non-physical pink elephents urinate on us constantly." Can't be proven or disproven only because there is zero effect either way.

Because god is an abstract construct.

So is gravity, but, but contrast, a useful one.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

If you think that most scientists in the world are out to hurt people, then you have missed the point.

You imply that religion is more compassionate than science, but no data has been shown. With all the religious wars currently in progress, I hope the data is substantial.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Bring the argument and let us see waht it is that tells you that you really exist.

Occam's razor. It sure as hell appears that I really exist, so I'll just make the simplest explanation: i exist.

I can't prove it, and neither can you. You try to usurp the authority of truth, but here is the only truth: I don't know, and neither do you.

But my side, the side of science, has a hell of a track record. I'll put that up against anything that you might have, because in the end, the track record is all that can be used in the evaluation.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Viking Coder]

As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of.

And then later you say:

In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom.

Scientists take as few things for granted (as axioms) as possible. Believing in things that you can't test, can't prove, and give you no predictive power is a dangerous activity for someone who's trying to apply the scientific method.

I have a friend who reasons, "I don't believe in atoms, because God didn't need atoms make the universe." Believing in things that you can't prove weakens your capacity to use logic.

Does that make it bad to believe in God? No, of course not. Neither does it make it a "nasty prejudice" that people don't believe in God.

Hell, to show how stupid your opinion is, let's look at the definition of the word prejudice: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

And then you go on to say that your belief in God is an axiom, A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

What facts are scientists ignoring? What knowledge of God do you posess but they lack? Oh, that's right - you don't need proof. God is an axiom.

Don't you see how shockingly conflicting those two positions are? For the sake of argument, yeah, sure, God exists. But you're essentially saying that, as a scientist, you should just accept things as being true, and you're "nasty" if you don't.

Absurd.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Viking Coder]

It is not "intellectually lazy" to cast aspersions on a discipline that has no predictive power.

Astrology starts from one simple axiom: The motions of the planets affects our lives. From that one simple axiom, you can use logic to basically "derive" much of newpaper's philosophical thought.

BUT IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP.

Without predictive power, a belief system is just that. It doesn't stand up to criticism, and it's not "intellectually lazy" to dismiss the whole thing out of course.

Is religion beautiful and awe inspiring? Sure. But when people start using religion to attack science, they have crossed the line.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

And many people still beleive that the planet is mostly round and without corners - except maybe a few sharp peaks that could be mistaken for corners.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Viking Coder]

I believe in a big purple monkey who lives in a tree and controls the universe. From this one simple axiom, I can explain all of modern science and religion. See, the big purple monkey who lives in a tree doesn't want people worshiping him, so he invented all of these religions. He made atoms and all of that stuff so that people can be entertained thinking about stuff, and have jobs and things.

You're being intellectually lazy if you don't follow my one simple axiom to its logical conclusion: THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEIGH!

You can't use logic to disprove any of my beliefs, because it's built on one simple axiom. Who's being "intellectually lazy" now?

Or... Or... Maybe, just maybe, using the word "intellect" in the same argument as belief in God (or the big purple monkey who lives in a tree and controls the universe) isn't what people should do? Maybe, just maybe, science deals with predictive power and things like forming a testable hypothesis, and maybe religion is about faith and compassion, and maybe, just maybe, the two things don't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER.

Your lack of faith in science is amazing.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Viking Coder]

Science and logic are just another religion that someone can subscribe to...

Except that science and logic have predictive power, and religion does not.

If religion had predictive power, it would be a part of science and logic.

If God had writ all of science and logic for mankind to read in his writings (which was pretty much the case, in people's beliefs, back hundreds of years ago), then science and logic would be a part of religion.

It does matter "how" or "why," the ends do not justify the means. If your God tells you to kill infidels, what logic can you use to get out of that trap?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[kevmit]

"If you can't use logic as a base, then I don't see how it is possible to know anything."

Perhaps the absolute insistence that "logic" must always be the ONLY valid tool for knowing anything is the limiting assumption?
Logical deduction of the "this is so, therefore this must be so" classical variety works great at the macro physical level, but fails pretty miserably when you start trying to apply it at the subatomic physical level, much less the level of human spiritual experience (whatever that might be).
As effective a tool as logic is, it's clear that it's so far been incapable of adequately describing our experience of existence. Otherwise, faith-based religions would not be so ubiquitous in every culture we've ever created. Arguments like "Religion is the opiate of the masses" are really just another way of saying, "If you don't arrive at the same conclusions that I have, using only those tools that I deem appropriate, then you must be delusional" which, face it, is a pretty religious point of view.
Logic and Faith are not now, nor have they ever been, mutually exclusive. Used independently, they're both blinders.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[homm2]

How could the things you mentioned fight poverty? There is a difference between improving crop yields, health, reducing mortality, etc. and fighting poverty, and neither the scientific fields you indict or religion were tasked with such the last I checked.

It was not meant to be an exclusive list, nor do I necessarily believe that medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods, are the most effective tools against poverty. I do assert, however, that they can be used to fight poverty and that they are examples of scientific progress.

Please don't assume I'm some right-wing fundamentalist nut when I say the following (in fact, you shouldn't even assume I'm a Christian): From my perspective, religion is tasked with fighting poverty. It's just a shame most religious people don't take that task seriously. Here's the Christian perspective (the way I see it): Religion that God our father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)

I apologize I didn't cite examples from other faiths, but as I understand it, most faiths (certainly Judaism, Islam, Buddhism) have similar calls to help the poor and to actively pursue social justice.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Cap'nMike]

I'm curious if you actually read my comment. My point was that scientists are no more or less compassionate or cruel than any other person. I am a scientist and I truly believe that there is a lot of beneficial as well as harmful research being done in the world. As for religion starting war, that is nonsense. Religion is an excuse to start wars. I just chose to use religion as my excuse to be a better person. I honestly belive that people will do what is in their hearts whether they belive in god or not. What more people should try to do is think about their actions in terms of benefit to others.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[kevmit]

"...since the existence of a loving creator is, at a glance, inconsistent [with] dozens of natural phenomena, from disasters to disease,..."

How come everytime we fuck up paradise, it's proof that God doesn't exist or doesn't love us?
God loved us enough to give us free will and the perfect creative environment in which to make that will manifest. There is no greater gift. Or would you give up your ability to create so that you don't have to bear responsibility for the results of your creations? Why would you do that?

"...It's much simpler to believe that God is either indifferent or sadistic..."

The simplest answer is not always the correct one. God does not show his compassion by not allowing us to show ours.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Crispy Critters]

"But now you have to show the teapot and how and where you obtained it."

If the poster has a small teapot and the poster is on or near the surface of the planet Earth, then that is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun. I myself have seen smallish teapots that were orbiting our sun. I possess a medium size kettle which is currently on my stove, which is orbiting the sun along with the kettle.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[CaptainFrito]

"Random mutation plus the constant stirring of the gene pool by fucking each others' brains out."

See, this is what I mean. Random breeding, according to the theories, is anti-evolutionary. People don't even know what they believe.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

That's funny. I believe in this axiom. I also believe that gay marriages are moral and just. Just goes to show that there's more to religion than a simple "I [believe/don't believe] in God."

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear weapons that can destroy our planets hundreds of times over? Thank a scientist.

Chemical and biological agents that can kill in agonizing ways? Thank a scientist.

A whole generation growing up drugged on Ritalin and other mood altering drugs? Thank a scientist. Don't forget the psychiatrist.

People seem to forget that a lot of scientific advancements were because of scientists who also happened to be a monk/priest/etc.

Most intelligent scientists (Einstein as a prime example) are also very religious. It's religious fanatics like you who use science as a religion that like to do religion bashing. The irony of it all.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[GuestFox]

The Bible is factual, no other book has undergone the scrutiny of textural criticism and authenticity as has the Bible. Archeology proves what was written 2000 years before Christ is indeed *gasp* historical fact.

Many corners of the planet have a flood myth too. That does NOT mean that Noah's myth is a historical fact.

Hmmm. So what you're saying is if John/Jane Doe out here in slashdot land only read of your existance but really didn't believe in it then your existance may not be historical fact. Wow! I wished I'd thought of that! Oh my, then I may not exist either! *poof*

-=GuestFox=-

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

More lies, Einstein didn't believe in God. And while I'm at it, Darwin didn't have a deathbed conversion. These things are easily found with some Google searching.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

And you missed my point yet again. You're going to EQUATE scientists with others in terms of compassion? There's a lot of evidence of the cruelty of religion, and since you're making the positive claim that scientists are no more compassionate than others, you've got to support your position.

Saying that religion is an excuse to start wars doesn't help your position. That's like Michael Jordan trying to win a game by throwing balls into the opposing team's basket.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[nospmiS remoH]

As far as I know, E=mc^2 has been reasonably well supported through experimentation. Thus, if light is slowing down you could do this:

1) Convert some amount of mass into energy.
2) Wait.
3) Convert the energy in (1) back to more matter than you started with (since 'c' is now smaller).
4) Convert new (bigger) mass into MORE energy than you got after (1).
5) Run through the streets naked shouting "EURIKA!" because you have discovered perpetual motion.
6) PROFIT (no ??? needed!).

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[nospmiS remoH]

Best troll ever!

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[nospmiS remoH]

arghh ... forgot 'Extrans' ... previous should have read ...

<comic_book_guy_voice> Best troll ever! </comic_book_guy_voice>

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Viking Coder]

Well, no. The "fish on Friday" thing is not divinely ordained, and never was. It was a rule invented by a Pope...

...and by Dogmatic Law, anything the Church says is Divine Law. So, you're wrong, by the Catholic definition.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hesiod]

> your words is a quaint example of correlation without causation.

He didn't say it was causation, just a probable indicator, which certainly IS scientific.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hesiod]

> What I mean by "no value" is a very, very long story

Unless God is interventionist, he cannot change anything, so belief or nonbelief is irrelevant to the Earthly future? Or is it more complex/completely different than that?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[barawn]

Define God.

If you define God as an omniscient, omnipotent object, it exists by construction (it's the Universe).

If you define God as an omniscient, omnipotent being, it's unprovable (will is unprovable outside of the object in question).

The problem is the poor definition of God. If you construct "God" as 1, then "God exists" is an axiom inasmuch as "The Universe exists" is an axiom. If you construct "God" as in 2, then "God exists" is an axiom inasmuch as the person believes it, and a completely self-consistent Universe can be built on top of either axiom: "God exists" and "God does not exist."

In other words, either side should just believe what they want, and leave the other side alone, because neither of them could ever be proven to be "more right" than the other, within their own frame of reference.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hesiod]

> I'll take parent's view based on that, any day.

So you base your judgements of a religion or science based on the attitudes of ONE of its followers, rather than using your brain? Regardless of the conclusion you derive, that's extremely stupid.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hesiod]

> it certainly seems, from sunny Australia, to be a mainstream _American_ idea.

Then you are listening to a person with something to prove, instead of reality. I live in a VERY religious area and do not know a single person who believes that crap.

It is not a mainstream American idea, and it is not even a PREVELANT American idea. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, or lieing to push their faith onto you. Probably the second.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hesiod]

> Otherwise it's 2000 years worth of hearsay.

Hearsay is Heresy! Of course, so is the truth, sometimes.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had more experience with TAoCP than with his analysis papers, though I also have much experience with complexity and algorithms analysis a la Papadimitriou.

However, Knuth's TAoCP is one-of-a-kind whereas I haven't really seen anything extraordinary from him in algorithm analysis. There are certainly very clever results, but they are all kind of "cutesy". This is certainly not a problem, but it makes me wonder what kind of monolithic accomplishments you'd expect from him if you burned his manuscripts of TAoCP and somehow forced him to work effectively on more significant topics. Any answers?

It's worth thinking about the fact that nearly EVERY computer scientist (and many others) uses TeX, whereas not all of them do algorithm analysis. I think that given a liberal (but still reasonable IMHO) metric of social utility, the development of TeX might beat out a proof of "P=/=NP". The computational complexity crowd is still trying to convince other disciplines that they matter. (Except for the ones that gave up.)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hesiod]

> [Fossils] can appear fairly quickly. google for mt st helens fossils and judge for yourself.

I can't find a single link that has any resemblance to your theory. Can you be a bit more specific?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[hesiod]

> Did their God teleport them or something?

Well, since Earth is only 6000 years old, it was Pangea (all land was a single continent) at the time, so they walked there.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

Here
Here
HereSeveral of the links were blocked at work for some reason but I had been to them previous and was familiar with the content.

Note that I selected both pro and anti creation sites do demonstrate that modern fossilization is not particularly controversial.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[stanmann]

I also ended up having for two of those two google for rapid fossilization. There are more varied and relevant sites returned there...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[CustomDesigned]

While modern popular stories and depictions of Santa 'Claus may be non-historical (but mythical), Saint Nicholas is historical, and attended the First Council of Nicea. There are well attested stories of him dropping bags of gold down chimneys, also.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[jaelle]

I once embarked on a project of looking up all the references to women in the Bible. It quickly became crystal clear that God definitely hates women. And so I have no use for Him.

Oddly enough, I manage to generate my own sense of wonder at the universe, keep my problems in perspective, and make up my own mind on moral and ethical questions.

Amazing, isn't it? Look, ma, no God!

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[UserGoogol]

This is yet another day which makes me think that there are magical elves who follow me around purely to mod me up.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Pseudonym]

The word "philosophy" comes from two Greek words: philos meaning "friend" and sophia, meaning "wisdom". The philosophy of science is a subfield of philosophy.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is great for that:

# Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:8

# God likes neither woman nor pillows. He says, "Woe to the woman that sew pillows ... Behold, I am against your pillows." 13:18-21

Two sisters were guilty of "committing whoredoms" by pressing their breasts and bruising "the teats of their virginity." As a punishment, one sister's nakedness was discovered, her children were taken from her, and she was killed by the sword. And the fate of the surviving sister was even worse: Her nose and ears were cut off, she was made to "pluck off" her own breasts, and then after being raped and mutilated, she is stoned to death. Praise God. 23:1-49

# Paul explains that "the natural use" of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. 1:27

blah blah blah

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[rburgess3]

Perhaps the absolute insistence that "logic" must always be the ONLY valid tool for knowing anything is the limiting assumption?

Ummm... name another? Really, deduction and inferrence are the only tools available to any and all humans for the gathering of knowledge of any sort. To have any "others" one must subscribe to the various subsets of religion that 'declare' that they exist.

You see, the problem you're running into is quite subtle: Let's posit for a moment that some form of aquiring knowledge does exist, aside and outside from logic. What's it good for? Logic encompasses all of natural existence, so for something to operate outside of logic, it must be extra-natural, i.e. outside of natural existence. Whoops! Now we've run into a HUGE problem... we've just entered into the realm of 'faith' and 'mystery' and 'mumbo-jumbo'. What are the rules for this extra-natural aquisition of knowledge? Unfortunately for you, you don't ever get to tell me, because of the simple fact that these rules are extra-natural, they simply don't exist in the natural realm. If you were somehow able to explain cogently about this supernatural realm, then by definition it would no longer be extra-natural and you would have re-entered the realm of logic and would lose this argument by default.

Some things to think about, maybe put one of them in your .sig file to remind yourself for when you start to think that there's anything to this religion stuff other than 'feel goodiness':

• When you are able to comprehend why no one believes in Zeus any longer (or why you aren't Hindi for that matter), you will find that religion's usefulness in your life has come to an end.
  
  
• Logic isn't the best way, it's the only way. Doubt me? Give me another means of aquiring knowledge that is both: 1. Egalitarian and 2. Produces reproducable results without regard to creed.

On to the second salient point: "As effective a tool as logic is, it's clear that it's so far been incapable of adequately describing our experience of existence."

Umm, no. Religions are easier to follow because they require no thought on the part of the participants. Humans don't like accountability, they prefer to fob it off on a whole variety of invisible, unknowable, ineffable 'beings' in the sky (or underground, anywhere but where they are, actually). Is belief in a sun-god any more useful to your average human being than the knowledge of the nuclear processes that dictate fusion? No, not really, especially since detailed knowledge requires years, if not decades of dedicated study. Is it more accurate? No. Is it 'good enough' for a simple tribe out in the middle of nowhere? You bet it is.

The statement 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' is deeper than you probably suspect. For those who don't personally need or for those who don't want to spend the time, effort and energy to know, religion is perfectly acceptable. It gives them 'answers' easily, without the need for anything remotely resembling knowledge, hard work or personal integrity, except in the most superficial of fashions. Most people profess to a 'belief' in God because they have not taken the simple expidient of taking the time to forthrightly examine their beliefs or even bothering to question why such a self-perpetuating culture exists in the first place. It should really tell you something that there is a direct correlation between level of education and lack of religious inclination. I've said my two cents, and if I haven't caused you to accept that you need to seriously question why you seem to have to believe that there are 'questions' to life that need 'answers' (gah! Question begging at it's most blatant!), then I can do nothing for you, you are beyond hope of salvation and eternal freedom from the tyranny of being told what to think. Have fun smoking your opium.

Roger.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[CaptainFrito]

"And yet you seem prepared to accept the existence of a god without requiring an explanation for it. How does that work?"

megalomania: 2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

It takes a certain amount of humility to accept that something that is intelligent enough to create the physical universe is also beyond our comprehension. A computer is built by someone, and its 'genetic algorithms' are also built buy someone. It doesn't know that though. Does that mean its maker doesn't exist?

It is the pinnacle of arrogance to think that mankind can know everything. We automatically know that there are some among us that can possess knowledge and wisdom in excess of another, and even that we are imperfect and incapable of knowing everything, but somehow if we can't know everything about God then he cannot exist. If God cannot be reduced to some concept a blithering idiot can comprehend in all aspects, then he's a figment of the imagination of idiots. It is profoundly illogical to know we cannot know everything and then disregard concepts that acknowledge that we can't know everything.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[CaptainFrito]

So, genetic algorithms...are you saying they came into existence and got programmed onto computers all by themselves? What about the computer itself, some output of abiogenetic process?

Clearly, they did not. Which is exactly the point.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[MyDixieWrecked]

God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

Choose any two.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LittleBigLui]

Random breeding, according to the theories, is anti-evolutionary. People don't even know what they believe.

Where did I say "random"?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[KjetilK]

It is part of it, but you could imagine some non-internventionist God behind the "laws of nature" for example (a common concept among many theistic scientists), which by all means would be relevant, so it is definately a much longer story yes.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fourharpoon]

If there is a God, what's the point of doing good to others? Fear of hell?
Although my first post might implied your statement above, but no, I don't believe I will evade Hell merely by doing good. If you are a Christian, you will understand that. If you are not, the point will be a long argument, so I will not discuss it here.
But truly, what will be a reason for an atheist of doing good? Not that I void the possibility, I know some atheists who are more decent in attitude than religious people.

Seriously, if your only concept of right and wrong is based on the threat of punishment, whether by the State or by some deity, then you have real problems.

You are right, that is a bad concept. But I have to admit, I used to think that way, when God was not in my list of considerations.

~ What is beyond the sky?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[meringuoid]

But truly, what will be a reason for an atheist of doing good? Not that I void the possibility, I know some atheists who are more decent in attitude than religious people.

What is your reason, as a religious person, for doing good? You deny that it's through fear of hell. What, then? Love of God? Very well: for myself I give the reply of Abou ben Adhem: I pray thee then, write me as one that loves his fellow men.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[CrimsonAvenger]

No. This was done before Popes were infallible. And not even the Church believes that everything they decree is "divine law". I hope. Because if they did, they really would be the Anti-Christ that early protestants believed them to be.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[meringuoid]

*sigh*

I wasn't asking how the god worked. I was asking how the logic worked: how is it that you will happily postulate God as the creator of Linus, just as you recognise Linus as the creator of Linux - but then feel no need to explain how this vastly more complex entity called God came into existence?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Viking Coder]

It doesn't matter if it was done before or after. What the church says is Divine Law. And yeah, Popes really do think that. Or at least, Catholics and the Catholic church think that of everything the Pope says. That's kind of the point of having a Pope.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[kevmit]

First of all...Thanks for actually taking the time to post a reply that was informative, interesting, relevant and didn't really even get negative until the last couple of sentences. I almost checked my URL to make sure I was still on Slashdot.

"Ummm... name another?...[valid tool besides logic]...deduction and inference are the only tools available to any and all humans for the gathering of knowledge of any sort."

Well, certainly there are other available tools...intuition, for example, and other "sorts" of knowledge. They simply might not meet your personal standards of "validity". Many, many people believe there is more to life than can be quantified or even independently observed. These people are not all flat-earthers. Isn't it just possible, Roger, that there are more things in Heaven and on Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy?

"Logic isn't the best way, it's the only way."

It's obvious that logic has proven to be a very effective way of understanding and manipulating our experience of physical reality but...the ONLY way? See, that's where your argument starts to sound less like logic and more like religion.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[AndreyF]

i'd substitute the word 'feeling' for 'intuition'... the same intuition that led him to his discoveries. I cannot agree with him more.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LordK3nn3th]

Since Einstein was right about other things, he is right about quantum mechanics?

It appears that Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Few scientists agree with him on that nowadays.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Artifakt]

You don't directly disprove axioms. They're usually coloqually considered disproved if they give rise to theorems that are false to facts or formally disproved if the theorems conflict with theorems generated in the same formal system.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Artifakt]

"Atheists do not assert God's non-existance at all, whether as a theorem or an axiom. It simply has no place in their philosophy."

Until you speciy that something is either a theorem or an axiom, you are not dealing with parts of logic. If you are not yet being logical, you lose the right to invoke a rule of logic in the discussion. You simply can't start applying logical rules to a proposition until you have classified a proposition as either an axiom or a theorem, anymore than a judge can properly pass sentence before guilt or innocence is determined.
Judging from your first remark:

"That would lead to completely absurd deductions. Oh, wait, it does, that's the problem. :-)"

you are quite used to that particular form of putting the cart before the horse. Like it or not, it is only Axioms that can only be disproved by showing they lead to illogial or contradictory theorems. To make the assertion you just made, you had to classify the assertion "God Exists!" as an axiom. Sorry, but you have just committed a reducto-de-absurdam. Thank you for playing, and Joyce has a nice copy of our home edition.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[AndreyF]

Few scientists agree with him on that nowadays.

Few scientists agreed with him when he made his first discoveries also.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking of track records...

Who created the atomic bomb? Who are inventing and perfecting most advanced weaponry in the world? Who do we thank for most of the pollution these days and the increases in incidences of cancer? etc...

If scientists would like to wash their hands of these unfortunate consequences of their work, wouldn't they have to also wash their hands of the more fortunate consequences of their work, like smoke detectors, airplanes and rockets, plastics, and a flourishing economy, etc...

Or do the theists get to claim the abolitionist movement, civil rights movement, much of the world's music, arts, and literature. etc...

What are we using the judge what's good?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Talking of track records...

All that has already been gone over. Nobody's saying that science has had bad consequences. What I'm saying is that religion has not had good consequences, especially when compared with science.

As far as the goods that theology has done, those were despite theism. We all know how religion was used to justify the position that slaves occupied. Indeed, the 10 commandments implicitly condones slavery because it mentions it, but does not condemn it.

And the rest, music, literature, art. That's where the money was. If you were an artist and you wanted to eat, you made religious stuff. This in no way means that without religion there would not have been art.

Finally, it's not coincidence that the terrorists who destroyed the WTC were A) not atheists and B) wearing clothes.

This world would be much better with fewer gods, and fewer clothes.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LordK3nn3th]

That's because new observations obviously must be tested and verified to be true. Scientists can't suddenly exlaim "WOW THIS MAN IS EINSTEIN HE IS RIGHT!!!!!1"

Obviously, his observations were validated by experiments. The same can't be said about quantum mechanics, which you dogmatically deny based on the fact, apparently, that Einstein thought so.

You're just a blind "Einstein fanboy". If Einstein said it, it must be true! If it was part of Einstein's gut feeling, it must be true!

Fortunantly, science does not work in your delusional, fantastical, and almost supernatural way.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[rburgess3]

"First of all...Thanks for actually taking the time to post a reply that was informative, interesting, relevant and didn't really even get negative until the last couple of sentences. Thank you. :) Seriously. I'm beginning to really dislike pure text as a medium for interactive discussion, those last two lines were supposed to be pointedly funny, oh well. Looks like I still haven't learnt that smirks don't go over well textually. grrr...

Ok, I'm going to try and answer you in a rather roundabout way, it's the way that I personally understand it, so it's the easiest way for me to explain, please, let me know if I'm unclear and I can reiterate differently.

The english language is a tricky thing, I can 'create' a concept that is patently absurd, like say, 'Invisible Pink Unicorns', and anyone of typical intelligence will immediately 'get it'.

The above isn't an entirely salient statement, apparently, (but there are a couple of rather convincing arguments against theistic interpretations of knowledge that use something of similar construction as their basis), but it's something that you should keep in mind as you read along...

Ok, the sum total of human existence can be described in two simple, but unbelievably deep, words:

• Observation
  and
• Interpretation

That's it. All interactions, physical or mental, are one of those two processes. Think about it.

So far so good. We now have (barely) enough grounding to dismiss soliphism as a viable world view. Here's why: Soliphism states that one can never be sure that one's senses aren't being fooled in some manner and makes accurate interpretation quite impossible. A true soliphist quite literally can't do anything, because he doesn't trust his senses to give him enough accurate information to do any interpretation. Soliphism denies the viablilty of a full 50% of the human experience, so while it's 'not provably false', it is also so useless in the real world as to be nothing more than a passing curiosity. This you can discover in almost any basic philosophy text.

That last paragraph was important, but now I'm going to switch tacks a bit: 'Logic' (here used in it's most general sense, there are many, many types of logic) is the study of interpretation. Not many people realize this, and it trips them up constantly. That's all it is. To be something other than a completely passive observer (i.e. utterly indistinguishable from a soliphist) one must interpret, and all accurate interpretations must, by definition follow the rules of logic. It is a simple artifact of the human ability for abstract thought that you can construct non-sensical but seemingly meaningful patterns like 'Invisible Pink Unicorns'.





Or concepts like omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient beings. Think about that.

My personal problem with religion is that, to me, it is indistinguishable from soliphism. It's worse than wrong, it's useless. It observes all and explains nothing, nothing at all. It short circuts that full half of human existence that is interpretation, because once you accept the existence of Invisi...err...omnicient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent beings, there are no answers to anything other than "God did it."

"God did it." is the most intellectually abhorrent phrase in existence. Every time that phrase is uttered, another person says: "I choose to know no more about my universe than I did before." That's not just wrong, to me, that's disgusting. Where is your sense of self-worth when you utter a phrase like that? Where is your sense of wonder, of awe? If (taking the Xian perspective) Jesus was the Son of God, less than one fiftieth of our own mediocre galaxy could even concievably know about it, or his death and ressurection (Given that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across). There's no wonder in Xianity to compar

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Pseudonym]

I'm not sure what to make of that statement. I'm not suggesting that religion prescribes everything in terms of absolute truth or definitive "word of god" but that at it's root religion relys on such a truth for it's footing.

I just looked up "religion" in a few dictionaries, and the term "absolute truth" appears nowhere.

Indeed, the idea of "absolute truth" is actually a fairly recent phenomenon. If we were back in the days of tribal folk religions, we wouldn't be talking in terms of "one god". We'd be talking about "our gods" and "their gods". Before the modernist era, Christianity was still talking in those terms, though they interpreted "their gods" as being demons.

Part of the thing you have to understand is that long-lived religions are long-lived because they adapt to the time and place in which they find themselves. Christianity has always been the best at this, largely because it was the first religion not to be tied to a single ethnic group or state. (Indeed, Christianity was never designed to be tied to a state, but you try telling neo-conservatives that.)

From the "age of enlightenment" through to the modernist era, the notion of absolute truth was an intrinsic part of Western culture, and religions adopted the idea as their own, as they do.

Today, we are just past a time of change when modernism has given way to postmodernism. Most religions have adapted to this already. The rise of interest in Eastern religions and the rise of new religions loosely based on Pagan ideas, is partly because these religions already understood post-modern thought, and having less inertia. But in some places, particularly where a religion dominates, there is too much inertia to change course quickly. Groups of people will inevitably see adaptation as a loss of heritage rather than the gaining of an evolutionary advantage. Unfortunately, these people tend to be the loudest, but it was always thus.

My point in all of this is that it's a very human problem, rather than a problem inherent in religion.

Theologian's may well have a lot of questions but I'd guess they are a tiny minority in any religion.

You should not find this surprising. Experts are a tiny minority in any community.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[KjetilK]

Uhm, you didn't take two seconds to read what I wrote, did you...?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[cheese_wallet]

"it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old."

Unfortunately, most people who call themselves Christians aren't. Being a Christian means that you have received Christ, and a virtue of having done this means that you are able to believe the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God. To people who have not received Christ, the Bible appears to be ridiculous nonsense.

According to the geneologies in the Bible, the earth is about 6000 years old.

And I'm sure that seems totally preposterous to just about everyone on slashdot. But surely the scientific minds of most slashdotters must realize that everything they know is taken on faith.

A quick example of this would be the concept of solipsism. Take a look here. Roughly speaking, solipsism is the idea that everything around you is a construct of your mind and doesn't necessarily exist. I guess this is a little like the idea used in The Matrix. As of yet, it's impossible to prove this idea false. So you have to take it on faith that it isn't true.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Yaa 101]

Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

All these things you say are measurable and testable one way or the other...

People just must stop thinking that there is ONE truth, this is the problem with people.
Truth is always relative depending the situation.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Slime-dogg]

If you've ever read Hume, you'd have to ask yourself "How is anything self-evident?"

And seriously... How can you truly be sure of anything that exists? How do you know that you aren't just the passive receptor for a series of experiences, like the beach is a receptor for the tides? There's no way to truly know anything, so using the term "axiom" is completely dependant on some sort of subjective set of values.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Slime-dogg]

Logic is an invention. It was created by someone to try to explain the natural things that they experienced.

Some useful links

• Aristotle's logic
• Stoic Logic

There are other forms of Logic that have been invented, and each holds it's own set of truths. You cannot say that Logic itself is a natural thing. If it were, you'd be able to show logic to me. It exists in the mind of man, and only in the mind of man. It is expressed through language, which is also an invention of man.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[TheLink]

The Skeptic's Annotated bible is written by people who can read but either have very little understanding of what they read or are so severely biased that they're a joke themselves.

e.g. the two sisters -

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ezek/23.html

Ezekiel 23 (NIV)

Given the mention in verse 3 that the sisters Oholah= Samaria and Oholibah=Jerusalem, it's frigging obvious that it's about Samaria and Israel and how they were behaving - defiantly unfaithful to God (who they had a covenant with ).

The Israelites were to keep themselves separate from the other nations, and not to behave like them, and yet they did not.

And the Skeptic's Annotated Bible categorizes it under "Insults to Women in the Bible".

Doh.

I actually don't mind most of the atheists with brains. But so many atheists are actually fanatical to the point of stupidity, just like the religious people they like making fun of.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[arodland]

religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

Actually this stuff has surprisingly little to do with religion. Ethics is the science of determining how humans can act to create value and good. Morals are the tools we use in acting ethically. Compassion is personal, but it's a part of being a functional human, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do wth religion.

Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe.

In fact, this is pretty much what religion is about. That and the exercise of power.

In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested

and without which all following would be meaningless. In order to claim God as an axiom you must be able to support a claim that you can't build a consistent logic upon the assumption of no God. I find rather the opposite; that in a universe with an active God, logic is meaningless. I understand what you're saying, but going "axiom" is an absolute cop-out.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[dvdeug]

But look at the scientists who develop weapons, landmines, chemical warfare agents, do you not believe that they could show a little more compassion in their daily lives.

And look at the soliders who lay them, the politicians who order them, the people who elect and support the politicians who do so. And think about who much more compassionate they would have been if they hadn't invented any weapons and they let dictators conqueror the world.

If you think that most religions in the world are out to hurt people,

First place, religions aren't out to do anything; the people who believe in them are. And I get the impression that religions have their fair share of the people who are out to hurt people. In any case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions; the preacher who encourages parents to deny their children proper medical care for religious reasons are probably more sure of their moral correctness than those scientists you so disapprove of.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

Oh, it's OK to rape, mutilate, enslave, murder as long as you're doing it to whole cities, not to particular named women? OK. Yeah, when you put it like that it obviously testifies to a loving god.

The very most you can charge against SAB here is that it's just misfiled under Women rather than Genocide.

The SAB points out contradictions, foolishness and outright evil in the bible. One reasonable response to this is to say, "well, it's just an alegory", or "it's just poetry", or "it just reflects the limited knowledge of the Israelites" when they describe insects with four legs and so on. Fair enough. But let's see people be consistent on that point, and not ever claim that the bible is any more than just ancient mediocre poetry.

If it is supposed to be true, it should not contain contradictions and idiocies. But it does.

If it is supposed to give a defensible moral code, it should not speak approvingly of rape, torture, incest, massacre, etc. But it does.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

How come everytime we fuck up paradise, it's proof that God doesn't exist or doesn't love us?

Yeah, God gave us the freedom not to cause earthquakes or plagues. If only those people in the 10th century had used their god-given intelligence to invent antibiotics, they wouldn't have suffered the Black Death! Children get leukemia because they're sinners!

Uh huh.

Did you ever see the Onion story: "God answer's sick child's prayer. 'No', says God."

God does not show his compassion by not allowing us to show ours.

On the contrary: the Giant Pumpkin shows His twisted sense of humor by allowing us to believe in God.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

There are two ways to answer your argument.

One is to show that, even accepting your presuppositions, the argument is inconsistent. For example, we could make a case that the axiom that there is an omipotent loving god is inconsistent with all the needless suffering in the world, unless we twist the word "loving" until it loses all meaning. (What loving parent would have their child born with terminal cancer if they could control it?) A great deal of "theology" tries to prove whether the system is self-consistent, or to tweak it so it is.

A different argument is to say that although your system may or may not be consistent, it is not useful. God can be excised with Occam's razor.

One can posit any number of arbitrary invisible beings: god, buddha, great pumpkin, eris, etc. It is always possible to make up contrived theories which are not disprovable and that are self-consistent. That does not make the theories particularly worthwile; it just gets them through the first gate.

One form of Occam's razor is that the theory which is simplest and requires the least assumptions while still explaining the observed facts is more likely to be true and useful.

To "earn" your enormous assumption of supernatural beings, your theory needs to be able to explain observations which a simpler theory either gets wrong or cannot explain. (Insert standard case of newtonian->relativistic physics.) Religious attempts to claim explanations of particular phenomena have consistently being knocked over by advancing science.

One that lingers like a bad smell is "where did the first life come from?" It is not sufficient for religion to just say "God did it"; science might as well say "it just happened." To claim explanatory power you need to provide some kind of *explanation*: did god move atoms around using tractor beams, or did a bunny rabit appear ex nihilo and if so how, etc.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[TheLink]

"Oh, it's OK to rape, mutilate, enslave, murder as long as you're doing it to whole cities"

"If it is supposed to give a defensible moral code, it should not speak approvingly of rape, torture, incest, massacre, etc. But it does."

You're still reading from the SAB. The SAB is a contextless glance through the material with a strong bias.

I'm not interested in arguing with you.

You have to be willing to risk changing your point of view. You may not actually end up changing your POV but if you're not actually willing, then no matter what whoever says it doesn't really matter anyway.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[teval]

Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.

Really.. I'd love to see the calculation for this one. The thing is, it's not a random occurance, that happens with very minor things. The real differences come from enviromental stresses, adaptation. Now... how likely is it that a creature with the required brain size and appendages would have been exposed to comparable enviromental pressures. Not only that, that it would have evolved twoards intelligence istead of going extinct, or that even if it did develop some form of intelligence it didn't die out.
It's very unlikely that something like this would happen.

Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?

I remember these vague stories about something called reptiles. Maybe if you search on google you might find something... On a serious note, they're everywhere, and it's easy to imagine a big one comming at you.

Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.

Expand your mind by accepting things on faith thereby ignoring any possible evidence. Sounds like the opposite. Also take note that there's no evidence that somet hings won't be explained, and a lot of things that didn't make sense 40000 years ago do today. I find it short sighted to think that just because we're at a certain stage in our development we shouldn't look forward and assume things will increase comparably (a lot faster too, because there are a lot more of us, and we all have more free time)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

I came to feel that way about it by reading regular, unannotated bibles long before I ever discovered the SAB. I find SAB a handy reference to absurdities, but I don't need it to tell me they're absurd.

I hope I am never going to change my point of view that rape, murder, etc are wrong, and that writers who praise them are evil. If I want poetry from a whackjob I think I'll choose Nietzsche; he's a better writer.

Nevertheless there are some very laudable and beautiful parts in the bible. If you eliminated perhaps 80 or 90% you might have an excellent book. And of course, though they never admit it, this is what most decent Christians do: they read and quote the good bits, and skip over all the horrible accounts of nasty brutal tribes and their Small God.

OK, so let's try one case: slaughter of all the firstborn children of Egypt in Exodus. I think it is very cruel to kill all those children. In modern times it would be a crime against humanity. If you want to explain how it is the action of a loving universal god, or indeed of anything but a psychopath, then I would be fascinated to hear. I am prepared to change my mind if your argument is good.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[teval]

There are many speculations that they are human creations. HIV, SARS etc.. Thank a scientist.

HIV/AIDS was first found in the 70s wasn't it?

I really don't think people had the technology for anything like that at the time. Even so, it's much more likely it is natural, I can't see how it was made by humans when monkeys have it naturally (which means it been around for a long time, so they've adapted)

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[TheLink]

He loves the Israelites more than he loves the Egyptians.

And in this world given the conflict[1] of free wills (we are made in the image of God), innocent people sometimes have to die. Similarly Jesus, God's real first born (and God) died, though innocent.

I admit I have difficulty reconciling popular interpretations of the "Jesus is the only way" concept, with a loving, all powerful God. If they are correct, billions are going to hell. Is there really no other way? Does the choice end at death?

[1] Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

He loves the Israelites more than he loves the Egyptians.

I hope I never experience the kind of "love" that is expressed in slaughtering millions of children.

Are you saying an omnipotent, omniscient god couldn't think of a better way out than just killing many thousands or millions of babies? For shame. Why not kill the Egyptian leaders, who bore more responsibility? Why not strike down Egyptians when they tried to harm Israelites? Why not teleport all the Israelites away? Why not turn all the Egyptian weapons into silly-putty and give the Israelites rayguns?

Humans have fought major wars without descending to killing a person from every single house in a country. However worthy the cause, such gratuituous bloodshed is never justified or militarily necessary. Those who do that we call genocidal tyrants.

"Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."

"He did it first!" might work for five-year-olds, but it is not credible for adults, let alone deities.

By definition, an omnipotent god could free his people without wallowing in babies' blood. As I see it, there are three main possibilities:

1. The book is simply a collection of myths. Since it's fiction, it is not self-consistent: at times god is loving; at other times psychopathic. Etc.

2. God exists and is powerful, but really likes killing. This contradicts a lot of other Christian doctrine, is a pretty unpleasant idea, and in any case barely substantiated. If I had to believe in bloodthirsty supernatural entities, I think vampires have better style.

3. You redefine all the words so as to make them meaningful: "he 'loved' the egyptian babies so he had to kill them", etc. Or you say "god is a mystery". This is mere sophistry. You can "prove" any argument by redefining language.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[jhunsake]

Uh, no. As I said, axioms are never proved are disproved.

I could create a system with 2 axioms:

1. S
2. ~S

Of course now I can prove anything using that system, but that is beside the point. An axiom is something that is true, by definition.

Perhaps you're thinking of hypothesis or conjecture?

For lots of fun, take a mathematical logic course. I can't get enough of that shit.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Anonymous Coward]

"My personal problem with religion is that, to me, it is indistinguishable from soliphism. It's worse than wrong, it's useless. It observes all and explains nothing, nothing at all. It short circuts that full half of human existence that is interpretation, because once you accept the existence of Invisi...err...omnicient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent beings, there are no answers to anything other than "God did it."

"God did it." is the most intellectually abhorrent phrase in existence. Every time that phrase is uttered, another person says: "I choose to know no more about my universe than I did before." That's not just wrong, to me, that's disgusting. Where is your sense of self-worth when you utter a phrase like that? Where is your sense of wonder, of awe? If (taking the Xian perspective) Jesus was the Son of God, less than one fiftieth of our own mediocre galaxy could even concievably know about it, or his death and ressurection (Given that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across). There's no wonder in Xianity to compare with structures that are Billions and Billions of light years in scale, there's no wonder in Xianity to compare with the astounding revelations about the human condition that evolutionary biology gives us and there's no wonder in Xiantiy to compete with the prophetic abilities of an orbital astronomer."

You're missing the point. Christianity, like most religions, is not intended as a substitute for science. It is a matter of faith, science is not. I think your problem here is that you come at it from the perspective that all religions came about in an attempt to explain stuff, such as why we exist. That's fine, believe that if you want (excuse me if I'm wrong here), but don't assume that's why followers of those religions believe what they do. I, for example, believe in evolution and the big bang. That doesn't prevent me from believing in God. Where is my sense of wonder? Don't me you've never heard anyone talking about the beauty and splendor of God's creation, especially when looking at things like pictures from the Hubble telescope, or magnifications of diatoms. I'm paraphrasing here, but, "God created the world with rules that are knowable by man." So what if I think "God did it?" Why does that stop me from asking, "how did God do it?"

Also, it doesn't matter if the rest of the universe can't know about this particular event, because

-there could be no other life out there at all
-there could be no other sentient life out there
-the same, or analogous, events could have occured for other peoples

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[AndreyF]

What Einstein theorised in his young and mid life was highly contovertial, and was highly criticized before (and after) he had proven it. As for the hypothesis-experiment practice of science, it get pretty shady (some may even go as far as to say 'flawed') when you venture in the realm of quantum physics. Contradictory ideas (light is a particle AND light is a wave) can be simultaneously validated by experiments.

As far as quantum mechanics goes, all of Einstein's beliefs, and a lot of the spiritual foundation for his research are summed up in his famous words 'God does not roll dice.'

I do have a question for you though, one that may reveal the fundament of our disagreement: had Einstein not lived, would science now, 125 years after his birth gotten nearly as far as he had single-handedly brought it? Would physicists have gotten to a theory of relativity without him?

Forgive me if I don't resort to personal insults, I was never good at those...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LordK3nn3th]

I never said he wasn't an extremely important person. He was, however, not a model scientist because he rejected theory outright despite the evidence. He made a big mistake, and that tarnished his record a little bit, although clearly his other observations are extremely important.

We must remember, however, that Einstein didn't do this all himself. He stood on the shoulders of giants, who stood on the shoulders of other giants. Yes, he is one of the largest "giants" himself, however.

Also, Einstein's spiritual beliefs are not necessarily echoed in "God does not play dice with the universe" statement. That is obviously a metaphorical one. Whether Einstein was an atheist or deist isn't really clear, and I don't really care.

Oh, and Einstein's discoveries were criticized because they challenged common notions and perceptions. That is common and in fact very acceptable-- science involves critique and repeated experimentation, and so far Einstein has won out.

Also, you say "proven" but that is not anywhere near true. "Supported by experimentation" would be a better thing to say. Isn't as strong, of course, but it's far more accurate. Einstein won out in the end because, apparently, he was mostly right.

Still, in my opinion, he shouldn't be a poster boy for all scientists, or even science itself, as he did do something scientists shouldn't do, which is cling to gut feeling despite the evidence. Imagine those who dogmatically disagreed with Galileo-- common perception of gravity and various other things were challenged by him-- others made the same mistake as Einstein and disagreed with him for reasons other than the evidence.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[AndreyF]

In those senses, I agree with you. I'd only add that Einstein seems to me very clearly a deist, and most definately not an anteist.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LordK3nn3th]

I tend to agree with you as well. However, there is one quote (it's really not easy to verify quotes by people dead for a long time, especially with a man like einstein) where he apparently claims he is an atheist. I don't know if it's true, you can find it with some digging around. It's also possible that Einstein changed his beliefs on this matter, which makes it even harder to verify. I really just ignore this issue altogether.

It's also possible that most people would call him an atheist, and he just described the universe in a pantheistic sense because it aesthetically pleased him.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[AndreyF]

That may very well be true, the reason I was so certain he is a deist is because so many deists agree with him (he's quoted repeatedly on various, including the official, deist websites). It is hard to tell the religion of a person, especially one that is not around.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[MrResistor]

If a completely self-consistent Universe can be built on top of the axiom "God does not exist", then what reason is there to believe that God exists?

But!

[TEMM]

But But But... They dont exist? sooooo confused

Re:But!

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't exist. Santa Clause is just the Easter Bunny in disguise.

Re:But!

[TEMM]

Where does the easter bunny get its eggs?

Re:But!

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the conspiracy...

Re:But!

[fucksl4shd0t]

Where does the easter bunny get its eggs?

From the easter chicken?

From the female of the species?

Oh, I know, you're trying to imply that bunnies don't get laid.

From the easter CowboyNeal's mother's cousin's ex-girlfriend's former roommate.

Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Space cowboy]

Only when you are sufficiently confident in your premises do you venture to be droll to your enemies, and make no mistake, the AdTi is Linus' enemy. The use of humour is simultaneously the ultimate statement of confidence and the ultimate put-down - it's a pre-generated sound-bite. It's a kick in the vitals. To all on the (winning) side of Linux, it's a rallying cry. Go Linus.

There's nothing more satisfying than placing your critics up on a pedestal and ripping them to shreds - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and it doesn;t depend on pointiness :-)

What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it. Given their paymaster, the hopeless nature of their case, and the imperatives they must put forward each time, I think we have a significant chance of a sacrificial lamb in Linux' cause... Rope to hang themselves is what we want... Remember that :-)

Simon

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing more satisfying than placing your critics up on a pedestal and ripping them to shreds - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and it doesn;t depend on pointiness :-)

Should't that be: "...the penguin is indeed mightier than the sword..."?

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Nurseman]

What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it.

I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously ? They are ALL paid shills. Everytime something happens in the SCucks case, Pretenderle and Didiot come out of the blue corner, and Dion Cornett comes out of the red corner. Each one has an agenda. Each one has paid "opinions" Would any buisness make an important descision based on these shills ? It's like my beloved NY Post. I like reading it, but take everything with a grain of salt

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source

Were they ever? I seem to remember that, like, the very first time I ever saw AdTI mentioned on Slashdot the response was "yeah, this isn't a threat, these people have been around awhile, they're these loopy pseudo ayn rand ideological attack dogs for the conservative right wing, no one really listens to them except other right wingers, they're known to have no journalistic integrity anyway".

They don't seem to have much of a reputation to ruin.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the great big foot not mean anything to you?

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops, meant to post that as a reply to this instead.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[MrIrwin]

"What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source"

How long has it been a serious news source?

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

you are funny! Linus is not, he never is.

Love Linux, think Linus should not quit his day job.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[cft_128]

they're these loopy pseudo ayn rand ideological attack dogs for the conservative right wing, no one really listens to them except other right wingers, they're known to have no journalistic integrity anyway

You mean the Washington Times?

My karma's on fire.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[starling]

I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously?

Other analysts. They analyse each others analyses.

cf. Historians in the Foundation trilogy.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[aardvarkjoe]

I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously ?

Tell you what. Hold onto that question until the next "Linux will take over the world next year!" article gets posted to slashdot.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it.

and have they not already done so? I am not flaming here; I am being quite honest. The arguments that they have put forth in the last two "reports" discussed here on Slashdot were specious at best. My high school debating team would have made mince-meat out of them.

I, for one, hope that Linus will continue to rebut any of their "reports" in exactly the same manner. They don't merit anything else.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Kris Magnusson]

Have you ever been on the receiving end of an analyst's call? I have several times, and no money was exchanged.

Just because one analyst dissed Linus doesn't mean they all suck.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[mercuryresearch]

A lot, but not all.

A really fast way to tell good from bad is if two diametrically opposed companies/issues use the same analyst. Usually, (but not always) this means the research is sufficiently objective or accurate that both sides concede to use it. The few times this isn't true it means the analyst has taken selling out to a new level.

I've been an analyst for 16 years. I'm in one of the two camps mentioned. You decide.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[macshit]

Just because one analyst dissed Linus doesn't mean they all suck.

Of course not. They all suck quite independently of their opinion about Linux.

Seriously, there does seem to be an extremely high rate of suckitude among "analysts". I presume it has to do with the fact that the people who judge them largely have no clue how to do so (if they had a clue, they wouldn't need to hire an "analyst"), and easily fall prey to buzzwords and hype masquerading as analysis.

Given such an environment, there naturally spring up a lot of analysts who are really good with the buzzwords and the hype...

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of humour is simultaneously the ultimate statement of confidence and the ultimate put-down - it's a pre-generated sound-bite. It's a kick in the vitals. To all on the (winning) side of Linux, it's a rallying cry. Go Linus.

*cough* ... then they laugh at you... then you win... *cough*

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anne Thwacks]

Would any buisness make an important descision based on these shills ?

Yes, many do ... because the decision maker can avoid knowing anything, and still cover his ass.

For middle management in a large organisation, its not the reality that counts, its the bullsh*t.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[fucksl4shd0t]

I've been an analyst for 16 years. I'm in one of the two camps mentioned. You decide.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm, you're a sell-out?

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[mrjb]

I think we have a significant chance of a sacrificial lamb in Linux' cause... Hmmmmmmmm shoarma

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[presarioD]

I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously ?

I lost my faith in analysts when I heard one say (must have been a year ago):

I am not sure if the President (yes he meant the current president) is a brilliant person or just lucky!

After that I knew they are just having fun trying to make a living. Just like the mercenaries in Iraq, that they are not there for the money (OH NO!) they are building democracy, spreading freedom, protecting the life of a person, pretty much been heroes...

Does it stink in here or is it me??

SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh heh heh

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you meant
ho ho ho?

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO = Santa Claus Operation

Is Santa angry with Linus for being a front-figure? I thought they were friends.. hehe

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[r.jimenezz]

Wouldn't it be more like "Ho, ho, ho!!" ?

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[std_disclaimer.h]

No, no no.... SCO == Software Considered Obsolete Really now, pay attention!

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[AndroidCat]

No wonder Darl won't let us see the list .. he's checking it twice.

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[ch-chuck]

Brian did that one last December already.

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[Alan Hicks]

No wonder Darl won't let us see the list .. he's checking it twice.

But no matter how many times he checks it he's still in the naughty column.

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[Rassleholic]

Why am I imagining a large evil robot operating a sweatshop on the polar regions of Neptune?

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[FrankDrebin]

Sad for him, cuz' we all know this ride is gonna end with Blitzen.

Stand-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

"After having been found out, Linus had no choice but to admit -- this is what he has to say: 'Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.'""

OK. How come Slashdot doesn't have a comedy section?

Re:Stand-up.

[dnotj]

because we have a microsoft and SCO section, a comdey section would be redundant.

Re:Stand-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does. It's called, It's funny, laugh. And that's the secion that this is posted under.

Duh.

Re:Stand-up.

[NanoGator]

"OK. How come Slashdot doesn't have a comedy section? "

Because if it did, this story would have been rejected.

Re:Stand-up.

[Zone-MR]

What do you mean it doesn't? The story is in the "It's funny, laugh" section.

Re:Stand-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the great big foot mean anything to you?

Re:Stand-up.

[great_flaming_foo]

Notice the foot icon at the top. You know the one with the "It's funny Laugh." alt text.

Re:Stand-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. How come Slashdot doesn't have a comedy section?

The comedy news section can be found here

d'oh

[abscondment]

This just in:
SCO Claims they created Linux and sues itself. Happy day.

Dishonest list?

[DAldredge]

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/ agnostic.htm

What Is an agnostic?

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

Re:Dishonest list?

[agm]

Completely off topic, but I disagree. If you don't belief in any deities then you are (by definition) an atheist. If you do belief in any then you are, by definition, a theist. These two terms are mutually exclusive (because of the "a"). You must be one or the other.

An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't think it is possible to know whether deities exist.

So it is quite plausible to be an agnostic theist as well as an agnostic atheist.

(Though I admit there is not much point in word definition debates as they hardly ever end with agreement).

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't belief in any deities then you are (by definition) an atheist. If you do belief in any then you are, by definition, a theist. These two terms are mutually exclusive (because of the "a"). You must be one or the other.

They are not mutually exclusive. I can believe that iMacs come in yellow. I can believe iMacs don't come in yellow. I can can believe that I don't know if they come in yellow.

An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't think it is possible to know whether deities exist.

Not true either. That's a type of agnostic.

Re:Dishonest list?

[nacturation]

Depends on how you define the words. Strictly speaking, an atheist is really an a-theist. The "a-" prefix is [Greek? Latin?] for "non-", so atheist in this context means non-theist.

Thus, if someone asks "Are you a theist?" And you answer, "No, I am not a theist." Then you're really saying you're not a theist, non-theist, atheist. Saying that you're not a theist doesn't automatically mean that you actively believe in the complete opposite of whatever theists believe.

Someone who is Gnostic believes a whole lot of other stuff. Thus, to be a non-Gnostic (agnostic) is much different than to be a non-Theist (atheist). Anyway, check out Wiki on theist/gnostic/atheist/agnostic for more info.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Rostin]

Commonly "soft" and "hard" (or some other appropriate adjectives) atheism are distinguished from one another and from agnosticism.

Agnosticism: We are incapable of knowing whether or not God exists

"hard" atheism: God does not exist

"soft" atheism: There is insufficient evidence to believe in God, or belief in God is irrational.

Re:Dishonest list?

[benploni]

Wrong. Linus qualifies as an atheist by his own words.

From an interview in the November 1999 Linux Journal magazine:

Margie: How about religion?
Linus: Hmmmm, completely a-religious -- atheist.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

See also strong atheism vs. weak atheism.

Re:Dishonest list?

[ornil]

I'd like to point out that gnostic is not the opposite of an agnostic (or vice versa, if you prefer). Gnostics (according to OED) are

The designation given to certain heretical sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of things spiritual, and interpreted the sacred writings by a mystic philosophy

I have never seen it used in the sense of opposite to "agnostic" and OED only saw it once a long time ago.

Re:Dishonest list?

[AndroidCat]

His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece.

A careful philosopher. That would be one with the spikey iron things connected to the copper wire into the ground devices on his roof, yes? ;)

Re:Dishonest list?

[DAldredge]

Then perhaps the list should link to that, instead of using false info.

Re:Dishonest list?

[hardcode57]

Very hifalutin'. I'm agnostic. I don't know that there can never be a proof of the existance or non-existance of god: that would require as big an leap of faith as being an atheist or religious. I don't even ask the question 'is there a god?' because I'm not in the least interested in the answer. I'm concerned to live a decent and honorable life according to my own lights, and if there is a god, I'm not interested in his/her/it's opinion. The big questions in my life revolve around _how_ to live my life, so that the world my young son inherits is a little better for my efforts than the one I came into, not who to live it for.

Re:Dishonest list?

[benploni]

Then perhaps the list should link to that, instead of using false info.

The link did go that. I guess slashdotters are adverse to reading any link, not just the article.

Re:Dishonest list?

[DAldredge]

My mistake, but the statment I read (above that one) is wrong and doesn't support their position so why include it?

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.

I thought the gang from Mount. Olympus moved to Holywood and just finished staring in a show called Friends?

Also, isn't Zues the dude who does the voice overs for UT? (when he says GODLIKE! he means it!)

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe 'apatheist' would be the most common term to describe you (and myself).

Strictly, the term refers to someone who believes that because the agnostics are right, the whole question becomes irrelevant - but it's also fairly applied to those who simply don't care.

Re:Dishonest list?

[soft_guy]

Which am I? When people ask me, I say, "I choose to believe in the non existance of God."

Re:Dishonest list?

[JohnFluxx]

My problem with saying that I'm agnostic, is that it seems to imply that I'm assigning equal probability to the existance of God, and nonexistance.

Take the realm of unicorns. I do think there are unicorns, but I suppose that there is a non-zero chance that there is one in the forests somewhere, magical and all. After all, we cannot disprove it since we can argue that magic keeps it hidden.

Does that make me unicorn-agnostic, or unicorn-athiest, so to speak.

Re:Dishonest list?

[arkanes]

The two aren't unrelated. An atheist, by definition, has no belief in (a) God. Period. "Extremist" definitions of atheism are usually only trotted out for flame wars or as ad-hominim attacks.

It is NOT as, alot of religious folk like to pretend "a belief that there is no God", and nor would such a belief be hypocritical, as is often claimed. If God decided to make himself known obviously (desecend from the heavens on shining lightbeams, get interviewed on E!, that sort of thing) most atheists would concede he exists.

Myself, I reserve judgment on the existence of God, although I tend toward the negative. But at least if we're talking about the God in the Christian bible, I wouldn't worship whether I knew he existed or not.

Re:Dishonest list?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

What Is an agnostic?

There's only one real way of explaining it well...

Re:Dishonest list?

[agm]

Atheist.

Re:Dishonest list?

[boots@work]

That would be hard atheism, based on a personal conviction.

I am more of a soft atheist: I think it's highly unlikely that a god exists, but only because that is the simplest explanation of the evidence.

Re:Dishonest list?

[boots@work]

It depends on what conclusion you draw.

"I think there probably is a unicorn, though we can't see it." - unicornist

"I'm not sure if there is a unicorn, since it might be hidden." - unicorn-agnostic

"I think there aren't any unicorns, otherwise we would have seen one." weak-unicorn-atheist

"It's impossible for something to exist and be absolutely undetectable, so unicorns are a logical impossibility."[*] strong-unicorn-atheist

([*] i'm not necessarily making this argument; it's just an example)

Re:Dishonest list?

[gaijin99]

An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't think it is possible to know whether deities exist.

So it is quite plausible to be an agnostic theist as well as an agnostic atheist.

You're missing the point, an agnostic holds that the question is unanswerable, or at least unanswered. While you are quite correct in saying that ultimately there are only two options (theism and athiesm) the agnostic doesn't fall into either camp. It is possible, of course, to be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic athiest, but it is hardly necessary.

Let's take an example: a box either contains a blue coin, or it does not. The coinist would believe in the existance of the coin, the acoinist would not believe in the coin. Both are expressing belief. The agnostic refuses belief, he accepts that he is ignorant about the existance, or non-existance, of the coin. The decision is suspened, possibly forever.

I'm definately in the camp of the self-admitted ignorant. I do not know whether any deity exists or not. I can't be an athiest, because I don't *disbelieve* in deities; but I can't be a theist because I don't *believe* in deities either. I'm simply suspending judgement until better evidence comes along. I'm certainly not going to go around having faith in one answer or the other.

I see both athiesm and theism as being essentially the same: both require faith. Agnosticim requires no faith, merely the courage to accept that you don't have an answer to a rather important question. I think that by admitting my ignorance on this topic I'm showing more wisdom than those who claim to know things when there is no evidence. The box might have a coin, then again it might not; unless we can open the box and look I refuse to say one way or the other.

Re:Dishonest list?

[agm]

I don't disbelieve in deities either, but I don't believe in them which makes me an atheist.

If I ask you the question "do you believe in any deities" and the answer was "no" then you are, by definition, an atheist. You may also be an agbostic but that's beside the point (as you say that is about knowledge, not belief).

I disagree that atheism requires faith. What some call "strong atheism" requires faith but by the actual meaning of atheism (i.e. without theism) then no belief is implied, hence no faith.

Atheism is about lack of belief, not belief of lack - a subtle but important difference.

Re:Dishonest list?

[LawfulGood]

I don't even ask the question 'is there a god?' because I'm not in the least interested in the answer.
How very odd. If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest...

The big questions in my life revolve around _how_ to live my life, so that the world my young son inherits is a little better for my efforts than the one I came into, not who to live it for.
What exactly do you mean by "better?" Better implies that there is some "good" that you would like to world to move closer too. And a "bad" that you would like it to move away from. A Christian would say that there is a "good" defined by God's nature from which we can say whether the world is getting "better" or "worse." Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting.

Re:Dishonest list?

[E_elven]

How is this off-topic?

Agnosticism and gnosticism are not related like atheism and theism. The word gnostos is Greek for 'known' -it follows that the a-qualifier makes the word 'unknown'. Gnosticists chose the word for their sect because they were in the know, so to speak.

Re:Dishonest list?

[E_elven]

The Turtle Moves.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude - you saw that site too?

i thought i was the only one into uniporn...

and now, i post anonymously....

Re:Dishonest list?

[EnderWiggnz]

gnosticism followed closely the split personality between the old testament, and new testament gods.

they claimed a duality of good and evil.

roman catholicism outright rejected it, and specifically excommunicated those who follow it.

Re:Dishonest list?

[killjoe]

Oddly enough if you don't care whether god exists or not you are a budhist.

Re:Dishonest list?

[sacmog]

Can't remember who said it, and don't know or care which camp it falls into, but I think the simpilest belief works for me: I don't care who is cranking the universe, I'm just glad they don't stop. (sacmog)

Re:Dishonest list?

[sacmog]

Upon second though, I think it was said by Manuel in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Feel free to correct me. (sacmog)

Re:Dishonest list?

[Nerull]

Which is why no one had morals before Christans showed up...oh wait, they did.

Re:Dishonest list?

[some guy I know]

the courage to accept that you don't have an answer to a rather important question.

Why is the question "important"?
Why does accepting one's own ignorance require "courage"?

I am agnostic about religion because I don't consider it to be important, and don't consider it worth wasting my time investigating.
I don't believe that this requires courage on my part.

Re:Dishonest list?

[fucksl4shd0t]

You know, I'm all for classification and so forth, but I tend to think that attaching labels to an absence of religion only prolongs the problem of religion, assuming, of course, that religion is a problem.

The way I figure it, once upon a time people started putting God on the shelf with all the other myths and were persecuted for it. In an effort to answer the question "Well, what are you, then?" with something more than "Nothing!" and simultaneously attempt to gain credulity for an absence of religion, some folks decided that the word "Atheist" would do nicely. It's a word that can be torn apart and understood quite easily, in fact. And it just manages to put a classification on the absence of religion that fits it into the larger scheme of religions, thus gaining some modicum of credulity.

The reason I have a problem with this is that by classifying yourself in the larger order of religions you also implicitly lend credence to all religions. Maybe not a lot, but at least a little. By providing an answer to the question "Well, what are you, then?" you also provide meaning to the question. I think the correct answer to that question should be something like "Homo sapiens", "Mechanic", "Male", or something like that, and by sucking away the meaning of the question when asked about religion you also suck away some of the credulity that religion currently enjoys. (And no, if the answer is "African American", "Caucasian", or "Anything-American", you would be contributing to other problems not related to religion. It's an all-encompassing question, unfortunately)

No surprise, but it's the same reason I ultimately turned away from LaVey's particular style of Satanism, regardless of my philosophical alignment with the group. You see, by allowing myself to be classified not just in the order of religions, but also directly in relation to Christianity, I was only putting more fuel on the fire of religion, a fire I would really like to extinguish.

Coincidentally, in the authorized biography of Anton LaVey, he says something very similar, and also indicates that he ultimately grew out of his own creation of Satanism. It's an interesting exercise, I think.

Re:Dishonest list?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Aha, Schroedinger's Cat (sp?). ;) So does an agnostic then go on to say "The existance of God is merely a cloud of probability, but cannot be determined with utter certainty until and unless He arrives?"

I totally agree with another poster on the subject. I don't know, I don't care, but if the God of the Christian Bible exists, I don't care to worship Him. In fact, I'll take it a step further, and if that God really exists, and if He really intends to pull judgement day on us, I intend to enlist in the Army of Darkness to oppose His Rule, and ultimately to overthrow Heaven and liberate the poor souls that currently occupy it. ;)

In the meantime, why trouble myself with it? We still don't know if there's even a cat in the box, let alone whether or not the little fuck is alive.

Re:Dishonest list?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Why does accepting one's own ignorance require "courage"?

Well, to be honest, it doesn't take as much courage as it used to. Society is much more forgiving about it now than it was even 18 years ago when I left the church. And looking back over history, there was once a time where you would have been burned at the stake, or subject to any number of tortures ending in execution.

In any case, the reason it still requires some courage, at least, has to do with the fear of death. Many people fear death to the extent that they'd prefer to deny its existence, and would prefer to believe they will live forever. They love life that much, apparently. Not a bad thing, I certainly love life a great deal. But it generally takes courage to overcome fear, and accepting your ignorance usually includes accepting that you don't know what happens when you die, which is when the fear becomes greatest for many. To overcome that fear, of course, requires courage.

For a very small minority, at this time, courage isn't required at all. Simple logic will suffice. I shall begin by making use of this map. Errr, anyway, this minority is growing, and doesn't require courage to overcome their fear of death because they don't fear death in the traditional sense. For my part, I welcome it, but I'd like to put it off as long as possible (always procrastinating, I know). As much as I'd love to live forever, though, I'm not entirely convinced it's the panacea the religionists would have me believe. Risk and uncertainty are great motivators and add a great deal of spice to life. Remove those, and what's left?

I don't believe that this requires courage on my part.

You might just be lucky enough to be in that minority of people that don't require courage, but for the rest of us instinctive know-it-alls, admitting that we don't know is in itself a painful act, all fears aside. ;)

Re:Dishonest list?

[fucksl4shd0t]

How very odd. If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest...

If there isn't a God, I don't vanish in a puff of smoke, either. I still exist, somehow, and an alternate explanation must also exist. In fact, many alternate explanations do exist.

In any case, religion can only be proven in the positive. That is, you can only prove that religion is right, you can never prove that it is wrong. What good would it be if it were so easy to disprove? Can't be done, can it?

Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting.

Are there any religions that don't believe in God that maintain some modicum or morality? Why yes there are. IN fact, every single religion (with a few obscure exceptions) contains a set of rules virtually identical to those presented in the Bible, either testament, in fact. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find atheists or anybody else lacking religion to be completely immoral people as a result.

Now, I agree that morality is something that for some people requires an objective foundation. Most people seem to be satisfied with a subjective foundation, as in "It's not right to steal because then other people could steal from you." Or "It's not a good idea to steal because you'll go to jail". Whatever. But I am definitely one of those people who require an objective foundation, and the only objective foundation I've found is Freedom. It's real simple, there's one postulate, which is that we are all Free individuals.

To build a system of morality using Freedom as a base, I shall leave as an exercise for the student. It should (and is) be possible to build a system of morality that very closely resembles the common base of morality practiced by every religion (at least taught, if not practiced by every individual), and it should be (and is) possible to wind up with at least 5 of the ten commandments, along with Jesus's revisions, all using Freedom as a base, and requiring no leap of faith that there's God, Jesus, and so forth.

Re:Dishonest list?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Wow, I've read that chapter before, but it's interesting reading it now. See, last time I read that chapter, I was in the grip of my own drug addiction, and I decided that a greater power wasn't needed. I felt that if I really needed a Higher Power in order to break the addiction, then I was totally worthless. Since I refuse to believe I'm totally worthless, I searched inside for more power to overcome the addiction.

I ultimately succeeded, and have been drug-free for a number of years, now. I break several rules of AA, in fact. I tell war stories (the air guitar story on my website, the cop searching my car story, etc). I don't admit there's a Higher Power, and I refuse to submit myself to one if it turns out there is. And I drink occasionally, and have gained some measure of control over how much I drink.

Interesting, though, reading that chapter again after all these years. Can't even describe the feelings going through my head, but one particular feeling surfaces. Pride. Pride that I didn't have to submit to a Higher Power in order to take control of my own life.

Re:Dishonest list?

[JohnFluxx]

But say P is the probability that you feel that there is a God.

So you say when P = 0, you're an athiest.
When P != 0, you're agnostic.

But what about as P tends to zero?
So P = 0.00000001 still makes me agnostic, but that last little push to P = 0 makes me athiest..

I think that the only sensible way to define agnostic is when P > say 0.01 or something, and define athiest is P 0.01

Re:Dishonest list?

[hardcode57]

>Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting. Yes there is, and I do. How arrogant of you to suppose that anyone who doesn't share your belifs must lack a moral compass. You chose what to believe, and then offload responsibility for the consequences of your actions on a god. I choose how to act each and every day, and take personal responsibility for the consequences.

Re:Dishonest list?

[sotonboy]

I think you may have read a little too much into this. Can I have some of whatever you're snorting ?

Re:Dishonest list?

[Ba3r]

hmm how about

dontgiveadamnism: Subscribers to dontgiveadamnism generally understand that wondering if there is a God is a very unnerving and unpleasant thing to do (roughly pulling off toenails to the 314157th power), and uses up hours that could be doing fun things, like riding bicycles, having sex, programming, drinking really good coffee, and of course, (my personal favorite activity) smelling fresh basil leaves.

All in all, in dontgiveadamnism its taken for granted that those who unquestioningly have faith in a vastly superior being are, quite frankly, setting themselves up to be ruled by someone else (who declares themselves an emissary to this vastly superior being, and therefore almost, but not quite, as vastly superior). At the same time those who rigidly decline the existence of a vastly superior being are just stubbornly resisting the overwhelming majority, and most likely do believe in a vastly superior being, and in their drive to be rebellious, are just as likely to be steered by those who say they are even more rigid against the existence of a vastly superior being, and therefore are vastly superior. It makes sense if you read it twice.

Basically a dontgiveadamnist can be easily identified as the one who starts to scan the room for a new conversation at a party when the existentialist conversation arises, unless of course this conversation is referring to whether the purpose of existence is to smell fresh basil leaves, which i may have already mentioned, is a really pleasant thing to do.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least if we're talking about the God in the Christian bible, I wouldn't worship whether I knew he existed or not.

In the unlikely event that definitive proof of the existence of the particular deity you have in mind should be found, it would be extremely unwise of you not to worship, unless you're fond of being struck with hideous plagues for seven years and then eventually swallowed up by the earth and plunged straight into the fiery depths of hell for all eternity, along with all your family and cattle.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough if you don't care whether god exists or not you are a budhist.

You obviously know little about Buddhism. Oh, philosophical Buddhism of the sort that's fashionable in certain Western circles is like that, but real Buddhism as practiced in the real world by people whose families have been Buddhist for centuries? Their image of the buddhas is practically indistinguishable from god. They worship them. They pray to them. They bow down to huge idols of them. And they hope that the buddhas' favour will ensure them a place in paradise - none of this tricky "earn your own karma" stuff.

It's too easy to disparage Western thought and worship Eastern thought just because it's exotic... when in fact it's not all that different if you look past the surface.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, I don't care, but if the God of the Christian Bible exists, I don't care to worship Him. In fact, I'll take it a step further, and if that God really exists, and if He really intends to pull judgement day on us, I intend to enlist in the Army of Darkness to oppose His Rule, and ultimately to overthrow Heaven and liberate the poor souls that currently occupy it. ;)

Hmm, who's been reading his Philip Pullman then? ;)

(And if you haven't, you should - I suspect you'd find a lot to appreciate there.)

Re:Dishonest list?

[meringuoid]

I choose to believe in the non existance of God.

I can't understand this - I never could. How can people choose to believe something?

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting Militant Agnosticism:

"I don't know if there's a God. AND NEITHER DO YOU!!!!"

:)

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Catholics worship the dead and the Saints and maybe even the angels and especially the Virgin Mary, too! Bunch of damn idolators!

Sure, the lay people in many Buddhist countries appear to have no serious understanding of Buddhist teachings, but you can say the same about all organized religions.

Re:Dishonest list?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

- I tell war stories

There's no "rule" against that that I've ever heard or read. In fact, that's (in the right doses) some of what helps.

- I don't admit there's a Higher Power

Well, it's not something you have to admit out loud...

- I refuse to submit myself to one if it turns out there is

Yea, I'm still stuck back at step three also. I know there's something greater, but, I guess I'm just not yet willing to totally give up.

P.S.
I drink occasionally, and have gained some measure of control over how much I drink.

I thought that for a number of years myself. I'm only 30. I've been thinking that for 17 or so years...

Re:Dishonest list?

[JayAdams]

"... (roughly pulling off toenails to the 314157th power)..."

Did you mean, "roughly pulling off toenails to the Pi()th power"?

Or did you mean Pix10^5? Either way...ouch!

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is already a word for a hard atheist....it's 'Gnostic':We know God does/doesn't exist. It's the opposite of Agnostic.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

By your definition I would be an "agnostic".

But WAY too many true believers view that as "potentially convertible". And as a previous poster said, a lot of true believers think agnostics are fence-sitters, rather than folks who expect proof (and not any sort of flimsy proof, like a statue of the Virgin Mary that cries goat milk) of a God before they'll commit to admitting the existence of a God, let alone worship one.

As somebody who thinks to himself, "Why in the hell would an all-powerful God make a statue of the Virgin Mary that cries goat milk?", I don't really desire to be thought of as somebody who could be converted by that kind of stuff.

So if anybody asks, I'm an atheist.

Re:Dishonest list?

[DuckDodgers]

If the Christian God exists, I frankly would rather side with Lucifer. At least Lucifer is honest - he's evil and trying to take over. The Christian God is a petulant, capricious, childish ruler who's not worthy of worship. ...
I don't know what term would describe my beliefs. I can accept that a God exists, but I don't believe it gives a damn (pardon the term) about human worship.

Re:Dishonest list?

[smc13]

"How very odd. If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest..."

I agree, it is really odd that you go on and on without offering proof of anything.

"What exactly do you mean by "better?" Better implies that there is some "good" that you would like to world to move closer too. And a "bad" that you would like it to move away from. A Christian would say that there is a "good" defined by God's nature from which we can say whether the world is getting "better" or "worse." Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting."

What difference does it make how a Christian defines good and bad? "Good" exists for non Christians. "Good" existed before Christianity. Yes, you need to have some point of reference when deciding "good" and "bad." However, There is no reason to use your religion as the point of reference.

I am confused by your sig. In what way did you debunk anything?

Re:Dishonest list?

[nospmiS remoH]

Douglas Adams, is that you?

Re:Dishonest list?

[nospmiS remoH]

I think about it more as you would a scientific theory. A Theory becomes a Law when it is absolutely proven (very hard in most cases). A Theory is rejected when it is conclusively disproven. However until it is either proven or disproven it remains a theory. Most Theories forever remain just that, Theories.

Now, apply the Theory concept to Faith:

Believer says, "Faith is a Law." (Proof ???)
Athiest says, "Faith is conclusively wrong." (Disproof ???)
Agnostic says, "There are things in the world we do not fully understand. Faith addresses these things. Until someone proves or disproves what Faith implies I refuse to form any more of an opinion."

Re:Dishonest list?

[Ba3r]

hehe, yah i guess a little imitiation is flattery going on there. .reread the guide last week :)

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read PHIKAL & TIHKAL by Alexander Shulgin. If that doesn't answer your question then he snorting something he invented himself.

Re:Dishonest list?

[EphemeralPhart]

A agnostic is a atheist that lacks faith in his own convictions

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOGO!!!!

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's a lot of ways. Here's a simple one.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Catholics worship the dead and the Saints and maybe even the angels and especially the Virgin Mary, too!

Being Catholic myself, I can say that I do not worship those you listed. At best case, consider it as praying to someone who you consider to be sitting closer to God.

That being said, I have often questioned why a person would ask others (saints, dead, prayer groups, family members, etc...) to pray for themselves or another person. If, as we are taught, God is omnipitent, then God would hear direct prayers and act on them just the same as if they had come from someone else. Maybe prayer groups or asking a saint to intervene is like setting the priority flag on an email.

jm

Re:Dishonest list?

[Rostin]

That's a really good question, and one that is rarely asked. :)

http://www.origins.org/articles/plantinga_theism ra tionality.html

quote: "For first, my beliefs are not, for the most part, within my control. If, for example, you offer me $1,000,000 to cease believing that Mars is smaller than Venus, there is no way I can collect."

Re:Dishonest list?

[Tukla]

there is no way I can collect

Well, that depends on what sort of brainwashing he's willing to undergo.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Tukla]

I do think there are unicorns

Uh-huh. Please, go on. :: /me backs away slowly ::

Ahem. Seriously, your lack of belief in unicorns makes you a unicorn-atheist. Your belief that it is probably impossible to prove one way or the other if unicorns exist makes you a unicorn-agnostic.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love those two wisecracking magpies!

Re:Dishonest list?

[Tukla]

Or a theist who lacks faith in his.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Tukla]

But he'd know you didn't mean it, so why bother?

Re:Dishonest list?

[Tukla]

If there is a God

A huge "if".

he created you

I don't see how that follows. Maybe God just sits back and watches the universe unfold like it's a reality show on TV.

Re:Dishonest list?

[LawfulGood]

Thanks for your response.

If there isn't a God, I don't vanish in a puff of smoke, either. I still exist, somehow, and an alternate explanation must also exist. In fact, many alternate explanations do exist.
And it's very admirable to explore the possible explanations. The statement I was responding to was one of disinterest, which isn't admirable given the fundamental nature of the subject under discussion.

Are there any religions that don't believe in God that maintain some modicum or morality? Why yes there are. IN fact, every single religion (with a few obscure exceptions) contains a set of rules virtually identical to those presented in the Bible, either testament, in fact. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find atheists or anybody else lacking religion to be completely immoral people as a result.
Agreed. And there are various explanations offered for the universal morality that we observe. Atheists often claim it to be solely a product of instinct. Theists (while not denying instinct) often claim that it is the result of a moral code "hardwired" into human nature. So I don't claim that people of other religions (or no religion) are immoral. That claim is only made by people who don't understand Christianity. Christianity agues the opposite! That everyone does have morality. What is under debate is the cause and nature of that morality.

It should (and is) be possible to build a system of morality that very closely resembles the common base of morality practiced by every religion...
Fascinating! Seriously. You've obviously put some thought into this. It would be great if you wouldn't leave it as an exercise for the student, and would post some of your conclusions. I'd be very interesting in reading them.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Rostin]

In the terminology of my post, a hard or strong atheist would say P = 0 (for this reason, there are very few intelligent people in this category.. it is too extreme to be defensible). A soft or weak atheist would say P is less than 0.5. In other words, on the evidence, it is more rational to believe in God's non-existence. An agnostic would say we have no way of knowing. In other words, P = ?.

I didn't make this stuff up, btw. It used to be part of the alt.atheism faq, IIRC.

Re:Dishonest list?

[hesiod]

> Oddly enough if you don't care whether god exists or not you are a budhist.

It takes a hell of a lot more than that to be a true Buddhist. It that was it, I'd be a monk already.

Re:Dishonest list?

[hesiod]

> the purpose of existence is to smell fresh basil leaves, which i may have already mentioned, is a really pleasant thing to do.

Which, in a sense, is my "religion." Fresh Basil is pleasant. The purpose of existence, put simply, is procreation -- continuing the species. Past that, there is no point, so to derive anything from it, you must find or make pleasure. The point is to be comfortable, and if sniffing Basil is what makes you happy, you are living life to its fullest.

It's kind of ironic, however, that I am depressed. But I know that it's because I don't live life to its fullest, I make myself suffer in an office all day and at night I look at patterns of light on some plastic, metal, & glass boxes. I especially like the box that lets me manipulate the patterns, it's pretty cool. (what, like a lite-brite?)

Re:Dishonest list?

[hesiod]

> I can't understand this - I never could. How can people choose to believe something?

I also cannot understand how people choose to believe in God, but I think a basis for it is ignorance -- and I don't mean that in a condescending way. The universe is so amazingly complex & HUUUGE, we believe it may be infinite. We cannot grasp infinity, so people think if they can't explain it, it can't be explained -> *poof* God. Sure, it's a stretch, but so are subatomic particles.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Anonymous Coward]

These two terms are mutually exclusive (because of the "a"). You must be one or the other.

At least in standard models of logic (and hey, why not?) `P or not-P' is true -- so that covers the present circumstance -- but it may also be the case that each of a pair of mutually exclusive statements is false. (E.g., `it's raining' and `it's not raining and the sky is green'.)

Re:Dishonest list?

[agm]

Nearly right. Try this:

Believer says, "Faith is a Law." (Proof ???)
Athiest says, "Faith is not a Law."
Agnostic says, "There are things in the world we do not fully understand. Faith addresses these things. Until someone proves or disproves what Faith implies I refuse to form any more of an opinion."

Re:Dishonest list?

[boots@work]

(You can't really use probabilities for this stuff; they are more like confidence indicators.)

I don't think a weak atheist needs to feel there is only a 50% chance god exists. Would they need to also consider there is a 50% chance of invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, astral travel by mind power, etc? (Also, which god? If 50% of the thousands of supposed gods exists would make the world a crowded place!

So it comes down to how conclusive you feel the evidence is, and how sure are you that you have interpreted it correctly. It is possible to have a strong atheist who is aware that at least 1% of their decisions are wrong, and so they are never more than 99% sure of themselves. (I'm somewhere near this position.)

It is possible to say "well, all the evidence *so far* is conclusive, but it's not inconceivable that it might be wrong, just very unlikely." I think most intelligent hard atheists don't go here.

It may be more useful to think of the standards of proof used in law: "on the balance of probabilities", or "beyond reasonable doubt", or somewhere in between: "it's overwhelmingly likely".

Re:Dishonest list?

[JohnFluxx]

I think you misread what he was saying. He said that the belief of the value of P for a weak agnostic has to be >50%. Not exactly 50%. So someone who thought that there was a 1% belief of there being a God would count as an agnostic.

Re:Dishonest list?

[mik]

If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment.

You are defining "God" as a constant, concious maintainer of the universe - this is far from a widely held belief even among monotheists.

Better implies that there is some "good" that you would like to world to move closer too. And a "bad" that you would like it to move away from. A Christian would say that there is a "good" defined by God's nature from which we can say whether the world is getting "better" or "worse."

Again, you assume a false dichotomy. There are many ways to define "good/bad." "Specified by God through prophets as written in The Book" and "meaningless" are two of many. More examples: The golden rule, best for species, best for earth, and even the law of the jungle.

Re:Dishonest list?

[LawfulGood]

Thanks for your reply.

You are defining "God" as a constant, concious maintainer of the universe - this is far from a widely held belief even among monotheists.
And these beliefs should be investigated and explored. The comment was intended to underscore the importance of the question itself, how if applies to our lives, and why it is worthy of interest.

Again, you assume a false dichotomy. There are many ways to define "good/bad."
Indeed. But only a supernatural definition is non-arbitrary. If good/bad is defined as "what is good for the species" then I can ask "why should I care about the species." Only God has standing to enforce a moral standard.

Just to preempt the cries of outrage. I am not saying that only theists have morality. That is a baseless charge paraded out by many atheists. Indeed, I say the opposite. That God has "hardwired" morality into every person and we have to work to suppress it. So my claim is that everyone has morality. The discussion is about the source and nature of that morality.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Another MacHack]

If good/bad is defined as "what is good for the species" then I can ask "why should I care about the species." Only God has standing to enforce a moral standard.

I ask this genuinely, not flippantly: If good/bad is defined as "What God says is good/bad", then I ask "why should I care about what God says?"

Do you see God's moral code as arbitrary (in the sense that he might have decided that it's good to allow everybody to commit murder once on their 60th birthday, he just didn't) or neccesary (in the sense that the 60th birthday murder rule obviously doesn't lead to anything "good" in some transcendent sense, so there's no way God would have decided on that).

The reason I ask this question is that if God's moral code is arbitrary, it makes sense to ask why we should follow it, other than fear of punishment. If God's moral code is necessary, then it seems as though humans could eventually arive at it through enough thought and experience and social experimentation, in which case the advantage of following God's code is that we wouldn't have to hang around being assholes to each other for a few tens of thousands of years until we got it right.

Re:Dishonest list?

[plugger]

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/gnosticism/

Re:Dishonest list?

[Bedouin X]

I think that this is dotting the line between believing and knowing.

Re:Dishonest list?

[LawfulGood]

Sweet! Very insightful. If I had an mod points, they'd be all yours. Except... then I wouldn't be able to reply... so.. um... nevermind... :)

The reason I ask this question is that if God's moral code is arbitrary, it makes sense to ask why we should follow it, other than fear of punishment. If God's moral code is necessary, then it seems as though humans could eventually arive at it through enough thought and experience...
Your question is very similar to one used by Socrates to befuddle poor Euthyphro. To paraphrase you (and Socrates) the question is, what's the cause/effect relationship between God and goodness. Does God will something because it's good or is it good merely because God wills it?

1. The Good -> God's Will
2. God's Will -> The Good

Option one leaves God subject to some higher power, which would defy his omnipotence. In this case, God would need to have the Ten Commandments hanging on his wall to refer too. :)

Option two makes God arbitrary and capable of issuing abhorrent commands, and making those commands "good." Which makes him indistinguishable from a tyrant.

Where I believe Socrates to be in error (if I may be so bold... he would consider it a service to be questioned) is his implicit assumption that The Good and God's will are different and related as a cause and effect. My answer (well, it's been around long before me, but I adopt it :)) is that The Good is God's own nature, and God always wills in accordance with his nature. So the relationship is:

1. The Good == God's Will

God cannot do the logically impossible. And it is logically impossible for God to do the ungodly. So God cannot issue evil commands because he IS good. God commands are good because they are always in accord with his own nature.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Another MacHack]

I see the possible attempt at an omnipotence paradox there, but that wasn't where I was trying to go.

I infer you side more with option 1, except that it's logical necessity rather than impotence that "constrains" God, which is to say it's no constraint at all.

Let me try another approach, then. The question I'm about to ask is specifically -not- about salvation or about works vs faith. At least, I don't think it is ;)

Suppose someone were to try to figure out Good from first principles and deep thought, and happened to get it right. She's not doing what she does because she believes it's what God wants, but because she believes it's the right thing to do for some other reason. They just happen to coincide. Is she still doing Good?

Or as a parable... Let's say we agree that not driving at unsafe speeds is Good. Most places, there is a statutory speed limit, set by a lawgiver. There is also an internal speed limit in any driver, based on risk assessments. The two may or may not coincide. A driver might even be in compliance with the statutory speed limit without knowing about the lawgiver's take on the situation; maybe he was checking his mirror when the sign came by or something. Assuming the driver is capable of making a correct assessment, he might be doing Good because the lawgiver said so, or because he got it right coincidentally. The lawgiver might even have set the speed limit artifically low to raise money from speeding tickets. Infalliable, benevolent God wouldn't do such a thing, though, so the lawgiver's speed limit in that case is by definition the one that accurately reflects the safe speed. So, is the driver who is ignorant of the law but gets it right anyway still doing "Good"?

But instead, let's say the speed limit sign says 30, but it sure looks like you could do 45 without hurting anyone. Sure, if you did 60, you'd get places faster, but that would be reckless, so you wouldn't do it. Would you follow the sign anyway? What if you'd seen all kinds of traffic studies showing that the road could bear 45. What if you'd never even seen a police car before? What if there were a bunch of different speed limit signs with different limits printed, and some people followed each of them, and you'd tried your damnest to talk to someone on the legislature, but so far as you can tell, it's just a bunch of legislative assistants and citizens in an otherwise empty building.

It makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

who else would give away free software?

not too sure about the tooth fairy...his prices are kinda steep...

Re:It makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the great big foot mean anything to you??

Re:It makes sense...

[great_flaming_foo]

not too sure about the tooth fairy...his prices are kinda steep...

Ya, and talking to his tech support is like pulling teeth

Re:It makes sense...

[Richard_L_James]

not too sure about the tooth fairy...his prices are kinda steep...

'Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth...

Re:It makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it's not an arm and a leg.

all hail Linus

[cavebear42]

It's a good thing Linus has a sense of humor. He might smite them down.

Re:all hail Linus

[Anonvmous Coward]

"It's a good thing Linus has a sense of humor. He might smite them down."

I wouldn't be sickened by this comment if it had been modded funny instead of insightful...

Re:all hail Linus

[Tackhead]

> > It's a good thing Linus has a sense of humor. He might smite them down."
>
> I wouldn't be sickened by this comment if it had been modded funny instead of insightful...

Yeah. As Bill Murray might say, he's a God, not the God.

Re:all hail Linus

[cavebear42]

lol, it was meant to be funny, but i guess they really do deify him here.

Re:all hail Linus

[justsomebody]

Damn, Linus has become newt lover and Santa Open Source hero, tooth fairy still has a slight problem with a role of father.

And AdTI?? Well, we have to be thankfull, without them (and M$) this wonderful joke wouldn't get out.

So... Thanks AdTI and thanks to our dear sponsor M$, hope they will start to be more aggressive in comedian bussines. It suits them more than computer bussiness

I just wonder how expensive this joke was for M$, more or less than LOTR?

Re:all hail Linus

[atrader42]

Not only that...you just got modded informative. What slashdot mods want to be informed of any time some AC is sick?!?

Re:all hail Linus

[NanoGator]

"Not only that...you just got modded informative. What slashdot mods want to be informed of any time some AC is sick?!? "

I think they modded him up for pointing out that treating Linus like a deity is a little overboard. Who was it that said "I'm surprised Mr. Torvalds let's you talk with your mouth full"?

Re:all hail Linus

[boots@work]

Who was it that said "I'm surprised Mr. Torvalds let's you talk with your mouth full"?

Someone who didn't know how to use apostrophes?

Re:all hail Linus

[el-spectre]

Perhaps if you sacrifice a penguin idol, Linus will heal you...

Re:all hail Linus

[rodgerd]

Well, he'd have a pretty good libel case.

Re:all hail Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

damn spelling nazis again

Re:all hail Linus

[DownTownMT]

If life gives you lemons, make lemonaide, pour it into a squirtgun and shoot it in someones eye

Linus first step in creating linux

[Neil Blender]

# ftp ftp.sco.com

20 ProFTPD 0.0.1 Server
Name (sco:admin): anonymous
331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
Password:
ftp> prompt
Interactive mode off.
ftp> mget *

Re:Linus first step in creating linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... just tried that right now, but for some weird reason I got a "reset by peer" thing. I did go to the pub section and was tempted to download the OpenLinux tree, but I wondered if that was in violation of who knows what they got up their sleeves, so decided not to. Why would they have it for download if it is in violation of what they are so actively hunting people down for. I don't get it.

Re:Linus first step in creating linux

[Anonymous Coward]

MANnnnnnnnnnn none of it works. For some reason all the stuff is missing the high bit.

Bin and all...

Re:Linus first step in creating linux

[vrt3]

But not the evil bit.

Cloning

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus copied his code from Santa ...
Slashdot copied their story from ... slashdot ...

And I thought...

[Fred Foobar]

I thought the real father was Darth McBride.

"Linux, I am your father!" :-)

Re:And I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

The McBride of Frankenstein?

Re:And I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the great big foot not mean anything to you???

Re:And I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you missed the Star Wars reference.

Re:And I thought...

[justsomebody]

Nope, the real father was Stans mother. (South Park proved it, and they even prepared Chewabacca defense of their claims)

Re:Let's see...

[EvanED]

It's called a followup story (see sense 3 in the definition there).

Irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd, I know plenty of agnostics who do not think of themselves as atheists any more than they think of themselves as Taoists.

Moreover, exactly what relevance does that have to anything? Have you been arguing over religion so long that you've forgotten that any reasoning based on this is fallacy? This has no more logical connection than the statement "Many famous people believe in Scientology, so you should too!" (Though the Scientologists do use that rediculous tactic along with many others to recruit people. Even the voice of Bart Simpson is a Scientologist...)

Re:Irrelevant.

[benploni]

Moreover, exactly what relevance does that have to anything? Have you been arguing over religion so long that you've forgotten that any reasoning based on this is fallacy? This has no more logical connection than the statement "Many famous people believe in Scientology, so you should too!"

It's only a fallacy if used as support for an argument. The parent post made no claim based on the fact that Linux is an atheist. He or she only said that his or hunch based on Linus's choice of examples was borne out by evidence.

Re:Irrelevant.

[E_elven]

Linux isn't atheist. It's just that no-one has written good kernel modules for theism yet. All the decent implementations are proprietary and you don't really want to steal from God even when He has been so unforthcoming about releasing the Source Code -even though the Bible is around, it only really describes the interface, so the hard details of implementation are left to the poor coders.

Re:Irrelevant.

[some guy I know]

Even the voice of Bart Simpson is a Scientologist.

Her name is Nancy Cartwright, and she is no more a Scientologist than, oh, say, John Travolata or Tom Cruise.

Re:Irrelevant.

[clem]

Someone mod the parent up. Please?

Re:Irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...when He has been so unforthcoming about releasing the Source Code."

Newsflash: We ARE the source code. God is the object code.

Re:Irrelevant.

[hesiod]

> He has been so unforthcoming about releasing the Source Code

True, but at least he gave us the tools to reverse-engineer it (intelligence).

Re:Let's see...

[kevmo]

They linked to that story in this story so I would hope you got the connection. The new "news" is Linus responding to the claim that he didn't invent linux. His humurous response was the source of this stories title.

His actual response was in the PPS:

"I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.

Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them? Or maybe their clocks are running a month-and-a-half late?"

/. should STOP giving creedence to

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

AdTI.
They have been proven to be on the take, they put out error ridden papers and they can't even manage to put together a respectable website.

Giving them press everytime they write some bone headed paper that M$ paid for is wasting time and giving them undue publicity.

Ok you can now start modding me down.

Re:/. should STOP giving creedence to

[XaXXon]

If I had mod points, I would. Mostly for putting mod point comments in your comment.. But also for being one of those obnoxious people who comments about the stories fitness to be posted as opposed to the story itself..

Re:/. should STOP giving creedence to

[Anonymous Coward]

Take his advice, mod his stupid ass down. Where is your proof that Microsoft is funding these people? I think Microsoft could have started by paying them to develop a decent website. Good riddance.

Re:/. should STOP giving creedence to

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserve mod points for saying that! :>

You know...

[JoeLinux]

This is one of the reasons why I love linux: It's so down-to-earth. The early versions of the gentoo installation instructions told you to play Bom-Bad Racing on the PS2 while waiting for it to set up. It's nice to see people laid back. Can you picture Microsoft doing this?

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we have Ballmer doing a monkey act at COMDEX and Gates playing the part of NEO in his Matrix spoof....

Re:You know...

[linzeal]

Play a game, you could go down to the bar and make a baby in the time Gentoo takes to install, here is a good book to get you inspired. Yes women in drunken states really will try the wheel barrow position!

Re:You know...

[Elusive_Cure]

Yes i remember in one of the first win98 setup screens it says " Sit Back And relax while windows 98 are installed to your computer" ...Kinda funny cause i always used to say "sit back and relax, go for a walk, have a smoke, do whatever while windows 98 are taking over your computer"

Re:You know...

[identity0]

Of course I can! I bet the install screen for Longhorn will tell you to:

"Please wait for Windows to install. In the meantime, sit back and play Halo(tm) on the X-Box(tm) Entertainment System. X-Box: Where do you want to play today?"

How much more down-to-earth can you get? :)

Re:You know...

[skiman1979]

The Gentoo installation handbook also ends by saying "We'll shut up now and let you enjoy your installation :)" I never did get through the installation due to I/O errors on the portage and stage3 tarballs though...

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or do I recall that everytime you turned away from a windows 98 installation you come back to find it messed up in some way. I think windows 95/98 are the two installs you actually do have to watch to some extent.

Re:You know...

[happyfrogcow]

On a similar note. My old "Running Linux" book from god knows when says to make a cup of coffee after you run "make" on a kernel compilation since it will take a long time. That use to be the case on my Cyrix 486 and maybe on my p350. Now it only takes like 10 minutes. Thats hardly enough time to boil water. By the time the coffee is ready, i need to start typing again.

running "make xconfig" or whatever should check for a coffee machine attached to the parallel port and try to make some coffee automatically so it's ready by the time you run make.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it only takes like 10 minutes. Thats hardly enough time to boil water. By the time the coffee is ready, i need to start typing again.

On a AMD64 processor with the 2.6 kernel you can shave 8-9 minutes off that time.

The flaw in this argument...

[LinuxParanoid]

It's true that Linux is an imitation of prior Unixes.

But remember folks,

Linux copying the behavior of various UNIXes is stealing, but Microsoft copying the behavior of the Mac or Xerox Star is not. And Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM PC BIOS is what caused the death of the PC industry!

Oh wait.

--LP

P.S. I'd be nervous if the press release said AdTI president and pundit Kenneth Brown was tracing the code... but it says he "traces the free software movement over three decades". Hrm, good luck there, Ken!

Re:The flaw in this argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair: Both Microsoft and Apple copied Xerox.

You can read the story of how Xerox invited a number of companies (including Apple) to port Smalltalk to various hardware platforms. This exercise led directly to the Apple Lisa (the "Mother of All Macs"). No, they were not based on Smalltalk, but this introduced the WIMP metaphor to Apple.

Re:The flaw in this argument...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

In a way, I can see the "free software" movement having three decades of history, if not more. Wasn't AT&T Unix originally an open-sourced type UNIX where AT&T suddenly claimed the copyright to all submissions, and closed it up?

Tracing lines of code that far back probably wouldn't hold water though.

Re:The flaw in this argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't AT&T Unix originally an open-sourced type UNIX where AT&T suddenly claimed the copyright to all submissions, and closed it up?

Um, no. You are very confused. So confused I am not equipped to guess which possible mis-perceptions you are referring to. Unix, AT&T and otherwise, was born in 1969 at Bell Labs. Google around a bit or start here.

Re:The flaw in this argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

When addressing people who denigrate Linux or open source, it is pointless to bring Apple into the discussion. They will rarely regard it as relevant.

And on a purely ethical note, while everybody copied from Xerox conceptually, at least Apple paid Xerox for the privelege... did Microsoft? Don't think so.

Re:The flaw in this argument...

[SirSlud]

And Xerox got their ideas from ....

It's one big long joke. The point is that we learn from each other, and the claim that anything is truely original is usually false.

I personally think that most ideas come from people who don't have the money/time/resources to implement them.

And thats OK (tm), because if we wern't learning, er stealing, each others ideas, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Edison didn't really invent the lightbulb. He was smart, make no mistake, but awarding one person for an invention to me seems to almost always been an exersise in denying the collaberative nature of creativity and invention. Etc.

Re:The flaw in this argument...

[nordicfrost]

Well, you can read here on how MS got their ideas from Apple. They later bought a right to their usage when that pathetic loser John Sculley was head of Apple.

Apple on the other hand, paid for legitimate access to Xerox, and it was cleared all the way to the top of the company. The techs at Xerox PARC did not like that Apple was allowed to take their ideas, because they knew that it was something unique while the suits believed the same as the suits at IBM, that it was childs play.

mod DOWN the duplicate post Posters

[dnotj]

This isn't a dupe, we don't read the articles anymore, now we don't even ready the Posting. Wake up people, this is Linus' rebuttal.

Article Text: LW Slashdotted already

LinuxWorld Exclusive: Linus Torvalds Makes Startling Admission, Discloses *Real* Fathers of Linux May 17, 2004 Summary As only Linus Torvalds can, the undisputed - except by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute - inventor of Linux has as promised let LinuxWorld have his immediate comment on the AdTI's president's claims this morning that the parentage of Linux is in doubt. Read his startling admission exclusively here.

"Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus."

Thus begins a characteristically Torvaldsian e-mail to LinuxWorld News Desk sent by Linus Torvalds in response to our invitation to comment on the sensationalist claims this morning that he isn't, after all, the inventor of Linux.

"They (for obvious reasons) couldn't step forward to admit that they had gotten bitten by the computer bug, and had been developing a series of operating systems on their own during the off season. But when they started with Linux (which they originally called Freax - they do feel like outsiders, you know, and that's a whole sad story in itself), they felt that they could no longer just let it languish in obscurity. They started to look for a front-man, and since Santa Claus is from Finland and thus has connections to Helsinki University, and the tooth fairy claimed 'He's got good strong teeth,' I got selected."

"Since then," Torvalds continues, "I've lived a life of subterfuge, always afraid that somebody would find out the truth. I'm actually relieved that it's over, and that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute has finally uncovered the lie. I can now go back to my chosen profession, the exploration of the fascinating mating dance of the common newt."

In a PS he adds:

"Btw, did you know that newts have more offspring if you play the harmonica to them during their mating rituals? It's true."

And in a PPS:

Btw, I do believe that somebody took over adti.net.

I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.

Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them? Or maybe their clocks are running a month-and-a-half late?

Or is it really unintentional?

Linus

Good!

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

At last some proper justice meated out of this Linus wannabe programmer poser guy. The Tocqueville Institute is right to expose such frauds, being funded my Microsoft who, as we all know, is the true father of MS-DOS...

what they will say

[JoeBuck]

The Toqueville people say they are going to quote people like Dennis Ritchie and Richard Stallman. What those Ritchie and Stallman almost certainly told them is that Linux is a faithful re-implementation of Unix and thus not highly original or ground-breaking; also that Linus is often given credit for functionality that is not in the kernel (you know, the whole GNU/Linux flamewar). And all that's true. The problem is that the Toqueville people don't get that this is perfectly legitimate; the Posix standard that specifies the behavior of Unix-like systems is a public standard, the code is all original and there were no patents in the way.

Re:what they will say

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent point, Good one! That would make Windows a ripoff of Posix, too :)

When I worked as Microsoft, there was some good solid intellectual property theft going on. (Where should I send that story? It needs to be told. Who is a good solid tech muckraker AND factchecker?)

The thing that annoys me about this de Toqueville Institute is that their mission is promoting democracy: what exactly is undemocratic about open source? Aren't they highjacking their endowment to go off on tangents like this?

Re:what they will say

[Brandybuck]

RMS: It isn't Linux. It's the GNU System.

AdTI: OMG! Linus didn't write Linux!

Re:what they will say

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "Toqueville" pernounced "TokeVille"?

Re:what they will say

[Pseudonym]

Exactly. The original "study" is correct in that Linus didn't invent very much at all, but they fail to acknowledge that this is completely beside the point. Linus constructed the Linux kernel from scratch. Like all people who progress humanity, he only did so by standing on the shoulders of giants.

For what it's worth, Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, either, but even decades later, we'd hardly accuse him of theft. Moreover, he built cars that existing drivers would already know how to drive by making them look like the cars that were there beforehand.

The situation is similar to what Darrel Huff in How to Lie with Statistics refers to as "the semi-attached figure". If you can't prove something, prove something else and pretend they're the same. So, for example, you say your toilet cleaner "kills germs faster" and strongly imply, though never right-out say, that this has something to do with your family's health even though it probably doesn't.

Worst of all, this kind of thinking completely ignores how human progress happens. It's the myth of the genius all over again. Progress happens on the fringes of what we already have. When you get down to it, every work is a derivative work (except in the legal sense of the term). Einstein couldn't have come up with the idea of relativity without centuries of work by smart physicists and mathematicians before him.

Hell, Unix is just a castrated version of Multics, right?

Re:what they will say

[Performer Guy]

They are blinded by ideology. They see Open Source as communist I'll bet. They are out to attack it for the greater good of capitalism, the damned fools. They claim Linus has shown open contempt for intellectual property, when all Linus wants is the freedom to use his own intellectual property and they're trying to steal that from him. It's just amazing how a warped ideology can take an idea and twist it out of shape.

I'm curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the tooth fairy be a mother? :/

Re:I'm curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the tooth fairy be a mother? :/

On the Twilight Zone TV show, at least, the Tooth Fairy was male.

Re:I'm curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the giant great big foot mean anything to you?

Re:I'm curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Shouldn't the tooth fairy be a mother? :/

Not in Massachusetts!!!

Re:I'm curious...

[sharkey]

Sure.

Finally some truth from ADTI...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the Tocqueville Institution site here, try clicking accomplishments. ;)

Re:Finally some truth from ADTI...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up , look at the link its true !!!

Re:Finally some truth from ADTI...

[Anonymous Coward]

try clicking accomplishments. ;)

What do you expect from Wakeful Strong bellydancer running Frontpage 4.0 (click on page source)?

Re:Finally some truth from ADTI...

[Anonymous Coward]

If OSS is so awful why are they using FreeBSD (netcraft says so) and what looks to be apache server?

jeesh...

Re:Finally some truth from ADTI...

[jrumney]

Site Temporarily Disabled

This site has been temporarily disabled. If you are the owner of the site, please contact customer care.

I guess someone has exceeded their bandwidth limitations.

Re:Finally some truth from ADTI...

[DMadCat]

At the Tocqueville Institution site here [adti.net], try clicking accomplishments. ;)

Heh, you think that's funny? Try reading the Mission Statement...

Re:Hello, McFly!!!

[netsharc]

I think it's too far away down the page that anyone would notice it, when the editors just give it an "Update".. but hey, with a fresh article we can now comment about Linus's great statement.

Horrible!

[Woogiemonger]

I can deal with Linus not being the father of Linux, but what I can't deal with is the tooth fairy being a guy! Now I'm picturing a hairy-legged fairy dressed like a ballerina reaching under my pillow. The horrors!

Re:Horrible!

[patonw]

Damn, my mod points expired last night. Someone mod parent up funny!

Re:Horrible!

[FrostedWheat]

but what I can't deal with is the tooth fairy being a guy

I hope you never see the Listerine Tooth Fairy advert. I can't seem to find a picture, but imagine a 'dodgy geezer' tooth fairy from London.

Re:Horrible!

[dema]

You obviously don't watch Ren and Stimpy. The tooth fairy is one ugly little thing!

Re:Horrible!

[jpetts]

Now I'm picturing a hairy-legged fairy dressed like a ballerina reaching under my pillow. The horrors!

Just be glad it's only under your pillow...

Re:Horrible!

[(H)elix1]

Just be glad it's only under your pillow...

(Neal Page)Those aren't pillows!!!!(/Neal Page)

Re:Horrible!

[ktakki]

I can't seem to find a picture, but imagine a 'dodgy geezer' tooth fairy from London.

Like him?

k.

Re:Horrible!

[sharkey]

Now I'm picturing a hairy-legged fairy dressed like a ballerina reaching under my pillow.

You should be so lucky! Here is a chance photo snapped of the tooth-fairy in action It's small and hard to make out, but it frankly scares the hell outta me.

Re:Horrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just be glad it's only under your pillow...

Those aren't pillows!

Re:Horrible!

[Shadowlore]

The Santa Clause 2 movie already did it.

Re:Horrible!

[FrostedWheat]

No, he's Welsh! And boy he looks grumpy!

Re:Horrible!

[MyDixieWrecked]

planes trains and automobiles?

Re:Horrible!

[iainl]

That "dodgy geezer" was Karl Bloody Howman, the twat from Brush Strokes and those Godawful Flash Liquid adverts. Git.

Still Mulberry was strangely watchable.

For those wondering about Santa Claus & Finlan

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in Finland I had some reindeer meet one night. It was very tasty. It seems Santa is short one for this winter though...

Fathers?

[kevmo]

Wouldn't the tooth fairy be a mother?

Re:Fathers?

[RatBastard]

It's long been known that the Tooth Farie is a drag queen. Santa and Toothy got married today in Boston.

Re:Fathers?

[danharan]

Well, the mods thought it flamebait, but I found it funny...

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are a lot of "mods" with interesting lifestyle choices.

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention a lot of moderators that toe the "PC" line so close they get nose burn. Fuckers.

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought that fairies had something to do with linux, now I've got proof.

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't discriminate.

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Discrimination is an important part of what makes a being sentient. It is improper to immorally or illegally discriminate. (And don't rebut with that garbage about there being no morals or needing a god to establish morals.)

By the way..
Contrary to some common misconceptions, the following are still legal bases for discrimination in hiring and lending.

age (if under 40) sexual orientation odor clothing choice hairstyle choices in liesure activity sports team preference etc., etc., etc.,

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The joke falls under the category flamebait/funny [+1].

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the bottom of Section 1 in your hiring link:

Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Where did you get your list from?

Re:Fathers?

[hesiod]

> The joke falls under the category flamebait/funny [+1].

It's flamebait if it's to incite an individual's ire. In this case, the only thing that could be perceived to be even slightly offensive to anyone at all is the mention of drag queen, which isn't at all the "butt" of the joke, just a participant.

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

self-examination, of course.

Re:Fathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down "[-1] Pun".

Re:Fathers?

[hesiod]

Mod parent down, -1 completely worthless. Doesn't everyone know it was a pun? Duh. That's almost as lame as "Me, sarcastic? Noooooooo."

Coincedence? I think not...

[joshua_thijssen]

Have you *EVER* seen santa claus AND linus in the same room at the same time??? I thought so...

Linus key quote and hackers.

[strredwolf]

So, if I quote Linus:

Btw, I do believe that somebody took over adti.net.

I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.

Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them? Or maybe their clocks are running a month-and-a-half late?

Or is it really unintentional?

Linus

WHOIS of ADTI.NET says...

Database last updated 17-May-2004 19:14:38 EDT.

Hmmm... Linus may be right. The story broke the same day it updated. I wonder who's serving the old DNS.

Re:Linus key quote and hackers.

[sICE]

FYI the database is updated quite often...

sice@kadath ~ $ whois microsoft.com | grep -i update
Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:31:00 EDT.
sice@kadath ~ $ whois fark.com | grep -i update
Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:31:46 EDT.
sice@kadath ~ $ whois somethingawful.com | grep -i update
Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:32:24 EDT.

;-)

Re:Linus key quote and hackers.

[csnydermvpsoft]

Database last updated 17-May-2004 19:14:38 EDT.

Uhh... that's the timestamp for the last update of the entire .net (and maybe .com too) database - which has obviously been very recent.

Re:Linus key quote and hackers.

[bersl2]

Read elsewhere in the whois lookup. They have the domain until 2009.

Re:Linus key quote and hackers.

[hawaiian717]

No, looks like they've got a 10 year registration, and it didn't lapse:

% whois -h whois.networksolutions.com adti.net
...
Record expires on 02-May-2008.
Record created on 02-May-1998.

Re:Linus key quote and hackers.

[joostje]

The whois last update doesn't say much.

But the website has changed layout recently. From April 27, 1999 through to June 21, 2003,, the website has looked very simmilar, untill today (Website down), or the last google cache visit.

Re:Linus key quote and hackers.

[Shadowlore]

Database last updated 17-May-2004 19:14:38 EDT.

Hmmm... Linus may be right. The story broke the same day it updated. I wonder who's serving the old DNS.


What are we fricking gerbils? To paraphrase a well known comic who's name is temporarily escaping me.

Network soplutionsupdates their whois database every fricking day. Go ahead, query it now and you'll see it is now "mysteriously updated" on the day AFTER the story! My gawd the horrah of it Marcey!

Slander....

[dankdirk77]

They rip Linus, further down the homepage, they rip open source and compare the GNU Linux penguin "Tux" to that of Batman's "the Penguin".

It looks like some kind of left-wing character assasination organization. I can't tell though.

Anyway, I emailed one of the shmoes at the place a very nasty letter, and I encourage everyone to give the full "/. effect" on these bastards.

emeritus@adti.net
202-437-7431
http://www.adti .net/
etc...

Re:Slander....

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean: "right-wing character assasination"?

Re:Slander....

[Anonymous Coward]

A nasty letter! How mature of you! How about you respond with some rational criticism and point out the flaws in the article? FYI, nobody pays attention to angry ranting emails. if you want your voice heard, be polite.

Re:DUPE

[Anonymous Coward]

You are dumb... it is not a dupe - this is Linus's response dork.

Re:Parent modified article; MOD DOWN!!

[dnotj]

me loves the anonymous coward

Re:Wow. Did we just slashdot the advertizer?

[Zone-MR]

Damn, here you go:

http://www.freecache.org/http://ad.doubleclick.n et /ad/N2694.linuxworld.idguk/B1351157.10;sz=728x90

Lies, all lies!

[Revvy]

While a formal statement is being prepared, please allow me to express my outrage and personal dismay at the coninuing lies about the origins of the "Linux" operating system. It took many arduous years of skillful coding and deliberate system design for my employer to create what has been stolen from him. In the interest of the public good, he has continued, against my best advice, to allow the bastardization of his avocation to be coninually distributed without compensation or even recognition.

But now, as Linus Torvalds insists on further disregard of the truth, my employer has become enraged and will soon begin legal action to claim his rightful place as the creater of "Linux", originally and forever known to his friends, employees, and supporters as Bunix.

Sincerely,
Bun E. Sue
Chief Counsel
Easter Bunny Inc.

......and in other news.......

[MrIrwin]

....tux reveals that he is the tooth fairy and Santa Claus is his father.

Another Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cmdr Taco"
"Alexis de Tacoville Institute"

Need I say more?

A christmas tune for Linux - finish it

[Anonymous Coward]

To the tune of Oh Christmans tree:

Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
:
:

Re:A christmas tune for Linux - finish it

[Canberra Bob]

it showed some promise
it ran quite well
but twas not enough
stole SCO's as well

Re:A christmas tune for Linux - finish it

[Canberra Bob]

Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix

The kernel hackers
They work for free
I get the credit
More cash for me

Re:A christmas tune for Linux - finish it

[Anonymous Coward]

This is really doubleplus funny !
Don't know if you wrote that by purpose, but "Tannenbaum" is the german word for the Christmas tree, and the lines for the song start exactly like that !

Re:A christmas tune for Linux - finish it

[interlingua.ro]

You mean we have to Finnish it?

As the spokesperson

[jd]

For the toothfairy, I neither confirm nor deny this allegation that Linux has anything to do with Teeth-R-Us. Linus has received money from our organization, but only in payment for appropriate dental material. We do have information that kermit the frog has susppect connections, however.

Re:As the spokesperson

[sharkey]

For the toothfairy, I neither confirm nor deny this allegation that Linux has anything to do with Teeth-R-Us.

I don't believe it for a minute! Doesn't he have enough coming from his junior partnership in Zaphod Beeblebrox's second-hand ball-point business?

Damn sellouts at Xmas town!

[perseguidor]

kidnap ritchie's core beat it with our C lock it up for fifteen years see what makes it tick.

Re:Hello, McFly!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the great big giant foot mean anything to you?

You mean to tell me..

[Caedar]

That the easter bunny wasn't in on this? He delivers fattening goodness to us every Easter, why can't he deliver a good operating system, too?!

Re:You mean to tell me..

[tommck]

Well, I don't think that the Tooth Fairy really approves of what the Easter Bunny's doing. Feeding all that chocolate to kids is causing all the teeth to rot. Some even are taken by dentists around the world!

Rotten teeth are too weak to be part of the Tooth Fairy's Dental Castle of Fortitude. If she doesn't get strong teeth for her Castle, her plans for World Domination will fail!

Actually, I heard a rumo(u)r that she took a hit out on the EB...

atleast they host well..

[micker]

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=adti.net 9 servers at adti.net All running freeBSD

Bad Name - as usual

[soloport]

Many Atheists really should be called something else (e.g. right-wing-anti-god-folk or just plain Anti-theists) -- thus not giving a bad name to the rest of us Atheists.

A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!".

And if more people subscribed to true atheism, we could talk more about the soccer game and quit killing each other over mosks, synagogues, churches and the almighty Sacred Cow!

Oh, I'm sorry. Was I off-topic? Ok, then I want to know, where is it written Linus is an Atheist? Maybe (especially from his general down-to-earth attitude) he's really an "atheist" -- as registered Atheists are really fanatical "anti-theists".

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[Carnildo]

And if more people subscribed to true atheism, we could talk more about the soccer game and quit killing each other over mosks, synagogues, churches and the almighty Sacred Cow!

Sacred Cows make the best hamburgers.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[wishus]

A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!".

I think the actual definition is someone who believes there is no god. Compare to theist, monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, etc. Someone who does not know if there is a god or not is an agnostic - he professes no knowledge about the existence of a god.

Still, none of these words convey a sense of how evangelistic the believer is concerning his views.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[DylanQuixote]

Er, an athiest is someone that doesn't believe in a god or gods. An agnostic is someone that doesn't know (or care) either way.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[Dirtside]

"Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!"

Ah. You mean apatheists. :)

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[lbrt]

A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!".

Atheist is a person who doesn't believe that God or gods exists. Agnostic is a person who doesn't "care" wheter god exists or not.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[racermd]

"MMmmmmmm.... Sacre-licious!" --Homer S.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[nutsy]

Many Atheists really should be called something else. ... A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God..."

No, having no particular belief in the existence or nonexistence of any god or gods is agnosticism. Specifically believing that no god or gods exist is atheism. Considering your use of "could care less", which is both hackneyed and grammatically incorrect, I'm not surprised you mixed them up.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[ImpTech]

I always kind of appreciated the Sacred Cow religions. While you may doubt the sanctity they attribute to the cow, you can hardly argue whether or not he exists.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[mdielmann]

Yes, and soccer has never caused violence in the recent past. Next time, try to find a rebuttal topic that's different from the other topics.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[greatmazinger]

And if more people subscribed to true atheism, we could talk more about the soccer game and quit killing each other over mosks, synagogues, churches and the almighty Sacred Cow!

Indeed. Killing each other over oil seems like a more civilized alternative.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[Hatta]

"Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!"

Ah. You mean apatheists. :)

No, I think he means "Couldn't care less..."

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[qwertyatwork]

Mmmmm...sacraligous

This is cool

[BCW2]

Linus not only believes in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. He has a better sense of humor than 90% of the people in the entire computer industry.

Re:This is cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe just there's a bunch of geeks who admire every word that comes out of his mouth? Referring to the tooth fairy and Santa Claus isn't at all original or funny - if somebody else had said it, would you even grin? If Linus was a modest/honest man, he would admit that he first invented Linux the same way that Bill Gates first invented DOS.

Re:This is cool

[tepples]

An Easter bunny?

What the heck would a rabbit have to do with the resurrection of the Christ?

Re:This is cool

[fstanchina]

What does a fat old man from the North Pole or thereabouts have to do with the birth of Christ, for that matter?

Re:This is cool

[hummassa]

I passed the Holy Weeks from 1976 to 1980 trying to figure out how in the world could a mammal that fucks a lot could lay eggs made of chocolate and what the fsck all of that had to do with the ressurection of the Christ or the diaspora of the Jews (from Egypt? I don't remember anymore).

Re:This is cool

[Anonymous Coward]

What does a fat old man from the North Pole or thereabouts have to do with the birth of Christ, for that matter?

Well, you know how Joseph always maintained he wasn't the father?

I've worked as a consulatant

[Space cowboy]

... and we didn't try and tailor the report (3 months work for 5 people including world-wide travel) to our paymasters. Our view was that we were being paid to produce a report on what is (for a fairly major computer manufacturer) rather than what they would like things to be. They already know what they would like things to be...

On the other hand, "hired guns" are mercenaries - they will do as you wish, when you wish, how you wish. The AdTI are hired guns. Some of us (the others :-) still have some self-respect and integrity - please consider each case on its merits...

Simon.

Re:I've worked as a consulatant

[Nurseman]

On the other hand, "hired guns" are mercenaries - they will do as you wish, when you wish, how you wish. The AdTI are hired guns. Some of us (the others :-) still have some self-respect and integrity - please consider each case on its merits... Simon.

You are right, and I obviously did not mean to smear you all with the big brush.

BTW I love your work on American Idol (Just kidding :-)

Re:I've worked as a consulatant

[jdhutchins]

There are different kinds of analysists, it seems. You made a report for a company. They wanted to know the truth, but didn't, so they hired you. You made a report, gave it to them. You weren't going to be paid more if it favored them or not, you were getting paid to do it correctly. And you didn't mention that it was published anywhere, so I presume it wasn't for marketing.

Some analysists, on the other hand, publish all their work. That's what they get paid to do. They're PR people. They 'investigate' the truth, and make the statistics show what they want (which isn't hard to do). Most of the 'analysists' we see on slashdot are the latter type, so we don't have much respect for 'analysists'. If your analysist firm is what it seems to be, it doesn't quite count as 'analysist' in our mind, it's 'analysist-but-trustworthy'.

Wow. That was too much analyzing on the word 'analysist'.

Re:I've worked as a consulatant

[tapin]

Wow. That was too much analyzing on the word 'analysist'.

Especially since the word is "analyst."

Re:I've worked as a consulatant

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially since the word is "analyst."

For that, I dub you the analest analysist analyst on Slashdot.

Í like it

[AlecC]

This is the right way to respond to the foaming-mouthed radicals of the right.

There is no point in trying to point out their idiocies. Anyone with enough braincells to count in binary can see that they are spouting irrational codswallop. But there is no point in losing your temper and trying to point out the idiocy of their ways - these guys are beyond redemption. Laughter is the safest refuge - laugh lest ye cry. Well done (again), Linus.

Re:Í like it

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does ADTI have to do with "the right"? I consider myself part of "the right" politically and I think they're smoking crack.

Re:Í like it

[chickenrob]

yeah, smokin crack like a bunch of hippie liberals...

Re:Í like it

[ThisIsFred]

Absolutely. They're more like the foaming-mouthed radicals of the wrong.

ridiculous.

[wastedimage]

This is getting ridiculous. We should enjoy these stories people! I mean serously any day now people have to start seeing this. How many people can honestly beleive that microsoft just happened to give money to all these companies giving linux shit? Why the hell don't they spend that money on more proficent coders?? FUD only works to a point ..I wish the media would see this and go after ms. Its almost like they're being anticompetitive or something...oh wait jackasses yes thats it jackasses.

Re:ridiculous.

[clandestine_nova]

People will believe what's in front of them unless it directly affects them in a manner adverse to their liking. The only way people will wake up is when it is integral to their career or lifestyle that they do. Otherwise, people don't care. Also, it's not that people believe that Microsoft "just happened" to support companies that actively discredit Linux. It's that they don't know or don't care.

Re:ridiculous.

[Smidge204]

FUD only works to a point

Yeah, I can't wait to see what Microsoft has in store for the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. Talk about a PR nightmare!
=Smidge=

Re:ridiculous.

[Mostly a lurker]

... any day now people have to start seeing this

Unfortunately, very unlikely. All available evidence suggests that most people are very uncritical in evaluating what they read. What they believe depends largely on what they read most often. Microsoft has plenty of money to repeatedly tell people that "... the next generation of Windows will solve all the security problems ...", "... open source software is inherently insecure ...", "... Windows has a lower TCO than Linux ..." etc. 1% of the population will be smart enough to know this is rubbish; the other 99% will just accept it at face value, even if devestating rebuttals are readily available.

Re:ridiculous.

[wastedimage]

oh i can see it now..The tooth fairy has really been in cahoots with osama and santa has been hideing the wmd for sadam. Bush will decide we need to stop santa's reign of terror before its too late (dec-25, when their intel says "something big will happen").

Fuck!

[Hooded One]

Santa told me he loved only me. That cheating bastard!

Re:Fuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Johnny, those cookies you left him were not only the "lo-fat" ones, but so was the milk. And someone had sucked the cream filling right out of the cookies before he got there.

No free OS in *your* stocking, you got a copy of MS-Word for the Commodore 64....

Okay... I get it...

[Ieshan]

"Okay, I get it. I have bad teeth."

Reindeer meat and cranberries.

[cjellibebi]

This sort of reminds me of my trip to Finland. I also had some reindeer meat, but it was served with cranberries. One of the cranberries was perched on top of a meaty protrusion in the pile of meat, and it looked like I had been served Rudolph the Red Nosed reindeer himself.

dangerous

[SuperBanana]

The early versions of the gentoo installation instructions told you to play Bom-Bad Racing on the PS2 while waiting for it to set up

Wait, play a game while waiting on gentoo to finish building...

Did they include a referral for a good repetitive-motion injury specialist?

Linus is speaking in code!

[pyrrhonist]

Ok, I've got my tinfoil hat on, and I'm pretty sure that, "Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus", was Linus speaking in code.

Okay, so follow me on this one...
If you rearrange the letters in, "Santa", you get, "SATAN".
Satan is a demon.
BSD has a daemon as a mascot.

So... The Daemon made him do it!

Ohhhhh! That sucked.

F Micro$oft

[Tom_Yardley]

I didn't read the article, I didn't read the header and I didn't read the post. . . but, it ought to be clear that this is just another Bill G. rip off. If he thinks he can just wander around this country and write some sort of book or something, why he's got another whupping coming.

In other news...

[Ruliz Galaxor]

Alexis de Tocqueville admitted to be the easter bunny

"At first I didn't believe it myself, but when I started humping around during easter, I knew I had to be. Besides that, I'm actually quite releaved that the news is out and I don't have to keep it to myself anymore", Alexis commented.

sig(h)

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the great big foot mean anything to you?

Say it ain't so!

[smartin]

I always thought Santa was from Canada.

Re:Say it ain't so!

[Anonymous Coward]

Geography may not be my strong suite, but I'm pretty sure Canada isn't part of Scandinavia.....

Re:Say it ain't so!

[smartin]

Mine either but i'm pretty sure that the North Pole is not in Scandinavia.

Re:Say it ain't so!

[deragon]

He is. Canada Post forwards the mail to him.

Check section "Santa Letter Writing Program" at: http://www.postescanada.ca/corporate/about/jobs/tr aditions-e.asp

Even the german post acknowledge this, Canada being the direct link to the North Pole. :)

Dude... come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should know by now that any remotely controversial opinion - whether it is well-expressed and objectively reasonable or not - gets the Troll/Flamebait scarlet letters within nanoseconds, here on da dawt.

View it as a badge of courage and move on. Eventually you'll post something most people agree with (and so which is therefore right and Not Flamebait) and all will be well...

Re:Hello, McFly!!!

[blunte]

I didn't know you were from Texas...

Re:Wow. Did we just slashdot the advertizer?

[Jayfar]

Irony upon irony - the slashdotted ad frame that IIS was failing on is responding again - with an ad for a free Secrets of the Linux Masters CD from Sys-Con Media.

The corporate mods!

[Thinkit4]

I'm guessing it's the same mods who mod up something pro-IP for example. Bring out a poll, and the vast majority here are not religious.

Re:The corporate mods!

[bakes]

A poll on religion! What a great idea.

I am a:
- Christian
- Muslim
- Hindu
- Buddhist
- Some Other religion
- Atheist
- Agnostic
- I worship graven images of Cowboy Neal

I'm certain that the comments for that poll would be a polite and enlightening discussion with plenty of respect for other points of view - just like we always get on slashdot.

Re:The corporate mods!

[stanmann]

Not sure how many options are possible, but I would at least distinguish
Christian

Catholic
Protestant

Atheist

HARD
SOFT

Re:The corporate mods!

[Cili]

Not a good idea, 'cos you'd have to go:

Christian
Catholic
Orthodox (Russia and most of the Eastern Europe)
Protestant (many different cults)

Muslim
Sunnite
Shiite

and so on...

I do think that a civilised religion/based poll would be welcome

Re:The corporate mods!

[stanmann]

If the slashdot poll tool will allow that many options, I'm all for as much granularity as possible.

Apathist

[MikeO]

> quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!

I agree completely. My term for it is "apathism".

Now we know what Santa does...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the other 364 days of the year.

Re:Now we know what Santa does...

[Feanturi]

Santa's main advantage in life is that he knows where all the Bad Girls live.

News Flash

[rhun32]

Olds not the father of the automobile!

Re:For those wondering about Santa Claus & Fin

[Anonymous Coward]

Tonight the Lutefisk Fairy will come and leave lutefisk under your pillow.

In other news....

[dacarr]

SCOX has once again dropped below $5. They are now at $4.81 as of this posting.

Re:In other news....

[wastedimage]

Thank god. Maybe everyone is listening to what they are actually saying for a change...

Alexis de Toqueville Institution == trolltank

[pherris]

Granted, while some think tanks turn out reasonable research Alexis de Toqueville Institution is nothing more than a bunch high priced hoes working for Gates et al. Sweet zombie jesus, just look at their "research". They're not a think tank, they're a PR agency with nonprofit status. At least SCO will pay something in taxes unlike these clowns.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

Re:Obligatory

[maximilln]

If I had mod points parent would get two for Funny.

Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...]

[j.leidner]

By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.

Except for the best ones. Like Stanford's Donald Knuth , for example.

Or take the case of Reverend Thomas Bayes, the parish priest who discovered Bayes' theorem, on which modern machine learning/data mining relies so heavily, including spam filters named after him.

What is Tocqueville??

[Stephen Samuel]

PJ' post about this on groklaw notes that the best translation for tocqueville would be city of the crazy falsness -- or, as I would put it: fudville.

Also,

[Anonymous Coward]

How come Slashdot doesn't have a comedy filter? So that I might block from mine eyes the 60% of responses modded as "funny" which detract from and spam away most real discussions? Perhaps "Funny" posts could be set to -2? I'm dead serious; the glut of bad comedians combined with the propensity of the unwashed masses to take bad jokes and beat them into the ground mercilessly as a sort of initiation ritual (to show that the initiate is aware of slashdot culture) is driving the typical postmodded signal:noise level to usenet-like levels.

I'd love to see an analysis of a few days' worth of posts on slashdot, just to see what the exact ratio of postmodded "funny" to "interesting" or "informative" would be.

Breaking news from Alexis de Tocqueville Institute

[Leomania]

Washington, DC (FantasyNews) May 17th, 2004 - The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute reported today that Linus Torvalds, the public relations spokesman for the Linux operating system that was invented by Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, misled the public when he revealed the actual provenance of Linux.

"He can't be believed or trusted," said Ken Brown, head of the institute. "He says he has good teeth, yet the truth of the matter is that he has a mouth full of cavities. This is entirely consistent with the lies and fabrications this man has put forth since claiming he wrote Linux."

SantaClaus.com agrees ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

see http://www.santaclaus.com/faq.html#Linux

Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...

[benploni]

Lots of famous scientists were deeply religious. I never claimed otherwise. I merely expressed lack of surprise that Linus is not.

that must irk RMS real bad

[discogravy]

just cos he's got a beard doesn't give Linus any reason to call RMS "Santa".

Re:that must irk RMS real bad

[Bros]

That would be RMS/Santa then?

Re:that must irk RMS real bad

[Anonymous Coward]

NO/linus I/linus THINK/linus ITS/linus JUST/linus SANTA/linus.

Re:that must irk RMS real bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you're thinking of maddog

Re:Hello, McFly!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

My what a witty reply. Well, I'm half correct.

And in other news...

[darnok]

The former Iraqi Information Minister has been spotted in New Hampshire, where he is believed to be working for a large corporate enterprise.

According to our translator, he said "I believe Alexis de Tocqueville to have been one of the greatest Iraqis in history, and it is an honour to be serving his esteemed foundation. I believe this role to be the pinnacle of my professional career to date, even exceeding my colonisation of Mars in 1994"

Re:Linus second step in creating linux

[Anonymous Coward]

vi main.h

# (c)Linus
.
. :q

# ftp ftp.sco.com

20 ProFTPD 0.0.1 Server
Name (sco:admin): anonymous
331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
Password:
ftp> prompt
Interactive mode off.
ftp> mput main.h

Analysts (and SCO)

[rduke15]

Everytime something happens in the SCucks case, Pretenderle and Didiot come out of the blue corner.

Well, as far as SCO is concerned, there seems to be only one analyst caring to give his opinion. It is "sell".

And his advice seems to be good: even though, SCO has made some press release and arranged for other news to try to get the investor's interest, their stock continues to plummet.

(There was no SCO story today, so we need at leat this comment in an unrelated story, dont'we?)

AdTI should be renamed...

[Zen Programmer]

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute should be renamed to the Elmer FUD Institute.

Sorry, that was bad.

I'm the father of Linux!

[Get Behind the Mule]

... and so's my wife, Morgan Fairchild (whom I've slept with).

Those Aren't Pillows!

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said.

the word you are looking for is "agnostic"

[mzs]

I saw some of the other posts and I knew that there were people in the early Church called Gnostics that thought that there was a road of secret knowledge to understanding God and ultimate salvation or something. (Don't ask, nine years of religious educations...) It would make sense that an a-gnostic would be the opposite in some way. I was pleasantly surprised when I went to verify that with a web search. Check out the Word History for agnostic.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"-ists," as he called them - who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

Just goes to show, I can learn something new everyday...

Re:the word you are looking for is "agnostic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I knew someone would draw Xenosaga into this.

Linux to be rename

[Tuqui]

Santax or Fairyx

If i could use this shit without a kernel, i would

[Anonymous Coward]

Arent you tired of all this shit?
Where has Free Software went to?
Since when have we acepted all this?, OSS?, Linux?, WHO ARE THEY?, They are not part of the GNU Movement. They never were. They never will. "you know, the whole GNU/Linux flamewar". You cant refer to it like that. It wasnt some stupid SCO acusation, its just the plain and obvious true!.
That's it, i think im really dropping Linux, until HURD is ready, i think il stick with some BSDish OS. Fuck, i would prefer to use OS/2 and pay IBM insteda of give fame and money to this bunch of motherfuckers.

mail@@@sebastiangomez.com.ar

the name tells it all

[po_boy]

This can't be true. If it were, it would be called Santix or Toothix.

Study not authored by Alexis de Tocqueville Inst.

[Kakurenbo Shogun]

A careful analysis of the study reveals that it was not authored by the The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, but actually cobbled together using words stolen from the English language.

what a conundrum

[fliptout]

YOu'd think that the tooth fairy would have died during labor......Hmmm, really wish I hadn't gone there.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists

[Lord Grey]

Education has the highest correlation coefficient to lack of belief in a personal god.

That's why I'm a Frisbeetarian. I believe that when I die, my soul will go up on the roof and get stuck.

No - there is another...

[NoMaster]

"There's nothing an agnostic can't do if doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not" - Monty Python.

Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...

[LordK3nn3th]

"Except for the best ones".

Sample size = 1, 2?

Also, hypocrisy is a flaw.

adti.net on freebsd

[MySt1k]

from a post in the Comments of the article,

amomynous commented ... Funny that for all their railing against FOSS software, www.adti.net is served from FreeBSD [netcraft]. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.adti .net I would think for all their MS schilling, they would go with their own recommendations.

ObNetHackWish

[Anonymous Coward]

My wish: a blessed +2 GDSM

--
"Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain"

Who is the ADTI ?

[sfjoe]

I picked a couple of names at semi-random (names that seemed to be fairly uncommon) and did a Google search. Apparently, the requirements to be a "Teacher Choice Fellow" are not high. Google had zero results for both Don Koniezco and
Marilyn Ketter Rittmeyer.
Interesting.

What about Al?

[Froboz23]

We're forgetting that Al Gore took the initiative in creating Linux.

Re:What about Al?

[cardshark2001]

We're forgetting that Al Gore took the initiative in creating Linux.

Al Gore DID take the initiative in creating the internet (perhaps a bad choice of words but essentially true) by shepherding lots of legislation that made it into the public place it is today.

This got misreported as "invented", and now, instead of him getting credit for something he should get credit for, he gets made fun of.

George Bush says "The question that is rarely asked: is our children learning", and that barely makes an impression in the "liberal" (ha-ha) media.

Re:What about Al?

[Anonymous Coward]

al gore just funded a lot of projects relating to the development of the web.

Re:What about Al?

[Bedouin X]

I hear it all the time on the liberal media. It's the mainstream folks that have missed it.

Re: I like it

[Unordained]

I don't mean to be any trouble, but could you explain the relationship between this and "the foaming-mouthed radicals of the right" (by which I assume you mean right-wing politics/politicians or maybe some forms of economic thought)?

I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide a source for you 90% claim. I know many scientists and very few of them are atheist.

Tooth Fairy

[xp]

Shouldn't the tooth fairy be Linux's mother?
Unless he's a real fairy. Never mind.

Asim
--
Plants versus Animals

ah ha!

[foreverdisillusioned]

So that's where Holy Shit comes from!

NT=New Tooth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the subject

Re:For those wondering about Santa Claus & Fin

[Anonymous Coward]

I had some reindeer meet one night

Really? How exactly does one arrange a reindeer meeting? Did you use the telephone? ("call of the wild"?)

It was very tasty.

Ahh - so one of the reindeer cooked dinner for you? Or was it a catered affair?

Could you at least tell us how you did it? In case someone here ever needs to arrange a reindeer get-together.

The site's been hijacked

[joshv]

Read the rest of the stories on this site. It's obvious it's somehow been hijacked.

What do such people believe in, though?

[lysium]

It has been my experience, from my limited discourse with Jesuits, Christian brothers, and Jewish scholars, that it is indeed possible for highly intelligent people to be highly religious. Or perhaps the proper word for such people is spiritual?

When questioned about their beliefs, the scholars I mentioned describe ideas and concepts that are distinctly unorothodox. I suspect these people may have reached a personal understanding of the divine that would not be accepted by their respective communities. The ignorance of the lay community is a good thing, in this case, because the exact nature of their belief is not relevant to anything. The fact is they believe, and it provides a framework in which they can act in and upon the world.

I also suspect that the higher levels of theological scholars, pantheistically speaking, are far more tolerant of objective truth than most believe they are...

===---===

Linus a Wodehouse fan?

[SilentT]

"I can now go back to my chosen profession, the exploration of the fascinating mating dance of the common newt. ... Btw, did you know that newts have more offspring if you play the harmonica to them during their mating rituals? It's true."

I wonder if Linus was alluding to P.G. Wodehouse here. In some of Wodehouse's novels there is a character by the name of Finknottle (I think) who lives a lonely life in the country and is obsessed with newts. In one book (don't remember which...) he talks about the mating dance of the newt.

Where's Momma?

[Anonymous Coward]

All this talk about the father of Linux and no one cares to find the mother?

True for any source

[DaveAtFraud]

In this day and age, almost any source of information (including /.) is out to make a buck. This means that the source will provide the "news" that will generate the most revenue. Everyone has an axe to grind so the trick is to either read opposing points of view (if you have the time) or at least be cognisant of the biases of the source you're reading.

The Story of LINUX

[rock_climbing_guy]

No, This is the story of LINUX.

Sad but not uncommon

[formfeed]

Eventually the truth had to come out. Sadly, far too often people have their names attached to inventions or research someone else did.

The whole linux thing is just one of many false claims scam artists like Linus T. or Albert E. - to name another one - put forward.

For example: Through painstakingly accurate research I found out that one of the vital parts of the so-called "theory of relativity", the Lorentz-transformation, was not Einstein's idea after all but stolen from another physicist, whose name I unfortunatly forgot.

Re:Sad but not uncommon

[madprof]

Haha. And whose idea was the curvature of space-time in General Relativity?
Of course Linus wrote Linux, but don't let the facts get in your way!

Re:Sad but not uncommon

[formfeed]

Linux: Haven't you hurd yet?

Einstein: Does it matter?

Re:Sad but not uncommon

[madprof]

Well he won a Nobel Prize for it so I suppose it does sort of matter yeah...

You Insensitive Clod!!!!!!!!

[big-giant-head]

The tooth fairy perfers to be called the:
MOLENATOR.......

Orthodoxy [Re: What do such people believe in]

[j.leidner]

When questioned about their beliefs, the scholars I mentioned describe ideas and concepts that are distinctly unorothodox.

There are different uses of words like fundamentalist/orthodox: the literal sense of "sticking to the very fundaments and core concepts" are nowadays almost overridden by very negative connotations e.g. extremist, "not allowed to have fun"... [anybody expect the Spanish Inquisition ;-) ?].

But a priori, whether a fundamentalist, i.e. somebody who takes the fundaments on which something is built or based very seriously, is a good thing or not depends on what that fundament actually is. And that varies a lot across doctrines. For example, in Christianity, the fundament is the principle of love of God and your neighbour as embodied in the (first two of the) ten commandments. This is the core of Christian orthodoxy (and yes, I'm just re-stating official teaching here); so in that sense a fundamentalist can be something of high moral value in accordance even with other belief systems.

If, on the other hand you consider orthodox to mean what the average person on the street thinks, then it is not too surprising that there's a lot of divergence compared to experts you mention, since the average (wo)man in the street might not (have time to) read as much about religion to clarify their minds in times of time-tables, reality TV, beeping pagers, and ./.

Re:Orthodoxy [Re: What do such people believe in]

[Laur]

But a priori, whether a fundamentalist, i.e. somebody who takes the fundaments on which something is built or based very seriously, is a good thing or not depends on what that fundament actually is. And that varies a lot across doctrines. For example, in Christianity, the fundament is the principle of love of God and your neighbour as embodied in the (first two of the) ten commandments. This is the core of Christian orthodoxy

This is wrong, your quote doesn't even include anything from the New Testament! The core of Christian orthodoxy is that we are all sinners (this goes back to the Fall) and deserving of death, and that you cannot be saved except through Jesus Christ. This is the absolute bare minimum that you must believe in order to be a Chrisitian.

Actually

[KalvinB]

as a theist, the existance of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus is irrelavent.

Satan exists. You don't see Christians running around worshipping and trusting in him do you?

So what makes the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus any different? If they actually exist they're just another two of the many false gods that are to be avoided.

Atheists keep bringing them up because they don't understand theology and what actually matters. Unfortunatly, it's not just atheists that don't get it.

Just because you exist doesn't make you the President of the United States and obligate me to care about what you say.

Ben

Re:Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Actually

[KjetilK]

Atheists keep bringing them up because they don't understand theology

Yep, I willingly acknowledge that.... This stuff with monotheism and omnipotence always makes me really, really confused. You mean Satan has powers too? But then, God has all the powers hasn't he...? Or are there other gods with no powers? Must be really boring to be a god without powers... So, basically, you have monoteism with many gods, but you have to choose the right one, which is the right one because he is so good, but there are others with powers too, in spite of the good guy having all. Yep, I'm confused.

Please explain.

it's obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't know anything about religion.

Why beliefs about dragons exist

[kanweg]

"Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?"

Well, suppose you live in a country and find skulls and bones of animals which you haven't seen before. You'd give it a name - say dragon - and fill in the missing details yourself. And you start talking about it to other people, which is how your "knowledge" spreads. Funny, that may be just like how religions could be born. People tell stories here in the Netherlands about a guy who could walk on water in another country.

Did you know that the Chinese word for dragon and dinosaur is the same?

Bert

Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...

[Sieni]

> > By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.

> Except for the best ones.

That's not true. This has been surveyed among the National Science Foundation members and the results can bee seen here.

I remember seeing an article in Scientific American, where these numbers were compared to the university professors in the States in general and among them the belief in god was much higher.

Re: Agnosticism

[some guy I know]

Agnosticism: We are incapable of knowing whether or not God exists.

That, and the other definition (that it is "impossible" to know whether or not God (or a god, of whatever form) exists) seem too specific to me.
I consider myself agnostic (about God and gods), but I have no idea whether or not I am capable of knowing, or whether it is possible to know, whether or not "God" exists.
I don't know (and I don't care) whether or not such an entity exists.
I think that ignorance of existence should be enough to qualify one for agnosticism.
Otherwise, what am I?
(I am not a "soft" atheist (your definition), because I don't know (or care) whether or not sufficient evidence exists to believe or disbelieve.)

I have just one thing to say...

[tarunthegreat2]

Yes me a karma whore

Click here

Anecdotal Evidence

[hcetSJ]

Admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence, but it's certainly worthwhile nonetheless (and no more anecdotal than the fact that Linus Torvalds is an atheist)...

I recently heard a man by the name of John Polkinghorne lecture on the interaction of religion and science. He was a professor of particle physics at Cambridge, and then went on to become an Anglican priest. He's written lots of books, none of which I've read, but I'm told are good. His lecture was very interesting, and he brought up many points that were very natural.

The main point of his lecture was that as a society, and as individuals, we see better when we use both eyes: the eye of science, and the eye of religion.

Re:Anecdotal Evidence

[madsdyd]

Interesstingly, that is the same as the fundamental Muslims belive, and the Christians in Europe believed several hundred years ago-some probably still do.

I personally don't.

Please learn how to make links.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please learn how to make links.

<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/HooveronRelig ion.html"> This</a> is one of the surveys.

yields: This is one of the surveys.

adti.net temporarily disabled

[tholomyes]

http://www.atdi.net:
Site Temporarily Disabled

This site has been temporarily disabled. If you are the owner of the site, please contact customer care.

Slashdotted, or smited by the almighty Linuxian pantheon?

Official Confirmation

[Anonymous Coward]

OK OK, I admit it : I wrote the Linux kernel.

Santa Claus

They aren't axioms.

[Chuck Chunder]

They aren't self evident or universally accepted.

Putting the word "axioms" next to them doesn't make them axioms.

It just means you're being particularly bold when begging the question!

Did someone say "intellectually lazy"?

I think they did.

adti.net: WAS cracked in some fashion or other?

[nalfeshnee]

... it is (07:51 GMT) any rate offline:

Site Temporarily Disabled

This site has been temporarily disabled. If you
are the owner of the site, please contact
customer care.

Maybe someone should give the Admin contact

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Fossedal, Gregory foss@dcfund.net

a bell?

Cheers,

Nalfy

Re: Agnosticism

[fucksl4shd0t]

I think that ignorance of existence should be enough to qualify one for agnosticism. Otherwise, what am I?

Answer: In too much of a hurry to seek classification.

Solution: Forget about it. When people ask that question wanting to know your religion, tell them their question has no meaning to you. If you have to, acknowledge that while it has meaning to them, that doesn't immediately require it to have meaning to you. It may upset them, but fuck 'em. Get on with your life, don't let little things trouble you. ;)

Who is adti.net?

[Anonymous Coward]

After looking at the wayback machine (As the actual website was hacked and is now down) it appears this is a political think tank.

Ok will someone tell me why a political think tank is trying to tell the world open source software is evil?

And
here is the archive mirror of the articals blasting open source.

I don't think there is any doupt this is nothing more than a politcal think tank who exists purely to premote a certen political thought.

Hay everybody.. It's the unoffical Ministry Of Truth.

Thies guys are so anti-Linux it's discusting.

The clames they make about Linus not being the father of Linux have got to be based entirely on the clames made by SCO who in a cort of law was never actually able to provide anything remotely close to proof.

In short it's slanderous hearsay.

Hay if this is valid... how many times has Microsoft been in cort?

I guess now we have our paralel of the psycopath who stalked Bill Gates a number of years back.
(I'm refering to the lady who actually believes Mr Gates is the antiChrist. We all know the real antichrist is Bharny the purple pulsh toy)

Re:Who is adti.net?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it had been proven that Emmanuel Lewis was the real antichrist.

Yegads

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow dude. You have a lot of anger to work out. I know this doesn't deserve a response, but here's hoping we can cure your blindness.

Question for you: are people any happier, or more fulfilled in their lives purely because of scientific progress? Almost all of the examples you cited are actually examples of social progress. Science is simply a tool that can be used either positively (eg. societies deciding to do something about malnutrition) or negatively (eg. nast folks developing innovative new torture techniques and devices).

Science is no more responsible for all these wonders you cite than a hammer is responsible for the fact that we have houses.

And yes; I am a scientist (Physical Chemistry, Physics, Astrophysics)

Re:Yegads

[Oligonicella]

"are people any happier, or more fulfilled in their lives purely because of scientific progress"

Uh, yes. A healthier person is a happier person, a well-fed person is a happier person...

A society can decide all they want to "do something about malnutrition", but if they lack the tools (science) they cannot, so again, yes.

The hammer (read tool, read science) IS responsible for the fact that we have houses. One must have tools to build, elsewise you get mud huts. Oh, wait, even mud huts are a form of tool usage. Again, yes.

Re:Yegads

[Profane MuthaFucka]

ahhh, the myth of the angry atheist.

Actually, I'm a very happy person, and I was just speaking the truth.

As for the question: can religion make people any happier or more fulfilled than I am as an atheist? No, that's absurd. I'm more happy than any religious person, because I've taken the hard route, refused to be lied to, and always sought truth.

When a person takes the road less travelled, it tends to lead to happiness. Religious happiness is a sham. Those people might think they are happy, but everything they think and believe is like a house built on the sand.

Bah!

[torpor]

Religion is a human invention, and as such means different things to different people. To many people, it means the things you disavow.

Religion is where old Science goes to die.

The bastard's lying!

[KjetilK]

Santa Claus is from Norway!

Clearly he wrote the kernel himself. He's just too shy to admit it.

Alexis de Toqueville Institution site down

[randalx]

The Alexis de Toqueville Institution website seems to be down.
Where am I gonna get my daily jokes now :-(

Bullshit. You're soaking in it!

adti.net down

[ckret]

Seems like Linus was right about some kind of takeover. Alexis de Tocqueville Institute website seems to be down currently. This might be for reasons of heavy traffic though but we'll find out soon enough.

Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...

[awol]

Puh-lease. Bayes died in th 18th century. He was ordained a _non-conformist_ minister (Wesley) which was in itself an interesting theological issue. But regardless people of the 18th century were almost exclusively religious. Athiesm was culturally difficult if not imposssible. In todays godless pluralism (as the godly would have us describe it) people like Bayes would proably not be quite so godly.

Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...

[Jo_2521]

If these are the best, who're these?

Albert Einstein didn't believe in a personal god.

David Hume, Epikur, Schopenhauer, Thomas Edison, Freud, Pierre Curie, Marie Curie, Bertrand Russell. To name a few in no apparent order (and shamelessly stolen from here), didn't believe in a personal god.

But I think this debate over who can name the most people believing or non-believing in god(s) is a bit futile. And assuming that an educated view of god is also a non-zealous, non-threatening version to others it is also an irrelevant one.

Non-religious morality

[thegameiam]

"Morality" as generally understood means an scheme of absolute truths to which individuals are bound whether they like it or not. "Ethics" are societally created constructs regarding right and wrong, and ethics can be different for different societies.

Morality generally implies absolute truth for all time.

The above statements lead me to say that it is unlikely that there will ever be a successful "atheist morality" - simply put, it would be Chutzpadik for a human-created rule to bind everyone in all times. "atheist ethics" - absolutely: no less than Bertrand Russell walked that path.

The above said, I would like to add that my experience is that I have met many decent and ethical people who are athiests. However, most of these people either had formal religious training as children, or their parents did. I have not met many people who are "3rd generation athiests," so I cannot evaluate whether athiesm has been successful as an ideology for creating a wholesome society.

Personally, I'm a theist (specifically Orthodox Jew). I've found that the arguments for the non-existence of God are no more swaying than the arguments for the non-existence of electrons or quarks. Certainly belief in God is just that:belief. It seems sad, however, to imagine looking out at our beautiful world and see it as nothing more than the result of quamtum fluctuations, all sound and fury signifying nothing. In my case, my belief in God has led me to be a better person than I was before, and it has affected other people in the same way.

Be well,

Re:Non-religious morality

[hesiod]

> It seems sad, however, to imagine looking out at our beautiful world and see it as nothing more than the result of quamtum fluctuations, all sound and fury signifying nothing

So, if there is no God, you cannot feel awe for the amazing complexity and (perceived) efficiency? I'm atheist, but am still amazed by things, even though they are perfectly natural. Even when I understand the theory behind why a lightbulb works, I am still amazed that it does (when I choose to be mindful of such things). Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.

Re:Non-religious morality

[thegameiam]

I apologize, I wasn't clear in my writing. The amazement I feel is both for the wonderful complexity present in nature, and also for the attempt to understand the watchmaker by looking at the watch. I also understand how a lightbulb works, but the question of why reality would be set up in such a way that it does is left unanswered by an understanding of how. It's the "why" question which leads to faith-based answers. The theistic answer is "because God said so." The atheistic answer is "because."

There's a great quote I saw recently (on the Bablyon 5 DVD) - "faith and reason are the shoes on your feet: you get much further with both than with one"

Re:Non-religious morality

[rtb61]

All those can be just a wondorous if you consider life to be just another dimension. Chaos can be considered as every thing, every where, every when with life enforcing stability on chaos and creating a timeline so that life can interact with the universe. Of course that is all of life no "super beings" required or wanted.

Re:Non-religious morality

[Mick Ohrberg]

The theistic answer is "because God said so." The atheistic answer is "because."

The real atheist answer would be "I can't tell you until we have discovered the Grand Unified Theory."

Re:Non-religious morality

[Hatta]

It's the "why" question which leads to faith-based answers. The theistic answer is "because God said so." The atheistic answer is "because."

Why is one answer any better than the other? Is "because there's a big dude in the sky" really a satisfactory answer? As far as I'm concerned the only good answer to "Why?" is "Why not?"

Re:Non-religious morality

[thegameiam]

The answer "Because God says so" implies a certain level of intentionality to the events of human existence. "because" or "why not" do not do this. The question of which answer is better than the other boils down to "is life inherently meaningful?" I would be surprised to meet thoughtful athiests who could answer "yes" to that question.

Re:Non-religious morality

[AK Marc]

"faith and reason are the shoes on your feet: you get much further with both than with one"

But you seem to imply that faith is somehow tied to a god. I have faith that my car will start in the morning. If I didn't have faith, I'd waste hours every day checking that there was gas, and that the spark plugs were in good shape and all that before just trying to start the car. If I didn't have faith in the people around me to behave in a certain manner, then I'd go crazy redoing everything that someone else did for me at work and all that.

Sometimes, it is best to just accept things on faith and move on, sometimes it is best to scrutinize things. That is unrelated to belief in a god.

No, it was Billie Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't Al Gore but Bill Gates (also known as the Thoot Drag Claus wich Swallow His/her Nose)

Godless Linux!!!

[ScottGant]

I KNEW that Linux was an evil, godless OS. Just look at the people that
are behind Linux and the Open Software movement!

Linus Torvalds

Richard Stallman

Steve Wozniak (hacker, when the term "hacker" ment a good guy)

Bill Gates (everyone knows he uses Linux at home)

Asia Carrera (Adult star and computer geek (yes, for real...she kicked
my ass in UT2003 many times))

John Malkovich (he saw someone using Linux once)

I found them all on Celebatheists.
And by the way, I use Linux (Gentoo) and I'm an atheist.

Will the real Linux please stand up.

[I81U812]

WRONG! He "borrowed" the code from Andy Tannenbaum. www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/minix.html

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[madprof]

No he did not. Linus did not use any Minix code. Not one line. If you think he did then please cite the code lines he took.
Or just admit you don't know very much.

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[I81U812]

Well Mad Professor! You certainly seem emotional about this. read this

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[madprof]

No, I'm just being precise. How can you mistake logic for emotion?
Ad hominem is the resort of someone who hasn't got the balls to admit they're wrong, right? :-)

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[I81U812]

Obviously you haven't read the link yet.

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[madprof]

I read it before it got put up on here. So do you now agree that Linus in fact did write Linux, given everyone involved says he did?
Or do you want to have a random conversation via Slashdot comments?

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, he isn't vulcan...

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[I81U812]

OK. OK. My choice of words were poor. My original intention was not to slam Linus, it was to give some credit to Tanenbaum. Minix was used as a model and reference for developing the initial Linux OS and that's a hell of a lot easier than writing it from scratch. Also, my comment doesn't mean I don't respect Linus and his accomplishment.

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[madprof]

Yes it was, but only to a certain extent. Tanenbaum is famous for not liking the monolithic nature of the Linux kernel. Linus was certainly 'standing on the shoulders of giants' when he started writing Linux.

Re:Will the real Linux please stand up.

[madprof]

That's no excuse.

Another myth shattered!

[OhHellWithIt]

My eight-year-old had duped out that I was the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. So we are both disillusioned.

Somehow, though, I think that if Linus had copied all the code the guy claims he did, he'd have been unmasked by Slashdotters long ago.

Interesting?

[tommck]

Well, maybe the creative spelling is interesting ... :)

Darth Santa?.

[tommck]

Santa: "Tuuux... I am your father!"
Tux: "NOOOOOOOOOO!"

(*They proceed to have a sword battle using large candy canes...*)

heart attack!!

[k2nysis]

Reading the father post i almost had it... The last quote saved me from moving to the spirit world and my parents the expensies of a very expensive these days funeral...

the sad part of it is that there is only one chance escaping deaths plan and i just had mine for just a joke, damn :( (i need to find the rest in the list...)

Author of Alexis de Tocqueville Institute Study...

[innerweb]

...Is just trolling to market his book. Kind of like the Area 51 stories, Yeti, et al.

Yellow Journalism is as old as journalism itself, and it will not change. As always, it as a marketing tool, whether to sell a product or an idea, it is universally based on scant to non-existant evidence.

It is easy to ignore until it touches on something you care about. Then, it is realized as the unfounded attack it is. The damage this stuff causes is far greater than its immediate impact, as it (yellow journalism) makes it harder to believe in remote potentials that are unearthed in everyday science and technology.

Best way to deal with yellow journalists is to discredit them with carfeul facts in a very public forum.

InnerWeb

Re: Agnosticism

[Anonymous Coward]

That, and the other definition (that it is "impossible" to know whether or not God (or a god, of whatever form) exists) seem too specific to me.
I consider myself agnostic (about God and gods), but I have no idea whether or not I am capable of knowing, or whether it is possible to know, whether or not "God" exists.
I don't know (and I don't care) whether or not such an entity exists.
I think that ignorance of existence should be enough to qualify one for agnosticism.
Otherwise, what am I?
(I am not a "soft" atheist (your definition), because I don't know (or care) whether or not sufficient evidence exists to believe or disbelieve.)

You are an existetialist. You may want to read "The Stranger" by Albert Camus.

He got modded funny because he's a f'n clown

[Anonymous Coward]

HTH

SATAN Claus Operation

[GQuon]

More like the Satan Clause Operation

Ho! Ho! Ho! Bow before me!

Eeep! IBM lawyers! Run, Saddam!

Definitions of axioms

[u38cg]

There appears to be some confusion over what we mean by axioms. There are two main definition:

1) A 'self-evident' truth. This approach does have the advantage of venerability, dating from ancient Greece, and of simplicity.

2) The more modern definition defines an axiom simply as a starting point on which we can perform logical operations. We make no judgement on whether or not these are in fact true (although we hope they are). If a series of logical operations on an axiom turns out a known bad result, then we can say that our axiom is at fault.

This second setup appeared due to increasingly philosophical work on the nature of numbers, which eventually forced mathematicians to go back and re-lay the groundwork. Anyway, I'm not sure axioms are the interesting thing in a debate on religion; I think Occam's Razor has more to offer.

I believe in a rock in my backyard

[bonch]

I believe a rock in my backyard created all of existence.

How very odd. If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest...

How very odd. If there is a holy rock in my backyard, it created you. It gave you a mind and a will. And it sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest...

See how fun it is to declare that a certain belief "might" be true--as is true of absolutely any random theology you could conjure up, such as belief in the tooth fairy?

What exactly do you mean by "better?" Better implies that there is some "good" that you would like to world to move closer too. And a "bad" that you would like it to move away from.

Good would be whatever benefits society. Bad would be otherwise.

A Christian would say that there is a "good" defined by God's nature from which we can say whether the world is getting "better" or "worse." Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting.

Ah, yes, what you're saying is that without belief in God, you can't have morality or ethics. Which is a twisted looney way of thinking of course, a belief you're told to think.

Do you think dogs belief in God? Yet, dog will gather in packs, protect each other, hunt together, and so on. There are also bad dogs that will be challenged and fought against.

Point is, the concept of ethics and morality in a human society are really the outcome of an evolved set of survival instincts. Humans live longer if they're not killing each other and doing bad things to each other. They have better lives when people treat each other nicely. You don't need belief in Christianity to understand this.

But I certain expect this very simple concept to escape you, because you were raised to believe in Christianity, and therefore your entire worldview for the rest of your life is forever colored. To arrogantly believe that your religion is somehow true amongst millions of others on this big rock in space is insanely ludicrous, but you happened to be born to a Judeo-Christian culture and were raised to believe it, and so you shall.

Never underestimate how easily shaped a person's worldview is through upbringing. But continue to let your mind exist in a vacuous niche of thinking without question, if that's what you want.

Re:I believe in a rock in my backyard

[LawfulGood]

Thanks for your response

I believe a rock in my backyard created all of existence.
I will merrily debate the merits of Christianity versus um... RockInYourBackyardanity.

See how fun it is to declare that a certain belief "might" be true--as is true of absolutely any random theology you could conjure up, such as belief in the tooth fairy?
With all due respect, you're begging the question. We are arguing whether a universal moral standard exists with God as it's foundation. You cannot dismiss the issue by declaring it a "random theology" and associating it with something absurd. The belief in the existence of God is based thousands of years of philosophical observation and reasoning. Examples include:

• That existence cannot be dependent upon an infinite regression of cause and effect and that there just be an un-caused cause.
• That for human free will to exist, there must be a supernatural origin.
• That for morality to exist and not be arbitrary, there must be a supernatural origin.

Now, to debate these underlying principles, and the conclusions derived, is perfectly reasonable (and fun!). But to dismiss the entire question as random absurdity is to not understand it.

Ah, yes, what you're saying is that without belief in God, you can't have morality or ethics.
Actually, I would argue that you can have a system of ethics without a belief in God. However it's arbitrary, and you can't expect anyone else to follow it. Which is not what we find. If I stomp your foot on accident, you probably wouldn't get angry (at least not seriously). If I stomp your foot with malicious intent, you probably would. Why? Because, even if you've never met me, you expect me to recognize a moral standard and act accordingly.

Point is, the concept of ethics and morality in a human society are really the outcome of an evolved set of survival instincts.
I fully agree that we do possess various instincts that promote our own survival as well as the survival of our community (herd). And that this instinct is probably purely natural.

However, I would argue that there is more at work here. For example, suppose that you look outside your window late at night and see someone being attacked. Immediately you'll be affected by at least two natural instincts. You'll have an instinct to protect the herd by intervening and helping the person. But there is also danger involved. You'll likely feel fear at the possibility of being injured or killed if you intervene. So there's a herd instinct to help and a self-preservation instinct to not get involved.

But there's also a third thing in play. You know that you ought to help the person. It's the right thing to do. There's something inside us that tells us which instinct should be encouraged and which should be suppressed. It judges the two instincts and assigns a moral priority. If you don't help the person, you'll feel shame. And other people will view you with disgust.

If the moral law is nothing but instinct, and only those instincts are in your mind, then the stronger of the two instincts must win out. But very often the prompting of the moral law encourages us to choose the weaker of the two instincts. For example, you may want to be safe much more than you want to help a person you don't even know. But at times like this the moral law is most visible, encouraging us to "wake up" or strengthen our herd instinct and suppress our survival instinct. The thing that is doing this encouraging cannot itself be the herd instinct. The herd instinct can't say "I'm asleep, wake me up!" It has to be something else, something that is not an instinct and is above instinct. And this thing I argue to be the supernatural moral law.

Which is a twisted looney way of thinking of course, a belief you're told to think.

But I certain expect this very simple concept to escape you..

...but you happened to

I believe in a rock in my backyard

[bonch]

OK, I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time to debate this. But I will say the following. What Dawkins writes is typical of the intellectually lazy attacks that science has for religion, because he is dismissing the discipline out of hand. He may as well say that we should ask the gardener or the chef about questions of sociology rather than a faculty member of the sociology department.

You completely missed the point. You're assuming to begin with that a priest automatically has validity in answering the whys.

The point Dawkins was making is that a priest is no different from a random man on the street claiming to have spoken to God and giving the answers. You have no way of knowing if any of it is true. You and most other people simply accept what is said as truth because you were raised to believe it. Dawkins merely challenged that given by asking the question--"Why are we asking priests? They've never proven anything."

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans. I should point out that none of these contradict anything that science knows.

I believe a rock in my backyard speaks to me and created all of existence by will alone. None of that contradicts anything that science knows. Your point is an intellectually lazy retort that's often given by religious nuts. "But you can't prove God doesn't exist!" No, and you can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't either, or that you'll reincarnate into an elephant when you die, or that those nuts claiming to be Jesus aren't Jesus.

To believe your religion is somehow more true than all the others of the world, with all their holy messengers, holy books, martyrs, and belief systems, is completely arrogant. If you had been born in Iraq, you'd have a completely different religion and worldview right now. Same as if you had been born into a primitive African tribe.

Your religion is a result of coincidental geography and therefore your childhood upbringing. Ask any child psychologist. Isn't that cause to make you curious about the validity of your beliefs? Of course not. You were raised to believe that they were true by default, before any proof has been given. Suddenly to you, the burden of proof goes on those pointing out that your claims have not been proven. Your post reaks of this mindset.

Down to earth?

[bonch]

I'd consider the Linux community to be the least down-to-earth in the computer industry. To them, computer operating systems are religions, and Open Source is the one true way in all cases, and you are "evil" if you think otherwise. The rival religion, the one the majority of the world believes in--Windows--is always labelled evil, does everything wrong, is blamed for everything.

It's all the same symptoms of an organized religion, but under the guise of a technology movement--people who are so arrogant to think that their beliefs are more true than everyone else's, and who will ridicule you and knock you down if you suggest otherwise.

Re:Down to earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all the same symptoms of an organized religion, but under the guise of a technology movement--people who are so arrogant to think that their beliefs are more true than everyone else's, and who will ridicule you and knock you down if you suggest otherwise.

Flamebait, and if I had mod points I'd moderate accordingly.

For the record, of all the people I know, the ones most likely to ridicule people whose beliefs differ from their own are all atheists, who arrogantly hold that anyone who chooses to follow a religion is a weak-minded fool, and spend as much of their time as possible bashing such people. The religious types, meanwhile, do their best to tolerate the endless flood of abuse and get on with their lives.

Yeah, it's religion that's the problem here, isn't it?

Re:Down to earth?

[N1KO]

Just a note, the conspiracy freaks who always get modded +5 on /. are _not_ the Linux community.

Except that...

[bonch]

Linux copying the behavior of various UNIXes is stealing, but Microsoft copying the behavior of the Mac or Xerox Star is not. And Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM PC BIOS is what caused the death of the PC industry!

Except that Apple had a deal with Xerox (so it's bizarre that people keep mentioning "stealing" from Xerox), and Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft was thrown out on a mere technicality.

Nobody ever said the Mac's copying of Xerox was okay, or that Microsoft's was okay. After all, you guys rip off taskbars, start menus, integrated filesystem/net browsers and more. There's this continous ego battle with Windows 98 going on in the Linux desktop world, and it's really really strange.

Re:Except that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be clear, I never said that Apple stole from Xerox. They actually tried to license stuff from Xerox as you say.

--LP

This is not your father's democracy.

[MarkGriz]

On the AdTI website, their 'mission statement' includes 'helping the spread of democracy.'

They must be talking about Ashcroft's democracy.

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT.
YHL.
HAND.

Re:apatheists...

[rekt]

or our good friends The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic.

Heavy boots

[CaptainFrito]

I think we all know gravity exists. There are several theories on how it works -- e.g., is it a pulling or a pushing force -- but most do people stipulate to its existence. In fact, silly, heavy boots prove gravity exists.

Gravity can be stipulated to because things have weight. Evolution cannot be stipulated to because tangible evidence of neither panspermia nor of abiogenesis have been demonstrated, nor has the demonstatrating of changing one species into another [viable] species been demonstrated either.

ADTI claims are easy to dismiss

[juliao]

I wrote a reply to their previous paper on Open Source issues. Maybe I'll have to do the same again...
Seriously, these guys are ridiculous. The sad part is that the media even listens to them...

If you recall...

[ThenAgain]

I covered this story some time ago.

Re:Choosing a belief

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO It's sort-of possible to choose a belief, depending on how you define "choose". If you keep telling yourself something (or, better, someone else keeps telling you something and punishes you when you refuse to accept it) then after a while you'll 'believe that you believe', as it were.

I'm thinking of people who loudly and constantly affirm some (apparently) ridiculous position, as if they're trying to persuade themselves, rather than persuade their audience, and I'm thinking in particular of people who make these apparently ridiculous assertions about themselves (I'm worthless, everyone hates me, etc). I've had personal experience of these kinds of people, and I imagine the same mechanism could work for other beliefs. [/offtopic]

That depends

[TheLink]

That's part of the contract (aka covenant) for the Israelites between them and God. Go read it up in _context_, rather than just picking verses out without bothering to understand stuff.

In many marriages it is a customary requirement for the participants to wear a ring on their ring finger and there are various other restrictions and practices they agree on as part of marriage.

There are smart ass guys who make fun of wedding rings etc (the really dumb ones do it in front of their significant other). Sure in a way it's silly. But hey if she's happy, you're happy and vice-versa. And that's sometimes the point - you are willing to look silly to others for the sake of your beloved. Plus sometimes it turns out to be useful/a good practice.

Now what that particular verse is to symbolize or other possible meanings/implications is for people who are actually interested to figure out. Same goes for the other rules[1].

[1] I find the Jubilee and related laws quite interesting - a reset every 50 years - limits how powerful any person/family can get - the regular reminder is God is the owner of the land, and the Israelites are kind of like tenants, every 50 years, poof, everyone back to their own farmland.

Dada

[sglines]

Success has many fathers and Linus is their progeny.