Slashdot Mirror


Churchill Accused of Sealing UFO Files, Fearing Public Panic

Newly released secret files show that Winston Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber because he feared public panic. From the article: "Mr Churchill is reported to have made a declaration to the effect of the following: 'This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.'"

615 comments

  1. blah by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FTFS:

    This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.

    One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:

    1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

    Or

    2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

    1. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because religious bigot are usually stupid, with a hard belief of that shitty "BELIEVE WITHOUT SEEING" propagandha used by every cultist to force people onto their sect.

    2. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Aliens would substantiate the theory of evolution, which uses as an implicit premise that God doesn't really exist, it was just all random chance, we're all just a bunch of molecules, blah blah blah.

      Never mind that evolution is a theory ...

    3. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since one supposes God created the Earth then He went on with His other businesses (except for the casual interferences in earthlings' lives), one might say God is actually extraterrestrial.

    4. Re:blah by Soilworker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But creationism is not even a theory, it's a child's bedtime story.

    5. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess its harder to think of oneself as being the center of the universe ("creating us in his own image" ...blah blah), when there is actual proof that you are not?

    6. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aliens would substantiate the theory of evolution

      No they wouldn’t. If they exist, God created them too.

    7. Re:blah by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Read Genesis. God created the heavens, the Earth, Man and assorted other critters and varmints. God creating aliens is never mentioned. And the Bible is infallible, so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind. And in the part about Noah's Ark, it is never mentioned that Noah rounded up two aliens.

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith. Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:blah by ashkar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Admirable as it is that you chose not to retain your culture's superstitions and follow a more logical path, I'm sure that your ignorance shines through in many other areas. I'm just trying to suggest that you be a little less critical and quick to judge. Most people follow a faith because it provides them with direction and meaning, not because they necessarily believe everything they are taught. I generally support religion for this very reason. Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a little faith.

    9. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      According to most reports aliens still have one head, two hands, two legs, two eyes etc. So, basically it might be a slightly different implementation of the same Interface. Hopefully e better one.

    10. Re:blah by kalirion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Or

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      "Belief in God" is quite different from "Belief in what the Church tells you."

    11. Re:blah by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And then there are some who, when confronted with incontrovertible evidence of the existence of a God, accept it. Yes, there are a few, and yes, they were faced with even physical evidence. YMMV.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    12. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's far more plausible that Homo Sapiens materialised from thin air into their present form.

    13. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to note that you used nicer words but have the same opinion as your parent.

    14. Re:blah by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith."

      True, but some come to faith by evidence.

      "Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums."

      Suffering is the human condition. Religion is merely one of the 'causes', and perhaps not the most common or greatest.

      And some believers find solace and comfort, even relief, from their religion.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    15. Re:blah by rolandog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And in the part about Noah's Ark, it is never mentioned that Noah rounded up two aliens.

      Why would the aliens have needed to be inside Noah's Ark to survive? They were else-where, cruising through the Universe...

    16. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it might validate theories such as this, which scares the hell out of established religion. Which all more or less ignores the fact that almost ALL regions before modern religions, had the same beliefs with only variations in back history and that these back histories clearly document both technology and aliens; aka gods of the stars.

    17. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both theories are impossible and preposterous; at least the Bible claims to have a God that can do things we consider impossible and preposterous.

    18. Re:blah by rgviza · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Darwin's theory of evolution is a conclusion based on a collection of empirical observations. Darwin never theorized why or how it occurred. He never theorized about it beyond "evolution happens, here's what I've observed that makes me think so". Knowledge of DNA and mutations were still quite a way off in the future.

      So in reality there's a lot of truth to it. He didn't make up his observations. They can still be observed today. Selective breeding artificially creates evolution every day. Has been for thousands of years since man domesticated the dog. Evolution can be demonstrated. If you own a dog you own a product of experimental evolution since without man that dog would still be a wolf.

      Why and how it occurs in nature is still relatively unknown.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    19. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could use some made up statistics here. Please deliver.

    20. Re:blah by ashkar · · Score: 1

      I might have the same opinion about God, but the key difference is that I preach against religion. Tolerance for others' views is something this world sorely lacks.

    21. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if this were true (which I'll remain neutral on), when they go to tell others, they're presenting nothing more than hearsay.

      (Isn't it interesting how "hearsay" and "heresy" are so similar-looking?)

    22. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Belief in the Church is different from belief in god(s).

    23. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, There is no god, and just about everything that surrounds us is conclusive proof that there is no such thing as a god.

      Regarding why anyone would deny evidence ... that's what religious people do. The only way to believe in a magic flying jew that is his own father is to deny logic, science, and any kind of common sense.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    24. Re:blah by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, Scientology
      Perhaps you can discuss this at TomCruise.com

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    25. Re:blah by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that it matters much, but I am a highly-spiritual atheist...or at least, "atheist" is what most people label me as. My definition of god isn't the same as that of most religions' definition, hence the label.

      god to me isn't a discernable being, but rather an abstract idea. I don't refer to all objects as god (like most religious philosophy), but rather only the connection between them. My primary argument that I use against the common religious definition of god comes from, strangely enough, an extremely scientifically inaccurate movie:

      "god must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. god must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray god, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create god in their own image."

       

    26. Re:blah by Alyred · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course, it could also be that he was so ahead of his time he referred to himself as "The Church, yo".

    27. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Except there is no such evidence, because there is no god.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    28. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because for the church boys God created the Earth.

    29. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, we all suffer from a lack of "spirituality" because there is no such thing as a spirit.

      We are animals. We do not have souls or spirits. What you call "spirituality", I call childish superstition.

      The guy that sued the school board was doing the right thing. I don't have kids, but if I did, I wouldn't allow anyone to try and teach them lies at school.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    30. Re:blah by et764 · · Score: 2, Informative

      God creating aliens is never mentioned. And the Bible is infallible, so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind.

      The Bible being infallible doesn't mean it is an unabridged compilation of all that is knowable. It simply means it is accurate on the subjects it addresses. The Bible primarily with things such as why are we here and how are we to treat each other. Apparently the existence or non-existence of aliens is not important to those questions. If we ever do discover aliens, it would be reasonable for Christians to conclude that God created them too, but their existence isn't something we need to know about to please God.

      Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith. Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.

      True faith is based on evidence, not opposed to evidence. If you look at the teachings of the apostles in Acts, for example, their message rested on the fact that there was a man who everyone had seen or heard of, who had done impressive miracles that many people have seen, was put to death in a very public fashion and then seen by many people alive afterwards. Surely, if these things were true, the faith that results from believing them would be one based on evidence and not warm feelings, right? Today our evidence primarily deals with the question of whether these accounts have been reliably preserved and recorded by credible witnesses. You may not find this evidence compelling, but I hope you can at least admit that there are Christians today who have come to their faith for better reasons than because their preacher said so.

    31. Re:blah by zero_out · · Score: 1

      Just because something isn't mentioned in the Bible, doesn't mean it didn't happen or exist.

      Did the Bible explicitly say that God created other nations of people after creating Adam and Eve? Or that they didn't have dozens of children after Cain and Abel? Yet the Bible mentions that Cain had a wife, even though it doesn't explicitly say that God created her, or that she was born. This isn't a contradiction, it's just a detail that wasn't important.

      The Old Testament focuses on the lineage of Jesus Christ. From the first man, down to Abraham, down to David, and so on. If a person, or nation, wasn't important within this lineage, or directly affect the people of this lineage, then it was glossed over or simply omitted.

      If I were to write a book about baseball, I would focus on it's precursor games, how it developed, and maybe a little of the physics involved. Would I discuss gravity as it pertains to the Earth and Moon interacting with one another? Absolutely not. I would probably discuss it very briefly with regard to pitching, and how a ball is thrown toward a point higher than it crosses the plate at, but if certain aspects of gravity have nothing to do with baseball, then why would I write about it?

      So too with the potential for alien life. If it exists, it wouldn't greatly affect the faith of true believers. If there are intelligent aliens, but they were not involved in the lineage of Jesus Christ, then why would they be in the Bible? They would be irrelevant. I'll tell you one thing about how it would affect true believers, though. If the aliens were to have a soul, then they would share the gospel with them, and baptize them into Christ. The only issue would be, "how can you tell if they have a soul?"

    32. Re:blah by darien.train · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not that he didn't want her to hear the word. He didn't want her pledging to a god neither he nor she believed in. Apparently the religious are extremely ignorant in legal matters (see it sounds stupid the other way around too.)

      --
      I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
    33. Re:blah by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Aliens would substantiate the theory of evolution, which uses as an implicit premise that God doesn't really exist, it was just all random chance, we're all just a bunch of molecules

      Why is a belief in God/higher-power and evolution incompatible? $Deity could have established the laws of nature and allowed nature to run its course. Mind you, I'm not a particularly religious person (though I'm no atheist either) but this seems like a perfectly acceptable way to reconcile the two, IMHO anyway.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    34. Re:blah by Conchobair · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear we are talking about WWII Era England. I do believe in the US most people who are spiritual would not find this to be an conflict of beliefs. Also, keep in mind many spiritual people are not members of the Westboro Baptist Church as much as anyone who believes in science is not a Scientologist.

      A lot of us don't find science and spiritualism any where more mutually exclusive than food and sex. Keep in mind that many people who are spiritual/religious are not hardline Christians (or even Christians).

    35. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it is not "just a theory".

      You might question the specifics (For example, what species in particular do we come from, what methods are involved in evolution, or even if natural selection works at all the way it's been described). But there are NO DOUBTS about a very simple fact: Animals fuck, and their offspring is a combination of their DNA. After a long time, species change, new species are created, other disappear. That process eventually created us. That is the simple truth. And we can prove it any way. Just watch two dogs fuck, wait nine months, and tell me what you get. There you go, proof of evolution. Does your son look similar to you? bam! evolution. Kiwi is proof of evolution.

      You might question the specifics, and they might even be wrong, but that doesn't deny the principle behind evolution. "You don't have enough fossils, therefore god created adam and eve" is just plain stupid.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    36. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As to why evolution occurs, it is because the laws of nature are such that it must occur. Any deeper theological or philosophical reason is beyond the scope of science. I think a lot of people misinterpret evolution, I know I did until only a few years ago. For example the phrase "survival of the fittest" can be misinterpreted as though species "want" to survive or survival is a "good" thing. The correct intepretation, however, is that species/individuals with attributes that happen to be suited to survival (through random mutation) survive and thus those attributes are passed on while less "desirable" attributes die out. The only logic or reason behind it is in our own minds.

      As to how it occurs, this is well understood (it follows from natural law) until you get down to the mutation level. I am not a biologist so I am not sure how well the mechanisms involved in individual mutations are understood.

    37. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolutely. What I don't understand is why all the crackpots that believe in the invisible space-jew would actually care about aliens. Hell, the bible has been proved wrong so many fucking times we've lost count. Dinosaurs, for instance. They would just say "The devil created those aliens" or "god put those aliens there to test your faith", or some other bullshit, just like they do now with all the rest of the stuff they were wrong about.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    38. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I took it as meaning Churchill became an atheist after reading the report.

    39. Re:blah by Conchobair · · Score: 1

      Sitting in church doesn't make a person anymore religious than sitting in a garage makes a person a car.

      I forget where I read that, but makes me lol.

    40. Re:blah by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Did the Bible explicitly say that God created other nations of people after creating Adam and Eve? Or that they didn't have dozens of children after Cain and Abel? Yet the Bible mentions that Cain had a wife, even though it doesn't explicitly say that God created her, or that she was born. This isn't a contradiction, it's just a detail that wasn't important.

      Not that I don't agree with the premise of the Bible not necessarily needing to mention every little thing for it to be true, the prevailing opinion of the church goers when I was growing up (I haven't been in many years now) was that there were no other nations (or people) directly created - Adam and Eve were first and every other group is descended from them. Their children interbred with each other at first, which was seen as an accepted form of incest in their view as there was no other option.

      As with all things religion though, opinions and interpretations will vary. And before anyone attacks me, I'm not claiming the above as an opinion I hold - just relaying the popular opinion held by the religious community where I grew up.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    41. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The only way to believe in a magic flying jew that is his own father is to deny logic

      That which is significantly technologically advanced is indistinguishable from magic. And if we run with your logic, all air passengers are magical. As such, if you're willing to admit that the possibility of aliens exists, then you're forced to admit "magic, flying jews", are at least within the realm of possibilities. At least so say logic and science.

    42. Re:blah by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      The "God" he was talking about was the God of human subservience and awe of military might and the eternal existence of the sovereign nation.

      Churchill wasn't worried that people would stop worshiping, just that they would stop worshiping nations and borders.

      Oh, and they might not continue to make working and shopping their number one reason for existence.

      Can someone tell me how the release of evidence that Winston Churchill sealed the records of a military confrontation with a UFO belongs in the entertainment category?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    43. Re:blah by montibbalt · · Score: 1

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Read Genesis. God created the heavens, the Earth, Man and assorted other critters and varmints. God creating aliens is never mentioned. And the Bible is infallible, so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind. And in the part about Noah's Ark, it is never mentioned that Noah rounded up two aliens.

      I am not religious so I don't know the rules, but could it be, perhaps, that the bible tells a story of creation but not necessarily the WHOLE story? There are already a startling number of details left out (I imagine whoever actually wrote Genesis did this to keep it from being disproved), I wouldn't be surprised if another world and its inhabitants were left out especially if it's all something we were meant to discover on our own.

    44. Re:blah by kaellinn18 · · Score: 1

      A mod point! A mod point! My kingdom for a mod point!

      --

      --------
      This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
    45. Re:blah by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith."

      True, but some come to faith by evidence.

      Also true, but nevertheless, it is still faith, a belief in things not proved, that they ultimately come to. I see much that in the real world that is quite real and knowable that leads me to believe the way I do, but I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that those things prove my beliefs. Alas, most "true believers" fail utterly at making that distinction, and thus...

      "Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums."

      Suffering is the human condition. Religion is merely one of the 'causes', and perhaps not the most common or greatest.

      You should do the math sometime. If we limit suffering to only those cases where humans have lost their lives at the hands of their fellows, religion wins, hands down. If we expand the definition to all of the other ills that mankind has heaped upon itself, it is almost too depressing to consider. No, religion, the kind that gets people to not just believe irrationally but to act irrationally is the biggest curse mankind has ever suffered.

    46. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity does not require blind faith.
      James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
      This is repeated several times throughout the bible. No human can show you or tell you that it's true. If your belief is based on something another human told you then you're not a Christian. You have to pray and experience it for yourself.

      Buddhism also does not require any faith at all. The whole point of the religion is to discover what desires and attachments you have that prevent you from being enlightened. The only person who can save you is you.

      Before you become an angry violent opponent of religion do they require you to have no understanding at all of what it is you're supposed to hate? What's it like being so angry all the time?

    47. Re:blah by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yes it does...

      Vroom! Vroom! I'm a bugatti! Vroom!

      Dont tell me you guys dont do that late at night on weekends..

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    48. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Please mod up.

      Sounds interesting to me.

    49. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disturbed spirituality is common in Atheists (for example, the guy that sued the school board because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the word "God" and he doesn't want his daughter to hear THAT WORD).

      Yikes, so many ad-hominems, and so many attempts at mind-reading. I don't normally dignify such comments with replies, but I'll pinch my nose and make an exception this time.

      I'm not an athiest, and I don't want appeals to "God" or any other "higher power" in our Pledge of Allegiance; the fact that "under God" wasn't even a part of the pledge until 1954 underscores my belief that it doesn't belong there. I don't think "God" belongs on our currency, either, or any other piece of government officialdom. Attempts to retcon the religious belifefs, or lack thereof, of the Founding Fathers aside, I don't think religion or "spirituality" belong in the public sphere.

    50. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one comes to faith by evidence. Calling direct personal experience (delusional or not) "evidence" is simply inaccurate: since personal experience can't be used to demonstrate the truth of a proposition to anyone else, it doesn't constitute evidence. On the other hand, a belief based on evidence isn't faith... and I'd argue that it's the latter term that is being cheapened.

    51. Re:blah by gothzilla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's called a testimony, when you tell others about your own experiences, beliefs and faith. Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with sharing your own personal life experiences to others, regardless of what they are?

      To gain your own belief and faith you have to pray and experience it for yourself. In Christianity there is no such thing as faith through hearsay. It also helps if you actually study your own religion and understand it. So many don't.

      God gave us the freedom to make our own choices in life and some people make very poor ones, including the choice to use religion for their own purposes or try and force others to believe as they do. You can't judge a religion by looking at those who don't follow it's rules.

      I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time. Vegetarians, vegans, gays, straights, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and many others are far more guilty of it than Christians. It used to be the other way around but the last 10 years has changed that. I get harassed for eating meat by vegans 50 times for every one time I get harassed by a Christian.

    52. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Or, a large majority of atheist and agnostics are those who have previously been steeped in religion, but have come to see the through the facade. I am one such individual, raised souther baptists (gasp) dated the preachers daughter, and can still to this day debate theology with the best of preachers. But then I saw the world, and determined that if there is a god, he is one fucked up individual who I dont want to serve anyway, and that as Christopher Hitchens puts it, religion poisins everything. The majority of this is my travelling of the world and fighting in Iraq, to determine that we as humans are despicable things, with good people being the exception and not the rule. See through the lies of the church you people who throw away logic and ration for faith and belief. The most convincing argument I hear, but one that is still flawed, is that someone religion is completely false, but it is an evolutionary outlet for us to cope and comprehend the unknown, which basically boils down to actively pursueing the old saying that ignorance is bliss.

    53. Re:blah by zero_out · · Score: 1

      That's another possible explanation that I have heard. I accept either as equally plausible. Either way, it doesn't strengthen or weaken the claims of Jesus' divinity, or our response.

    54. Re:blah by Carrot007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I find the lack of cat related things in your comment disturbing!

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    55. Re:blah by Pojut · · Score: 1

      James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

      This is repeated several times throughout the bible. No human can show you or tell you that it's true. If your belief is based on something another human told you then you're not a Christian. You have to pray and experience it for yourself.

      So let me get this straight. If someone else teaches you the Christian faith, you aren't a Christian? That's...weird.

    56. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Anyone who thinks sitting in church can make you a Christian must also think that sitting in a garage can make you a car." — Garrison Keillor

      The fact that it's "a Christian" instead of "religious" is important. Your version is actually false.... sitting in church does make you religious, at least to some extent, since you're engaging (sincerely or not) in a religious observance.

    57. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're talking about dogs, I think you meant 9 weeks. 9 Months is for humans. Did your post originally talk about watching 2 humans?

      And genetic inheritance is not the same thing as mutation. Mutation is what causes evolution; inheritance is what makes your son look similar to you. Evolution would be more indicated if your son had traits that were present in neither of his parents.

    58. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The redemption of the human race depended upon the basic idea that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, hence by their sin all humans were condemned until their sins were paid for in Jesus.

      The reason that their children could freely marry each other was because there had not been enough genetic mutations to the human DNA within those few generations to cause any significant chance of birth defects in the children even of two close relatives.

      If you have studied genetics at all, you will know that mutation is more often harmful than not, and a mutation in one gene often causes "broken" proteins which don't function as they are supposed to. As we have a double set of DNA, even if one set has the mutation, so long as the other has the good copy of the gene, it still produces enough proteins which perform that function properly so that we don't notice any harmful effects of the mutation. These recessive traits run in families, being passed on from a carrier parent to about half of their children. So then of any two siblings who were children of that parent, there is a 1-in-4 chance that both of them will carry the mutation without expressing it. If these two carriers of the same mutation then marry and have children of their own, there is a 50-50 chance that their child will get the mutated gene in both copies of the DNA, resulting that no proteins are created to perform an often-vital cellular-level function. Usually this will result in miscarriage, birth defects, or other health problems.

      (Note that sometimes a certain trait will be the result of multiple mutations, not just a single mutated gene. This is a rather simplified explanation.)

    59. Re:blah by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you said: Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a little faith.

      What that means: Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a few "harmless" lies told to the little incompetent bastards for their own good, and which coincidentally keepd them from rioting or rebelling against us, the ruling oligarchy.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    60. Re:blah by bareman · · Score: 2, Funny

      [engage Groucho Marx voice]

      And we could all use a bit of relief from religion. o.O

      [disengage]

    61. Re:blah by easterberry · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time. Vegetarians, vegans, gays, straights, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and many others are far more guilty of it than Christians.

      I was going to ask what gay people were trying to force down your throat. But I can't think of a way to word it that doesn't sound dirty.

    62. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, don't you get it? They'll give birth to a human! Evolution at work!

    63. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, it is not "just a theory".

      You used quotation marks. I do not think that punctuation mark means what you think it does.

      I said evolution is a theory. Which it is. It's a scientific theory. Scientific theories are theories. Theories can have good substantiation. Theories can have bad substantiation.

    64. Re:blah by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      As a scientific minded Christian, I believe it may be some of both. The earth has been here much much longer than the propaganda conservative christians promote. I also believe the earth may have been a petri disk for biological experiments (so to speak) before we arrived. Additionally, I recognize intelligent design in our cosmos. There is SO much we cannot possibly understand regarding the true physics of the universe. All we can surmise are unprovable theories based upon observation. This is the way is it. Debate of the unknown is stupid and a waste of time. Just live in the day, one day at a time. Believe whatever makes you happy without infringing the rights and choices of others

      As far as ET goes. I'll reserve judgment until I meet ET. Until then, ET sits on the same shelf as the tooth fairy and santa clause. Fakes are easy to produce and require no proof other than Photoshopped images and/or hearsay.

      Here is a spoiler alert for all in cyber world and those that believe in tooth fairy like tales. I had complete electrical system heart failure a month & 1/2 ago. I died but kept alive through CPR and later revived. There is no light to "go to" as promoted through hollywood and hearsay. When the switch goes off, so do the lights. The dead know nothing. I know this for a fact, I went there ..

      Until the next life we may never know the full truth, for those that believe in a next life. For those that choose not to, your on your own to make up whatever dreams you choose. There is no spoon ..

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    65. Re:blah by oodaloop · · Score: 1
      At the expense of several mods, I have to reply.

      The Old Testament focuses on the lineage of Jesus Christ.

      Uh, no it fucking doesn't. It was written hundreds of years before his birth. Only after Christ was famous, and his birth story concocted, did the lineage spelled out in the Old Testament become relevant. It's in the gospels, the New Testament, that his lineage is listed. The Old Testament is definitely NOT about Christ in any shape whatsoever.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    66. Re:blah by eln · · Score: 1, Funny

      You could hear that? I told her to be quiet...

    67. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Douglas Adams put it quite nicely: The existence of God is tied to faith. If somehow incontrovertible evidence of his existence would show up, there is still no need to believe in God, because now it is known that he exists. However, given such knowledge, God would be reduced to a being that just happen to be very powerful, following his rules would boil down to following the rules of any kind of dictator who happen to be in charge, and faith in God would be reduced into the faith that his rules are good.

    68. Re:blah by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      There is no god, and just about everything that surrounds us is conclusive proof that there is no such thing as a god.

      [belief in Jesus] ... is to deny logic, science, and any kind of common sense.

      To state that there is conclusive proof of the non-existence of something while at the same time claiming to be logical, scientific, and common sensical is ... quite irrational.

      Conclusive proof that something does not exist is pretty hard to come by.

    69. Re:blah by morari · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Most people follow a faith because they were indoctrinated into it during their youth. They were brainwashed before their minds were fully developed and capable of critical thinking.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    70. Re:blah by jo42 · · Score: 1

      If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      If there is a "Creator", or a "God", they are nothing like portrayed by The Bible, The Qur'an or any other of humanities' religious texts.

    71. Re:blah by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.

      This is not much of an argument for anything except humanity. Pretty much everything humans have ever thought, beliefed, or held to - true or not - has caused suffering.

      I would point you to atheistic countries. No religion there, right? And they cause some pretty good amounts of suffering. Especially against non-atheists. Unless you are wiling to admit that atheism is also "faith." ...

    72. Re:blah by cycleflight · · Score: 1

      Churchill was speaking in abbreviated third person, the quote is capitalized incorrectly.

      The quote should read:

      "...and destroy one's belief in The Church."

      You can't go around destroying people's belief in their Prime Minister... it's just not right.

      --
      "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
    73. Re:blah by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      The only way to believe in a magic flying jew that is his own father is to deny logic, science, and any kind of common sense.

      Well, it's conceivable that this guy is his own grandfather, so why not?

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    74. Re:blah by morari · · Score: 1

      I don't have kids, but if I did, I wouldn't allow anyone to try and teach them lies at school.

      What else is one taught at school other than lies?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    75. Re:blah by Macthorpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we limit suffering to only those cases where humans have lost their lives at the hands of their fellows, religion wins, hands down.

      See if you can bring up some statistics around that precise quote. I would wager you'd be surprised. A good read of the below is always a start:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf

      I would also ask you to consider the following quote:

      'when people begin to use religion to justify hatred and killing, and thus abandon the compassionate ethic of all great world religions, they have embarked on a course that represents a defeat for faith'.

      As such, can you truly claim that wars committed to in the name of religion actually follow the tenets of the religion they claim to represent? At the end of the day, if a Christian and a Muslim declare war on each other, aren't they abandoning their faith in the name of conflict?

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    76. Re:blah by geekmux · · Score: 1

      FTFS:

      This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.

      One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Or

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      There is a distinct difference(read numbers) between those who have faith, and those who have blind faith. The existence of aliens would probably show the former enough evidence to question their faith, and any question of faith results in the loss of millions/billions of (ahem, tax-free) dollars to churches everywhere.

      Once again, religion has shown it is certainly not able to avoid greed and corruption. I'm certain Churchill knew or was well-advised of this.

      It has nothing to do with faith or mass-hysteria. In the end, it all boils down to money.

    77. Re:blah by StylusEater · · Score: 1

      If I were an Alien and had the choice over the Ark and and a spacecraft. I'd definitely choose the stale air of a spacecraft over the smelly horse, elephant and other assorted creature excrement filled air on the ark. Not to mention the cool freeze dried food!

    78. Re:blah by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Read Genesis. God created the heavens, the Earth, Man and assorted other critters and varmints. God creating aliens is never mentioned.

      So? In my religion (Mormonism) we believe that God created (and still creates) worlds without end, with all kinds of variety. Just because the Bible doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or didn't happen (which should go without saying, but I guess not).

      And the Bible is infallible

      Pfft.. you're creating a strawman argument. Many religious folk recognize that the Bible is a compilation of prophetic writings that has been passed down thousands of years and translated many times, and is therefore not infallible. It's a miracle that it's in as good shape as it is, but it's not a perfect nor a complete record.

      so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind.

      Not in the least.

      And in the part about Noah's Ark, it is never mentioned that Noah rounded up two aliens.

      What?

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith

      Not quite - faith, to have any strength, is based on some amount of evidence, because true faith leads to action of some sort (such as living a certain way). Mere belief might have no foundation, but the faith that motivates people to act has to be based on something stronger. In some cases it is based on evidence witnessed through one of the normal physical senses (e.g. somebody sees a miracle, and that helps build their faith), but the strongest evidence comes through spiritual impressions. If you've experienced this before, you know that this produces a witness that can be much stronger than a conviction gained through other senses.

      . Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.

      Nah, that's like saying TV or money or politics are evil - they aren't, they're inherently neither good nor bad, but are just tools that can be used in good or bad ways. The fact that various people throughout the ages have used religion as a vehicle to do bad things doesn't mean that religion caused it. Just like TV and money and politics, a lot of good has come from religion as well. Take, for example, any recent natural disaster, and usually the first relief organizations on the scene have been religious in nature - and they haven't been there to proselyte or to ask for donations. While governments mobilize, these organizations are already there, just helping out.

    79. Re:blah by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you're going to quote Adams, at least quote the right bit:

      "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

      "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

      "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

      ---Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    80. Re:blah by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Well hell I believe in ghosts only because I experienced it first hand myself. Now I'm not the only one in my old house who saw it my mother did and my little brothers friend did all at different times. Just some tall guy in a suit with top hat. Now do these sighting mean ghosts are real no. But I definitely can't say they aren't now. I don't see it as a matter of faith that I believe ghosts are real.

    81. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is a spoiler alert for all in cyber world and those that believe in tooth fairy like tales. I had complete electrical system heart failure a month & 1/2 ago. I died but kept alive through CPR and later revived. There is no light to "go to" as promoted through hollywood and hearsay. When the switch goes off, so do the lights. The dead know nothing. I know this for a fact, I went there ..

      It has to do with very specific stimulation of the brain. Some people experience it. Most do not. It can be readily created in the lab. Basically your testimony, in this regard, has no basis for commentary on anything as its scientifically proven the, "into the light", phenomenon exists. This is not to say you should believe one way or the other, but your experience proves nothing, one way or the other.

      P.S. Welcome back!

    82. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're standing over her terrorizing her with a knife?

    83. Re:blah by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      That's lumping convincing yourself and convincing others into the same bucket. If a person experiences something that affects them (even something non-religious), it's evidence to them, regardless of whether or not they can share it with others or use it to prove something to someone else. Evidence is just something that leads you to a conviction about something, whether or not you can share it with someone else doesn't make it not evidence. If I'm walking in the woods and see a new species of bird, that's evidence that that bird exists. The fact that I didn't have a camera with me and didn't capture it doesn't mean my sighting of it wasn't evidence. IOW the fact that you haven't yet had the same experience is completely independent of what I experienced.

    84. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read Genesis.

      I have. I recommend that you read the entire Bible before you go acting like an expert on its contents.
      There's enough content in the Bible that one could spend a lifetime studying it and still not absorb and understand everything that's there, let alone retain all of it.

      But there's at least one passage that comes to mind which contradicts your assertion.

      Hebrews 1: 1-2

      1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
      2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

      (King James Edition)

    85. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As such, these people tend to be extremely ignorant in cultural topics. They sometimes study religions without actually understanding, as they have no spiritual system to translate onto. Otherwise, they're just hostile to any beliefs that don't mesh with theirs-- often including academic beliefs.

      s/cultural/science/g;
      s/religion/science/g;
      s/spiritual/logical/g;
      return($win);

    86. Re:blah by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Religion and tolerance are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I agree with you that too few people actually practice it, but to say it is non-existent is disingenuous. The Jihadists, the Pat Robertsons, the Farrakhans, the Zionists, these fringe groups do not define religions, but because what they say is inflammatory they get the airtime.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    87. Re:blah by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't want to flame you, but I really dislike the term "spiritual". It just springs to mind chubby girls pretending to be witches behind their parent's house. I've always like the term agnostic. I believe in a higher power, but to say that one particular group can completely understand it, and that nobody else can is the height of hubris, hence my problem with religion.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    88. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      No it is not. You can't hold all expressions to the same level of scientific rigor. If your kid tells you that there is a monster in his closet, you know that he says so because he is a kid and has a huge imagination, and disregard his claims without the need to conduct a scientific investigation to prove him wrong.

      Same thing with religion, which is as childish as spooky monsters in your closet.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    89. Re:blah by adamstew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Non-religious and strict Atheists tend to have a strong aversion to anything that exists on "faith" and denies reason in strict scientific terms. These are the kinds of people that absolutely won't believe in the medicinal properties of herbs (really, how do you think medicine got invented? We noticed X + Y vegetable cures chronic pain, and 2000 years later some scientist isolated chemicals that he packaged into a pill as a pain killer...), won't believe that meditation helps reduce stress (non-scientific bullshit, you could just sleep...), etc; anything that doesn't sound like it came out of a lab coat is obvious bullshit.

      I identify myself as what you call a "Non-religious strict athiest" and I don't agree with your statement here.

      I do believe that herbs can provide limited healing powers, in the same way that other over-the-counter and prescription drugs can. As you said, herbs are where almost all drugs have their origins from. I, for one, find a hot cup of decaf tea to be very relaxing. What I don't believe in is snake-oil, miracle cures, and their like...

      It has also been proven that meditation can help with stress. The act of meditation causes your brain to release endorphins that cause your body to change. Meditation can also be healing in that the reduced stress levels help to boost your immune system.

      As an athiest, I do believe in spiritualism. Spiritualism in the sense that you can train your mind to have positive effects on your body, and train your mind to help achieve clarity of perception and understanding of your life, body and it's surroundings.

      As an athiest, I do NOT believe in a god(s), an afterlife, ghosts, or anything super natural. This includes: Faith healers, heaven/hell, vampires/werewolves, prayer, divine intervention, creationism, etc.

    90. Re:blah by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Obligatory XKCD

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    91. Re:blah by EdZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are the kinds of people that absolutely won't believe in the medicinal properties of herbs (really, how do you think medicine got invented? We noticed X + Y vegetable cures chronic pain, and 2000 years later some scientist isolated chemicals that he packaged into a pill as a pain killer...), won't believe that meditation helps reduce stress (non-scientific bullshit, you could just sleep...), etc; anything that doesn't sound like it came out of a lab coat is obvious bullshit.

      A gross misrepresentation and over-generalisation. I personally do not 'refuse to believe in the medicinal properties of herbs'. What I refuse to accept is that chewing on a leaf is somehow more effective than the refined medicine created from that leaf. I have no doubts that the brain'sstate can be affected by meditation, reading a book, playing a videogame, spending time on the firing range, or having a nap.

      Thus these people are ignorant to the portion of the world that has not yet been explained. These people would have been ignorant to the concept that the earth rotates around the sun 500 years ago-- I mean shit, look at the sky, the sun starts at one point in the sky and winds up on the exact opposite side. Obviously it goes around the Earth! And all contemporary reasoning has not explained how in the fuck the earth could be going around the sun, or spinning, so such claims are bullshit.

      I suspect that you may be trolling here. If not, you are demonstrating a remarkable level of ignorance about the basic tenets of scientific thinking.

    92. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like the guy Galileo invited to look through his telescope at Jupiter's moons. The guy says "The bible makes no mention of Jupiter having moons, so they cannot exist. I don't have to look."

    93. Re:blah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What I refuse to accept is that chewing on a leaf is somehow more effective than the refined medicine created from that leaf.

      Red yeast rice.

    94. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, the bible has been proved wrong so many fucking times we've lost count. Dinosaurs, for instance.

      In terms of dinosaurs, i think beliefs and interpretations are proven wrong, not the bible itself. There are several interpretations, and there are Christians that accept the scientific discoveries of our world. The beliefs that are proven wrong are ones that deduce that dinosaurs must have existed in the past 6000 years since god created the world in 6 days and then rested and in those days he created adam and eve, the first humans. This belief is from people who take the bible as 100% literal truth, and not all Christians do.

    95. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your kid tells you that there is a monster in his closet, you know that he says so because he is a kid and has a huge imagination, and disregard his claims without the need to conduct a scientific investigation to prove him wrong.

      Because we all know science has nothing to do with a search for proof of universal truths...

      Blind faith in a dogmatic atheism is as bad as blind faith in hokey ancient religions. Open you mind and come on down off your high horse, you might just find more in life and the universe than your egoistic desire to prove yourself better than others.

    96. Re:blah by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FTFS:

      This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.

      One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Or

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      Frankly, I don't buy it that Churchill actually made the church quote. Until someone proves differently, I think someone pulled that out of their ass.

      "The allegations involving Churchill were made by the grandson of one his personal bodyguards, an RAF officer who overheard the discussion, who wrote to the Ministry of Defence in 1999 inquiring about the incident after his grandfather disclosed details to his family."

      So what we have is a story passed down over three generations, related third-hand that Churchill said this. Considering the British public's fear of V-weapon atacks, I can see the panic angle. But the religion angle? That sounds like it made its way into the story over the years. It doesn't sound like something Churchill would say.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    97. Re:blah by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      How hard it is to attract a mate when you are always in the computer lab brandishing your comics and D&D books?

    98. Re:blah by curmudgeous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "True faith is based on evidence, not opposed to evidence...

      Incorrect. Hebrews 11.1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Therefore faith is complete hogwash.

    99. Re:blah by tixxit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yet I'm still more than just a complicated chemical reaction, billions of years in the making. Our "self awareness" is not something that can be explained away with current science. Yes, as an outside observer looking in at everyone else, it makes perfect sense; humans (and all animals) are just complicated machines, a bunch of inputs and outputs controlled by a lump of grey matter. But, there is still something there that disconnects you from everyone else; trapped in your head for your ~80 years. I'm not saying this is a soul, but calling people childish, who are merely trying to name something we clearly don't understand, is silly.

    100. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument doesn't map to the situation.

      In the "monsters in the closet" situation, evidence is readily procured by simply opening the closet door.

      In the case of God, who is purported to have created this world and others like it, the entirety of the universe (and perhaps even beyond the known universe) would need to be fully explored, simultaneously, to ascertain that such a being wasn't present anywhere, at any given point.

      If you wrote your name on a rock and then moved to the other side of the world, (or perhaps even to another world, when such travel is feasible) someone might find that rock and say "I've never met that guy so he must not exist." There's also a very good chance that they never WILL meet you in their lifetime. Nevertheless, they cannot conclusively determine that you don't exist.

      Any good scientist knows that nothing is 100% conclusive, and that evidence only provides indications, not absolute proof. Our current equations for modeling the physical universe may one day be readily replaced by more correct models. Will they ever perfectly describe the laws of the universe and no longer require correction or updating? Perhaps... but even when if reach that point, it will be difficult to say that our models are 100% correct.

      Unless, of course, we are able to have a chat with whoever created it all. And if no one did, then we're just plain shit out of luck.

    101. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Not credible evidences by legal or academic standards. That you must invent some new, admittedly lesser, standard by which to weigh this evidence suggests real problems with your attempt to legitimatize blind faith.

    102. Re:blah by nikeair514 · · Score: 1

      Being a follower of Jesus Christ (which is what the word christian means) makes you a Christian not someone simply teaching you the beliefs.

    103. Re:blah by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      You use the word theory like it's some derogatory term. It's not. Theory is the highest pedestal a scientific hypothesis can be placed upon, the highest form of truth without being exact. Only mathematics has exact truth and calls its important truths theorems.

      Gravity and falling of objects is also "just a" theory.

      Besides, evolution is in fact observable and repeatable phenomenon that happens all the time in controlled environment. Only fundamentalist religious people would have an issue with it (and that does not include the Catholic church since it supports evolution).

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    104. Re:blah by Kagura · · Score: 5, Informative

      Note to all readers who are looking for comments about UFOs on this story:

      Scroll down. And I mean WAAAY down, because half of the fucking comments are arguments about religion that have NOTHING to do with this story, regardless of a Churchill one-liner. Seriously, 50% of the comments below are stupid side-bars about religion.

    105. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      We don't need to do any of that, because we know who invented god, and we know historically how he was created.

      Religion is a mental disease, and the only science that has anything to prove regarding religion is psychology.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    106. Re:blah by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Aliens would substantiate the theory of evolution, which uses as an implicit premise that God doesn't really exist, it was just all random chance, we're all just a bunch of molecules, blah blah blah.

      I love it when non-Christians attempt to explain Christian beliefs. You are absurdly wrong.

      First, the existence of aliens would neither support nor visciate the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with changes in existing species, not the formation of life. Simply put, if God created us, he could certainly create other life on other planets.

      The real issue with the existence of intelligent non-human life on other planets is based on the Genesis story of creation, where God molded Man in His image and gave him dominion over the other species. Now, if an alien shows up, and he's intelligent, then this means one of several things:

      • Genesis is wrong. This is what the atheists will spout.
      • God created other beings but didn't bother telling us.
      • The phrase "in His image" isn't a literal "we physically look like God", it is a description of our spiritual creation.

      Out of the three, the latter two are actually compatible, and are what many Christians will assume, were an alien to come knocking on the door. A few sects will be in trouble because of their literalism (yes, we really do look like God, "in His image"), but the biggest issue will be the people who will waste a lot of time jumping up and down claiming that the alien proves that God doesn't exist yada yada yada ...

    107. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2

      Ah, come on!

      It's a stupid spooky book created by some primitive and degenerate romans to try to control the population.

      We don't need the Hubble telescope searching for god to prove them wrong. We already have a science that proves that there is no god: Psychology. Religion is nothing but a mental disorder.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    108. Re:blah by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      Now I know where they got the idea for "The Prestige"!

    109. Re:blah by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Our "self awareness" is not something that can be explained away with current science.

      My emphasis.

      Just because current science can't explain it doesn't mean we start making up answers that fly in the face of every single objective observation made by man since the dawn of time.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    110. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me get that straight, it is ridiculous to assume that the universe doesn't have a creator, so we create a creator that doesn't have a creator, but we don't need to explain that because he is magical. Did I get that right? Is that what you actually believe?

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    111. Re:blah by shadowofwind · · Score: 0, Troll

      "True faith is based on evidence, not opposed to evidence...

      Incorrect. Hebrews 11.1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Therefore faith is complete hogwash.

      Do you believe in magnitism? You can't see it, but you can know something of it by studying its effects. Have you studied fate in such a manner, sufficiently to know that its unreal? Part of the scientific method is to form a hypothesis. If you had no confidence at all that your hypothesis could possibly be true, how far would you get? Particularly if you were studying a difficult problem that took many years to crack?

      Can you see mental illness? The possibility of sincerity? Would you have believed that the moon had a back side before a spacecraft was sent around it? How can an engineer ever create anything without a vision of things that don't yet exist? A person needs at least a little faith, however provisional, to pull themselves out of ignorance. Otherwise you can never discover or create anything that you did not already know.

      I agree that faith isn't based on evidence. And I have a hard time respecting people who just make shit up and pretend they know it. And I have no respect for the Bible as a source of authority. But to say that faith is complete hogwash is quite a stretch.

    112. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many reasons people sit in church. Frequently they have far more to do with harmony than religion. Thusly, sitting in church does not necessarily make you religious.

      Clearly you've never visited some of the world's larger churches. Half the people there are there to establish business contacts, to socialize, and to network. Religion has nothing to do with it. Again, sitting in church does not necessarily make you religious.

    113. Re:blah by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and yes, they were faced with even physical evidence.

      And yet, not one has ever in human history produced this "incontrovertible physical evidence" of the existence of God.

      There's a word for claiming you have some "incontrovertible physical evidence" but never producing it while at the same time asserting over and over that you've got such evidence. It's not a very nice word.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    114. Re:blah by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      You are making a jump from "rational disregard of claims" to what you originally said - "conclusive proof."

      If you want to argue about rational conclusions about claims of the existence of God, fine. But logical conclusions are not conclusive proof. And you can have beautiful, completely rational logic and arrive at the wrong conclusion. It depends on your premises.

      In a followup to someone else, you claim that we know who invented the idea of god, etc. That has been proven? Or is this just someone's interpretation of evidence that you are deciding to accept as proof of your presupposition/predisposition to what you want to think?

    115. Re:blah by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      You seem to believe that there is something huge and special about the universe, there is a growing consensus among physicists that the universe is like one of the tiny bubbles rising in a glass of seltzer, popping into existence, rising and going away, it may be that "universes" are really some inconsequential/ephemeral byproduct of a larger process. Since time and space were a byproduct of the big-bang and time is reckoned from within, the actual life of the "verse" may be rather like the soda bubble.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    116. Re:blah by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Belief in God" is quite different from "Belief in what the Church tells you."

      Here's a two-thousand year old quote for you:

      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC -AD 65)

      Churchill was a ruler.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    117. Re:blah by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      The Old Testament focuses on the history of the Jewish people. That just so happens to also be the lineage of Jesus Christ. Either way, the point is still valid: the Old Testament is focused on the Jewish people, and does not chronicle all events in history...just those in the history of the Jewish people.

    118. Re:blah by raluxs · · Score: 1

      Well, we all suffer from a lack of "spirituality" because there is no such thing as a spirit.

      It is funny that you say this and you use in your nickname "ALMAFUERTE" (In capitals!) = Strong Soul

    119. Re:blah by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      My definition of god isn't the same as that of most religions' definition, hence the label.

      There are millions upon millions of those like us. We are mainly known by our lack of desire to convert others to our idiosyncratic beliefs.

      A surprising number of the Founding Fathers of the USA were people with idiosyncratic beliefs. The corporate religions hate us even more than they hate the absolutist atheists.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    120. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would never deny someone their right to solace from their own beliefs. I would fight ABSOLUTELY any attempt for those believers to dictate how *I* live *my* life based on their beliefs, insofar as I do not interfere with them and theirs. Unfortunately, organized religion has a long and sordid history of denying the "others" their rights because they are "different" and do not believe the "truth". Pretending that religion somehow is not responsible for the millennia of abuses is either being willfully ignorant or intentionally disingenuous.

    121. Re:blah by mibe · · Score: 1

      Why does the theory of evolution implicate the non-existence of God? Why does it do so any more than does the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of gravitation, atomic theory, or the theory of relativity? It's a set of explanations that predict certain things that are then subsequently observed in the real world - that's why it's a good theory. The fact that you do no know or intentionally misuse the word "theory" doesn't make you clever, it makes you uninformed or an imbecile.

    122. Re:blah by cmdahler · · Score: 1

      "True faith is based on evidence, not opposed to evidence...

      Incorrect. Hebrews 11.1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Therefore faith is complete hogwash.

      Hogwash. My daughter has diabetes. I have no proof that a cure will one day be found, but I hope for it, and I am reasonably sure that sometime during her lifetime, such a gift from the medical community will be found. Therefore I have faith that a cure for diabetes is going to happen sometime in the next 20 years or so; my faith is the "substance of what I hope for," and it is the evidence that I believe in something that has not yet occurred, something I cannot prove will happen, something that "is not seen." And this faith of mine is indeed based on the evidence of medical advances and reasonable deductions based on past performance of the medical community and the state of current research. And yet it must be defined as faith, since no one can possibly prove that a cure for diabetes will in fact ever happen. So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it. Still want to call it hogwash?

    123. Re:blah by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

      Magnetism doesn't depend on faith for its existence. It has been tested, measured and quantified many times. Its properties are independent of the lab doing the tests. Faith is a projection of an individual's belief structure and has no existence outside the individual's mind. The faith of one person may be similar to the faith of another, but they will never be exactly the same.

      Faith can have value in that it may give an individual a bit of comfort, but far too many wave around the concept of faith as if it were a physical force.

    124. Re:blah by daenris · · Score: 1

      Actually it is just a theory. Unfortunately, the general (i.e. non-scientific) population generally misinterprets that word in regards to scientific theories. In science, a theory like the theory of evolution is something that has been extensively supported by the collected observed evidence. It's not necessarily 100% accurate, but it explains the evidence. If conflicting or new evidence becomes available, the theory would need to be modified to explain it, or scrapped for a better theory that can explain all the collected evidence. No better scientific theory has come along to supplant evolution. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory because there is NO observable evidence to support it.

    125. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does mean strong soul, but it was the pseudonym of Bonifacio Palacios, one of the greatest Argentinian poets of all time. It's also the name of the greatest metal band ever.

      Look it up.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    126. Re:blah by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      You have no evidence either for or against the existence of such a Deist-style God, and yet you argue as though anyone who does not believe the same as you is a total moron. How are you any different than the people you are arguing against?

    127. Re:blah by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, we all suffer from a lack of "spirituality" because there is no such thing as a spirit.

      I agree that there's nothing "supernatural" but your assertion that there is no such thing as a spirit goes too far.

      "Spirit" is just a word that describes an invisible, animating force. Not unmeasurable, not supernatural. Greeks used a word "pneuma" which basically meant "breath" as "spirit". You wouldn't say breath doesn't exist because you can't see it, because it can be measured in all sorts of ways. Breath exists.

      The Chinese use "Chi" or "Qi" which means a combination of breath, plus energy, plus intent. Now you wouldn't say that breath doesn't exist. You can't possibly say that intent doesn't exist because I can intend to move my finger and it moves. You can't say that energy doesn't exist because I can demonstrate energy inside me by getting up and running around the house.

      But you might say "there's no such thing as "Qi"". But I would say, as a practitioner of tai chi, that of course it exists because it's just the way we describe the interaction of intent plus breath, plus energy. It's just a word for describing something that other people describe differently. It describes a system instead of its components.

      So be careful when you say that "spirit" does not exist, because "spirit" can mean something as banal as the thing that leaves an animal when the animal dies. It's just a different way to describe something. And different is OK. You wouldn't say that somebody is being superstitious when saying "that animal died" or "life left that animal" or "that animal is no longer animated" so why would it bother you that someone says "the spirit left that animal". Now, if you want to say "there is no such thing as a spirit that exists after an animal dies" you still have to be careful because if you define "spirit" as the energy that animated that animal that now lies inert and lifeless, it's perfectly appropriate for someone to say "that energy didn't cease to exist, it just changed form", unless you don't believe in the empirical law of physics known as conservation of energy.

      You want to be careful when attacking certain words. Not everybody uses them in the same way and when you say "there is no such thing as a spirit" you use the word in a more narrow way than most people do.

      Maybe what you want to say is "there is no such thing as the supernatural" in which case I'm on your side.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    128. Re:blah by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, we all suffer from a lack of "spirituality" because there is no such thing as a spirit.

      We are animals. We do not have souls or spirits. What you call "spirituality", I call childish superstition.

      You can not prove this assertion. Your belief about such things is just that; belief. Others believe differently. Granted, the fundies can be absolutely maddening in their insistence that they "know" that their favorite book of "the word of God" is complete and unerring, but when it comes right down to it, none of us really knows.
      There's a quote, but for the life of me I can't recall the origin... "Every thinking person must be an agnostic."

    129. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sources or shut the hell up

    130. Re:blah by cthubik · · Score: 1

      You were hallucinating. It was a pile of rags. It was grandpa. Seriously, you watch too much TLC. There's no such thing as g-g-g-ghosts.

    131. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What dog has a gestational period of 9 months? You're an idiot.

      Churchill was right: people can't handle the truth. In fact they don't even want to hear it.

      The Bible is not a literal documentation of what happened, it's a collection of stories handed down through generations designed to instill rule and law into people's minds so they can be controlled, because they can't control themselves. People who believe in the Bible literally are the same who cannot control themselves, because their minds are too primitive to comprehend allegory and symbolism.

      Ask most anyone who believes in the Bible literally, and they will tell you: they haven't actually read it. That alone proves that they can't handle, and don't want to hear truth.

    132. Re:blah by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      If we ever do discover aliens, it would be reasonable for Christians to conclude that God created them too, but their existence isn't something we need to know about to please God.

      Too true; Knowledge of God's other creations does nothing but incite jealousy.
      Look at the Angels. They were created to serve God. They have no choice in the matter, they just are. Then God goes and creates Man, puts him in a garden, gives him free will and (at least the illusion of) control over his own destiny.
      We pick up sticks and stones and start beating each other up over pieces of ground, and all the angels can do is cry that God wasted his time with us.
      It's the sibling situation; they were first, and were no longer the favorite when we came along.

      The same would be true of aliens. If this God created them before us (or even before the angels, potentially), then when they find out how amazing(*) man is, they might be jealous and destroy us.
      Similarly, if God has given up on man, left us to destroy ourselves (as is our very nature) and run off to create aliens somewhere else in his universe, would we not be upset to learn this?


      Of course, this entire post is bunk, and subject to ones own faith and interpretation, but it's a possible view, and, if there really is a God, a plausible one at that.

    133. Re:blah by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      I think that anything that significantly expands people's horizons, and shows the world to be bigger than what they thought it was, threatens many people's faith. The things you believe in seem plausible in the context of what you know. Change that, and they may not appear plausible any more.

      Once as a teenager I heard someone say that knowledge of plate techtonics had destroyed his faith. I thought WTF? How is plate techtonics incompatible with God? But then later other things that I learned undermined what I believed. Everyone's faith depends on something, survives in some vulnerable context of assumptions and perceptions.

      Knowledge of aliens, visiting the earth from other planets in spaceships, would in my opinion threaten many people's faith. I don't think that is the problem with UFO phenomena though, because I don't think that's what that stuff is.

      Incidentally, I happen to work in a building which is rumored on the internet to house alien artifacts. To anyone who has any familiarity with this place, its an utterly ridiculous rumor, there's nothing the least bit exotic going on there. Likewise, 99% of all paranormal claims appear to me to be bullshit. But suppose the remaining 1% were not bullshit, that there was actually something to it. Why are people fascinated with this stuff? Why try to pick that scab open? UFO phenomena are mostly very weird, with the sneaking around, rumors of abductions, and implausibly large eyes. (Which could not possibly function as lenses and still fit inside the alien head.) Part of the draw is a tinge of fear. Would we really be better off if our world were a little more magical, more like a 'rosetta stoned' acid trip or a Tolkein novel? I think the dark ages sucked. Better turn our hope and attention elsewhere, in my opinion.

    134. Re:blah by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Darwin lived over 150 years ago. Understanding of evolution has come a long way.

      While I'm here I might as well reconcile the entire Evolution vs Creation debate:

      Evolution is the forge of God.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    135. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow. I didn't think it was possible to read a sentence and simultaneously completely fail to understand it.

      Let's try that again, shall we?

      "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

      You know, like when your cellphone lets you "magically" talk to people on the other side of the planet.
      The fact that it works is EVIDENCE of the electromagnetic waves that your bare eye CAN'T SEE.

      The fact that the phone works gives you faith in the existence of electromagnetic waves.

      Or like how none of us have seen your brain, but we have FAITH that you've got one in there (even though some of the evidence might indicate otherwise), because the body of evidence overwhelmingly indicates that humans can't continue to function without a brain.

    136. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

      There is no animal that can be described by this passage in Job. It has been suggested that it is an elephant or a hippo. However these creatures both have small tails.

    137. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0, Troll

      as a practitioner of tai chi

      Ah, I see. Same stupidity, different bullshit.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    138. Re:blah by scot4875 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time.

      Or, more likely, when confronted by a Christian "forcing their beliefs down your throat," you just don't notice, because it doesn't bother you as much as one of those damn gays trying to force you to not persecute or discriminate against them.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    139. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      I have a better suggestion:

      It is bullshit.

      What were you trying to accomplish exactly with that post, I don't know, but I think it backfired badly.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    140. Re:blah by Motard · · Score: 1

      One thought that occurred to me was whether Churchill might've thought the church was a useful tool.

      Or did they get the quote wrong when he actually said "Belief in what The Churchill tells you"

    141. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not agnosticism. You might be looking for deism. Agnosticism is when you believe that without any evidence one way or another, answering the god question is impossible. That might mean you think a deity probably exists, but refuse to *believe* in it the way religionists do, or it might mean you think there's probably no deity but you're explicitly open to the possibility, or it might just mean you don't know. It does not mean you do believe in a higher power but don't think any religion is right. And when you talk like that you kind of sound ignorant.

    142. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it funny that your username contains the words "strong soul" in spanish?

    143. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (for example, the guy that sued the school board because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the word "God" and he doesn't want his daughter to hear THAT WORD)

      Straw man arguments are lies.

    144. Re:blah by flex941 · · Score: 1

      That was very short-sighted to say.

    145. Re:blah by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except you don't have to die to experience the "into the light" phenomenon. As I understand it, with some carefully applied electric and/or magnetic fields most people can be induced to have such an experience. Apparently, religious visitations and alien abductions can be replicated fairly consistently as well, by the same (or very similar) procedure. Which one occurs is very often tied to one beliefs, though it the experience can be molded by something as simple as conversation before the procedure.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    146. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faith is a projection of an individual's belief structure and has no existence outside the individual's mind.

      No, that's YOUR definition of faith.

      Since we're discussing Christian faith here, it's safe to say that the Bible [and not you] is the proper source for the definition, and the BIBLE defines Christian faith as:

      1) The substance of things hoped for
      2) The evidence of things not seen

      Substance. Evidence. Not exactly "magical mystical unicorn" type words. Faith is based on real actual events.

      You have faith every day. You have faith in gravity, because you've seen evidence that leads you to believe that it's a real force that isn't going to stop anytime soon. You have faith in electromagnetism because your radio, satellite tv, and cell phone work, which are all evidences that lead you to believe in the physics of it.

      If, during a drought, I pray for God to make it rain to save my crops, and it rains shortly thereafter, one person might call it coincidence, another might call it faith.

      If a guy claims to be the creator of this world, tells people that he is going to be executed without cause, but that he will rise from the dead three days later, AND DOES IT, that would be pretty compelling evidence for his claim of having power over life and death, and additionally for his claims to being the one who created this world.

      Well, the Bible is the account of people who claim exactly that. THEY know for themselves what they saw. You didn't see it. You don't believe that they saw it.

      Does your belief IN ANY WAY influence what actually happened, one way or the other? No.

      God does not require peoples' faith to exist. He either does, or does not, exist. I believe that He does. You believe that he doesn't. Neither of our opinions have any effect whatsoever on God's physical existence. If he doesn't exist, then he doesn't, and nothing either of us believes will change it. Likewise, if he does exist and is an immortal being, then he's out there somewhere, existing, and nothing either of us believes is going to change that.

      If you were having this discussion face to face with the immortal creator of our world, I have a feeling that your opinion would change. Why doesn't he just show himself to you then?

      Why don't electromagnetic waves just show themselves to you? Well that's not quite how it works is it? You have to work and learn and understand until you're capable of creating technology that lets you observe the effects of electromagnetic waves (and eventually develop technology that maps those waves to the spectrum your eye is capable of viewing). Even then, you don't FULLY see the EM waves, because your eye isn't capable of seeing them in their natural state - you can only view a discrete mapping of them directly.

      Guess what... God doesn't just show himself to everyone because life's purpose is largely to prove what kind of behavior we would embrace when left to our own devices, not having any absolute proof one way or the other. To determine if we would be good because we love good, or evil because we love evil.

      He does, however, give those we seek him bits of evidence to strengthen their resolve that yes, he is there, and that yes, he does love us, and that yes, we should love each other too.

      All other factors are secondary. Love God. Love your fellow beings.

      Anyone who violates one of these in the name of keeping a lesser law is in the wrong. (I do it all the time, so don't think of this as a "holier than thou" speech, because I'm as flawed as the next guy).

      The fact remains, however, that those two are the most important. And for those who don't yet know God, or how to love him, do you really think a loving God would judge people on principles they don't have or understand? We will be judged on what we knew, and how hard we tried to live by the truths that we did have.

    147. Re:blah by grcumb · · Score: 1

      FTFS:

      This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.

      One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      He didn't say 'God', he said 'the Church'. An event like this doesn't undermine the potential for the existence of a deity nearly as much as it undermines the legitimacy of 2000 years of half-cracked dogma about how Special humanity is.

      ... Then again, the existence of fruit flies undermines a fair amount of that dogma as well....

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    148. Re:blah by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since you are obviously either Christian or an explicit sympathizer, why should we expect Christians to harass you? They are too busy harassing people who don't bow to their religion. I have yet to experience a Vegan knocking on my door asking me to join. In fact, here in the heart of vegan country, I have never been harassed by a vegan. I'm pretty sure you're just making up harassment stories to support your point. You aren't Bill O'Reilly are you?

    149. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bible only is proven wrong by dinosaurs if you try to take allegory literally.

      You know, that thing that you mock Creationists for but are doing yourself with this statement?

    150. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why argue?

      If there's no such thing as a spirit, everyone is an automata, and there's no such thing as beliefs for you to change.

    151. Re:blah by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll
      Also true, but nevertheless, it is still faith, a belief in things not proved, that they ultimately come to.

      The Big Bang has not been proven as the source of the universe, yet many scientists believe it happened.

      Evolution has not been proven as the origin of life, yet many scientists believe it is.

      Ptolemy believed in a geocentric universe; Copernicus in a heliocentric one. Both were beliefs in things not proved, and thus faith, yet both are considered great scientists of their times -- just wrong.

      Aristotle believed there were five elements. John Dalton imagined atoms as small spheres with tiny hooks. Pons and Fleischer believed fusion took place at room temperature. All beliefs that were clearly not proven.

      The fact that something is believed through faith does not mean it is wrong, just that it hasn't been proved. Some things cannot be proved (like the big bang as THE method through which the universe came into existence), some things cannot be proved until technology catches up with the human thought process (like subatomic particles -- long hypothesized, eventually measured.)

      The point being, to dismiss religion as "fake stuff all based on faith" is to point a finger at science, too. It was "faith" that the locks on the file cabinets at Los Alamos were secure; Feynman came along and disproved it.

      No, religion, the kind that gets people to not just believe irrationally but to act irrationally is the biggest curse mankind has ever suffered.

      To lump all religious belief into "irrational" is both insulting and inflammatory, the kind of inflammatory that creates the kind of reaction that you clearly denounce. "Come see the violence inherent in the system" spoken by someone who has just walked up and slugged a cop is dishonest debate.

    152. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ezekiel chapter 1 is clearly an encounter that Ezekiel had with flying objects that were round in appearance and metallic in construction.

      The description comes through clearer in the original Hebrew than it may in many English translations.

    153. Re:blah by Pyrus.mg · · Score: 1

      Let them eat Christ cake?

    154. Re:blah by jrouleau · · Score: 0

      I suppose beyond finding your post offensive ints deragotory nature, I will at least provide what i think is a decent reply to your statement. First and foremost, go to wikipedia (not perfect source I admit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur) the term dinasour wasnt even a term till the middle 1800's prior to that they were referred to a lizards or dragons. Carbon dating has been proved time and again an inaccurate measure of age so we can only theorize how old something really is (best educated guesstimate) unless there is very clear documentation as to the age. As far as aliens, It may be plausible but agin no real evidence has ever been preented to substantiate they exist (again theory). Lastly, why attack anyone elses belief - its all a gamble anyway.

      To the rest in this thread, I guess everytime i see something like this or simliar posts on slashdot making fun of christians, jews, muslims, whatever because they have belief's that are not strictly based on "pure science" it just irks me. The article is about Churchill and a decision he made be it right or wrong based on what he had to deal with at the time. The trolls did a great job as usual pulling everyone in a religios vs science bash and detracting what the discussion was in the first place. Oh well this is /. after all.....Moving on.....

    155. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I see it, writing the laws of nature and creating an entire reality in such a way that the end result is intelligent life is a far more impressive and godly thing to do than just snapping your fingers and basically micromanaging a bunch of docile worshippers into existence. A god who's personally involved in humanity seems to me to be kind of petty.

      Religionists baffle me. Their god is smaller than my universe.

    156. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you believe in unicorns, though?

    157. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I myself am a Christian, and I believe that God has a father, who has a father, who has a father...

      If our goal as Christians is to become like Christ (who is God), and we are all His children, then it follows logically that we will have children, who will have children, who will have children...

      Having a hard time comprehending infinity?

      Mathematicians use it all the time, and it's the basis for a great deal of the math used to find the answers to all sorts of neat problems.

      Besides which, if there is some form of life after death (known as "heaven" to most) and "heaven" has no end (or in other words, is infinite going forward), then why is it so strange that there was no beginning to existence?

      There was a beginning to time and space in our universe, perhaps, but no beginning to existence itself.

      Existence has gone on forever, and will continue to go on forever. (For the closest relevant explanation science has to offer for this, see the Law of Conservation of energy/matter).

    158. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hebrews 11:1 even defines faith as "the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." What assures the hope? Would anything be evident without evidence? Clearly, the /. definition of faith is not the Bible's definition of faith, and is much closer to something like hope.

      Personally, I use the Bible's definition.

    159. Re:blah by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      I get harassed for eating meat by vegans 50 times for every one time I get harassed by a Christian.

      Shame on them for trying to change your ignorant worldview, eh? Maybe there's something in it, given that their views are based on cold, hard, bloody, rotting, diseased evidence...

      And you are only proving his point by saying that. Calling somebody ignorant, regardless what you're calling them that over, isn't going to get you any converts, nor will it make anybody like you more.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    160. Re:blah by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Because aliens (almost certainly) won't believe in the Bible. At all. And unlike the past, where Christians would beat other strange cultures over the head until they said "fine, we'll believe your silly shit over our silly shit", these aliens either won't be close to us or will be more advanced than us. And good luck preaching to aliens that God loves them, even though he only told his message to a relative handful of people in one corner of one planet, and left everyone else in the universe to drift, rather than setting up a broadcast beacon to transmit to the universe. Space, is much, much bigger than the shepherds and nomads of 2000+ years ago could have imagined, and it shows in everything they wrote.

    161. Re:blah by lawpoop · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True, but some come to faith by evidence.

      What exactly is that? Is that not a contradiction in terms?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    162. Re:blah by giorgist · · Score: 1

      Don't worry ,uch like the earth is flat problem really didn't affect much.
      You see when addam and eve popped out of the garden, there where other people !!

      Even better, there are mentions of other Gods.

      So you can blend it in, no problem

    163. Re:blah by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      That dogma is about 6000 years old.

      Its interesting how some people would rather believe one man's hearsay testimony points to some hidden mystery - but disbelieve eyewitnesses with photo and video evidence discomfiting their existing beliefs.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/0430/Chinese-explorers-stand-by-claim-of-Noah-s-Ark-find-in-Turkey

      http://www.noahsarksearch.net/eng/

    164. Re:blah by supersloshy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time.

      Or, more likely, when confronted by a Christian "forcing their beliefs down your throat," you just don't notice, because it doesn't bother you as much as one of those damn gays trying to force you to not persecute or discriminate against them.

      --Jeremy

      God loves everybody. Gays and straight people alike. Homosexuality is a sin (because relationships based on sexual preference are, naturally, sinful), but God still loves them. The Bible, last I checked, says we shouldn't be mean to people; why would homosexuals be an exception? The "Christians" you're talking about aren't Christians at all, and it's extremely unfair and short-sighted to assume that all Christians (not to forget Atheists) support such extremist (and un-Godly) views.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    165. Re:blah by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Yet I'm still more than just a complicated chemical reaction, billions of years in the making.

      [citation needed]

      No, you aren't.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    166. Re:blah by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Since you are a scientific-minded Christian, how do you resolve the inherent conflicts between the metaphysical and science that exists in Christianity? I'm not asking in an antagonistic manner, I've just wondered how people can resolve that inner turmoil.

    167. Re:blah by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

      No offense, but what you're describing is confidence, not faith. You feel confident that a cure will be found based on the history of the medical profession. If you wish to call this faith then feel free, but that's not really a correct usage.

    168. Re:blah by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      As such, can you truly claim that wars committed to in the name of religion actually follow the tenets of the religion they claim to represent?

      It doesn't matter what you think; to those committing those horrible acts, they do believe so. To them, they most likely firmly believe that they are correct in what they are doing, for they do it in God's name and as horrible as it may seem to you, they know that they are in the right because they believe their faith tells them they are. This is the tragedy of religion: you can use it to justify all the horrible acts you can imagine, based on nothing but that which you imagine.

      At the end of the day, if a Christian and a Muslim declare war on each other, aren't they abandoning their faith in the name of conflict?

      They probably would tell you no. In fact, they would tell you exactly the opposite. And who are you to argue with that?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    169. Re:blah by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      Today our evidence primarily deals with the question of whether these accounts have been reliably preserved and recorded by credible witnesses.

      If Jesus died in 33 AD, then why was it first written about around 50 AD? How accurate can a detailed account be when it's written 20 years after the events?

      And than what about the books that were written even later? How old were these people when they supposedly witnessed Jesus, and why did they write their stories down 40+ years later? Weren't they afraid of dying before they could get the word out? I think it's just far easier to falsely claim something happened 20-40 years ago than to say it just happened recently.

      Evidence for one point of view has to eliminate or reduce the chance that a competing point of view is correct, otherwise it isn't evidence. The books of the New Testament are only evidence if you can remove or diminish the possibility that they weren't true first-hand accounts, and I don't think you can.

    170. Re:blah by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > I get harassed for eating meat by vegans 50 times for every one time I get harassed by a Christian.

      The way to shut the Vegans up is to ask "Say, could you tell me what happens if a human baby isn't breastfed or doesn't have milk in the first few months?"

      Any time you take any ideology to its logical conclusion, you end up with fanaticism. Pity that the vocal Vegans are too blind to see this...

    171. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time. Vegetarians, vegans, gays, straights, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and many others are far more guilty of it than Christians.

      Really? How so? I can't see how this can be possible. Gays, for example, just want to live normal lives like you and me. Christians wants to force their superstition on gay people by forcing them to live along those superstitious lines. Thankfully people a lot smarter than you have understood that you are not allowed to force your religious views on anybody, and have now told the nutcases in California that everybody is equal, and that consenting adults can marry anybody they wish.

      Remember, when gays demand equal rights, they are not forcing anything at all on you. They are only trying to stop you forcing your superstition on them.

      Please note, when I call your religious views superstition it is not to be mean. They are superstition. All religious views are. By definition.

    172. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder what the Christian nutcases would say if, for example, Hindus started demanding that the federal government protected their particular superstition. I would love to see the proposition in California that banned the eating of beef.

    173. Re:blah by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Statistics?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    174. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Atheists" are highly religious--

      Sigh. This comes up every now and then and it is, as what most religious nuts say, pure and utter rubbish. Atheism is religion in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. An atheist doesn't deny the existence of God, he simply refuses to generate a belief system around random ideas. The number of things that are unlikely to exist is exactly infinite. An atheist fails to believe in all of them, God has no special place in that lack of belief. I do not believe in blue midgets that go invisible if you try to look at them. I assume you do not believe in them either. Is that lack of belief of yours a religion?

      Now, to what is often named "strong" atheism, the active denial of the existence of a particular God with a particular set of properties. Once someone gives me a testable hypothesis of "God" and I have falsified it, I will of course know that this particular form of "God" doesn't exist. I do, for example, know that "The God who created the world 6000 years or so ago" does not exist simply because the property "who created the world 6000 years or so ago" has been falsified, the earth is significantly older and the proof is incontrovertible. That particular God I know for sure does not exist. U can't say that about the little blue men in the forest who go invisible when you look at them. I can not say that they do not exist, I just fail to believe in them. As I fail to collect stamps.

      These are the kinds of people that absolutely won't believe in the medicinal properties of herbs

      Please stop making stuff up. Lying just isn't a good way to conduct a debate. There is not a single atheist in the world who won't believe in something that has well documented effects. Honestly, you are just being childish.

      Thus these people are ignorant to the portion of the world that has not yet been explained.

      Pure and utter rubbish. You really do not know anything at all about science. Anything where there is a viable hypothesis is debated within science, and if you can postulate a theory on it you are golden. The problem is that some people insist on believing stuff that has been proven wrong. Lots of herbs have very good medicinal value, and science makes use of this by detecting what in the specific herb has the actual effect, and then scientists will try to isolate said substance and improve upon it.

      Example - a scientist finds a plant that in some cases prevents the body from rejecting implants (found while walking in the mountains of Norway). He doesn't discover this fact until he gets back to the lab of course, but decades later, hundreds of thousands of implants have succeeded where they would otherwise fail. The plant as such had a moderate effect, when the drug was refined from the plant it had a significantly higher success rate. The scientist would have been an idiot to ignore the real result, and he would have been an even bigger idiot if he had not refined the active ingredient and made it into a pill.

      Because these people have no tolerance for anything that isn't physical, proven, and accepted by hard reasoning, they have no spirituality.

      Ignorant rubbish. Thanks to the people you apparently despise so you are alive and you will grow old. If it wasn't for them you would be dying in your cave waiting for someone to come back with some fire harvested from a lightening strike.

    175. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of us don't find science and spiritualism any where more mutually exclusive than food and sex.

      And for others this would have to depend on the type of food. I can imagine ice cream might be fun but I'd draw the line at fried chicken.

    176. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      And you know all of this exactly how?

      Ah, you don't. You just made it up. Well, not even you, someone made it up for you.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    177. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, we all suffer from a lack of "spirituality" because there is no such thing as a spirit.

      We are animals. We do not have souls or spirits. What you call "spirituality", I call childish superstition.

      You can not prove this assertion. Your belief about such things is just that; belief.

      Ah, but you got it all wrong. Let me try to explain. You are right that he can not prove that there is no spirit or soul. That is impossible. You can in fact not prove a negative. I can not prove that there are not invisible pink unicorns in the forest. I can not prove that there is not little blue men living in my carpet and every time I try to look at one he hides behind something. I can not even (practically) prove that there is not a tiny china tea pot circling our solar system in the Oort Cloud.

      The one thing I can do is to be rational though. You see, all the things I can not prove the non-existence of is exactly an infinite number. In other words, you can come up with an infinite number of things I can not prove do not exist. Believing in that infinite number of things is irrational though. As is the belief in a soul or a spirit. As is the belief in God. In Santa Claus (though I have seen some compelling documentation for his existence).

      So, until someone shows that there is a soul or a spirit, or at least some compelling arguments that point in that direction, he is right. We do not possess such things any more than there is invisible pink unicorns or tiny china tea pots in the Oort Cloud.

      No thinking person believes in the infinite number of things that may exist. So, for any given value of "something" we are all atheists. Even you. So, your quote is not only bad, it is provably wrong. Every single individual in the world, thinking or not, is an atheist.

    178. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Well, of course my post is derogatory. How do you expect me to refer to people that believe in an eternal space jew that was his own father?

      Also, your understanding of science and of this thread is laughable.

      On the other hand, my discussion is not religion vs. science or religion vs. anything else.

      I don't see science as an antonym of religion. Science is Science. Religion is crackpotery.

      My real question here is, how do you know this things?

      You don't. You read them in a book that cites no sources. If you claim you know them because god talks to you, you should be put in the funny house.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    179. Re:blah by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Churchill was a ruler."

      And a fine one. He understood that people who CAN be manipulated through superstition SHOULD be so manipulated in order to make use of them.

      Simple people get angry when challenged, but can benefit their country and themselves by being lead using methods that stroke and affirm them.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    180. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Never mind that evolution is a theory ...

      That is in fact not entirely true, and one of my pet peeves. Evolution is a mechanism, and nobody actually thinks that Evolution is bunk. We can witness evolution every day around us. All the time. Everywhere. Have two dogs make puppies, and none of then come out identical to their parents. They have evolved.

      What is debated however is the theory of common decent. Do we all come from "simpler" organisms? The theory of common decent is controversial in some circles. For some reason the theory of gravity is not. I find this odd. Why is it odd? Well, the theory of common decent is well explained and well documented. We can observe in the genetic material that it has happened. We also know the mechanics of how it happened. What about gravity? Well, we can, as with common decent, see that it happens, but with gravity we can not explain how. The theory if common decent can easily be said to have better and more supporting evidence than does the theory of gravity. Why do these nutcases not attack the theory of gravity? Because it is an older theory and they would look even dumber than they do today?

    181. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The theory of evolution is not actually in dispute, nor is it a theory - we all know that evolution happens. What is in dispute is the theory of common decent. More specifically, the theory that evolution can lead to speciation. What nutjobs deny is not that things evolve, mate two different dogs and watch the offspring and you will observe that things evolve. What the nutjobs question is if this process can lead to new species. Things that will no longer be able to mate with the dogs.

      Thanks to the genome project, speciation and common decent is now basically proven scientific fact, and it has significantly better documentation than does the theory of gravity. Do you not believe in gravity? You know that it is a very poorly documented theory, right?

    182. Re:blah by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Genesis doesn't mention that absents of extraterrestrial life either. Perhaps it's for the simple fact it falls outside the scope of Humanity (from Gods POV), and thus never mentioned it. Both physically and philosophically.

      If you believe in God, perhaps other Bibles were written custom tailed for other species and worlds too. It just so happens their editions are not compatible with ours??? Who knows. Regardless, it's all faith anyways.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    183. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Evolution would be more indicated if your son had traits that were present in neither of his parents.

      He does. And no, mutation is not the only way to dramatically alter genetic material. Your understanding of the process of evolution is about 150 years old and needs updating.

      The really short: The difficult point is speciation. Can evolution through regular mating lead to speciation? What is speciation? Assuming you start with one mating pair and you track all their offspring as if they were the root in a tree with a lot of branches, speciation is what you get if some time in that evolutionary tree, one of the descendants of the original pair can no longer mate with another descendant. Does speciation happen? Yes, even in the lab. The theory of common decent has not been in question in the scientific community since it was observed quite a while ago. The latest findings in the newer genetic mapping studies only confirmed what was already known while still adding more specific knowledge.

      Get over it guys, the theory of common decent has more supporting evidence and scientific backing than does the theory of gravity.

    184. Re:blah by Walkingshark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And some believers find solace and comfort, even relief, from their religion.

      This is actually part of the problem with religion. I leave the reasons why as an exercise for the student. Answers will be graded for style as well as content.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    185. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Actually it is just a theory

      Not to point out the obvious, so is newtons theory of gravity.

    186. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Say, could you tell me what happens if a human baby isn't breastfed or doesn't have milk in the first few months?"

      an adult isn't a baby, so what's your point?

    187. Re:blah by Walkingshark · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very few people consider hearsay alone as credible evidence, especially when all concrete evidence leads to a different conclusion AND the hearsay contains multiple self contradictions.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    188. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, but some come to faith by evidence.

      Not to religious faith, there is no evidence. Not a single piece. There isn't even a valid hypothesis let alone a theory.

    189. Re:blah by Mushukyou · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but faith is NOT based on evidence. Faith is WITHOUT reason. Thus, if you have reason to KNOW of something, no so-called "faith" is necessary. Faith is just a cop-out. It is a way to try to make people feel as if they have a valid reason to believe in something irrationally. So no, there are no Christians alive today that have come to believe in their imaginary friends because of any scientific evidence. People come to believe in gods because they are gullible and ignorant. They listen to what other people say, like their preachers or parents, and just buy into it hook, line and sinker.

    190. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's evidence to them

      Before continuing, try to find out what evidence means. There is no such thing as "evidence to them", that would be oxymoronic.

    191. Re:blah by 1336 · · Score: 1

      Please see

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22
      and
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow#Quotations_and_legal_detail

      Quotations and legal detail From the 9th circuit hearing:

              * Decided - the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism"--a fact which (according to the court) the federal government did not dispute. The court also noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he also announced "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

              * Judge Alfred Goodwin from the 9th Circuit remarked: "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

    192. Re:blah by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      When physicists can see across time and change energy to matter and vice versa, I have questions to ask them.

      Until then, theories such as you bring up are merely science fiction completely without substance. Santa Clause & tooth fairy ..

      Saying the verse is like a soda pop can is merely pulling monkeys out your ass

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    193. Re:blah by mrops · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot Atheists.

      A fiery religious fundamentalist is only trumped by a fiery atheist when it comes to discussion about existence of God.

    194. Re:blah by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I notice you didn't mention extraterrestrial aliens...

    195. Re:blah by et764 · · Score: 1

      If Jesus died in 33 AD [wikipedia.org], then why was it first written about around 50 AD [answers.com]? How accurate can a detailed account be when it's written 20 years after the events?

      I don't think 20 years is that long to wait to write something down. Is it uncommon to wait 20 years before writing one's autobiography? We don't usually think people have forgotten all the details or are fabricating stories of their own life, even if they are telling things that happened 20 years ago.

      If you look through 1 Thessalonians (the book the link you cited lists as being the first book in the New Testament), it mentions Christians in a fairly large area. There's already an established community of Christians. This book isn't establishing a new religion, it's encouraging people who are Christians already. Given how important the resurrection is to Christianity, I don't think the Christians of the time would have bought it had Paul suddenly said "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you these last 20 years, not only did Jesus die for us, He came back to life too!"

      Most of the early teaching of Christianity was oral. If you notice, Paul wrote many of his epistles while he was in prison. It may be that they early Christians were too busy travelling around preaching to take the time to write down a complete account. Maybe as they decided to settle down, they also decided to write a more permanent record of the things they had been teaching most of their lives.

    196. Re:blah by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean, but I have no inner turmoil over what seems obvious or possible to me

      If you're referring to raising people from the dead, or walking on water, science cannot explain, but according to eyewitness accounts, someone once did just these things, but only one guy could pull that off and no other has since

      To steal a line from fox news, "We report, you decide" .. Whatever floats your boat

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    197. Re:blah by mrops · · Score: 1

      Maybe offtopic to your post, and definately offtopic to UFOs.

      I have always wondered if being gay is environmental or genetic (maybe both).

      Say its genetic, up until now gays were forced into straight relationships, lest be persecuted. Today, they are getting being accepted, in another 50 years I believe being gay should be accepted worldwide. Will they evolve out 200, say 500 years from now? i.e. assuming science doesn't catch up enough allowing two gay men to procreate, even then only wealthy could afford.

      Continuing the thought, will med-care and insurance pay up for letting gay couple procreate. If yes, then its attempting to do something that is not intended by nature, what if I want wings to fly, should med-care pay for that too.

    198. Re:blah by XSpud · · Score: 1

      Carbon dating has been proved time and again an inaccurate measure of age so we can only theorize how old something really is (best educated guesstimate) unless there is very clear documentation as to the age.

      Carbon dating is never used to data dinosaur fossils - its half-life is far too short. Other isotopes with much longer half lives are used to date rocks and fossils.

      There's a good description of the science behind radiometric dating and some of the misconceptions regarding its accuracy here: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

    199. Re:blah by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Good explanation! I had not heard that phenomenon could by synthesized in the lab

      And thanks again, it's good to still be in the pool. Second chances are rare and all who saw me that day gave me zero percent chance of surviving, but today I am up and running around like before. I just have to adapt to a shiny new embedded electronic ignition module with auto start .. and stay away from EMFs

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    200. Re:blah by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Lol it was before all those shitty ghost hunter shows and the guy was standing in a lit doorway.

    201. Re:blah by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      You realize that people around the globe experience similar spiritual realizations. Animal spirit possession, generic spirit possession, meditation, ect. ect. Our minds are powerful things, and it has never been proven that these people are somehow experiencing anything real. It is a far more rational explanation that these people are under the influence of strong indoctrinated belief which is causing hallucination.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    202. Re:blah by ezzthetic · · Score: 1

      If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      I gather this is a problem for Christianity. The Incarnation was supposed to only happen once. But if beings exist on other planets, Jesus would have had to appear to them as well, and go throught the whole resurrection thing again.

      --
      You know what they say about opinions. They're all fabulous!
    203. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Continuing the thought, will med-care and insurance pay up for letting gay couple procreate

      Procreation is a privilege, not a right. Med care should not pay for letting anyone procreate. On the other hand, if it is possible, and med care decides to pay for the artificial procreation of infertile straight couples, they can obviously not discriminate against gays.

      It comes down to equal rights. Gays should have all the same rights as straight people in the same way that blacks should have all the same rights as whites. In fact, it is a lot easier to argue that blacks should have their rights limited significantly compared to whites than it is to argue that gay peoples rights should be limited.

    204. Re:blah by adamstew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I actually do believe that aliens (intelligent life on other planets) must exist out there somewhere. The universe is just TOO big for there not to be:

      The low end of the estimate for the number of stars in the observable universe on wikipedia is 3 x 10 ^ 22

      If just one out of a million of those stars had planets, you'd have 3 x 10 ^ 16 planets with stars

      If just one out of a million of those stars with planets had life you'd have about 30 billion planets with life.

      and if just one out of a million of those planets with life had intelligent life you'd have roughly 30,000 alien civilizations out there.

      I also feel that my numbers are VERY conservative. The actual number is probably closer to 30 million-30 billion...but I am just guessing :-D

      Of course, all that life out there is sooooo far away that we would never have any hope of having any real contact with them. That whole speed of light thing...

    205. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 1

      "I have yet to experience a Vegan knocking on my door asking me to join"

      That's just because vegans can't knock very hard, so you just never actually hear them.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    206. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is just a theory

      Not to point out the obvious, so is newtons theory of gravity.

      And in actually fact the newtons theory of gravity has been proven wrong, but for general consumption and observable events it is good enough.

    207. Re:blah by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This is not to say you should believe one way or the other, but your experience proves nothing, one way or the other.

      There is no evidence of an afterlife.

      Thinking about it scientifically, lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking so we can conclude that an afterlife is possible but so extremely improbable that saying their is no afterlife is fairly accurate.

      Besides, who's afterlife do we believe in. Christian, Jewish, Muslim? What about Hinduism and Buddhism (reincarnation religions)? They cant all be true (my immortal soul cant go to heaven and be reborn into a lesser or greater creature).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    208. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I was *this close* to bailing on this silly thread...

    209. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah, you just feel more threatened by an atheists disbelief than a theists belief so it seems that way to you.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    210. Re:blah by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      That term, of course, can be confused with what's usually referred to as "agnostic" - someone who has come to the conclusion that the existence of (a) god or a higher power can neither be proven nor disproven.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    211. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh I can answer that easily. They'd say "those goddamn muslims, they're all the same".

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    212. Re:blah by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      A male being gay is linked to having more fertile than average sisters. Its also linked to sexual abuse (though only in rarer cases). I suppose also a large part of it is masculinization or feminization in the womb depending on what chemicals the mother is polluted with. Humans carry record numbers of bad chemicals around in their bodies these days due to two hundred years of industrialization. It is also common for other animals to exhibit same-sex tendencies, so its a possibility its just part of human natures. Maybe some people just get along better with the same sex and have OR are capable of, attraction towards them as well. Too many people are raised into believing its not masculine, or feminine to do anything homosexual and thus possibly put up their own mental blocks.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    213. Re:blah by XSpud · · Score: 1

      Really? Because when I look around at everything around us, I see the evidence of such incredibly intricate and complex systems that I am further convinced in the existence of some kind of creator.

      Intricate and complex systems often result from surprisingly simple causes e.g. iteration of z(n+1) = z(n) + c (where c is a complex number), gives rise to the Mandelbrot Set.

    214. Re:blah by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The Bible being infallible doesn't mean it is an unabridged compilation of all that is knowable.

      the bits that contradict the other bits tend to make it difficult to be an infalible document.

      True faith is based on evidence, not opposed to evidence.

      Hahahahahaha.

      Thanks, I haven't had a laugh like that in ages. True faith is about maintaining a belief no matter what tests it, so if your belief flies in the face of fact, true faith means you choose the belief over the contradicting fact.

      If you look at the teachings of the apostles in Acts, for example, their message rested on the fact that there was a man who everyone had seen or heard of

      You have some hard evidence of this. Something verifiable?

      The Bible was written 300 years after Christ's death and was revised several times to suit the needs of the leadership. We ended up with Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Baptists, Russian Orthodox and other churches because they believe in slightly different bibles then each other. A verifiable, incontrovertible fact like the one you describe would not permit this, let alone the other Abrahamic religions which do not view Christ as the saviour.

      You may not find this evidence compelling,

      Actually I cant make a judgement on that, because you haven't presented any evidence.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    215. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 1

      "will med-care and insurance pay up for letting gay couple procreate"

      Well, America's only 4.5% of the world population anyway. In much of the rest of the world, IVF treatment is available for couples who cannot reproduce for a number of reasons, either due to illness or because they are both the same sex. Otherwise, interesting question. Genetic markers have been found which switch circuitry between "attracted to males" and "attracted to females". I don't know whether it's hereditary though, it could also just come about through interactions between other genes of the mother and father, so there's probably no strong reason to believe it would evolve-out even given the chance. I like the question though.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    216. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 1

      There's nothing in the bible about comments about UFOs, that means that comments about UFOs don't exist! :-p

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    217. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Santa Clause & tooth fairy"

      Jesus & the whore.

    218. Re:blah by Soilworker · · Score: 1

      but according to eyewitness accounts>

      Oh wow.

    219. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence is anathema to faith. By providing evidence in favor of something, you imply that the question of whether or not said something is true is subject to reason, and we already know that faith has nothing to do with reason.

      (Summarized from a half-remembered Kierkegaard passage I read some years back)

    220. Re:blah by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Brilliant out of context quotation.

      Read the whole chapter in the context of the previous chapter, it is about the importance of faith vs law, and it is about motivatio vs belief.

    221. Re:blah by the_womble · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not only that, the evidence of the existence of aliens in no way contradicts Christianity, or the theistic religions.

      I can imagine a few problems for religions that believe in reincarnation (how do they account for everyone who claims to remember past lives, only remembering past lives on earth?).

      The existence of aliens would be no more a challenge to Christianity then the existence of angels (a non-human intelligence, that just happens to be naturally closer to God.....).

      Christianity would regard aliens a fellow servants of God.

      The existence of other intelligence life and their relationship to us has often been discussed: for Christians whether they are redeemed the same way: if Christ came for all, whether there might be other incarnations for other species or different ways to redemption, etc.

      It is not discussed that much because we lack material for more than speculation until we find some ETs.

      Please read what the head of the Vatican observatory has to say http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/believing_in_aliens_not_opposed_to_christianity_vaticans_top_astronomer_says/

      Incidentally, while Googling for the link above, I came across a article by a Muslim who believes that the Quran confirms the existence of angels.

    222. Re:blah by morari · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking, most things taught are lies.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    223. Re:blah by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Gay marriage. Adoption by gay couples. Those are just the two more outrageous things that traditional, conservative people find objectionable. And, I don't use the word "conservative" in the political sense. The vast majority of people find homosexuality objectionable - and the gays are demanding that we accept them as equals.

      Before some wise guy pops off with "Yes, but slavery was accepted . . . " he needs to google LZ Granderson. Gay is not the new black. Stop using black as the tool with which you can force everyone to accept anything. It may be "politically correct" in this day and age, but I'm not a communist, I don't answer to Moscow, and I don't give a rat's ass about being politically correct.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    224. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not all evidence is always around. If I was wearing a rain coat with nothing on under it, walked up to you and flashed you, you would have incontrovertible physical evidence of me being naked under the rain coat. However, if I slipped some clothes on, you couldn't show that "incontrovertible physical evidence" to anyone else.

      The point is, some things happen that can convince a logical person but is not available to show others.

    225. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps the aliens are our "gods" themselves.

      Belief in the Christian "god" requires a belief in magic. Sorry, but I don't do magic. EVERYTHING in the universe has a reason and explanation for how and why it occurs. There is no such thing as a being that can snap its fingers and conjur up the universe through its will. Where were was the technology? Where were the star and planet builders? Where were the labs and the DNA templates?

      The bible was written by humans from over 2000 years ago. There is nothing that they could possibly have known or thought of that any average, modern human does not. They didn't know anything about astronomy, physics, subatomic particles, parallel universes or quantum theory. We still have a long way to go in understanding those subjects also, but we know vastly more than they did. Sorry, but I'm not believing jack shit about creation or the universe that is printed in a book written by ancient men.

      As far as we know, man is the most advanced being in the entire universe. Considering how young the universe is in cosmological terms, that isn't even too far fetched of a theory. That would mean that in a sense, we are the "gods" of the universe since we would currently be the most knowledgeable and the closest to mastering technology.

    226. Re:blah by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "their views are based on cold, hard, bloody, rotting, diseased evidence..."

      So - where's this evidence? Do vegans live ten years longer, on average? Twenty years? Maybe they live twice as long as meat eaters? If there are any credible citations, I might consider converting.

      I do know from study and from experience that hard working men, especially in cold climates, need the condensed energy found in meats and meat products. A guy can eat two tons of vegetables, and not have the energy and stamina needed to get through a day's work. Add four to eight ounces of meat to his two tons of vegetables, and he's a new man! In fact, he won't need those two tons of veggies at all - he'll opt for a couple of sensible servings, along with a slice of bread and a piece of pie.

      Of course, I don't expect an audience of nerds and geeks to appreciate that. I know that SOME of the nerds and geeks have worked hard sometime during their lives, but many of you have spent your lives in offices, classrooms, and other sheltered areas, seldom lifting anything heavier than a can of Mountain Dew.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    227. Re:blah by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Gays, for example, just want to live normal lives like you and me."

      This is why they have gay parades all over the nation, with the people dressed as freakishly as possible? Alright, now I understand. They act abnormally so that thy can be normal!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    228. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the evidence points to your conclusion its called common sense. What role does Faith play?

      The point of faith is it by definition defies the evidence. If the evidence is already pointing towards a conclusion, then everyone would do it. Faith was meant to be special because it was hard to have, not rediclously easy because all the evidence agree's.

      Thats just called common sense and devalues everything faith is about.

    229. Re:blah by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "if it is possible, and med care decides to pay for the artificial procreation of infertile straight couples, they can obviously not discriminate against gays."

      Wow. Just wow. So - helping an infertile young woman to reach a chemical balance that will enhance her chances of getting pregnant equates to implanting an artificial womb into some dude? Wow. Amazing. It's "obvious" that if the insurance company pays for a fertility treatment for a hetero couple, then the insurance company should pay for crimes against nature so that Adam and Steve can feel normal. I just don't know what to say to this nonsense.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    230. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read Genesis. God created the heavens, the Earth, Man and assorted other critters and varmints. God creating aliens is never mentioned. And the Bible is infallible, so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind. And in the part about Noah's Ark, it is never mentioned that Noah rounded up two aliens.

      Unless you think in alien scientist as "our" God, and us as a mere lab experiment.
      Eve being create using Adam's rib is just a mere explanation of first documented cloning experiment.
      God created humans in "his" image. (cloning again).

      Therefore God couldn't ever create himself (if he is/was alien) and bible doesn't address the creation of God.

    231. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gays do have all the same rights as regular people. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. And when they do so, they will get benefits on their insurance and other things that they don't get now, but guess what? US unmarried straight people don't get them either. We live with people without being married and don't get the same advantages as married people. So where is the discrimination?

      Oh and please show me the marriage law that says you have to love someone or be sexually attracted to them in order to get married. I have yet to see a marriage law that says anything about love or attraction. So out side of history paralleling religious beliefs in how society was set up, there is really nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman that is discriminatory. This is why this activist judge who decided to overturn the people will see his ruling dropped on appeal. In fact, he will probably end up being disciplined by his regulatory board because of how he ran to this like an activist judge with the runs looking for a bathroom.

      You see, gay couples have the same rights as unmarried couples and those rights are exactly the same as far as any law is concerned. No law takes love, attraction, or anything else the marks someone as gay or straight into consideration in it's application. Marriage is simply a legal maneuver and that it.

    232. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      This is probably the only time I think a Citation needed is warranted. Where have genetic markers been linked from?

      I have never seen any creditable study saying this. I have seen a bunch of made up shit on pro gay sites claiming everything from genetically different ears to other defects but the truth is that sexual attraction is learned/conditioned behavior and little more. This is the same reason why certain types of partners attract people more then others and even why they are somewhat repulsed by them.

    233. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Look for a book called "the God part of the brain".

      It's premise is that our brain is conditioned to actually need a god type reality and if there isn't one, one will either be invented or something real will be substituted for it.

    234. Re:blah by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      As an athiest, I do NOT believe in a god(s), an afterlife, ghosts, or anything super natural. This includes: Faith healers, heaven/hell, vampires/werewolves, prayer, divine intervention, creationism, etc.

      But do you believe in the zombie apocolypse?

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    235. Re:blah by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      If one's belief is in the existence of a god, then the existence of aliens doesn't present any sort of problem.

      If, on the other hand, one's belief is in the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the great I AM, and furthermore you believe that God sent His only begotten Son to die as a sacrifice for our sins, and that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, well then, you might have a pretty significant problem indeed. You see, while the Bible may not explicitly declare that there are no aliens, it seems to suggest that when God created the earth and everything on it, He did not also create some other inhabited planet (did Jesus die to save the aliens from their sins too? Did God reveal Himself through His Word on their planet too?).

      When the very nature of your entire existence and purpose for being is built upon this foundation, it would certainly be confusing to have it suddenly torn out from under you. This would be no simple matter of "oh, I just learned something new about the world, I guess there were a few things I was mistaken about." It would be closer to... well, think of Jim Carrey's character in The Truman Show, suddenly discovering that his entire life has been a lie, that nothing he's ever known has been real, that all his hopes and dreams are utterly meaningless. How do you react to that? Of course you eventually learn to deal with it and move on, as Truman does at the end of the film, but before then, you're likely to do some wild and unpredictable things.

      Of course, the UFO doesn't have to actually be real in order to cause this sort of unpredictable behavior. I'm sure there's some other explanation for whatever this was, but if people thought it was really a UFO, some crazy things probably would have happened. That's what Churchill wanted to avoid.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    236. Re:blah by easterberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I... uh... I was more making a cock joke... than looking for an actual answer. But thank you for that.

    237. Re:blah by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The vast majority of people find homosexuality objectionable - and the gays are demanding that we accept them as equals.

      [Citation needed] on your demographics, first of all.

      Second, I assume what you mean by demand is that they leave no room for refusal, that they are overbearing in their attempts to get you to acknowledge them. If they are being overbearing, or violent, then they are bad people, just as you, or any homophobe, would be wrong in being overbearing or violent to them. Moral issues must always and explicitly go both ways. If they are violent, they are a criminal; if you are, you are. Those who are not being a bad person in any way who are also homosexual (and they are out there; I'd suspect they're the majority) should not be lumped in with the criminals any more than all black people or all businessmen or all {FOREIGN NATIONAL}s should be assumed to be criminals.

      Because it's not actually all that hard to identify criminals. There are some, scammers and the like, that are probably hard to track down, but when you come across someone who likes hurting people, you're going to have an inkling. If the cops in your area are understaffed, corrupt, or stupid, or the jails become nothing more than catch-and-release, then identifying criminals doesn't help, but it's not that hard to tell someone who actually is a decent human being from someone who isn't.

      And because it's not all that hard to tell who the actual bad people are, let me say clearly and distinctly that we don't need people making up rules where if you break those rules "you are a bad person." There are bad people out there. You don't have to pretend. Go out there and go looking; you will find them. It's not hard to tell the difference. If you think gays are bad, go spend a week living with rapists or arsonists or something like that. Those sort of people are not a myth. You do not need to imply that "maybe that gay person is one of those mythical rapists I hear so much about" just because you don't see that side of life. Go find people that have actually been in those terrible situations, and understand through them that there are plenty of bad guys without making more by means of moral statute.

    238. Re:blah by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith. Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.

      That's why us fact-based science types rejected the Biblical notion of hygiene, because we don't believe in invisible particles that can cause sickness!

      Ignorant scientists have probably killed 10 times as many people due to their arrogant ignorance than all the earth's religions put together.

    239. Re:blah by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Sorry, but faith is NOT based on evidence. Faith is WITHOUT reason.

      No; not in the slightest.

      It's rather impossible for people to believe in something that they think is entirely counterfactual or without evidence.

      The closest you can come to that is as William James put it: at a certain point, all the evidence and facts and logic can only take you so far. At a certain point, you have to choose between all of your plausible options.

      Call that faith, if you'd like. But the standard Slashdot notion that faith is the belief in something without evidence is complete and utter nonsense.

      >>People come to believe in gods because they are gullible and ignorant.

      And people like you don't believe in gods because you're gullible and ignorant and love to follow the cool kids in school.

    240. Re:blah by ShakaUVM · · Score: 0, Troll

      >>The Bible was written 300 years after Christ's death

      You don't really know anything, do you? The Bible was written relatively quickly. It was compiled into a codex much later.

      If you're based your hatred for religion on astonishingly wrong facts like this, it's no wonder you're angry and bitter. It's like those morons on here that rant about teachers all secretly conspiring to eliminate all critical thinking from schools, while not having any personal experience or done any research on the subject, but just repeat their screed anyway.

      >>True faith is about maintaining a belief no matter what tests it,

      You know what they call people that just repeat whatever they hear, don't question it, and repeat it louder and louder when people tell them that they're wrong?

      It's not faith, it's dogmatism. Which is exactly what you're guilty of.

      Believe it or not, many Christians have questioned their faith and chosen to believe in it anyway on the balance of the evidence. Unlike fucktarded atheists like you that just repeat anything they hear the other cool atheists say, because you "want to be like them".

    241. Re:blah by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      I don't think 20 years is that long to wait to write something down. Is it uncommon to wait 20 years before writing one's autobiography?

      It may be common to do that, but that doesn't make the practice accurate. Two decades is a long time to wait if you want any kind of accuracy, and remember, ~20 years is the shortest possible time. Everyone else waited longer. It may not be suspicious if one person waits, but the story becomes less and less probable for each witness that decides to wait a long time, and the longer they wait the less credible the story is. If I were traveling with the savior of all humankind, I think I'd have strong motivation to keep a daily journal.

      We don't usually think people have forgotten all the details or are fabricating stories of their own life, even if they are telling things that happened 20 years ago.

      Well, we should think that. Even eyewitness testimony taken shortly after an event can be full of inaccuracies without any intent to mislead by the witness. Memory is always a reconstruction of events based on current beliefs, not a playback of a recording from the past. A good autobiographer should interview people and collect documentation, rather than go from memory.

      If you look through 1 Thessalonians (the book the link you cited lists as being the first book in the New Testament), it mentions Christians in a fairly large area. There's already an established community of Christians. This book isn't establishing a new religion, it's encouraging people who are Christians already. Given how important the resurrection is to Christianity, I don't think the Christians of the time would have bought it had Paul suddenly said "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you these last 20 years, not only did Jesus die for us, He came back to life too!"

      I don't necessarily believe the book was written in 50 AD by Paul. Just that it's the earliest possibility. So there's a lot of leeway for whoever wrote it to pretend that the book is older and falsely document the time it was supposedly written in. The book can't corroborate itself by saying Christians already existed at the time of its publication.

      But what I've read and watched indicates that there were early Christians who believed in a death and resurrection of Jesus, but they believed those things happened in another realm of existence, like in Greek mythology. It was later on that Jesus was inserted into history. I recommend "The God Who Wasn't There", which I'm sure can make some points I've forgotten about entirely.

      Most of the early teaching of Christianity was oral. If you notice, Paul wrote many of his epistles while he was in prison. It may be that they early Christians were too busy travelling around preaching to take the time to write down a complete account. Maybe as they decided to settle down, they also decided to write a more permanent record of the things they had been teaching most of their lives.

      You could provide good excuses for a lack of evidence, but the excuse doesn't turn a lack of evidence into evidence. If I catch someone on video stealing my property, then I have evidence. If he manages to obtain or erase the video, then I no longer have evidence. The fact that I can explain the lack of a videotape doesn't corroborate my story because there would also be no videotape if the story were made up.

    242. Re:blah by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply. What was that recent news about Triceratops? I don't doubt evolution but I'm starting to wonder about grant-needing scientists assembling random bones to "create" long-extinct animals.

    243. Re:blah by Mushukyou · · Score: 1

      >>It's rather impossible for people to believe in something that they think is entirely counterfactual or without evidence. Uh, if they think something is not factual, they won't believe in it, now will they? Duh. They believe in it BECAUSE they think it's real, obviously. But it's an irrational belief because it's not supported scientifically. You don't have to "choose" anything when you are faced with an unknown. You can just do the honorable thing - withhold a conclusion until you REALLY know the answer. If you have evidence, you don't need faith, because then it's knowledge, now isn't it?? I think you have a very warped idea of the definition of "faith". >>And people like you don't believe in gods because you're gullible and ignorant and love to follow the cool kids in school. This, of course, made no sense whatsoever to the reasonable person. There is no evidence for any gods. I have a passion for the truth. Thus, to believe in gods is ignorant and gullible. Get shit on.

    244. Re:blah by RichiH · · Score: 1

      "Religion is the opiate of the people"

      Sometimes, it hits me just how little things change over time.

    245. Re:blah by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > Scroll down. And I mean WAAAY down, because half of the fucking comments are arguments about religion that have NOTHING to do with this story, regardless of a Churchill one-liner. Seriously, 50% of the comments below are stupid side-bars about religion.

      Although your ID seems to imply otherwise, you must be new around here...

    246. Re:blah by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

      I agree that the phrase "survival of the fittest" is too often misinterpreted. If we accept the observations of Darwin and others, "fitness" must mean the successfulness in the perpetuation of a species (and those traits that result in successful perpetuation). In that sense fruit flies, ants and bacteria are far more fit than man.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    247. Re:blah by grouchomarxist · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've never heard of vegans being against mother's milk.

    248. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      faith is necessary opposed to evidence: "see i can change this stick into a snake, therefore i can hear God and i'm speaking for him". the only evidence here is that you're a skilled magician. your being a spokes person for god doesn't follow from that. it requires a leap of faith to jump to that conclusion!

    249. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bring the lions and I will bring the snags

    250. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way to shut the Vegans up is to ask "Say, could you tell me what happens if a human baby isn't breastfed or doesn't have milk in the first few months?"

      This gets modded up? Have you actually met any vegans? Vegans have precisely zero problems with breastfeeding, for reasons that should be breathtakingly obvious. Except to a complete moron.

    251. Re:blah by Nyder · · Score: 1

      God gave us the freedom to make our own choices in life and some people make very poor ones, including the choice to use religion for their own purposes or try and force others to believe as they do.

      Actually, God didn't give man any freedom.

      You see, god knows all, knows what your going to do, etc. So that means you have no free choice, seeing as God, who created all, and knows everything, already has your life planned out.

      http://www.equip.org/perspectives/omniscience-does-god-know-all-things

      There's some scriptures to backup what I am saying.

      Just so you understand, you can NOT have something that knows everything that has and will happen, that created everything, then say man has free choice. How can we have free choice? If god already knows what I've done in my life, I'm not choosing anything, I'm living life how he has me do it.

      And you do realize what this implies?

      There isn't a god, man has once again used the stupidity of mankind to control others. And not only that, did such a poor job on the subject material it used as to leave big clues, yet people seem to gloss over them.

      You do have a choice. It's to either accept that your on your own, or to keep believing in fantasy. either way, it changes nothing in your life, since beliefs in god, or not believing in god, has really nothing to do with living life.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    252. Re:blah by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > And the Bible is infallible

      Actually, it is ridden with mistakes, wrong translations and re-translations, personal interpretation, contradictions, unlikely stuff and impossible stuff.

      Pretty much every Bible-based religion has admitted this to some degree, only to interpret the remaining bits as truth.

      The tendency of _really_ ignorant (not neccessarily stupid) people to try and ignore the scientific process and revert commonly accepted conclusions is... tiresome...

    253. Re:blah by Nyder · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith."

      True, but some come to faith by evidence.

      No, sorry. People come to faith by assuming that a "higher power" had something to do with something that happened or something that can't explain (or don't want to explain rationally).

      "Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums."

      Suffering is the human condition. Religion is merely one of the 'causes', and perhaps not the most common or greatest.

      And some believers find solace and comfort, even relief, from their religion.

      Suffering is NOT the human condition. That is lies told you to by humans that want to control you. It's also the excuse that people use (religons even) so they can do horrible things to other people. Religons have been about killing the "heathens" since man first thought it up. Oh, and controlling the masses.

      Yes, some believers will find solace and comfort, even relief from their religion. They will also find that with drugs, sex, companionship, having a family, and well, not thinking they are better then everyone else because they believe that when they die, they'll go to heaven and all will be well.

      Hey, if you want to live with blinders on, in a clueless sort of way, accepting that your a victim, on the chance that maybe, just maybe, you get to go to heaven after you die and everything will be cool, by all means, please do so.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    254. Re:blah by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Unless the aliens are "God". And that they are basically us, or a more evolved version of us. I mean, we WILL enevitably send DNA to another habitable planet, and there's no reason to think it absurd that life on earth may have started similarly (from foreign DNA).

      However, it would be just like those pesky Christians to cover up the aliens just so they could keep their power.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    255. Re:blah by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Dudes, can we please talk about the fucking aliens already?!

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    256. Re:blah by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      the BBC article says that this supposedly happened during WW2. If I were Churchill during WW2, and I had evidence of a UFO encounter, I would hide it too, and I might just say something about faith in the church. Imagine: the entire world is in war, and suddenly you hear of things that can't be explained (also, the war is about jews) wouldn't people panic, thinking about the apocalypse?
      I can't tell if the event did happen, but I can understand why he would formulate it like that in the context of WW2.

      And frankly people are still too stupid to handle something like information about alien beings. I hate myself for saying it, but it's true. On the other hand, I realized that evolution happens because you force populations to handle new problems, so I think that, even though it would create a lot of problem, people knowing about aliens should tell the truth.
      (because we all know aliens exist but the illuminati/masons/bildeburgs/... don't want us to know)

      --
      new sig
    257. Re:blah by RichiH · · Score: 1

      I am agnostic, but I find if peculiar that everyone who uses the mantra above specifies a _jew_, not just a man. Presumably, this is done to shock Christians even more, but I would argue that Jesus stopped being Jewish by his own choice.

      Point in case, I was "born Christian" but I am not Christian any more.

      What were you saying about logic and common sense, again?

    258. Re:blah by RichiH · · Score: 1

      You might be correct, but let me reply by quoting http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1744812&cid=33154332 :

      > > Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC -AD 65)
      >
      > Churchill was a ruler.

    259. Re:blah by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, they're just hostile to any beliefs that don't mesh with theirs-- often including academic beliefs.

      I think that's most people in general in varying degrees. Take any group and you'll find people that go ballistic, are indifferent, and everything in between when exposed to some other belief. i.e. There are crazy religious people and there are crazy atheists.

    260. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gays do have all the same rights as regular people. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else

      Rubbish. The government prevents gays from marrying the people they love, while you and I are free to marry.

      Oh and please show me the marriage law that says you have to love someone or be sexually attracted to them in order to get married

      Why do you think I think there is such a law?

      So out side of history paralleling religious beliefs in how society was set up, there is really nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman that is discriminatory

      The fact that you don't see that when you say "marriage being between a man and a woman" that is discriminatory by definition.

      This is why this activist judge

      Yeah, all judges who limit the powers of the government are activist judges. And you are a fucking communist for demanding the government decide who I can and can not marry as a consenting adult. I hate communists like you who want to give the government unlimited powers.

      Marriage is simply a legal maneuver and that it.

      Correct, and it is a legal maneuver that California tried to arbitrarily limit. Why do we not just ban white men from marrying black women or vice versa. There is no difference right? There would be no discrimination, right? Moron.

    261. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why they have gay parades all over the nation

      No, they have gay parades all over the nation for the same reason that African Americans had to march on Washington. Do you really think it is OK for states to stop Negroes from sitting on the same bench as you and I?

      They act abnormally so that thy can be normal

      Any oppressed part of the population will try to get out from under that oppression. That is normal. What is not normal is to let petty insecurities about your own sexuality demand that all people who are what you fear you are have less rights that "normal" people.

      Perhaps we should take you at your word and demand all people in the nation wear "normal" clothes. Perhaps the government can make a standard piece of clothing that fits everybody and then demand we all wear that.

      I hate communists like you.

    262. Re:blah by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      Do the Vegans harass you for eating Christians?

    263. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the problem is 'familiarity breeds contempt', shown by your use of the phrase 'more than just'. No divine being has descended from the sky and informed you personally that a 'chemical reaction, billions of years in the making' was somehow too low and unworthy for you to be it.

      You might as well take as a premise that you are wonderful, and if eventually it's found out what you are, then that must be wonderful too.

    264. Re:blah by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      The Bible being infallible doesn't mean it is an unabridged compilation of all that is knowable. It simply means it is accurate on the subjects it addresses. The Bible primarily with things such as why are we here and how are we to treat each other. Apparently the existence or non-existence of aliens is not important to those questions. If we ever do discover aliens, it would be reasonable for Christians to conclude that God created them too, but their existence isn't something we need to know about to please God.

      Aliens are problematic because :
      - they were not in the garden of Eden and so out goes the doctrine of original sin.
      - Jesus was crucified on earth for the sin of man (see above) would he have to be crucified on every planet, would he incarnate in every one of these races ? Where does that leave the trinity ?
      - God created man in his image and gave him dominion over all the rest of the animals. What happens if we encounter a more advanced alien race ?
      - etc, etc.

      True faith is based on evidence, not opposed to evidence. If you look at the teachings of the apostles in Acts, for example, their message rested on the fact that there was a man who everyone had seen or heard of, who had done impressive miracles that many people have seen, was put to death in a very public fashion and then seen by many people alive afterwards.

      It's not evidence any more than someone claiming to have tugged on Zeus' beard is evidence.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    265. Re:blah by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1, Troll

      Great, I'll take two pints then.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    266. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 1

      "This is probably the only time I think a Citation needed is warranted"

      Well I think a "citation needed" is warranted by that statement, so... what can ya do, ay? Just disregard it if it's a problem for you, I don't catalog every bit of information I retain, I try to ensure that I only retain things from credable sources at the point of the retention to avoid such need. I tend to be a trustworthy source of information for such reason but mistakes will be made. It has a slight 'new scientist' and 'genome project' feel to it, but I'm sure a quick google will give you a better insight into the state of the art in understanding of the subject than I will as it's not an active interest of mine, and my memory is vague because it goes back a few years.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    267. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gay marriage. Adoption by gay couples.

      I SO agree. I'll never support gay marriage unless heterosexuals are exempt from it. Also, if I SHOULD end up in a gay marriage, I firmly oppose any legislation that would require me to adopt a child!

      Or a grown-up, you wise guys.

    268. Re:blah by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      A male being gay is linked to having more fertile than average sisters. Its also linked to sexual abuse (though only in rarer cases). I suppose also a large part of it is masculinization or feminization in the womb depending on what chemicals the mother is polluted with. Humans carry record numbers of bad chemicals around in their bodies these days due to two hundred years of industrialization. It is also common for other animals to exhibit same-sex tendencies, so its a possibility its just part of human natures. Maybe some people just get along better with the same sex and have OR are capable of, attraction towards them as well. Too many people are raised into believing its not masculine, or feminine to do anything homosexual and thus possibly put up their own mental blocks.

      I think modern medical science is coming to concensus that such spectrums of behavioral differences such as homosexuality are largely caused by both biological predispositions and environmental and developmental factors.

      It is a shame that the layman is frequently unable to understand the concept of gradation that goes into these behaviors and styles of thinking. People often are not simply gay or straight, there are levels and layers, and we all lie on that spectrum somewhere. Explicit labels are much easier to handle, but as a result, anyone not proclaiming emphatic and absolute heterosexuality is labeled by the blanket term "gay". It is a perspective that I think will wane as the body of science contradicting it continues to grow.

      It is somewhat troubling to me that the American mindset seems to cling to this style of black-and-white thinking. It seems symtomatic of a culture of psychopathology. Perhaps, if war veterans begin to get real treatment for PTSD, the science of psychology will start to take root in the minds of this culture. That is my sincere hope.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    269. Re:blah by AlamedaStone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have never seen any creditable study
      made up shit on pro gay sites
      but the truth is

      A plethora of credible studies are available literally at the touch of a button, many of them suggesting a biological component to homosexuality. I suppose your findings are dependent on your definition of credible, and since you declare that you know "the truth", you may not be open to contradictory evidence.

      Here are a few I found just now, but I'm sure you can let your fingers do their own walking if you are interested.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

      http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/bulgarians/nih-ngltf.html

      http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    270. Re:blah by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      As a scientific minded Christian, I believe it may be some of both. The earth has been here much much longer than the propaganda conservative christians promote. I also believe the earth may have been a petri disk for biological experiments (so to speak) before we arrived. Additionally, I recognize intelligent design in our cosmos. There is SO much we cannot possibly understand regarding the true physics of the universe. All we can surmise are unprovable theories based upon observation. This is the way is it. Debate of the unknown is stupid and a waste of time. Just live in the day, one day at a time. Believe whatever makes you happy without infringing the rights and choices of others

      As far as ET goes. I'll reserve judgment until I meet ET. Until then, ET sits on the same shelf as the tooth fairy and santa clause. Fakes are easy to produce and require no proof other than Photoshopped images and/or hearsay.

      So ET, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus all require proof, but God gets the benefit of the doubt? How do you reconcile that? This isn't meant as a flame against religion(a truly pointless endeavor) but as a genuine question.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    271. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I died but kept alive through CPR and later revived.

      P.S. Welcome back!

      I'd also like to express my felicitations to the GP, and would like to emphasise that this world is definitely not an illusory simulation into which he was plugged after his death. Really, not at all.

    272. Re:blah by Kuruk · · Score: 1

      1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      Read Genesis. God created the heavens, the Earth, Man and assorted other critters and varmints. God creating aliens is never mentioned. And the Bible is infallible, so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind. And in the part about Noah's Ark, it is never mentioned that Noah rounded up two aliens.

      2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?

      Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith. Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.

      Well considering religious fools will bend anything to suit want they want to think.

      Whats to say god didn't bother mentioning aliens as they did not apply to life on earth ?

      Then the aliens can be gods creatures too and nuts can go try convert them to save there souls.

    273. Re:blah by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean, but I have no inner turmoil over what seems obvious or possible to me

      If you're referring to raising people from the dead, or walking on water, science cannot explain, but according to eyewitness accounts, someone once did just these things, but only one guy could pull that off and no other has since

      To steal a line from fox news, "We report, you decide" .. Whatever floats your boat

      I have some reporting to do. Enjoy!

      http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    274. Re:blah by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to read into the thoughts of an all-powerful being. You're human, flawed, and sure to fuck it up. You state your opinion like fact, as if you are incapable of being wrong. Wow.

    275. Re:blah by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      Simple people get angry when challenged, but can benefit their country and themselves by being lead using methods that stroke and affirm them.

      You will enjoy this documentary: Politics - The Power of Nightmares

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    276. Re:blah by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The amount of ignorance in that post is simply staggering.

    277. Re:blah by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The vast majority of people find homosexuality objectionable

      Who does? You and your two redneck friends?

      Of people I personally know, none find homosexuality any more objectionable than porn.

      Oh, I guess you find porn objectionable, too. Poor guy.

    278. Re:blah by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You know how you can tell a fanatic on either side of the Rep/Dem (or "left/right", if you're into seriously mislabeling things) US fight?

      He mentions "activist judges".

    279. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yes it fucking does. The old testament is the story of God grooming and purifying a particular race of people all through history so that he could give unmistakable predictions of Jesus' coming from that race and of what he would be like. Then when Jesus did come as predicted, people would be without excuse when they didn't recognise him. It's called prophecy, another one of those magical things that requires having the knowledge of an omniscient being who exists outside of time and whom you don't believe in.

    280. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bible is never claimed to be Standalone complete works of God in the universe. The Bible would have to specifically say something like "On the 7th Day God said "I'm sure glad i didn't make any aliens, and i promise i never well" for Alien presence to truly discredit Biblical scriptures.

    281. Re:blah by celesteh · · Score: 1

      Vegans object to exploiting animals. A human woman who consents to share her milk with an infant is not an exploited animal! Moreover, they would argue that a cow feeding it's calf is similarly not exploited. They would say that a cow is forced to share it's milk. I don't know if this is the best way to look at it, but a cow certainly can't give meaningful consent.

    282. Re:blah by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Sure thing buddy. At least Im not committing any logical fallacies by attacking an argument without any other argument nor any proof. Find the tip of the iceberg that is my proof below. Who is the ignorant one here? Perhaps you should re-examine that. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/13/highereducation.research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_gene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8361863.stm

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    283. Re:blah by NoseyNick · · Score: 1

      If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?

      No, no, you misunderstand. This would destroy one's belief in the church. It was clearly a flying church, which is not a very easy thing to believe, therefore endangering one's belief in it ;-)

      --
      Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>
    284. Re:blah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Try practicing Tai Chi one day. Well, okay, try practicing it for 2 months. That should be around a $150 investment I know... I spent that on a good Kitchen Aid Artisan 325W mixer. Hell, $100 will get you a good full complement of business casual wear (shirt, undershirt, pants, boxers, socks, and a belt) if you catch a discount store. I don't mean WalMart shit, I mean like Land's End or Polo from Sears. So yeah $150 in 2 months is a chunk.

      I always get people talking about how "Martial Arts is useless, because someone stronger is just going to stab/punch you anyway." What usually happens is these are big people who either A) get in a lot of fights, and basically spend a lot of time guarding and trying to get in a punch; or B) were wrestlers in high school, so they're martial artists.

      In case (B) I'm on level ground, lucky I study arts that include grappling; in case (A), though, these people aren't even ready for a guy that's been in Aikido for 3 months. They see an opening, attack, and suddenly they're following their wrist down. After that they're just too wary to commit, so their attacks are easily blocked; but don't grab their arm for another fancy Aikido move, because they'll snap it back with you and bind you. Yeah, 3 months of Aikido doesn't make you an unstoppable ninja.

      Point is I always see people talking about how ridiculous something is for some reason, anything from step aerobics (you're just stepping up and down on a platform, lol, no work, no fat burn!) to martial arts, including meditation or Yoga. Then they refuse to try it because they "know" it's bullshit. They're big, so they can beat up anyone; all that yoga bullshit doesn't do anything, just time wasting.

      It's called "ignorance" I think. I've done things I've later determined ridiculous, and things I've later decided were actually worthwhile despite first impressions. I think I'm a bit better for it.

    285. Re:blah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The existence of the universe relies on a mathematical law that can't possibly exist without a quantum structure to support it. The existence of that universe may have been caused by some being with massive energy-- which, again, the existence of which relies on a mathematical law that can't possibly exist without a quantum structure to support it.

      The universe had an equal chance of not existing as it did of existing; and indeed, an equal chance of not existing as it did of existing, or of being created by some all-powerful thing, or sneezed out of the nose of a giant Aardvark.

    286. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Gays, for example, just want to live normal lives like you and me.

      Define normal. Exactly. If you want to throw around the word, "normal", then by definition, they are "abnormal." But, we all know what you really meant, so who cares.

      Beyond that, to presume gays never force their beliefs on people, unlike all other people, is somehow, magically insane. Gays are no more exempt from intolerance, zealotry, and personal bias than any other group of humanity. If you don't believe this, you've been drinking from the zealot cup of the cult of gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay; my problem is with zealotry. But gays, like many other groups, all have their own zealot cups.

    287. Re:blah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but there is a different (but almost identical) explanation for religious people. The sentence you quoted is the generalization; we can always make it specific (overemphasis on reasoning becoming a belief system versus abject fear of shaking deitific belief system). If we start accusing non-religious, non-spiritual, purely "rational" people of having a "belief system," we need to back it up.

    288. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The problem with many animal studies which attempt to prove homosexuality is that in the animal kingdom, that behavior is frequently one of submissions, force, or just plane feels good. In other words, it would be just as easy to use these same types of studies to prove rape is a justified human behavior; and therefore should be allowed. And no, I'm not advocating that.

      The point being, there are exceedingly few creatures on this planet which are even close to the complex behaviors, social interactions, and emotions to what humans have. Sheep are not one of them. I encourage you to buy lots of salt and use it liberally when reading the sheep study, and other studies like it.

    289. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      God loves everybody.

      Unless your testicles have been crushed or your penis has been cut off. Seriously. Look it up yourself. Its in Deuteronomy, IIRC.

    290. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      ...just something to ponder...

      But if aliens exist, its possible they are responsible for the story of creation. Not all permutations require they be mutually exclusive.

    291. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      And he has that confidence by the faith, sight unseen, he has in the medical research community. Unless you're asserting he has actively sought out the diabetes research community and interviewed them to obtain said confidence. But we both know you're not asserting that.

    292. Re:blah by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Current events. Keep up with them much? Around 70% of Californians (a super majority, or the overwhelming majority) voted on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It's quite possible that I would be in the minority regarding my views on homosexuality, if I found myself among your freinds. But, in the wider population of American citizens, homosexuality is looked down upon.

      Whatever. Go ahead and feel smug and superior, along with that group of friends that you cite.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    293. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [Citation needed] on your demographics, first of all.

      Prop. 8. The vast majority of people know that the meaning of the word "marriage" is fitly described as: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

      Now, do I want to legislate that moral point of view? That is a different question entirely. Not in the least, but the law should still uphold the definition of the word itself. However, separation of church and state exists for this reason: Marriage is a point of religious debate and the state should stay out of it. Yes, you read that correctly. Take marital status out of all of the existing laws. It doesn't belong there. Replace it with the status of a civil union - the civil agreement between any two people to live together for certain tax, health, social, etc. benefits as are currently afforded by law to "married" people, which discriminates against a variety of groups of people who may wish to file joint taxes, etc. (not only homosexual couples, but, for example, two relatives who couldn't marry each other could still benefit from cohabitation and jointly filing).

      You want the legal benefits that are currently associated with marriage? Go to a judge and file the paperwork for a civil union. You want a bona-fide "Marriage", blessed by whatever church you ascribe to? Go to the church. And then go to a judge and get the civil union as well, because your religious Marriage document won't mean diddly squat in the eyes of the law. As it well ought not to. Some churches will hold marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. Some will not. Both will claim that the other is wrong. And what each church claims about the other's marriages won't matter in any legal sense. As well it ought not to.

    294. Re:blah by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      As such, can you truly claim that wars committed to in the name of religion actually follow the tenets of the religion they claim to represent? At the end of the day, if a Christian and a Muslim declare war on each other, aren't they abandoning their faith in the name of conflict?

      Not in their (the one's swinging the swords or pulling the triggers) minds. Granted, it is almost always a perversion of their faith's central tenets, but when that faith has so many vague or even contradictory "words of God" with which to build a desired rationalization, it's easy to satisfy one's self that "God is on our side". It is only when you look at the alleged collection of the "the word of God" as the steaming pile of bullshit that it is that you are freed from having your ego manipulated like that.

      So yeah. I still lay all that suffering right at the feet of religion.

    295. Re:blah by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      To lump all religious belief into "irrational" is both insulting and inflammatory, the kind of inflammatory that creates the kind of reaction that you clearly denounce.

      But it is irrational, and not coincidentally, not at all the same as scientific theory. Throughout the ages, scientists have "believed" lots of things that have, sooner or later, been proved not to be. The difference is in why they believed what they did and what they did with that belief. That difference is all important and it is also the one that religious nuts deliberately fail to grasp every time they use the "...but science has been wrong before..." meme. Go peddle it someplace else.

    296. Re:blah by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      I still lay all that suffering right at the feet of religion.

      How many religions can you name that don't have "don't kill each other" as a central philosophy? How can any of them conflict on that basis?

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    297. Re:blah by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      If they claim it and still claim themselves a Christian, then I can argue that from their own books of faith.

      A lot of what I'm reading here is basically "Religion sucks because human beings act human". Well, everything sucks because human beings act that way. Pretending it's the fault of a concept isn't going to help resolve any of it.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    298. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      It may be common to do that, but that doesn't make the practice accurate.

      You're forgetting some very important facts. Back them illiteracy rates were extremely high. As such, orators were common. That was their job. It was a job they took very seriously. They frequently had various tricks ranging from song, poem, sticks, punch patterns, woven pattern, so on and so, to ensure accuracy of oral history. Basically, in their time, based on the standards of the day, the record in which you are demanding, was met. The truth be told, its more likely a higher degree of inaccuracy exists because of translation errors, which are plentiful, than by loss by orators.

      For example, a common translation error of Noah's Arc says the entire world flooded. The reality is, a completely different word would have been used if they really meant, "world". They documented a massive, regional flood. Furthermore, the real word for, "world", actually is used elsewhere in original texts. And, the word which is commonly mistranslated as "world" is frequently used as, "all surrounding regions and valleys", elsewhere in various texts. But, the fact that this is one of the most obvious, poor translations is frequently ignored because a flood of the world sounds more "biblical" and makes God's power all that more grandiose and unquestionable, than does a very large, regional flood.

      Lastly, you also need to keep in mind, most of the biblical stories exist from multiple authors, all roughly written at roughly the same time. They all document roughly the same stories, varying only slightly in detail. What's considered cannon is more or less the versions which independently confirm each other. As such, if you insist on attacking the credibility of the bible, perhaps you should do it in areas which are well know to actually lack credibility - such as its translations and areas which are omitted because of conflict with other cannon.

      There are, in fact, many stories which have been completely omitted but which the authors themselves, held as part of their core beliefs. And in many cases, direct references still exist within their stories. Which raises the question, how can cannon material, believed in by both the original authors and Jesus himself be excluded from cannon? The Book of Enoch is one such, high profile example.

    299. Re:blah by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that your ignorance shines through in many other areas.

      Maybe, maybe not. Criticise him on something you have evidence for, rather than accusing him of being ignorant just because you assume it.

      Most people follow a faith because it provides them with direction and meaning, not because they necessarily believe everything they are taught.

      But why do they not acknowledge that providing them with direction and meaning doesn't make it true? It seems to me that they really do believe the things they claim.

      I generally support religion for this very reason. Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a little faith.

      We should also teach people about false dichotomies, evidently...

      In what sense do you "support religion"?

      (And nice bit of classism, there. "Yes, we should teach fairy tales, to keep the plebs in line"!)

    300. Re:blah by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Homosexuality is a sin (because relationships based on sexual preference are, naturally, sinful),

      Just like all relationships then, except for those asexual ones.

      And don't forget about the shellfish.

      And what were you doing posting on Slashdot last Sunday?

      The "Christians" you're talking about aren't Christians at all, and it's extremely unfair and short-sighted to assume that all Christians (not to forget Atheists) support such extremist (and un-Godly) views.

      Aside from the No True Scotsman, you just declared homosexuality as sinful. Whilst I'm glad that you're not being as mean as some people, this hardly makes you innocent when you're going around accusing people of being sinful. If you think it would be extremely unfair and short-sighted of me to say, for example, that all Christians were evil, why are you doing that for homosexuality?

    301. Re:blah by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      We already have names for it - consciousness, or self awareness as you used.

      Labelling it a "soul" provides no explanation whatsoever, it's just another label. And it's one that carries connotations, such as the idea of a soul being supernatural, or surviving after death without any physical form.

      Just because we can't explain something, doesn't make any of these myths true, nor do they even constitute explanations.

    302. Re:blah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a little faith.

      The important thing is to keep the proles happy so they don't get ideas above their station, the opium of the people is a wonderful thing indeed.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    303. Re:blah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I was going to ask what gay people were trying to force down your throat. But I can't think of a way to word it that doesn't sound dirty.

      To paraphrase Woody Allen slightly, gay sex is only dirty if you're doing it right.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    304. Re:blah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In fact, here in the heart of vegan country

      What, they've got their own country now? Like Vegania or something?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    305. Re:blah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Homosexuality is a sin (because relationships based on sexual preference are, naturally, sinful)

      I hope that's an unsuccessful attempt at sarcasm, because otherwise you may not have noticed that relationships between men and women are based on sexual preference too.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    306. Re:blah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Although I agree with you, the fact is that most people in the Western world do not work physically hard in cold climates, and so the amount of concentrated energy they need is almost irrelevant.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    307. Re:blah by easterberry · · Score: 1

      Also, homosexuals actually share physical characteristics. I forget where I read the study but it showed that you can actually predict sexual orientation by finger length, the way the hair grows and a few other physical indicators (note: I said PREDICT, not definitively show).

      Another factor is that the sons of women who experience high stress during pregnancy are more likely to be gay.

      Both of these indicate it's a result of chemicals/brain physiology as opposed to upbringing.

    308. Re:blah by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but...
      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
      Fuck you if you think otherwise.

    309. Re:blah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think the joke went over his head. As it were.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    310. Re:blah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't want to flame you, but I really dislike the term "spiritual". It just springs to mind chubby girls pretending to be witches behind their parent's house

      OK, I put on my robe and wizard hat.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    311. Re:blah by jrouleau · · Score: 0

      You ask me How I expect you to refer to people that belive in something other than what your entenched mind believes - How about by keeping your derogatory opinion to yourself.

      How many "delusional" people are there who believe in a "God" - Estimated 2.1 BILLION.

      How many people who belive as you, less than 150 million (atheist / agnostics). If your just undecided then I will be generous and say less than 750 million (Source 1: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) (Source 2: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm)

      So if you do not believe in God or aliens, it is your right but I will point out two things about the scientific credo - 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. So, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe itself has a cause that cannot be detected observationally - the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe contradicts the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Thats why I say crap shoot.

      If you do not see science as an antonym of religion and see science as science then your in a bit of a bind with your own beliefs.

      Now I have cited some more of my sources and yet you havent cited a single one to support your own belief. We may agree to disagree but I find the fact I get modded down and my karma suffers because I do not always follow the mainstream again deplorable. If you do not want to be called out then do not make a statement you can not back - I have now backed my statements. If you choose not to respond then I will just assume you are a coward who spouts off at the mouth and should be discarded as a crackpot as you so eloquently have labeled me.

      Lastly, I believe that based on the article itself Churchhill again did what he thought was right at the time based on how the world viewed things at that time. I do not say aliens do not exist but I can not say that they do either. I guess I will have to take it on "faith" that they may since their is circumstantial evidence linking to that supposed existense.

      Now if I have made myself clear, please feel free to respond in kind and if you want more sources I will be happy to provide them.

    312. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are truly primitive.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    313. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Exercise is great. Believing in supernatural bullshit is not. If you tell me that it just makes you feel good, and it's good exercise, awesome. If you tell me that it has something to do with some mythical energy in your body, that is just bullshit.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    314. Re:blah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      This is contradictory to your previous post, or you simply didn't read the post you were replying to.

    315. Re:blah by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      The problem with many animal studies which attempt to prove homosexuality is that in the animal kingdom, that behavior is frequently one of submissions, force, or just plane feels good.

      I certainly take your point, although I find your suggestion that rape is somehow equivalent to homosexuality both a red herring and a pretty ugly sentiment. This quote is from the article describing the findings of the study:

      "The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes."

      Note that we're talking about males who behave sexually with other males as a primary behavior. I think the study suggests more than a simple behavioral or social hypothesis. Although sheep may not be a perfect analog to humans, in terms of basic brain function and genetic traits we share more than we differ.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    316. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lightening bolt! Lightening bolt!

    317. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it troubling that you're refuting religion with empiricism in the same sentence which you severely misuse the word "theory."

    318. Re:blah by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It’s more like if Catholics started demanding a “Defense of Fish Act”.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    319. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      although I find your suggestion that rape is somehow equivalent to homosexuality

      I made no such assertion. You did, and only you.. You did for the sole purpose of creating your own false herring to contort and make a counter argument.

      The point is, by human standards "rape" and "sexual assault" are common, every day occurrences in the animal world. Period. That's the way things are. Which means, using an animal behavioral standard as justification for human behavior cuts both ways. After all, its natural - animals do it! So if you find compelled to accept these studies then you must also accept behaviors such as rape as an acceptable human behavior. But, using my point, again, my point, its simply best to not accept these studies and ignore them outright because they really are not comparable in the least - its quack science unless you're willing to accept all that comes with it. I'm not! Rape is not acceptable human behavior.

      So which is it? The study is valid and therefore rape (and many other undesirable animalistic traits) is acceptable or the study is best ignored because both implied conclusions are bogus? Again, my point, the conclusions are as bogus as the study.

      Find some other way to make your case without invoking bogus science.

    320. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to religious faith, there is no evidence. Not a single piece. There isn't even a valid hypothesis let alone a theory.

      Actually, there's intellectual and scientific evidence that justifies religion's existence ... maybe not a particular religion, but religion. First: Life cannot come from lifelessness. That's a widely-accepted scientific axiom. It's true enough that we eat canned foods with confidence that nothing "came to life" inside the sealed can and caused the food to rot. So life cannot come from something that is not alive; but our experience gives us pretty convincing evidence that life exists. Logically and inescapably, there exists somewhere in our genealogy a neither living nor non-living (as we understand life) thing that started it all. At this point in the discussion, it's a simple question as to whether that original progenitor was aware of what it was doing when it gave the life-cycle its first spin. If it was aware and intended to create life, we're talking about God. (Truly, in this model, we're talking about a tremendous gap between accepting evidence of such a creator being and justifying much of what religion instigates, but there it is ... evidence to justify the existence of religion.) On the other hand, if that thing wasn't aware it was pooping out "first life", we're probably correct in our pursuit of science as our new religion.

    321. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, any bible scholars out there who can tell us the precise definition of the word translated into "wife" in Genesis 2:24? Is it actually gendered in the original language? Are there any nuances? It may very well define things as clearly as the parent poster thinks it does, but then again, maybe it doesn't. I always find it funny when religious people point to there multiple times retranslated documents and rail on about the precise, exact language and wording used as if they're the absolute infallible law of God. The usual argument they give (aside from outright denial that the bible wasn't originally in English) is that God would not have permitted the bible to be incorrectly translated, even if it can be conclusively proven that it really did mean something different in the previous translation. I suppose the absolute word of God depends on what language you speak.

      That said, I actually agree with you to some degree on the civil union thing. Get government out of the actual marriage business and create a rational system for straight and gay couples, and maybe even polyamorous groups of whatever persuasion (of course, once you get past two, a lot of the special rights and privileges and responsibilities already established warp and break in all sorts of weird ways, not saying it can't be done, but it would be a pretty complex legal framework). Frankly it might be better to break it down even further and address all the rights and responsibilities individually: ordered custody groups for children, clearly defined wills for inheritance after death, clear delineation of property (does that need to be done? Plenty of people who cohabit for a long time and then break up, even with messy legal disputes over ownership of joint property, seem to have less trouble than married couples divorcing even when their lives are just as intertwined probably mostly due to all the legal and cultural overhead of marriage). After taking the government out of it, marriage could then be performed as a religious or secular ceremony that can be performed with or without government sanction, based on the rules of whatever particular religious sect.

    322. Re:blah by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

      Current events. Keep up with them much? Around 70% of Californians (a super majority, or the overwhelming majority) voted on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

      Going to have to call you out on this. The number is 52.3% voting for, which is just over half, not a the overwhelming majority. It can also be said that at least a few of those who voted for it were actually confused, and thought they were voting to affirm gay marriages. Get your shit straight.

    323. Re:blah by jrouleau · · Score: 0

      So no reply except name calling - question answered

    324. Re:blah by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      So which is it? The study is valid and therefore rape (and many other undesirable animalistic traits) is acceptable or the study is best ignored because both implied conclusions are bogus?

      Your claim not to conflate homosexuality with rape are proved false by your remarks. In addition, the false dichotomy of "either rape is good or the study is invalid" demonstrates a logical fallacy and a bad faith argument.

      I will no longer respond in this thread. Best of luck with... all that.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    325. Re:blah by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Your claim not to conflate homosexuality with rape are proved false by your remarks.

      At no point do I conflate homosexuality with rape. I do however, compare animal behaviors, one of which behaviors YOU compare to homosexuality via your study. I then use YOUR comparison to draw a conclusion with available facts. Just because it speaks extremely poorly of your position is not justification to misrepresent the other's position - as you have attempted to do twice now.

      It easy to notice at no point did you attempt to rebut the inescapable conclusion that such comparisons are quackery. Nice hand waving and illogical dismissal, while pathetically attempting to take the high ground. Sad.

      In other words, to paraphrase you, "Your reasonable and logical argument blows my position out of the water. That's not what I wanted to hear. The argument shorts any contrived counter argument I'd like to produce based on quackery-science, such as the herring I originally falsified and hoped you would go for. Therefore I'll pretend I never heard it."

      I will no longer respond in this thread. Best of luck with... all that.

      Lol - right...

    326. Re:blah by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

      some come to faith by evidence

      People come to knowledge by evidence. Faith implies lack of or denial of evidence.

      --
      For great justice.
    327. Re:blah by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Arguments are metaphorically analogous to similies, which grow on trees.

    328. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that you've suggested is that complex patterns are often based on simple first principles.

      I don't disagree with that particular aspect at all.

      But now try to terraform a planet with a functioning biosphere. It isn't going to happen on its own.

      Mars isn't suddenly going to become a habitable planet. Some kind of outside intelligence is required to make it so. Similarly, some kind of intelligence made earth habitable and brought life here. (Yes, brought life here. Spontaneous generation has been proven false for quite some time now. Only life can beget life.)

    329. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      then the insurance company should pay for crimes against nature

      Proof positive what kind of a superstitious nutcase you are. Get an education, read a book (not the Bible please) and learn something. It will make you less of a lunatic. I hope.

    330. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      to presume gays never force their beliefs on people, unlike all other people, is somehow, magically insane

      That is not the assumption made. The statement is that by demanding equal rights gays are forcing their view on others. They are not. Demanding equal rights is not forcing anything on anyone. Denying someone equal rights based on some arbitrary nutcase superstition on the other hand is forcing the nutcase superstitious lifestyle on said individual.

      You are right that a gay person can be as much of a zealot as anyone else, but living according to your sexual orientation is not zealotry.

    331. Re:blah by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Dude, you are trying to somehow justify the fact that you belief that there is a flying invisible troubled father figure in the sky. That is so ridiculous I can't do anything but laugh at you.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    332. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. The government prevents gays from marrying the people they love, while you and I are free to marry.

      Rubbish is right. Nowhere in the laws is love a requirement or even part of marriage. Love is part of a religious sentiment that was used to stop arranged marriages and attempt to keep them working longer. It has transferred onto society to some degree but it is on no way connected to the law. People who do not love each other get married all the time. The law is completely void about love.

      Why do you think I think there is such a law?

      There would need to be a law on this if the law somehow discriminates against someone for the reason of love. There isn't, therefore it doesn't discriminate at all.

      The fact that you don't see that when you say "marriage being between a man and a woman" that is discriminatory by definition.

      Marriage by legal definition is about society at large and the complexities created when people weren't married. There used to be rules about common law marriages to get around some of these problems but those are even being repealed or invalidated so no, nothing is discriminatory at all in that statement.

      But please, if you can explain outside of "because it's what I want or believe" or outside of Just because of "what you said makes you a certain way", then please, present your case. But pointing to what I said as something you disagree with without providing any explanation to back the disagreement just means you are a bigot- not that I'm discriminating or anything.

      Yeah, all judges who limit the powers of the government are activist judges. And you are a fucking communist for demanding the government decide who I can and can not marry as a consenting adult. I hate communists like you who want to give the government unlimited powers.

      Why don't you stick to the points and present an actual case to support your idea instead of turning to insults and attempts to change the subject? The law wasn't made by the government in this case, it was made by the people which inhabit the state. and yes, that's how a democracy- not communism works. and yes, the government has legal jurisdiction of legal processes within it's state. You can marry anyone you want at a church or cult gathering but it will have no legal backing. That's what you want BTW, a marriage with legal backing which by default means the government should be involved.

      Why don't you actually think your arguments out before you make them?

      Correct, and it is a legal maneuver that California tried to arbitrarily limit. Why do we not just ban white men from marrying black women or vice versa. There is no difference right? There would be no discrimination, right? Moron.

      Wow, "Moron" if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. There is no arbitrary to it. It's called what society thinks is normal. And no, it wasn't California that tried to limit it, it was the people in the state of California who voted the measure into law.

      And the difference between stopping a black man and a white women from marrying and stopping two men from marrying is that the black man and white woman are still man and woman. Two men are not. So if you are stopping a black man and a white women from marrying because of their race, then you are discriminating based on race because ordinarily a man and a woman can marry. Now with two gay men, you are stopping them because it's not a man and a woman, so there is not discrimination at all. Even if it was a black man and a white man, there would be no discrimination at all. And they know this which is why it hasn't been brought up. This is because anyone with enough intelligence to simply look around can see the difference in the situations. You don't want equal rights, you want extra rights.

    333. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So in other words, the idea that attraction is genetic is simply an idea at this state right?

      As I said before, I can't find anything on gay being genetic from a creditable source. There is reason for that though, it's because being gay is a preference and all preference is conditioned behavior. Being gay is not a genetic mutation or disease or anything else other then a preference that someone has learned or been conditioned to throughout their life. Now this still doesn't mean it's a choice necessarily as most of the conditioning is probably done well before it can be associated with any actions. Of course acting on that preference is a choice though. But having a preference for the same sex is little to no different for having a preference for redheads or being sexually put off by brunets. It's simply a conditioned behavior.

    334. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confusing hearsay with firsthand eyewitness documentation (the primary and certainly the most reliable method of historical analysis) and self contradiction with multiple perspectives.

    335. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, There is no god, and just about everything that surrounds us is conclusive proof that there is no such thing as a god.

      Regarding why anyone would deny evidence ... that's what religious people do. The only way to believe in a magic flying jew that is his own father is to deny logic, science, and any kind of common sense.

      I can make random statements too:

      There is a god, and just about everything that surrounds us is conclusive proof that there is such a thing as god. Regarding why anyone would deny evidence ... that's what non-religious people do.

      Honestly! It's amazing how conversation between supposedly open-minded people degenerate into random bigotry when it comes to religion.

      (note: I'm not sure that there is a god, but I'm willing to accept that there may be one)

      Last minute addition: I was just asked to enter the captcha word, 'almighty' to prove that I was a human. He works in mysterious ways, etc.

    336. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Except in this case. activist judges is a correct and proper term. The judge went out and found his own evidence to support his ruling and his ruling focused on argument that weren't pertaining to laws or legal procedures already established and on the books long before this was an issue before him. This judge also ignored legal rules and allowed the video transmission of statements of the plaintiffs to be broadcast live in an attempt to give national exposure to their side of the argument.

      If you want to ignore fact and make an ideological declaration, then fine. but that doesn't make you correct.

    337. Re:blah by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>You don't have to "choose" anything when you are faced with an unknown.

      Read the Will to Believe (http://books.google.com/books?id=6OAWAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA327#v=onepage&q&f=false)

      Sometimes you don't. I don't have to choose whether or not I think your favorite color of roses is red or white. But if I'm buying flowers for my wife, all of a sudden I *am* forced to choose, and without enough evidence to really satisfy me.

      Believing in God (or any moral code for that matter) *is* a forced decision. You make moral choices many times every day, and you can't abstain from them. And abstaining from believing in God (or actively belittling him, as most atheists do inside the Slashdot groupthink) is also a decision.

    338. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 1

      "So in other words, the idea that attraction is genetic is simply an idea at this state right?"

      Wow, how did you get that from what I said?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    339. Re:blah by Mushukyou · · Score: 1

      >>Believing in God (or any moral code for that matter) *is* a forced decision. You make moral choices many times every day, and you can't abstain from them. And abstaining from believing in God (or actively belittling him, as most atheists do inside the Slashdot groupthink) is also a decision. It's not a conscious decision to believe or not believe in a god. It's done by your subconscious, which can only use the information and your intelligence to render a decision. The more you educate your brain, the less likely you are to believe in a god or other silly things. Actually, everyone is born an atheist, so no, again you are wrong on it being any type of a conscious decision. Gods are stupid and your belief in them should be ridiculed at every turn.

    340. Re:blah by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The funny thing about your "advice", is that I've been an avid reader all my life. Hey, I've got an idea. YOU READ. And, try to read outside of the liberal/progressive "preferred reading list" of indoctrination materials.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    341. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The law is completely void about love...

      Sigh...

      Is it the business of the government who marries as long as they are consenting adults? Why? Marriage is a legal contract, nothing else. It has nothing to do with religion. As long as the government allows one person to marry whomever they please and deny someone else in a systematic manner, that is - per definition - discrimination based on the background of that systematic manner. Is the government allowed to discriminate based on gender?

      turning to insults

      When someone wants to turn the power over the individual to the federal government they are most often a communist. More rarely a fascist. You want to turn power over the individual to the government and I therefore assumed you were a communist. I don't like communists. If I was wrong and you are a fascist, I am slightly sorry - though the slightly is only as slightly as the difference between fascism and communism is.

      It's called what society thinks is normal

      Yes, and society thought that slavery was normal. Society thought that women not voting was normal. Society thought that women preaching that birth control should be legal belonged in jail, and society jailed a lot of these people. Thankfully we have a constitution that keeps the morons in society in check to the degree it is possible. The constitution prevents discrimination as codified in proposition 8. For those of us who thinks that the constitution is a worth-while document, it is therefore good that the moron activists in California were put in their place by someone with a functioning brain and the ability to read the constitution.

      if you are stopping a black man and a white women from marrying because of their race, then you are discriminating based on race

      and if you stop a man from marrying a man then you discriminate both on arbitrary moral superstition and also based on gender.

      You don't want equal rights, you want extra rights

      The only right requested is the right to marry whatever consenting adult one pleases without the interference from the government. Since when was the government allowed to determine whom someone can marry? Please explain how that fits into the constitution. Remember, the constitution strongly limits the governments right to interfere in private lives.

    342. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      try to read outside of the liberal/progressive "preferred reading list"

      Sigh. Why is it that the new Repugnicans are so fucking retarded? What on earth makes you think I am a liberal/progressive in the way you normally define those? I argue for limitations to the power of the government. I argue for following the constitution of the USofA. Since when was that arguments you heard from the left? Retard!

      I am one of those very, very few people in the world who would normally vote Republican but are now refraining to do so since the new crowd took over. The crowd that grew the federal government at a pace this country has hardly ever seen before. Given the pace the federal government grew with during the Bush era, there is only one way to describe his government: Pure socialist.

      The difference between a socialist state and a capitalist state is in economics. The doubling of the federal government, and that is what we would have gotten if the Bush growth had continued for another four years, is a socialist move. Obama is not any better nor is he any worse. Sadly he does not have the ability to fix the problems he inherited, and he is going to continue to do harm.

      To the subject: The constitution limits the powers of the government. Among other things it limits its ability to discriminate. Two consenting adults can not be discriminated against for any reason whatsoever. The constitution gives gays the right to marry. Sadly socialists like you and your pal G. W. Bush wants to seriously expand the powers and size of the federal government.

      If you are still an avid reader, try to learn what the constitution is. Then try to learn why it limits the power of government. After that you can try to learn why a huge federal growth is socialism. After that you can try to find out which presidents in our history grew the federal government the most. Finally you can try to explain why it took a Democrat (that I did not vote for) to actually shrink the federal government and balance a horrendously unbalanced federal budget he inherited from a Republican.

    343. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You essentially said you heard it somewhere but can't reproduce where. I said I can't find any creditable links which in fact suggests that someone told you that without creditable sources backing it up, and somehow you believed it (you may have been operating under the impression they were a creditable source like a teacher or something). In other words, if it was real, one of the two of us would have found something by now.

      Now another poster displayed some things in animals which suggest genetic mutations might be behind it. But as far as I know, these studies turn out to be vapid when looked at in humans. Or in other words, the genetic defects in animals that they are attempting to associate with being gay are not recreated in humans who claim to be gay.

    344. Re:blah by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You make the same mistake repeatedly in your post. You ASSume that I'm a republican, and make repeated attempts to slash at me based on that ASSumption.

      I'm obviously not a liberal or a progressive, but neither am I a neocon or a republican. Fact is, I voted for Obama. That vote was cast mostly because I thought McCain was a tool of the neoconservatives, and that the neocon crowd might persuade McCain to get the United States involved in yet another war somewhere. My vote was NOT a vote for the liberal party's agenda, but a vote against the corrupt neoconservative policies.

      If you wish to address me, you'll have to stop addressing some imagined image of a repugnitard.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    345. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Is it the business of the government who marries as long as they are consenting adults? Why? Marriage is a legal contract, nothing else. It has nothing to do with religion. As long as the government allows one person to marry whomever they please and deny someone else in a systematic manner, that is - per definition - discrimination based on the background of that systematic manner. Is the government allowed to discriminate based on gender?

      Lol.. I'm not arguing that the law is right or wrong, I'm saying that it's not discrimination. And yes, if it's a legal contract, I would guess it's the business of the government to regulate them as they regulate all legal contracts. Now they have not denied a gay man from marrying a women or even a gay woman. There is no discrimination going on at all. You are attempting to apply something completely outside the law to the law then claim it doesn't apply in order to show the discrimination. Well, you are jumping through too many hoops to make your point. Two men not being able to marry is not discriminating the same way as a black man and a white man not being able to marry is totally different from a black man and a white woman. Only the last is discriminatory.

      When someone wants to turn the power over the individual to the federal government they are most often a communist. More rarely a fascist. You want to turn power over the individual to the government and I therefore assumed you were a communist. I don't like communists. If I was wrong and you are a fascist, I am slightly sorry - though the slightly is only as slightly as the difference between fascism and communism is.Man, you are confused about a lot of things here. First, no one is wanting to turn the power over to anyone- especially the federal government. Marriage is already a matter of the states and has been since the conception of this country or before. So no one is turning power over to anyone, they are just wanting to keep things the way they already are. And to that point, it was the public who made the rule in California, not the federal government or anyone like that. That's not communism or fascism. Fuck, you couldn't even get the competent jurisdiction right in this so why am I even pretending you will understand that?

      and if you stop a man from marrying a man then you discriminate both on arbitrary moral superstition and also based on gender.

      No you do not. Where is the discrimination and how does the law discriminate. Any man has the same right to marry a woman as any man does. The law says someone of one sex can marry someone of the other sex, not that some people can get married while other can't. Nothing is stopping a gay man from getting married except his preference to marry the same sex. And that's his "choice", not the law's. It's not discrimination simply because the law doesn't allow you to do something you want to do. Fuck, I want to set fireworks off in my own backyard but that's illegal in my state, is that discriminatory? I mean they let cities and large events do it. Why does the law need to be involved in me setting off fireworks? Are people that support the ban on residents setting off their own fireworks communists or fascist?

      The only right requested is the right to marry whatever consenting adult one pleases without the interference from the government. Since when was the government allowed to determine whom someone can marry? Please explain how that fits into the constitution. Remember, the constitution strongly limits the governments right to interfere in private lives.

      Actually, why don't you explain how the constitution prevents the government from doing so? I mean the constitution does three things, it gives the government a limited set of powers, it explicitly restricts the government from certain actions, and it explicitly reserves everything else for the states or the people respectivel

    346. Re:blah by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Amazing? How many times did you just contradict yourself? Could I get permission to use your post on IIDB? I think it'll lay to rest once and for all the debate that atheists have rationality on their side.

      >>It's not a conscious decision to believe or not believe in a god. It's done by your subconscious

      >>The more you educate your brain, the less likely you are to believe in a god

      >>Actually, everyone is born an atheist

      You also should really learn how to format your posts before making an idiot of yourself. While you'll still be just as wrong, you won't look nearly so much like the mouth breather you may or may not be.

    347. Re:blah by Mushukyou · · Score: 1

      >>Amazing? How many times did you just contradict yourself? Could I get permission to use your post on IIDB? I think it'll lay to rest once and for all the debate that atheists have rationality on their side.

      Apparently you have an inability to read correctly.

      >>It's not a conscious decision to believe or not believe in a god. It's done by your subconscious

      >>The more you educate your brain, the less likely you are to believe in a god

      >>Actually, everyone is born an atheist

      Tell me, how do *ANY* of those contradict each other?
      I ...didn't think so. Read and re-read again and then read and re-read your posts before you post them. Seriously, dude.

      >>You also should really learn how to format your posts before making an idiot of yourself. While you'll still be just as wrong, you won't look nearly so much like the mouth breather you may or may not be.

      Ok, formatting taken care of. I thought it would do the spacing itself. However, you still are the one that looks like an idiot since you THOUGHT it was obvious I contradicted myself by the simple fact that you only quoted what I typed, thinking that would be good enough ..but it wasn't, so we are all wondering what the hell you're talking about. Idiot.

    348. Re:blah by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Oops, typo. The last sentence should refer to a Muslim who believes that the Quran confirms the existence of aliens.

    349. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. There are also no animals who can breathe fire as the Leviathan is described to be able to either (the bombadier beetle doesn't actually _breath_ fire and is a lot smaller than the leviathan is usually described).

    350. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 1

      You think a teacher would be a credable source for information on genetics??? The only friends I've had who're teachers are generally pretty mental, so no I hold somewhat higher standards what for what I consider a "credable source" than a teacher.

      "You essentially said you heard it somewhere but can't reproduce where"

      I read it in a publication some 2-3 years ago, so no, I can't produce it here. Sorry, but if it was that important, you should have asked me 2-3 years ago when I had my hands on it.

      "genetic defects"

      Why do you think it must be a 'defect' for there to be genetic causes behind favouring an attraction to one gender over another? Do you think sexual attraction is not a result of evolution?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    351. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You think a teacher would be a credable source for information on genetics??? The only friends I've had who're teachers are generally pretty mental, so no I hold somewhat higher standards what for what I consider a "credable source" than a teacher.

      I was just tossing ideas out there.

      I read it in a publication some 2-3 years ago, so no, I can't produce it here. Sorry, but if it was that important, you should have asked me 2-3 years ago when I had my hands on it.

      I would imagine if it was a creditable study, others would be repeating it or echoing what it says. I should at least be able to find a link to it or something that points me in the right direction. Perhaps it was something pointed out that they were going to look further into and didn't find anything interesting. As far and finding you 2-3 years ago, well, you mentioned it today and I find it hard to believe today. I guess you can see where that was going.

      Why do you think it must be a 'defect' for there to be genetic causes behind favouring an attraction to one gender over another? Do you think sexual attraction is not a result of evolution?

      Well, it's logical in evolution and social behavior. If something happens that suppresses the reproduction of itself, then it's a defect. Changing the genetics to make someone not procreate is natures way of saying die off. Now on the flip side, we understand nature and evolution to work a certain way and have become accustom to what we know to be the norm. So if something is genetically different, it would be a defect, especially when it retards the ability to spread. That's the beauty of evolution. If something comes along that is a colossal failure in improving the life that evolved, it simply dies off. Sometimes it doesn't, but in this case, a gene mutation that stops someone from procreating and passing the gene onto offspring would basically be a self terminating mutation.

      The interesting thing is that if it's real and not natures way of killing off a particular gene pool, then it is probably caused by environmental influences which would still make it a defect, but go along the lines of conditioned behavior too.

    352. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about the ability to "see across time". You'd have to be clearer about what you mean. As far as I can tell, everyone can "see across time" to a certain degree. As for changing energy to matter and vice versa, you must have missed the last half century or so of physics.

    353. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's because he didn't want his daughter to hear "THAT WORD". It has nothing to do with him not wanting his daughter to be forced to pray against her beliefs every day in school.

    354. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 1

      So you do think sexual attraction is the result of evolution?

      My brain certainly seems to be wired up to respond to certain thoughts or images in a certain way and has been since I've been able to keep my memories (ie, around age 3). Attraction to females has been there since at least then (I obviously cannot speak of before). We know that we all basically start off the same (which is why dudes have nips etc) and it's not til we create our hormone flooding organs that our bodies start to morph one way or another. We know this because it's not unheard of for somebody to be male, but resistent to (or inaffected by) testosterone, and so develop the body and mind of a female... while still having testicles rather than ovaries.

      Now I certainly have met females who have gone at least bi-Q after experiencing sexual abuse especially during the early teen years, but the level of attraction is just not the same as in somebody who is "born that way". So while I'm not disregarding non-genetic causes, I don't think their existence rules out the possibility of genetic causes, whether there's any truth to things like Xq28 results, correlations with left-handed people, cochnia structures in lesbians, ridges on the fingers of homo/hetrosexual males, INAH-3 neuron counts, or whether they're just coincidences depending on the sample, which is hardly surprising, considering that genes do different things in the presence or absence of others. I've certainly seen no evidence to suggest that sexuality is learned, yet all experience and external evidence I've seen supports the idea that it's built in... which means genetic.

      I still don't see it as being a defect, many homosexual people go on to have children, in a "monkey see, monkey do" kinda way, but may perhaps only ever be as happy with their partner as anybody else who has "settled". Being homosexual doesn't stop you from wanting children, and doesn't stop you from doing what it takes have children, so no, I still don't see how you can justify calling it a 'defect' either.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    355. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      If it walks like... and talks like...

    356. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      There is no discrimination going on at all.

      I would recommend you read up on the word discrimination:
      Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category

      Here is a class of people defined by "Want to marry a same-gender person". Simple definition. That group is being discriminated against. Simple.

      Any man has the same right to marry a woman as any man does

      Sigh. The group of people who fall under the category "would like to marry a same-gender person", and this is a well-defined group, are not allowed to marry whomever they like (consenting adults apply). SCOTUS has long since stated that marriage to the person you want to marry is an inalienable right.

      It's not discrimination simply because the law doesn't allow you to do something you want to do

      It is once that is directed at a group or category of people.

      Why does the law need to be involved in me setting off fireworks?

      The law forbids you from doing that for the same reason it forbids you from driving drunk or at 200mph. Your behavior is a danger to others and statistically such behavior will harm innocents. Don't be obtuse. You are not denied this right because it seems offensive to some superstitious idiot.

      explain how the constitution prevents the government from doing so?

      That is actually quite easy. Again, we define a group of people by the property "want to marry a same-gender person". This is a very straightforward definition and easy to understand. The state of California has approximately 1,100 legal and economic benefits that are only given to married couples. A group defined as above are denied those benefits based on nothing but the definition of the group.

      Now, it can actually be even easier than that. If you ask any person in the US they would most likely agree that attempting and succeeding at marriage of a person one loves is part of "the pursuit of happiness". Such pursuit of happiness harms nobody, as opposed to the pursuit of happiness based on, for example, killing people (if that makes one happy). What was it those words said again:
      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

      Now, the statement above was later expanded upon in the 14th amendment. Since California gives people who marry an opposite-gender person 1,100 specific rights and protections, those are denied to any person defined as "would like to marry a same-gender person". no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

      Legally then, the only thing that needs to be clarified is whether the exclusion of the group defined as "would like to marry a same-gender person" from the law is rational. This is why, for example, the group of people defined as "would like to kill lots of people" are denied their basic rights of pursuit of happiness. Nobody has ever been able to put forward a rational claim that the group as defined above should be denied their basic rights under the US constitution.

      For all of these reasons Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Interestingly if the ruling stands it will be possible to use it as an argument that all state law must pass the rational basis test. I am not sure the current SCOTUS is willing to go that far, several of them are utterly irrational.

    357. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I forgot this one:

      Well, it was the people of a state who voted in a state law. Seems to me that is in line with the constitution

      With a 52% majority. Thankfully there is lots of legal precedence in such cases. Let us examine Prop 14.

      As Ronald Reagan (a prop 14 spokesperson) summed it up: If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house he has a right to do so

      60% of Californians agreed with him. So, the people of California struck down a federal requirement that no such discrimination could take place.

      Please note, I am not arguing that Prop 8 and Prop 14 are the same, discrimination based on race and sexual preference is not entirely the same. I am only arguing against the "people's will" aspect. The peoples will was, in the US overwhelmingly so (more than 70%), that one should be allowed to enact such discrimination. SCOTUS disagreed and told the people they were irrational bigots and should go fuck them selves.

      But hey, go ahead and show me where 200 years of history

      History is utterly irrelevant in law. Why even bring it up? As Kennedy said when SCOTUS struck down laws about same-gender sex, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress". SCOTUS deals with rationalism and what is, not "what has always been". Going by your argument, property rights would still trump individual rights (as it did for quite some time in the US) and slavery would still be legal.

    358. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you do think sexual attraction is the result of evolution?

      No, sexual attraction is conditioned behavior. As I attempted to mention before, if it was a result of evolution, it would have died out as it contains it's own mechanism for destruction eg, no reproduction.

      My brain certainly seems to be wired up to respond to certain thoughts or images in a certain way and has been since I've been able to keep my memories (ie, around age 3). Attraction to females has been there since at least then (I obviously cannot speak of before). We know that we all basically start off the same (which is why dudes have nips etc) and it's not til we create our hormone flooding organs that our bodies start to morph one way or another. We know this because it's not unheard of for somebody to be male, but resistent to (or inaffected by) testosterone, and so develop the body and mind of a female... while still having testicles rather than ovaries.

      Well, let me ask you this, are there any types of females other then those that remind you of your mother that you are either more attracted to or put off by? And in that, are there any females such as a 700 pound fat greasy girl stuffing her face with bon-bons (not sure if that's work safe-no nudity) that you simply do not think you could get it up for? Is that genetic or conditioned behavior? Does doing it in public make you get off harder then behind closed doors or is there a favorite way of doing it?

      Seriously, we are trained from the very beginning of life to know what we like and don't like. It's really a monkey see monkey do situation with the exception of perversion. It may not be as obvious and our imagination supplements a lot of it, but it's behavior we are talking about, not irresistible urges. Some people are more attracted to redheads, some like fat girls, some like blonds. If you ever went to church to get laid, you would know the wildest girl in the room would be the preacher's daughter. It's because the rebellion and doing what was drilled into her not to do excites the feelings when doing it. Take a kid and a candy bar. Sure, the sugar makes it enjoyable but it's mostly because the kid can't have one all the time that they want it the most. If the kid got one every hours, they wouldn't be as excited to have them.

      Now I certainly have met females who have gone at least bi-Q after experiencing sexual abuse especially during the early teen years, but the level of attraction is just not the same as in somebody who is "born that way". So while I'm not disregarding non-genetic causes, I don't think their existence rules out the possibility of genetic causes, whether there's any truth to things like Xq28 results, correlations with left-handed people, cochnia structures in lesbians, ridges on the fingers of homo/hetrosexual males, INAH-3 neuron counts, or whether they're just coincidences depending on the sample, which is hardly surprising, considering that genes do different things in the presence or absence of others. I've certainly seen no evidence to suggest that sexuality is learned, yet all experience and external evidence I've seen supports the idea that it's built in... which means genetic.

      First, no one is born gay or straight. They either consciously or subconsciously make the decision through a process of conditioned behavior. Now, I'm not saying it's always a choice to them, they may simply not be aware of the conditioning. And of course, someone who subconsciously makes the turn will probably have stronger feelings then someone who consciously makes the decision, especially if it was because of a bad situation like sexual abuse.

      The possibility of sexual preference being genetic doesn't mean it is either. It like claiming there is a god, there might be, but we haven't proven or disproved it yet and in most cases, we can't even test. But I thin

    359. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I would recommend you read up on the word discrimination:
      Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category

      Here is a class of people defined by "Want to marry a same-gender person". Simple definition. That group is being discriminated against. Simple.

      And I would recomend that you stop inventing classes of people in order to support your own ideals. The law does not stop anyone who wants to marry someone of the same gender from getting married. It stops them from marrying someone of the same gender. That's where your discrimination falls apart. It does nothing to prevent them from getting married, it only prevents them from what they want to do. But guess what, all laws prevent people from doing something legally, should we take your same illogical conclusions and apply it to pedophiles or shoplifters? I mean is it discrimination for it to be illegal for "people who want to take things from stores without paying for them" (yea, that's the made up class)? What about people who want to marry 6 year old kids? That's a class right? Or how about the people, and there are a bunch of them, that want to drink then drive? Is that discrimination too? Show all the DUI laws and Petty theft laws be thrown out under the same made up argument? Sure, petty theft causes harm to others, DUI's don't unless you are in a wreck of some sort. So should the only way someone should be charged with a DUI be if they cause harm or damage to someone else? I mean otherwise, it's discrimination and should be overturned according to your definition and applied logic.

      Sigh. The group of people who fall under the category "would like to marry a same-gender person", and this is a well-defined group, are not allowed to marry whomever they like (consenting adults apply). SCOTUS has long since stated that marriage to the person you want to marry is an inalienable right.

      As I mentioned before, the law doesn't stop them from getting married. It stops them from marrying each other. Read the above again, and yes, DUI offenders are a well defined group too. You don't want equal treatment, you want special treatment based on your own preferences.

      It is once that is directed at a group or category of people.

      Like the DUI laws right? I mean when two people go to the bar and suck down 10 drinks each and the law stops them from driving but doesn't stop joe blow who has had only one drink, that's discrimination right? and yes, there are people with such a tolerance of alcohol that they can drive reasonably safe after 10 drinks.

      That is actually quite easy. Again, we define a group of people by the property "want to marry a same-gender person". This is a very straightforward definition and easy to understand. The state of California has approximately 1,100 legal and economic benefits that are only given to married couples. A group defined as above are denied those benefits based on nothing but the definition of the group.

      Lol this is laughable. OK, lets play the game then. You still haven't shown where the constitution says anything about it. and you are still ignoring the fact that the law simple does not stop them from getting married, it only stops them from marrying someone of the same sex.

      But lets see, lets define a couple other groups and call them "people who don't want to get married but are living with someone". Lets define another group and call them "people who want the advantages of being married without having a spouse or partner". Lets define more groups and call them "people who want welfare but make too much money" and "people who want to drink and drive over the legal limit". Oh yea, one more group needs to be defined, "people who think people like you are extremely stupid and want to castra

    360. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      With a 52% majority. Thankfully there is lots of legal precedence in such cases. Let us examine Prop 14.

      As Ronald Reagan (a prop 14 spokesperson) summed it up: If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house he has a right to do so

      60% of Californians agreed with him. So, the people of California struck down a federal requirement that no such discrimination could take place.,/blockquote>Actually, it was 65% of the population approving it, Ronald Reagan apposed it so your characterization is not only out of line, like much of everything else you mentioned, it out of touch with reality, and finally, pro14 was ruled in violation of the 14th amendment because it's purpose was to allow property owners to refuse to sell or rent to people based on race, ethnicity, or other factors already outlawed. You have yet to show discrimination in the marriage law being between a man and a woman. as noted before, a gay man wanting to marry another gay man can in fact marry anyone of the opposite sex. At best, you have showed that it doesn't allow you to do what you want to do, but laws are generally like that anyways.

      History is utterly irrelevant in law. Why even bring it up? As Kennedy said when SCOTUS struck down laws about same-gender sex, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress". SCOTUS deals with rationalism and what is, not "what has always been". Going by your argument, property rights would still trump individual rights (as it did for quite some time in the US) and slavery would still be legal.

      History is completely relevent. You are the one who brought the context up anyways. You said "Since when was the government allowed to determine whom someone can marry?" I gave that all throughout history, this has been the case. Now that you got the answer and don't like it, you think it's irrelevant?

      SCOTUS deals with matters of constitutionality and whether or not the power to regulate is present. They do not, and never were intended to be the playground bully allowing certain people to bribe them into forcing others into making Baseball fair for the people who can't hit the fucking ball. They are not your mom with the intent of making your feelings stop hurting or to make the neighbor kids play nice. What they are there for is to decide conflicts of law, settle disagreements between courts on the same, and to validate the powers of the government with their constitutional endowments or restrictions. If it were as you said, then the birthers wouldn't have had their case thrown out and Obama would have had to provide a valid birth certificate by now. But they aren't what you pretend they are, your claim on constitutionality isn't even the constitution (pursuit of happiness), and the law doesn't discriminate against anyone as the people claiming to be effected can in fact participate if they follow the law in the same way that someone drive a car has to get a license- they can in fact marry a person of the opposite gender at any time.

    361. Re:blah by x2A · · Score: 1

      Okay I got stuck on the very first thing you said... sexual attraction is the very thing that makes us reproduce... I get sexually attracted to a girl, we do "stuff", and she ends up pregnant... you think that sexual attraction results in no reproduction??? In what world??

      "someone who consciously makes the decision, especially if it was because of a bad situation like sexual abuse"

      You do know you're talking absolute crap don't you? A conscious decision? Do you have any experience of the world and people in it??

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    362. Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fossil history is incomplete because of hitler hating the homosexuals.

      this is not god v no god.

      Churchill accused of Sealing UFO files.......

    363. Re:blah by volpe · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I don't buy it that Churchill actually made the church quote. Until someone proves differently, I think someone pulled that out of their ass.

      A quote from a recent Slashdot post seems particularly apropos:

      "I'll wager that a countryman's half of all Churchill quotations are fictions, dream'd up on a whim to aid the malarkinations of sophists and deceivers. I for one have never met the fucker, and know not one man of good sense who hath."

              -- Thomas Jefferson

    364. Re:blah by volpe · · Score: 1

      Fermatification?

    365. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      should we take your same illogical conclusions and apply it to pedophiles or shoplifters

      This is a comment proving to the world that you are mentally retarded. For a wide number of reasons. Number one is that I covered it in what I wrote. Number two because it is just plain fucking stupid. If you want to argue something, don't turn on your moron mode first. If you don't understand what "consenting adults" mean, please ask an adult. In the mean time, go back to first grade and get an education.

      The law doesn't stop people who want to marry someone of the same gender from marrying, it only makes them marry someone of an opposite gender

      BZZZZT! Wrong. It stops them from marrying the person they want to. Now, before you come dragging with your moronic arguments about pigs or underage children or shoplifting or something equally asinine and infantile, try to look up the concept of "consenting adults".

      does that mean all DUI laws should be invalidated

      Grow up please.

      Actually, prop 8 isn't unconstitutional as it's always been within the preview of the state to regulate legal contracts and that's essentially what marriage is

      It seems the legal experts disagree with you on this one, and since you can't possibly, at age thirteen, have much of a law degree, I think I'll listen to them a little more than you.

      The judge in this case ignored evidence

      Elaborate please.

    366. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing about Prop 8 is that it, as Prop 22, has already bee struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. So... who are better at determining the constitutionality of this, the California Supreme Court or you?

    367. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Okay I got stuck on the very first thing you said... sexual attraction is the very thing that makes us reproduce... I get sexually attracted to a girl, we do "stuff", and she ends up pregnant... you think that sexual attraction results in no reproduction??? In what world??

      I don't believe I said sexual attraction doesn't make us reproduce, I said the built in kill switch for a "gay evolutionary principle" is the inability to reproduce when your sexual attraction limits you to same sex couples .

      You do know you're talking absolute crap don't you? A conscious decision? Do you have any experience of the world and people in it??

      Are you just trolling? You said

      Now I certainly have met females who have gone at least bi-Q after experiencing sexual abuse especially during the early teen years, but the level of attraction is just not the same as in somebody who is "born that way".

      SO are you saying that someone never ever chooses to be gay? Even after you suggest that people have turned gay after experiencing sexual abuse as a teen? I know people who are gay simply because it gets them off. They choose to be gay and admit it. This anecdotal evidence alone would probably be enough to show you are the one full of something without explaining how you failed in taking my comment out of context.

      I also like the way you only quoted part of what I said, that full quote should need no explanation and you shouldn't be there scratching your head, but here it is anyways, I said:

      And of course, someone who subconsciously makes the turn will probably have stronger feelings then someone who consciously makes the decision, especially if it was because of a bad situation like sexual abuse.

      And if you looks at the paragraph I quoted from your post, you would specifically see that I was referring to the idea of not being born defective but being swayed into the direction of being from influences. And I acknowledge your proposition that people who purposely become gay or turn gay after traumatizing experiences do not have the same satisfaction as someone who is gay because of a subconscious underlying.

    368. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, I remembered that and actually read the decision. Many legal scholors have read it and commented on it too. Just like this judge did, the CSC went off the rule of law and into lala land to back up most of their stance. If you read the decent on it, you would find that judges on the CSC were horrified in what the majority actually did which is why prop 8 took it out of their hands.

      Now the interesting thing is, the SCOTUS is not stacked with a bunch of loons yet. Outside of this last nominee who might go against pro 8 or even recuse herself because of prior involvement just because she wants to show how fair or impartial she is being gay and all, the SCOTUS is not stacked with a bunch of loons that make shit up out of thin air and ignore existing rules of law.

      But hey, watch and see, feel free to build your hopes up on a dieing and unqualified position just to see them shattered faster then a baseball moving through a closed window. I don't really care if you are disappointment, I just know the ruling as it stands will not pass further scrutiny and was a ploy to gain attention to the fight.

    369. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      This is a comment proving to the world that you are mentally retarded. For a wide number of reasons. Number one is that I covered it in what I wrote. Number two because it is just plain fucking stupid. If you want to argue something, don't turn on your moron mode first. If you don't understand what "consenting adults" mean, please ask an adult. In the mean time, go back to first grade and get an education.

      I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that your argument falls apart very rapidly when it's sided on anything else. SO you found just one of the multiple arguments I transposed onto your premise to find problems with, well, boo hoo for you.

      BZZZZT! Wrong. It stops them from marrying the person they want to. Now, before you come dragging with your moronic arguments about pigs or underage children or shoplifting or something equally asinine and infantile, try to look up the concept of "consenting adults".

      Many laws stop people from doing what they want. Why is that such a big problem for you to understand? Speeding laws stop you from speeding, even on an isolated road that is a flat straight stretch with only road signs and a photo radar gun on it. Are speed limits unconstitutional? And yes, with the drinking and driving and the speeding, it all involves consenting adults and nothing more. So to sit there and pretend that it somehow makes it more important or somehow more anything is a tad bit fucking stupid. The state has the right to regular the speed limit of a road, the state has the right to regulate marriage. And nothing in the law says you can marry anyone you want, it says you can only marry someone of the opposite sex. Your argument holds water like a pasta strainer.

      Grow up please.

      Actually, why don't you address the point? I mean your logic as stated can be applied to anything, why do I need to grow up when you can't cope with the failings of your logic? Does the state have some inherent right to regulate how much a free person can be intoxicated while driving if that person doesn't cause any harm to anyone else but for some reason not the right to regulate marriage in which it has been regulating since it's inception? Quit avoiding the question.

      It seems the legal experts disagree with you on this one, and since you can't possibly, at age thirteen, have much of a law degree, I think I'll listen to them a little more than you.

      There you go showing everyone what the entire problem here is. You see, you assume things that have no basis in reality that you somehow pulled out of thin air, ignore the actual questions before you, then attempt to appear sly by making what you think are witty comments. This is what the judge did in this case too, and it's the reason why the entire thing is going to collapse on further review.

      Elaborate please.

      I don't have time in this post but I will report to you in a day or so with the information. But be forewarned, I'm also going to point out where he ignore established laws, rules of the court and proceedings, introduced his own evidence for one side of the argument too. And if you want to argue it, you will need to argue it all.

    370. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Are you jockeying for a position in Klan leadership?

    371. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And what would make you say that? Just because I support the rule of established law and don't cow-tail to your agenda doesn't mean I hate or dislike anything about you, your agenda, or anyone/anything else. There is right and wrong and right now, the established rule of law is right. If we can bend the rules in order to get your pet project through, then anyone can bend the rules to get theirs through. That's not right and no amount of saying it won't happen again will make it so.

    372. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Let's try to take this from the start.

      What is the rational basis the government can use to prevent Jack from marrying Joe? Please elaborate, and try to stay away from moronic "marry a pig", "marry a child" arguments. If you do not understand why they are moronic, look up the concept "consenting adults" somewhere, or have an adult explain it to you.

      Why is preventing Joe from marrying Jack (when marriage has long since been defined as a fundamental right) not an undue limitation on the pursuit of happiness that Joe is entitled to by the work of the founding fathers? Who, other than Joe, defines what makes Joe happy?

      the established rule of law is right

      This is pure and utter rubbish. An enormous amount of "established rule of law" have been found to be unconstitutional.

      bend the rules

      In the same way the civil rights movement had to bend the rules to allow African Americans to ride the bus.

      All US law is subject to constitutional scrutiny, and this law doesn't pass. There is no rational basis for denying Jack the (SCOTUS defined) inalienable right to marry whomever he pleases. Again, please show us where SCOTUS limits that right in any way between consenting adults.

    373. Re:blah by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      In what way?

      The religious fundie will blow you up, whereas the fiery atheist will, at worst, mock your beliefs.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    374. Re:blah by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      True, but some come to faith by evidence.

      Huh? How does that work, exactly?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    375. Re:blah by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Life cannot come from lifelessness. That's a widely-accepted scientific axiom.

      Thanks for proving the complete and utter lack of evidence. There is no such scientific axiom. In your ignorance, you are mistaking what the Law of Biogenesis actually states. The rest of your comment indicates that you are just trolling, though, so I won't waste any more time on this nonsense.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    376. Re:blah by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Evidence is just something that leads you to a conviction about something, whether or not you can share it with someone else doesn't make it not evidence.

      What you describe here is a claim. Evidence is what's used to support this claim.

      If I'm walking in the woods and see a new species of bird, that's evidence that that bird exists.

      Nope. There is an infinite number of reasons why it isn't a new species. For example, it is well known, but you didn't know about it. Or it was a well known species, but you think you saw something else. And so on. Until you provide evidence for this observation, it is just a claim.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    377. Re:blah by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Well hell I believe in ghosts only because I experienced it first hand myself.

      Really! And how do you know it was a ghost? You don't. You are just claiming that it is because that is what you automatically assume without any evidence whatsoever. Someone else might claim he saw Jesus when looking at what you think you saw. Or he might claim it was a hallucination. It could have been any number of things, or nothing. You have no basis for the claim that it was a ghost.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    378. Re:blah by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Theories can have bad substantiation.

      If they do, they stop being theories. So you still fail.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    379. Re:blah by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Actually it is just a theory.

      Not just a theory. A scientific theory is the highest level. So saying "just a theory" means that it isn't really that useful or substatiated, and that there's some higher level it has yet to achieve. There is none.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    380. Re:blah by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Your right it was just some guy rolling through my locked house at 4 in the morning but he decided to take a piss. Its like people who get abducted by aliens. They don't know they are aliens for all they know the things that took them live under the ocean which wouldn't make them aliens at all. Now I don't know that what I saw was a ghost just that the guy was wearing early 1900's cloths and the fact that two other people told me about seeing them. One being a friend that saw a tall guy in a suit and tophat looking out my back door at him scared dude so bad he hit the ground backing away. Then my mother who told me about the guy in a top hat and also a woman in a big dress(never seen her). Now if I told either one of them about what I saw before they told me it could have been made up but since I thought what I saw couldn't have really been there I never told anyone. Now I might not have had a van full of ghost hunter equipment 3 people seeing the same thing in the same house all is a bit suspicious and hell its more evidence than the big bang or of god.

    381. Re:blah by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      So the 'problem' with religion is that, for some, it has benefit?

      Please don't rely on the argument that believers are deceived. Science has deceived us with incomplete or incorrect answers before, and yet we don't discard Science as a failure, or even by design misleading. We instead improve upon it.

      Improving on faith is a personal thing.

      Of course, most who defy religion do so based on the abject failures and shortcomings. You can't judge a philosophy by its abuse. And if one does in fact live their life by a belief system based on God, and they die, and there is no God, have they been cheated? Are they wronged? Only if that life was diminished by their faith. Many Christians do not feel diminished at all by their faith. Is it for you to define their life as less than it could have been? I propose it is not for you to judge.

      If you rely, instead, on some principle of absolute truth, and claim that belief in God cannot be true, I would of course then ask you for evidence supporting your claim. Please, enlighten us.

      When I claimed my faith was founded on 'evidence', I meant specifically:

      - A physical healing in my presence. Not a temporary one repeated over and over, but restoration of documented hearing loss, confirmed by an agnostic physician, and confirmed to have been healed without any allopathic treatment.

      - Multiple people who were able to become sober and regain functional lives despite addictions to several substances, including alcohol and heroin. This is much more interesting than mere physical healing. I've checked in with these people, and all three are still sober 6 years later. None had had a sober day before for decades. THEY credit God. I'm at a loss how to discredit their belief, but perhaps this one stays in the realm of 'possible.

      Other examples I cannot cite, because they occured after I accepted Christ. You were asking about the evidence that lead me to believe.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    382. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What is the rational basis the government can use to prevent Jack from marrying Joe? Please elaborate, and try to stay away from moronic "marry a pig", "marry a child" arguments. If you do not understand why they are moronic, look up the concept "consenting adults" somewhere, or have an adult explain it to you.

      First of all, I have never said anything about marrying pigs or child or anything in the context of this discussion. I have said that it's within the purview of the state to regulate legal license just as it's within their right to regulate intoxicated persons driving down the road. As for the rational basis, there doesn't need to be one as the state doesn't need a rational bases for anything that isn't verboten in their constitution or the federal constitution. What's the rational basis for not letting someone open a catering service in their garage that resided in a strictly residential zoned neighborhood if they retrofit it to meet health codes? You see, there doesn't need to be any rationalization or any good rationalization attached. And no, your property values won't decrease if I open a catering business in my garage, the worst you can complain about in harm would be the occasional truck or two dropping off deliveries and a few extra people loading up the supplies for an event every once in a while.

      So there are plenty of other laws that do not have or need rationalization. But this marriage is even older then those laws, and there are a few rationalizations. For people starting families that will have dependent offspring, it sets a legal order of behavior that must take place before dissolving it. So if Jack and Jill decide to get a divorce so Jack can get with Joe, there is an order which doesn't destroy either Jack or Jill to the point that they cannot take care of their dependent offspring and other obligations. Now this is unnecessary for people with kids who aren't married because there is also another legal structure that takes effect in which the state becomes involved in much more detail, much earlier. And if Jack was never married and wanted to enter the same legal framework with Joe, then there is yet another legal structure in which all that can be done. The only difference is the amount of difficulty involved with starting and maintaining the legal structure and how soon it becomes intrusive or not depending on how fare from you deviate from what the state allowed as a default.

      Why is preventing Joe from marrying Jack (when marriage has long since been defined as a fundamental right) not an undue limitation on the pursuit of happiness that Joe is entitled to by the work of the founding fathers? Who, other than Joe, defines what makes Joe happy?

      Since when has marriage been defined as a fundemental right? It certainly isn't in the federal constitution, if it was at one time in the California constitution, then the California constitutional amendment that prop 8 caused (which is why this is at a federal level and not with the loons on the California State Supreme Court) would have nullified any interpretation of that outside of being between a man and a woman. If you mean fundamental right as in you think you should have it, then you might be thinking wrong, however, it's a state's right that overrules the citizens subject to their jurisdiction unless something influencing the state's jurisdiction denies the state that right.

      Another thing, You keep bringing up this pursuit of happiness thing. It doesn't mean what you are attempting to make it mean. And there is nothing binding about it because it's not in any constitution. Or perhaps you would like to explain why I can get arrested, fined, and possible imprisoned along with having other liberties taken from me if I consume alcohol and drive without hurting or harming anyone else? As I mentioned before, if it's just happiness, then drinking and driving makes people happy.

      Maybe you should look up the term "pursuit of h

    383. Re:blah by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      By considering the evidence. You could research it a little.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    384. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      I have said that it's within the purview of the state to regulate legal license just as it's within their right to regulate intoxicated persons driving down the road

      No, it is not. Where on earth do you get that from?

      As for the rational basis, there doesn't need to be one as the state doesn't need a rational bases for anything that isn't verboten in their constitution or the federal constitution

      BZZZT WRONG!

      Since when has marriage been defined as a fundemental right

      Since a varied set of court cases. Since, for example, since Loving v Virginia (1967) and since Zablocki v Redhail (1978).

      explain why I can get arrested, fined, and possible imprisoned along with having other liberties taken from me if I consume alcohol and drive without hurting or harming anyone else?

      Because driving is a privilege, not a right. Again - the state can regulate privileges with far less restrictions than it can regulate fundamental rights.

      Either make a constitutional argument or shut up about it

      Easy. Marriage is, according to SCOTUS, a fundamental right, not a privilege. Fundamental rights can not be limited with no rational basis. It is that simple.

      They had to get people to stop ignoring the rules that had changed via constitutional amendment who were ignoring the rules to maintain their own prejudices.

      This is exactly parallel. Marriage is a SCOTUS-defined fundamental right (not a privilege) and fundamental rights are protected by the equal protection clause and can not be limited without rational basis. It is that easy. This is why legal experts generally agree on this.

      gay men and women can do exactly what the straight men and women can do

      No, they can not. They can not marry whomever they wish. Since marrying whomever you wish (again, please...) is a SCOTUS-defined fundamental right, it is illegal to restrict that without a rational basis. This means that restricting Jacks fundamental right to marry Joe is unconstitutional.

      what disability doe gays suffer that would require the state to change laws and rules to accommodate

      They lose quite a lot in fact. They lose the right to hospital visitations. They lose rights around insurance. There are, in California, 1100 rights and protections that only apply to married couples. A person who chooses not marry anyone have opted out. A person who is denied by the state the right to marry the person they want to marry is deprived of those by that same state.

      Nothing in the US constitution forbids states from regulating marriages

      BZZZT WRONG. Once SCOTUS defined marriage as a fundamental right, the equal protection clause forbids states from limiting marriages with no rational basis.

    385. Re:blah by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      No, what I describe is 'evidence'. Seriously, go look it up. For example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence 'Evidence' can mean proof, it can also mean grounds for belief. My use of the word evidence is clearly not incorrect based on the dictionary definition; I think we're splitting hairs here though. :)

    386. Re:blah by dbrueck · · Score: 1
      I don't think that word means what you think it means. (I actually did find out what it meant before my original response. :) )

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

      I think you're latching on to one of several meanings of the word and asserting that all the others aren't correct.

      But 'evidence to them' is most definitely sensical - that's why we peer review scientific work, for example. One guy observes something in his lab that is evidence of a chemical reaction that was previously thought not possible. Based on this he begins to have a pretty strong conviction that some previous ways of thinking about things are wrong. He's experienced it and observed it, and what he's experienced is evidence to him that our present thinking is wrong - what he experiences in his labs forms the grounds for his beliefs. But people don't just rewrite textbooks because of it. No, instead other people attempt to recreate the experiments so that they too can witness the evidence. After awhile, enough people have direct experience with the phenomenon that it becomes generally accepted as true - i.e. enough people in the scientific community have directly experienced the evidence such that it's assumed a safe thing to believe in, so everybody else doesn't need to directly reproduce the results - instead they use as their evidence (their grounds for belief) the witness of lots of other scientists.

      It's a great system, really, and it's what allows us to build on others' knowledge and experience, but at any time a scientist can choose to not rely on the word of other scientists and go reproduce the original experiment themselves and witness, first hand, the empirical evidence.

      Key points here are: (1) evidence is what leads people to believe things, (2) evidence experienced by one person is tested by others instead of just accepted outright (3) at times we rely on directly-experienced evidence and other times we take a shortcut and rely on other people's experiences (i.e. our ground for believe boils down to "lots of other people believe this", and (4) if we doubt that second-hand experience, we often have the option of pursuing direct, first-hand evidence - it just takes more time and effort.

      The above principles should apply whether we're talking about scientific discovery or religious topics - i.e. it'd be foolish to believe either solely because somebody said that's the way something is. Either way there needs to be evidence of some sort.

    387. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, it is not. Where on earth do you get that from?

      From history and the legal system as I said before.

      BZZZT WRONG!

      Lol.. I suppose that's just because you say so. Well, why don't you cite your references.

      Since a varied set of court cases. Since, for example, since Loving v Virginia (1967) and since Zablocki v Redhail (1978).

      Yawn... Those cases dealt with a fundamental problem that was denying someone a right that others were allowed, it's in no way similar to this as gays have the same rights as normal people. They are arguing a choice not a lack of rights. Please stop taking shit out of context to push your point.

      Because driving is a privilege, not a right. Again - the state can regulate privileges with far less restrictions than it can regulate fundamental rights.

      It doesn't matter, the essence of your argument still applies. If the state can allow osme a privilege and not others, then the same base discrimination applies as you have defined it.

      No, they can not. They can not marry whomever they wish. Since marrying whomever you wish (again, please...) is a SCOTUS-defined fundamental right, it is illegal to restrict that without a rational basis. This means that restricting Jacks fundamental right to marry Joe is unconstitutional.

      Wow, not only to you read into what I say that isn't there, but you read into crap that has never been said by the judges. The fundamental right as define was the right to marry someone of the opposite sex as that was the law the ruling was over. Face it, you are in a losing position and no matter how you contort the shit, it won't matter in this case.

      They lose quite a lot in fact. They lose the right to hospital visitations. They lose rights around insurance. There are, in California, 1100 rights and protections that only apply to married couples. A person who chooses not marry anyone have opted out. A person who is denied by the state the right to marry the person they want to marry is deprived of those by that same state.

      I see the problem not, it's not that you are an agenda driving idiot, it's that you are a complete moron. I didn't ask what harm someone would suffer under the existing law, I asked what disability as in the Americans with disability act that gays suffer from that would justify forcing the override of the will of the people in order to satisfy their personal choice. Go back and read what was wrote again and tell me how in the hell you took it the wrong way.

      BTW, unmarried couples suffer the same disadvantages that you cited, why should they not get the same privileges?

      BZZZT WRONG. Once SCOTUS defined marriage as a fundamental right, the equal protection clause forbids states from limiting marriages with no rational basis.

      Lol.. The SCOTUS is not above the constitution. You are a fucking idiot. Lets look at a few of the key points in the rulings that you are attempting to skew in order to demonstrate it.

      "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

      So how is a man marrying a man fundame

    388. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Those cases dealt with a fundamental problem that was denying someone a right that others were allowed

      You are absolutely right, they are. The statements from SCOTUS on the concepts involved are not so limited however. If SCOTUS says that marrying someone is a fundamental right as such, it doesn't limit it to the case in question. If a SCOTUS decision was limited to the case in question there would never be any reason to look to previous SCOTUS cases, they are all, in some way, different. Precedent would have no meaning.

      Please note that the lawyers for the proponents of Prop 8 agree with me and disagree with you. More below.

      The fundamental right as define was the right to marry someone of the opposite sex

      Please find the SCOTUS quote on that or admit you are just making shit up as you go.

      If the state can allow osme a privilege and not others, then the same base discrimination applies as you have defined it.

      I know it might not matter to you, but it actually matters to the law. You can not deny anyone a basic right without rational basis, but you can deny someone a privilege for a whole variety of reasons. Again, according to the law. No matter what you feel about it. This is why the distinction between a fundamental right and a privilege is crucial in law.

      BTW, unmarried couples suffer the same disadvantages

      If you don't understand the difference between opting out and being denied, I don't think it is possible to teach you anything more basic than chewing gum and walking at the same time. Even that would take some time.

      So how is a man marrying a man fundamental to our existence and survival? with a man and a woman, it's procreation

      Are you mentally handicapped? Since when was marriage a requirement for procreation? Do you thing SCOTUS is retarded enough to think it is? Please tell me how a marriage between a man and a woman is more fundamental to our existence and survival than is the marriage between a man and a man, or a man and a tree for that matter.

      Funny enough, SCOTUS clearly explains to you that you are a moron since SCOTUS have clearly stated that procreation is not an issue. It did so in 1987 when it struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

      The Missouri law was defended on the grounds that since imprisoned felons are unable to have any physical contact with their spouses, let alone live with them, such a marriage could not serve what was claimed to be the "traditional" purposes of marriage, including procreation. The court rejected those arguments, emphasizing in the Wisconsin case that "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals " and that marriages were constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment." In other words, your argument over is exactly what the state of Missouri argued, and SCOTUS told them to fuck off.

      It must be difficult for you when SCOTUS, again and again, state that your arguments are simply too dumb. Particularly when they did it before you were even born.

      So the best you can do is to cite one case taken out of context

      Not really, I just cited a case that blows your argument that it has anything at all to do with procreation, family or any societal structure out of the water.

      Now, to what I alluded to above, how the Prop 8 attorneys actually agree with me. The arguments for Prop 8 has consistently been that it has a rational basis. Why would they use those arguments? If Prop 8 was not about removing someones fundamental right, there would be no need to argue that it has a rational basis. A lawyer will never argue against something that is irrelevant to his case, that is very dangerous territory. By arguing that Prop 8 has a rational basis the lawyers for the Prop 8 proponents take the position that marriage, even between two men or two women, is a fundamental right as defined in the constitution and by SCOTUS. Why do they agree with me on that, and not you?

    389. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      I am going to quote my self on this one, because there is something very very interesting in the 1987 verdict.

      marriages are constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment"

      What does that mean? It means that, according to SCOTUS, the value of marriage is in the symbolism, and what is says about you as a couple and what you want to say to the world. Marriage is not about physical realities. Marriage is an expression. It is a statement. SCOTUS clearly disconnects marriage from both the family structure and from procreation (neither is possible for a felon who can not have any contact with his spouse). In other words, SCOTUS more or less equates marriage with speech. I do think that SCOTUS has a reasonable understanding of the word "expression". Do you?

    390. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right, they are. The statements from SCOTUS on the concepts involved are not so limited however. If SCOTUS says that marrying someone is a fundamental right as such, it doesn't limit it to the case in question. If a SCOTUS decision was limited to the case in question there would never be any reason to look to previous SCOTUS cases, they are all, in some way, different. Precedent would have no meaning.

      Actually, it does limit the ruling to what they claim the fundamental right is derived from. The castle ruling said you have a fundamental right to defend yourself and not an obligation to seek refuge first when you are confronted with an imminent threat that is armed. It doesn't mean that you can just shoot someone who is holding a gun, it means that if they are trying to kill you, you can fire back without trying to escape first.

      And you are ignoring the fact that gays have exactly the same right as normal people when it comes to marriage. You still haven't shown that marrying anyone you choose to is somehow integral to that fundamental right. As the court noted, the right is for the survival of the species and as we know man on man or woman on woman will not cause procreation.

      Please find the SCOTUS quote on that or admit you are just making shit up as you go.

      I posted the quote, can't you read? It said the right was fundemental for the survival of our species.

      I know it might not matter to you, but it actually matters to the law. You can not deny anyone a basic right without rational basis, but you can deny someone a privilege for a whole variety of reasons. Again, according to the law. No matter what you feel about it. This is why the distinction between a fundamental right and a privilege is crucial in law.

      No one is currently denying anyone a right. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. And no, it's not a basic right, as you have pointed out, it's a fundamental right where the fundamental comes from procreation. And in today's times where it's common to have kids out of wedlock, I'm not sure that fundamental principle would even be relevant- therefore the same with your right.

      But you see, your challenge is not about rights, it's about preference in the exercise of those rights. And your argument is the same as a challenge to a privilege. But lets change that argument just to end your distinction. Currently it's illegal for someone to be intoxicated in the public whether they are causing harm to others or not. I certainly have a right to be in public spaces, I certainly have a right to travel, does this mean that public intoxication laws are unconstitutional? How about drugs of abuse, it makes a lot of people happy to get all cranked up and walk around. How about Heroin?

      If you don't understand the difference between opting out and being denied, I don't think it is possible to teach you anything more basic than chewing gum and walking at the same time. Even that would take some time.

      I know the differences, however, the argument is the same, some people are getting advantages that others are not, and your pursuit of happiness which isn't in the constitution is your constitutional basis. And sure, they can marry someone of the opposite sex and get these benefits but that's not what they want to do. Listen, if the argument turns void because it's an opt in system, then it turns void when you do not want to follow the rules to participate. You are wanting your cake and eating it too. It can't be both ways. BTW, if it's opt in or opt out, then why can't a brother or sister get married? Why can't Dad and Daughter?

      Are you mentally handicapped? Since when was marriage a requirement for procreation? Do you thing SCOTUS is retarded enough to think it is? Please tell me how a marriage between a man and a woman is more fundamental to our exis

    391. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Like I said before, cite the case so we can all join in on the fun.

      As near as I can tell, the case you are talking about is 82 U.S. 78 (1987).

      And if you actually read the case, you will find that procreation is directly involved in the ruling.

      Here is a quote directly from it.

      In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

      And yes, that is in the same paragraph in which your statement of it not pertaining to reproduction is being made. However, if we look at the terms "fully consummated" we find that it has everything to do with procreation.

      Now I know why you wanted to keep this case a secrete, it doesn't say what you are pretending it says. What does that tell you when your argument boils down to purposely hiding relevant facts in order to misrepresent others?

    392. Re:blah by terjeber · · Score: 1

      you will find that procreation is directly involved in the ruling

      Wow. You really don't know how to read do you? Do you understand the word "most"? Do you understand that this is a subset of "all"? Did SCOTUS limit it to these "most"? Np, they did not.

      Also, again in this case the lawyers argued that the measure had a rational basis. If it was not a limitation on fundamental rights, why argue that way? Also note how SCOTUS in this case phrases it: "the right to marry". It is not a privilege, it is a right. To all.

      Another quote "consequential restriction on the [constitutional] rights of those who are not prisoners". If marriage is not a constitutional right but a privilege, how come SCOTUS uses those words?

      There are obvious, easy alternatives to the Missouri regulation that accommodate the right to marry while imposing a de minimis burden on the pursuit of security objectives.

      In other words, the security objectives are not a rational basis for denying the inmates their constitutional rights.

      You should not quote documents that do not support your case.

    393. Re:blah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow. You really don't know how to read do you? Do you understand the word "most"? Do you understand that this is a subset of "all"? Did SCOTUS limit it to these "most"? Np, they did not.

      Obviously, it's you who doesn't know how to read. Most is on one line of the many lines I quoted. Why are you concentrating on just one word? Is it because it threatens your point and makes your statement false so you have to use slight of hand tactics?

      Also, again in this case the lawyers argued that the measure had a rational basis. If it was not a limitation on fundamental rights, why argue that way? Also note how SCOTUS in this case phrases it: "the right to marry". It is not a privilege, it is a right. To all.

      Why don't you read the entire ruling then get back with me. And if you notice the right to marry has to do with religious rights, procreation, the right of inheritance which is part of the legal system, obtaining government benefits when a spouse is incarcerated and so on. You will also find that the court said there was a legitimate need for the law, it's just that the law didn't do what it pretended to do.

      Another quote "consequential restriction on the [constitutional] rights of those who are not prisoners". If marriage is not a constitutional right but a privilege, how come SCOTUS uses those words?

      Who said it was a privilege? I said it's the same right that everyone else has and that not allowing a man to mary a man is no different then not allowing a father to marry his daughter or a brother to marry his sister. Or are you arguing that those laws are unconstitutional too? I said it's within the state's purview to regulate it as long as they do not stop someone from doing what everyone else is allowed to so. Prop 8 does not stop anyone from doing what anyone else is allowed to do.

      In other words, the security objectives are not a rational basis for denying the inmates their constitutional rights.

      Here is where you prove that you are a fucking idiot. It does not say that at all, it says there are other more effective measures that can be taken then limiting someone's rights. However, in all these cases, the constitutional right is not to marry anyone you want, it's to marry as the law allows. Or are you claiming that a brother should be able to marry his sister or aunt?

      You should not quote documents that do not support your case.

      The document doesn't work against my case. However, it does not support your and you are the one who brought it up. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

    394. Re:blah by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Have you actually met any vegans?

      Yup, lived with a few, and attended a few rallies. Some are _really_ nice people. Some are bat-shit insane. Any ideology can become a religion...

      > Vegans have precisely zero problems with breastfeeding, for reasons that should be breathtakingly obvious. Except to a complete moron.

      And these parents...
      http://www.google.com/search?q=vegan+parents+kill+baby

    395. Re:blah by Shadukar · · Score: 1

      2.24% above 50% is "vast majority" ?
      really ?

  2. Bad summary by Jay+L · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary says:

    Newly released secret files show that Winston Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber

    It should say:

    Newly released secret files show that the grandson of Winston Churchill once claimed that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber"

    Kinda different.

    1. Re:Bad summary by Runefox · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it should say:

      Newly released secret files show that the grandson of one of Winston Churchill's personal bodyguards once claimed that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber"

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    2. Re:Bad summary by northernfrights · · Score: 1

      Yep you're right, the correction was still way off.

    3. Re:Bad summary by al3k · · Score: 1

      So let's say, hypothetically, that I'm the grandson of Lee Harvey Oswald's landlord and I made claims that she once overheard Oswald conspiring with others, that I could get my report in a secret file too!?

    4. Re:Bad summary by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      The title of the post you replied to is "Re: Bad summary" - the same as your post...

    5. Re:Bad summary by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Kinda different.

      The real question is why does shit like this get posted here? I see "OMG READ UFOES!!" stories on slashdot and io9 more often than I like. Actually, I'd like it to be never. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories and wishful thinking get ad impression from morons. Considering there's no shortage of paranormal shows on television and that the "History" channel is little more than the conspiracy theory channel, we might be entering a new age of ignorance and superstition. So much for the whole information age revolution. Turns out the information most people crave is almost always bullshit that appeals to their existing biases and general craziness.

    6. Re:Bad summary by BForrester · · Score: 1

      Actually, it should say:

      "Newly released secret files show that the grandson's father's brother's cousin's former roommate of one of Winston Churchill's personal bodyguards once claimed that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber"

    7. Re:Bad summary by stephathome · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that description of the History Channel. I noticed that a while back too, and it drives me nuts. I have no problem with the idea that there might be life elsewhere in the universe, but the idea that they come here just to play "now you see me, now you don't" I do have a problem with.

    8. Re:Bad summary by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It also seems that quite a bit of those encounter reports focus on times when suddenly a lot of much more random people than today took up into the skies, lots of them young and scared / under enormous pressure; when routine high altitude flight was somewhat new, likewise oxygen installations.

      Some airplanes even had big-fraking-light for spotting U-Boots...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    9. Re:Bad summary by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Actually, it should say:

      Newly released secret files show that the grandson of one of Winston Churchill's personal bodyguard's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate once claimed that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber"

      Finished fixing that for you.

    10. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that make us?

  3. He saves the human race time and time again . . . by rev_sanchez · · Score: 5, Funny

    and still the doctor never gets any credit.

    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  4. Well, sure. by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    True, the nation might be responding to bitter human enemy's nighttime heavy bomber raids with a stiff upper lip, but I say! An extrasolar tourist on a sightseeing holiday? That is really terrifying.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Evidence by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

    A letter written by the grandson of a bodyguard of Churchill. That's all.

    It's probably total nonsense.

    1. Re:Evidence by mjwx · · Score: 1

      A letter written by the grandson of a bodyguard of Churchill. That's all.

      It's probably total nonsense.

      You must me new here.

      Anyway, welcome to SlashSun, the internets favourite tabloid. Next week we'll be having a story from one of the Queens corgi's about how aliens were mind controlling Princess Di's driver on behalf of Camilla so they could breed the worlds ugliest royal/alien hybrid.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. It's probably the safe thing to do by joeflies · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The world is too caught up that the Earth is the one place for any type of life in the universe, we're not prepared to deal with other possibilities. I think that even the course that NASA is demonstrating now - proving that it's possible that there was water on Mars, opening up the possibility of a discovery of some type of life perhaps long extinct - is preparing the general public to slowly get ready to the idea that there's the existiance of extraterrestrial life. Tin foil hat time - Perhaps NASA already knows that this life exists, but they need to get the public ready for acceptance of it by slowly introducing more and more evidence so that society doesn't lose its marbles.

    1. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by timholman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The world is too caught up that the Earth is the one place for any type of life in the universe, we're not prepared to deal with other possibilities. I think that even the course that NASA is demonstrating now - proving that it's possible that there was water on Mars, opening up the possibility of a discovery of some type of life perhaps long extinct - is preparing the general public to slowly get ready to the idea that there's the existiance of extraterrestrial life. Tin foil hat time - Perhaps NASA already knows that this life exists, but they need to get the public ready for acceptance of it by slowly introducing more and more evidence so that society doesn't lose its marbles.

      I would argue that the boom in popularity of science fiction/fantasy movies and TV (e.g. E.T., Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, etc.) over the past 40 years has done more to prepare people for the possibility of extraterrestrial life than any NASA press release.

    2. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Shompol · · Score: 1

      idea that there's the existiance of extraterrestrial life

      We still don't know that, so the idea could be premature. UFO's are merely unidentified, they could come, say, from a parallel universe. Big Foot does not seem to be equipped for interstellar travel either.

    3. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by geekoid · · Score: 1

      People would be fine. If NASA did have actual evidence, they would anouce it and then get a big fat increase in funding.

      In other words, it's in NASAs best interesting to make it public knowledge.

      Stop being stupid.

      Did people panic when they found the Chinese? American Indians? did the church collapse when they found groups of people who had never heard of God or Jesus?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Seriously? You don't think the stories and TV shows and movies for the last century have prepared us for how to deal with aliens?

      I'll tell you how to deal with aliens. If they come in small ships and repair things, let them keep fixing stuff, they'll change your life. If they are short and ugly and ride flying bikes, direct them to the nearest phone booth, they just wanna go home. If they are living in cocoons in the bottom of swimming pools, whatever you do try to swim in it!

      For defense, if they are green and leave crop circle signs, all you need is water. Nevermind that the atmosphere is full of the stuff, it'll work. If the hover over cities in 15 mile disks, all you need is crop-duster pilots to fly your jets and take them out. And if they are ugly, black, and have vagina heads, then you can nuke them from orbit.

      Really, a good portion of the population still believes in ghosts and magic. The idea of aliens is just one more weird thing in a universe of things we don't understand (and if you think religious people will have trouble with the idea of aliens, you need to talk to more religious people. Some even believe that Christ was an alien. True story).

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      allowing beings such as ours to evolve naturally is a waste of resources

      Maybe we don't have any resources that are of value to them? Maybe they don't believe in genocide and would rather not get bogged down in their version of the Vietnam war for the next hundred years? Maybe they are already among us and regard us as mostly harmless?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by gknoy · · Score: 1

      It's possible that they don't view it as genocide, but rather as morally similar to exterminating the rats and spiders that infest the barn/field/etc that you want to build a house on.

    7. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Chninkel · · Score: 1

      And what possesses you to believe that if a race of beings with super-light travel actually exists it would act as human beings ? (trade or conquest).
      That's called ethnocentrism and it's as wrong an assumption as the "peaceful ET" hypothesis.

    8. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They have SPACE FLIGHT! How the fuck do we fight something that can drop nukes all over our god damn planet from space?!

    9. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      How would a non-competitive species evolve, and why would it develop space flight technology if it wasn't extremely resource-destructive and thus always seeking a new source to strip for resources?

    10. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're an idiot.

      What possesses you to believe that a peaceful, non-economic race of beings with super-light travel actually exists? Any race of beings with interstellar space flight capability would want trade or conquest; allowing beings such as ours to evolve naturally is a waste of resources that could be accessed now, instead of in 5000 years.

      Every time I read comments such as yours it literally makes me laugh and shake my head.

      Its very important to keep this in your head as you continue to read... Why do conquerers conquer? Resources!

      If a race exists which has interstellar travel, they literally have unlimited resources. Think about it. And so a race with interstellar travel and unlimited resources would need to trade or conquer for what reason? Oh that's right, they would have zero reason to do so.

      More than likely, they would be explorers, observers, teachers, or all the above.

      Seriously. Think about it.

    11. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Chninkel · · Score: 1

      one word : curiosity

      And as far as we (don't) know, their technology could be extremely non resource-destructive (again, ethnocentrism : "because we human are very resource-destructive, every living thing in the Universe should be" ;-) )

    12. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Troll

      Infinite resources like what? You have to FIND resources. And space is a resource... planetary space, places to live, breed. If their planet had similar (or somewhat greater) mass compared to ours, and similar atmosphere, our planet may prove habitable for them. I mean the nearest known Earth-like planet has 9 times the mass of Earth!

    13. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It would be ill-adapted to live or would live in an Eden-like place if it wasn't to some degree Earth-like in behavioral survival.

    14. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the time, neither the Chinese nor the American Indians had bigger guns than the people discovering them. The church didn't collapse because it went on a mad recruiting drive.

      I don't think an extraterrestrial species is going to worry about either of those.

    15. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they haven't prepared people for just how truly alien that life could be. Sci-fi aliens still resemble us in essence if not form. It's presumed that they still have emotion, logic, science, politics, desires, curiosity, language, an so on. It's also presumed that they have them all in the same form we do. But how prepared are we to handle an alien species whose psychology and philosophical frameworks are utterly impossible to relate to? We're prepared for the existence of life, but I doubt we're prepared to meet it.

    16. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      What possesses you to believe that a peaceful, non-economic race of beings with super-light travel actually exists?

      I didn't see where the parent to your post suggested any such thing.

      Any race of beings with interstellar space flight capability would want trade or conquest

      Now who's being an idiot? Life bearing planets are going to be a million times more common those with intelligent species building a civilization. Why would an alien civilization put all the cost and effort into colonizing or conquering a planet that already has a civilization? Why come here to a planet that's already been raped of a significant fraction of its natural resources and has a badly damaged biosphere, when there's a planet with complex life at 1/100th the distance without a civilization on it. To quote a Ferengi, there's no profit in it.

      Call it the first rule of economics. Never fly to China to buy something you can get at the grocery store.

    17. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Chninkel · · Score: 1

      Well it depends, we (20-21st century humans) are ill-adapted to live if we were to live 100.000 years ago and my place and life is pretty much Eden-like compared to what it would have been then. I don't need to fight for survival (yes I'm aware that I'm part of a privileged part of the population and that it might change any time).
      ... See you in another 100.000 years to compare with 1021st century boys :-)

      NB: Personally I don't believe in E.T. visiting us and even if they were to, I'm just telling that we have no idea whether they would be dangerous or not.

    18. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You clearly did not, "think about it". Not at all. Not in the least.

      Think about the technology required for interstellar travel. Think about the power required to do so. Think about the resources required to allow such a science.

      Space is not empty. It in itself is full of resources. If you have the energy for interstellar travel, you have access to unlimited resources. Concepts such as Terraforming and whatnot become easily within reach.

      Hell, if we simply had higher energy densities readily available, the entire solar system would become a HUGE resource pool over night. Afterwards, two planets immediately become available as Terraforming candidates (Mars and Venus) - and that's even before interstellar travel enters the equation.

      Seriously, actually think about the implications of a society not needing resources. Our entire society is built around the concepts of resource acquisition and trade. What happens after that is no longer an societal imperative? I'll tell you what; explorers, teachers, and observers.

      If you've managed interstellar travel and have not reached that level of societal maturity, then it suggestion interstellar travel is dramatically easier and less energy/resource intensive than we all currently believe it to be.

    19. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by dpilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll throw one simple belief into the fray:

      The sheer quantity of power required for interstellar flight is so tremendous that if members of a species have too much (How much is too much? I don't know, but I strongly suspect that we're well over the limit right now.) tendency to kill each other, that species will self-destruct before achieving interstellar flight.

      Therefore I suggest that any interstellar travelers that find us will be peaceful.

      One extra supposition is needed - that this is relatively independent of psychology. Some have proposed the rabidly xenophobic hive-mind as a way to be peaceful enough to achieve interstellar travel, yet remain warlike toward what they find out there. I would argue that before you achieve interstellar flight, you've got to get to interplanetary flight. Hive minds remain hive minds through close communication. The bigger supposition is that hive minds cannot remain intact at large (relative to C) distances - they lose the tight communication needed. You wind up with two hive minds talking to each other. What's more, you likely have two hive minds in radically different environments with attending radically different needs. At some point the xenophobia kicks in.

      This leads to a few more things...

      Once you have the technology for interstellar flight, you don't really need planets, or at least not habitable ones. You certainly need mass, and you certainly need metal, but those can come from comets, asteroids, and other uninhabitable places.

      Chances are very good that you're no longer biological. The demands, hazards, and logistics of moving a body around our own solar system are tough enough. Interstellar flight is that much tougher. Assuming we reach Ray's Singularity, we'll simply send Turing images of ourselves. Much simpler, plus you can either turn yourself off or slow your time perception during the boring parts of the trip.

      I also think that planets like ours would remain interesting to interstellar travelers. You don't get our there without curiosity, and there would be a kind of historical interest in planetary life. At the same time, when you study something you try not to interfere with it - you try to minimize our effect on the system, unless you're doing a deliberate cause-effect experiment.

      Perhaps one of the greatest hazards would be some primitive species getting technology that it's not psychologically ready to have. If we were to find and reverse-engineer a functional starship, we might get out there before we've learned to behave ourselves. This bunks my whole argument - give/stolen, as opposed to self-developed interstellar travel.

      Put this together, and you're likely to see interstellar travelers being very careful to avoid contact - something like the Prime Directive. The "test" of developing a warp drive as a requisite for first contact also makes sense in this light. Perhaps the Vulcans had the Right Stuff in their cargo bay to turn the Earth into a cinder had they been too disappointed in us.

      Given that we've been detecting extrasolar planets for a number of years, getting better by the year, it's easy to believe that an interstellar species could detect the Earth and tell that it has life, if they have a suitably clear (not obscured by too much dust or other stars) view.

      So imagine a mission out there in the asteroid belt, a loose association of Turing images from planets around other stars, watching us. They used to be closer, but as our technology has advanced, they've had to move further out. Of course listening to our communications has given still more information perhaps, than they could get before. Imagine for a moment that after hours, they wear their virtual bodies, gather in a virtual bar, and talk about us, perhaps taking bets on how long it'll take us to either destroy ourselves or overcome our juvenile impulses. Maybe they liked "Star Wars", and the virtual bar is straight out of the Mos Eisley Cantina.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    20. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Maybe their technology is better at mining and refining, and thus can dig the landfills and clean up the trash island in the ocean while they blast civilization with gamma beams. A "damaged" ecosystem doesn't really exist, anyway; at a point human life will die out, and the planet will continue on with life of all kinds flourishing and adapting. Orbital colonies harvesting solar energy to power planetary equipment collecting trash and siphoning oil from the oceans will work nicely for 50 years, while the rest of the planet goes back to nature.

    21. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so that religious people do not lose their marbles

    22. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Think about the technology required for interstellar travel. Think about the power required to do so. Think about the resources required to allow such a science.

      Negligible power to enter a dissimilar-space warp, such as a hyperspace warp in which the body shifts "inward" to a space that is smaller and travels a short distance before shifting out to our space.

      Neutral energy requirement to set up an Alcubierre gravitic warp, in which space is curved positively and negatively-- one of these requires negative energy.

      There's always going to be mechanical loss. It might be a huge amount of energy, enough to power a city for a day. That's not really a lot in terms of space travel. Remember, interstellar travel at sub-light speeds on classical physics requires basically more energy than we have available in this star system just to provide life support.

      Space is not empty. It in itself is full of resources. If you have the energy for interstellar travel, you have access to unlimited resources. Concepts such as Terraforming and whatnot become easily within reach.

      Strawman. If you can X, you must be able to Y. X is really fucking hard, Y is also really fucking hard; but we can X so Y is trivial too.

      Hell, if we simply had higher energy densities readily available, the entire solar system would become a HUGE resource pool over night. Afterwards, two planets immediately become available as Terraforming candidates (Mars and Venus) - and that's even before interstellar travel enters the equation.

      Lots of false assumptions. Mars is not habitable without constant support, due to lacking atmosphere and magnetosphere (no surface protection, no way to hold an atmosphere for very long since it'd be stripped by ionizing solar wind AGAIN). Venus is in a hot zone, and it's very hot there; air conditioning would be quite difficult to maintain, and again there would be no viable atmosphere due to water loss and no magnetosphere (but who cares? We can't live on the surface, we need bubble cities).

      We'd be as well off living on the moon, really.

      Seriously, actually think about the implications of a society not needing resources. Our entire society is built around the concepts of resource acquisition and trade. What happens after that is no longer an societal imperative?

      Gutter gangs, space piracy, and other dominance behavior to attract mates.

      If you've managed interstellar travel and have not reached that level of societal maturity, then it suggestion interstellar travel is dramatically easier and less energy/resource intensive than we all currently believe it to be.

      You assume that your definition of "societal maturity" is possible in a world where you don't have access to infinite resources (including infinite sex and other social interaction, unless these beings reproduce asexually and have no social structure-- in fact, a lack of sexuality would make socialization pointless and evolutionarily unimportant).

      You assume a happy utopia where we have enough resources to burn out on space flight, where nobody is threatened by economic problems and thus nobody feels the need to stop these wasteful programs, and at the same time where nobody feels the need to be more recognized than anyone else. This assumption precludes sex: I NEED to be more recognized than EVERY OTHER MALE to get this girl to date me, at least by her; why the hell else wouldn't she date someone she thinks is cooler? And without sex, what use is a social structure at all to the survival of a species?

    23. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by 32771 · · Score: 1

      I love this kind of conspiracy theory. I think an economic downturn is exactly the right kind of time to break the good news, just think of all the possibilities. Especially since society has already proven that marbles are in short supply anyway, so not many people will be in the position to lose said marbles.

      From a linguistic point of view I would debate the use of the word marble, marbles are far more ubiquitous than minds. Here is a better one: crown jewels - well that will take some explaining.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    24. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Negligible power to enter a dissimilar-space warp,

      No idea where you get that silly notion. Physicists, based on current understandings, say this is measured in sums of many multiples of star output. Hardly negligible.

      The rest is of equal simplicity, ignorance, closed mindedness, so on and so on. Basically, all as wrong as your first assumption, which is contrary to science as we know it today.

    25. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by genner · · Score: 1

      It's possible that they don't view it as genocide, but rather as morally similar to exterminating the rats and spiders that infest the barn/field/etc that you want to build a house on.

      Most people who support genocide take this view.

    26. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Lev13than · · Score: 1

      The world is too caught up that the Earth is the one place for any type of life in the universe, we're not prepared to deal with other possibilities.

      Close, but you missed the "yes, but..." part:
      1. Given the vastness of the universe in both time and space, it is pretty much certain that life is, has or will exist somewhere other than just on earth.
      2. Given the vastness of the universe in both time and space, it is pretty much certain that there is no life capable of interstellar travel, close enough to the earth for said travel and in existance at the exact point in humanity's development when we're watching for them.

      People watch too much Star Trek. For all we know, the last time aliens visited here was 10 million years ago - that's still a blink of an eye when you're talking about the earth's age. Why would you assume that they are only a few hundred years ahead of us in development?

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    27. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      What happens after that is no longer an societal imperative? I'll tell you what; explorers, teachers, and observers.

      I think it's more likely to end in holodeck orgies.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    28. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by barkndog · · Score: 1

      Seriously, actually think about the implications of a society not needing resources. Our entire society is built around the concepts of resource acquisition and trade. What happens after that is no longer an societal imperative? I'll tell you what; explorers, teachers, and observers.

      I'll tell you what happens when resource acquisition and trade is no longer a societal imperative: we get fat.

      explorers, teachers, and observers? Sounds too much like Star Trek TNG. In the real world if all our needs are met most of the population would get lazy and fat, and just care about the next big event on TV (or holo-screen).

      --
      The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion [John Lawton]
    29. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Chninkel · · Score: 1

      again ethnocentrism ...

      for the use of social structure : what about sharing ideas and knowledge (to invent new things like interstellar travel ...) ? unless you need to have sex to do that ?
      if your whole life turns around having a bigger penis/car/house/bank account/boat than your "concurrent/neighbor", I truly feel sorry for you ... but then I understand that you might be afraid of E.T. penis/car/house/bank account/boat/laser beam/gamma rays/superduperspaceship

      Besides you're talking about "false assumptions" from others but yours are not any more valid ...

    30. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      But that ignores the fact that historically, a select few have always blazed a trail for others. While I agree with much of your point, I believe it completely ignores the fact that fighter pilots and firemen are still poorly paid. In other words, they chose something other than fat, even at the possible expense of death.

      I believe you're unrealistically negative.

    31. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      People would be fine. If NASA did have actual evidence, they would anouce it and then get a big fat increase in funding.

      Hardly.
      Much more funding can be requisitioned by continued efforts in search of something, than by actually finding it.
      If they cure cancer/HIV/AIDS/illness-du-jour, then that's done; no more "cure cancer now" funding.
      If Bush discovered WMD, he would have just turned the Evil Axis into glass, and been done with it. No more giant military spending budget.
      If NASA did have evidence of extra-terrestrial life, the military (I realize they're a subset of USAF, but they're a more scientific branch than an offensive/defensive branch) would take over, get all the funding, and either try to protect us from those nasty aliens, or try to neutralize those nasty aliens.
      While a person may be intelligent, people, humans in general, are quite stupid (especially in groups). Without being acclamated to the idea that "the truth is out there", there would be panic in the streets, riots, and general disarray were news of extraterrestrial life ever to be displayed, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

    32. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Perhaps NASA already knows that this life exists, but they need to get the public ready for acceptance of it by slowly introducing more and more evidence so that society doesn't lose its marbles.

      NASA is not a wise older brother protecting humanity from difficult information. NASA is a few decent scientists working diligently, on outdated equipment, in an environment of political maneuvering, red tape, and bureaucrats dreaming of retirement. I would be shocked if there are any conspiracies at NASA that don't involve how to pitch its vision of manned space exploration for the sake of next year's funding.

    33. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      You think this wasn't intentional?

      http://irregularwebcomic.net/2597.html

    34. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people of any scientific bend are fully accepting of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. It's the idea that they're travelling a prohibitively long distance to Earth simply to hover in the air over rural areas while being detectable only by the human eye and blurry photographs.

    35. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point (or stupid). Why would they need to bother wiping us out with gamma beams when there are millions of planets out there that are just like ours, but closer, and uninfested with civilizations that need wiping out.

    36. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It's hard to take that view legitimately. I mean sure, if you only exterminate the humans in, say, Canada, that might be a plausible comparison. Exterminating all the humans on Earth would mean that the entire human species would no longer exist. Even if you consider humans to be vermin, eradicating all of them is not remotely in the same league as eradicating all of them in a single spot.

      Unless, of course, the planet seeding theories are correct, and humans exist on many, many planets, in which case, yeah, the continued existence of the human race does pretty much preclude the existence of significantly more advanced nonhuman intelligent alien life unless they have such drastically different thermal, light, or gravity requirements that terraforming Earth in their planet's image is not feasible or useful. Or unless they just haven't bothered encroaching on us yet because they have plenty of uninhabited worlds that are equally suitable.

      In short, there are too many variables to draw a useful conclusion.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    37. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what happens when resource acquisition and trade is no longer a societal imperative: we get fat.

      Well, at least these hypothetical fat aliens will be too lazy to invade Earth. Probably too lazy to visit, either, but you really have to focus on the positive side.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    38. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck do we fight something that can drop nukes all over our god damn planet from space?!

      Can != would

      If they were after our resources, razing the place with nukes would be counterproductive. It's possible they would destroy a few cities in the hopes of breaking our will to resist, but it can't be taken as a given that that would work.

      Nukes are "kill 'em all" weapons. If you wage war with any goal other than "kill 'em all", such weapons are situational at best.

    39. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by XSpud · · Score: 1

      Why do conquerers conquer? Resources!

      And to snuff out perceived current or future threats.

      Given mans' penchant for war and the recent development of space travel, another race might have good reason for seeing us as a future threat, particularly if they think we're close to having the technology for developing WMADs (Weapons of Mass Alien Destruction).

      More than likely, they would be explorers, observers, teachers, or all the above.

      Or weapons inspectors?

    40. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part where I posited that they might not view genocide as an acceptable way to conduct war? Since we know absolutely nothing about them or their culture it seems to me that it's at least as realistic as assuming that they are willing to wipe us all out for the sake of lebensraum.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    41. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      They only need to be peaceful enough to leave their homeworld without destroying themselves, once they leave anything goes. There is not as much reason for them to be peaceful after that. However, once they leave there probably isn't much use for other lifeforms.

    42. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Though how many people actually realise how many galaxies, stars & almost certainly (we'll find out in a few years, I probably won't be surprised) planets are there? Or how many suspect places we have even in our system? The populace at large isn't really accustomed to such basic ideas, doesn't need to face them...we can't really predict the reaction when it has to face them.

      Also... "did the church collapse when they found groups of people who had never heard of God or Jesus" - well, yes and no. On one hand there is some very notable continuity of course (very pure one, according to image adherents have; of any church). But on the other - clash with new areas, new people results in quite notable changes. When it comes to the church in my place (one very dear to Vatican), it's actually not at all obvious if it takes most from Christianity from X century, considering so many elements of local pagan beliefs from the same time (they certainly were very strong for the next 6 or 7 centuries, "national baptism" is in itself a myth of course). That's not at all unique. And Christians from a millenia ago could hardly imagine how far they would be to the present ones (heck, most present ones wouldn't be very safe; heresies and all that...). That's not a sudden collapse of course - but apart from the core of mythology, formalities and buildings, not a lot has survived.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    43. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by dpilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's still a big difference between interplanetary and interstellar travel. Assuming they've managed to leave their homeworld without destroying themselves, and have managed to remain somewhat warlike, they now have the opportunity to develop interplanetary warfare. For this the stakes become much higher and the weapons different. As you say, "probably not much use for other lifeforms," changes the stakes in warfare, because you don't have to live on the same hunk of planetary rock that your attacking, so your attacks can become carelessly devastating. So can theirs.

      There are levels of technological hurdles. We've gotten off of the Earth, and we've gotten some stuff out into the solar system. But we're still far from being an interplanetary scale civilization. We're not even really a spacefaring civilization yet, though we may finally be very close to it.

      I'll define spacefaring as being "planetary orbit commonly and readily available to many." That also means Earth-orbit kinetic energy commonly and readily available to many. Every bit of mass in Earth orbit is potentially a devastating weapon, given that kinetic energy. Extend the scope to the moon, and it means you have Earth-escape kinetic energy commonly and readily available to many. The moon is also a convenient source of rocks to throw. Think, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."

      Similarly for defining interplanetary, except the available kinetic energy starts at Earth-escape and ranges toward Solar-escape. There's also a much more diffuse, easy to hide, and hard to defend source of rocks available.

      Interstellar is a whole different thing entirely. You have to get past the hazards of having all of that kinetic energy commonly and readily available at the spacefaring and interplanetary scales for a suitable amount of time to develop interstellar technology. Plus I just focused on kinetic energy - you also have to have equivalent potential energy at hand to get yourself out of the local gravity well, be it Earth, moon, other planet, or solar. I think Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and the like have done us a bit of a disservice by trivializing interstellar travel, making us think it merely comparable to space travel.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    44. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No, and I didn't miss the part about a space Vietnam war either. If we could walk an invulnerable army through Vietnam, we would have just razed the place to the ground. One would assume we would pose about zero resistance to a conquering alien race that had no use for our population.

    45. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because you're assuming that they have the massive amount of energy available to scan the entire galaxy to find useful stuff. The problem with that is it takes eternity: energy travels at light-constant speeds.

      The alternative with FTL travel involves sending probes by FTL drive to gather information and return. Now we're talking about something with limited coverage, and something that takes time (even with a gap drive that just short-circuits 2.71 lightyears or so at a time into an instantaneous jump). It also requires other resources, like fuel. The time and energy required to pace the entire galaxy would be massive; and the less time, the more energy and ore you need.

      Unless these people are getting energy out of nowhere, they're not going to have a lot of energy; oh sure, we could harvest quite a bit from fusion, M/AM spot generation and reaction, near-SOL orbital collectors, or Titan frigates (Titan hosts huge seas of liquid methane or oil, one of the two... I forget the details). If their solar system is unlike ours, it will still have a massive fusion reaction somewhere (probably in the center), and might have a hell of a lot more ore in an asteroid belt and oil on other planets; still not enough.

      Stop thinking that these things are going to be all-powerful. They're going to have some kind of nuclear energy death ray or something; we've assumed they'll have FTL. They won't have the ability to instantly scan the whole fucking galaxy. They won't have an infinite energy drive that drains energy out of nowhere (Magic). France could have taken America, but instead went after Africa... why?

    46. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Imagine the multiples of star output it would take to actually traverse 72 lightyears with raw thrust rather than some sort of warp drive.

    47. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're inventing species out of thin air. Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating this planet as-is from his noodleness? We're talking about a dirty rock somewhere that formed a ball of nucleotoids, which eventually formed in such a way that they covered themselves in a fatty membrane for protection by random chemical reaction, and then formed functional cells. The driving force is going to be survival.

      Really, intelligent life isn't very useful. Social structure isn't very useful at all without sex, because you don't need it to maintain the species. How the fuck does a Utopia species actually evolve?

      My sexual needs are rather nil. I'm an evolutionary dead end: if I had kids I'd be extremely disturbed and probably kill everything involved.

    48. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Imagine the multiples of star output it would take to actually traverse 72 lightyears with raw thrust rather than some sort of warp drive.

      Given that your statement is extremely open ended, it suggest you don't understand the basics of physics; such as inertia. Ignoring that, one has nothing to do with the other.

      Nuff said.

    49. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Inertia is great, once you've already accelerated to 0.5C. Getting to 0.5C however is hard.

    50. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Scanning the whole galaxy is a lot easier than FTL travel. All you need is a big freaking telescope. And even with FTL, those probes are going to start with nearby worlds and move out. Unless we're accidentally next door, this world has nothing to offer that a million others don't also have.

      Let's put it this way. Suppose we find two "Class M" planets in the solar neighborhood, one with signs of an industrial society, the other appears empty. Where do you think we're going to send our colony ship?

    51. Re:It's probably the safe thing to do by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You're making a lot of assumptions. We have a big freaking telescope, and all we can tell is how a star wobbles and something about the spectra of light put off. Also a decent guess at the distance, which affects the spectra of light (red/blue doppler shift). Never mind finding dark planetoids, asteroids, and anything else not conveniently close to a sun-- things that might make good ore sources.

      Look at our own idea of how many "habitable" planets there are. The two closest I can find are like 6 and 9 times Earth's mass-- I'd weigh 900 or 1350 pounds! I can't land on that! Finding an Earth-like planet we can live on is difficult; why would it be easy for anyone else?

      You make the following assumptions:

      • There are plenty of habitable planets modeled off any given planet that has intelligent life. Habitable planets have similar mass (also dan, gravity), atmosphere, weather, surface radiation, and make-up (soil, rocks, fresh water without toxins in it, etc.).
      • It is easy (cheap in all economical terms including money and resources like ore, time, and fuel) for any society who has just barely developed reasonable and reliable FTL travel to obtain detailed information about the galaxy.
      • It is thus easy for said society to quickly locate and colonize or mine all resources, depending on use (habitable space or just raw material).
      • Such a society would evolve peacefully, with no competition, no desire for trade, and an aversion to squashing pests in their way.

      All bad assumptions. NASA hasn't found a single planet it's sure we could terraform and touch down on. It's found thousands of what it believes (based on star wobble and spectral data) to be Earth-like planets in the habitable zone, most of which have very non-Earth-like mass-- enough to kill you if you try to land on one. An artificial planet is more likely.

  7. Consider that... by minogully · · Score: 5, Funny

    Winston probably called himself "the Church".

    1. Re:Consider that... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      That could be true.

      -The Smith

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Consider that... by minogully · · Score: 1

      I hate to reply to myself, but...

      Along that line of reasoning, he was probably an alien.

    3. Re:Consider that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha...that was funny. But really, what he was referring to was the Church of England. The CoE was and is a branch of the UK government, in many respects. Winston isn't referring to Christianity, in general: He's talking about one particular Protestant denomination - the Church of England.

      The Church of England was the official UK state-mandated religion (in word and in fact) at that time. Even today, the CoE is still the official state religion, but no one pays much attention anymore. Sort of like the fact that the UK is governed by a queen, but the royal family is ceremonial and without the power it once had.

      Do you know who the leader of the Church of England is? His name is Prince Charles. "Defender of the Faith" has been one of his many titles, and the particular faith in question has been the Church of England. It's been this way for centuries, where someone in the royal family takes on the title of Defender of the Faith.

      (Incidentally, ol' Chuck is going by the more politically-correct "Defender of Faith" these days: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html)

      The Church of England has had, until very recently, a stranglehold on all religion in the UK. As a government-sanctioned religion, it could pretty much do whatever it wanted with "heretics". Go back and read some history about burning Catholics at the stake in the 1500s, etc., and you'll get the gist of it. Also, until very recently, there were almost no non-Christians in the UK. Now, with large-scale immigration, they've got a much larger mix of religions from all over the world.

      The CoE is also a primary reason why the USA is here at all: In the 1700s, the King of England was zealously Defending The Faith. You either fell in line with the CoE or accepted that life would be very difficult. The Puritans, Quakers, etc., who arrived in North America and decided to revolt, didn't want their religion dictated by some faraway king.

      And that's what's great about the USA: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. The purpose of that particular amendment is to keep the US government from doing the same thing to its citizens that England did to theirs long ago. It's not about freedom "from" religion, it's about freedom "of" religion. Freedom of religion is great, because it means we don't have to live in a Soviet-style society where all religious expression is squashed by Big Brother. (Forcing atheism on believers is just as bad as forcing religion on non-believers, in my opinion. "Never try to teach a pig to sing: It wastes your time and annoys the pig.")

      Some people in this country are really touchy about religion - "oh noes, there are Evil Fundamentalist Forces out there who are gonna make us all a bunch of Bible-thumping Southern Baptists!" Not true. But if you do notice others around you acting in a puritanical manner, consider the fact that it's, uh, well, actual Puritanism.

      (I should have stopped writing this after the first couple of paragraphs...this is really off-topic. Call it verbal diarrhea. By the way, I am a proud Christian, but I absolutely do not believe in shoving stuff down people's throats.)

  8. Well by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They told the London populace that German V-2 impacts were 'gas pipe' explosions to keep panic down.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:Well by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and the germans had secret experimental jet and stealth aircraft at the time that were never produced in volume due to the allies bombing the germans' industrial capabilities. Northrop had test versions of what is now the B2 back before world war 2 but it had problems back then which is why it took so long to finally make a flying wing design.

    2. Re:Well by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Citation needed on the stealth aircraft claim. They certainly had experimental jet aircraft and even a flying wing (the Ho 229) but I've not seen any evidence that they seriously experimented with stealth technology. The Ho 229 supposedly included RCS reduction but that claim was debunked when the design was tested a few years ago. Northrop concluded that it wouldn't have defeated the Chain Home radar system, much less the more advanced ones developed later in the war.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Well by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Informative

      He probably means the YB-35 and XB-35. Jack starting working with flying wings during the 1930s. Much like rocket technology, the Germans took original, under developed and under funded American technology and funded it.

      Once radar was invented, it was noted the flying wing had a very low radar return. While this aspect was not understood, its significance was not lost on scientists and engineers. In fact, this is one of the reasons why German designers was working to create a long range, flying wing bomber, in which they intended to drop nuclear bombs on NY. The low-radar (stealth) aspect is what they believed would allow it to reach its targets without being intercepted.

    4. Re:Well by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I think the significance of German WW2 technology has been overstated by history. They experimented with some neat stuff and had the Allies bested in a few areas (rocketry) but ultimately they wasted resources that could have been put to more productive uses. The Allies managed to best them technologically in key areas -- anti-submarine warfare, small arms, nuclear technology, computing, radar, etc. Other than rocketry I'm hard pressed to think of a sector that they beat the Allies in.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Well by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the significance of German WW2 technology has been overstated by history. They experimented with some neat stuff and had the Allies bested in a few areas (rocketry) but ultimately they wasted resources that could have been put to more productive uses. The Allies managed to best them technologically in key areas -- anti-submarine warfare, small arms, nuclear technology, computing, radar, etc. Other than rocketry I'm hard pressed to think of a sector that they beat the Allies in.

      That sounds a tad revisionist history. The US, very specifically, decided to go for evolutionary technological improvements. The Germans were specifically going for revolutionary improvements.

      The US anti-sub improvements existed because of significant German U-boat innovations. Small arms? Germans. New style of warfare; including combined operations? Germans. Nuclear technology - Germans - stalled by their own scientists and what kicked Manhattan into overdrive. I do agree with computing and radar - especially radar, which allowed the Allies to operate at night and maintain ship harbor pickets.

      Germans had superior aircraft (really until 1944), rocketry, and even missiles. Let's not forget German's superior armor (second only to Russia - first to introduce sloped armor), artillery, and anti-tank infantry. Literally, the only reason the Germans did not take over the world is they over reached. And in doing so, opened a second front against the Russians. Again, complete Hitler incompetence.

      Basically, the US had the shittiest tanks in the war, only slightly better than countries such as France, Italy, so on. And many a tank crew paid for the technology imbalance with their lives. Depending on the battle and allowed engagement range, it took up to 6:1 of the US' tanks to kill one German tank. And often that was because the US had air superiority. The Sherman sucked ass!

      Don't confuse technology with application of technology. Its largely because of Hitler's complete incompetence and misuse (resulting in massively wasted resources) that German's superior technology failed to win the war. There are many, many, many books written on this very subject.

    6. Re:Well by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse technology with application of technology. Its largely because of Hitler's complete incompetence and misuse (resulting in massively wasted resources) that German's superior technology failed to win the war. There are many, many, many books written on this very subject.

      And, of course, Arthur C. Clarke said his story "Superiority" was inspired by what happened to German technology in WWII.

    7. Re:Well by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The US, very specifically, decided to go for evolutionary technological improvements. The Germans were specifically going for revolutionary improvements.

      You shouldn't be saying 'US', I was referring to the Allies as a whole. Regarding which side made the right choice, well, who won the war?

      The US anti-sub improvements existed

      Most of the real ASW leaps came from the Brits, hence why you shouldn't be saying 'US'.....

      Small arms? Germans

      The M1 Garand was the first semi-automatic rifle fielded by any of the major powers. It was developed before war with Germany was even on the horizon. Germany was still arming her troops with bolt action rifles when semi automatic rifles were standard equipment for US formations.

      Germans had superior aircraft (really until 1944)

      Which aircraft in particular are you thinking about?

      rocketry

      I already acknowledged that, though it made no real impact on the war and the resources that went into it could have been better used elsewhere.

      and even missiles

      Again, what did they accomplish with them? To the best of my knowledge they sank a few merchant ships during the Invasion of Italy and damaged a warship or two. Hardly a game changer.

      Let's not forget German's superior armor

      It's only superior if you look at it in a vacuum. The Sherman was no Tiger but it was cheaper to produce and easier to maintain. What's more useful? A M4 on the battle line or a Tiger in the shop for repairs?

      And in doing so, opened a second front against the Russians. Again, complete Hitler incompetence.

      The war with Russia was the whole point from the get-go. Everything else was a means to this end. I assume you've read Mein Kampf?

      Depending on the battle and allowed engagement range, it took up to 6:1 of the US' tanks to kill one German tank.

      The Sherman wasn't designed to engage German tanks. US doctrine at the time called for using tank destroyers in that role.

      And many a tank crew paid for the technology imbalance with their lives.

      Many more Germans paid for design decisions than did Americans. Tank designs that were easier to produce and keep running might have made all the difference during key battles -- Kursk comes to mind.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Well by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Literally, the only reason the Germans did not take over the world is they over reached. And in doing so, opened a second front against the Russians. Again, complete Hitler incompetence.

      Not really, actually. Stalin wanted his slice of Europe and Hitler knew that. Both of them knew that one would backstab the other when they signed their pact and when Germany attacked Russia was busy preparing for their own attack. It was really inevitable.

      The stupidity started when the Nazis had bright ideas like "let's wage war on the Russians during winter".

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:Well by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I already acknowledged that, though it made no real impact on the war and the resources that went into it could have been better used elsewhere.

      The V2 only didn't make an impact because the German spy network in England had been completely subverted and thus the V2s had faulty targeting information. With working spies Germany could've reduced London to rubble (well, at least the more interesting parts of it). Yes, there is fault to be found in the rockets' failure but it's not in the rockets themselves but rather the fact that the German intelligence network was useless.

      Sure, the V2 came late but I do imagine that a decently-aimable weapon with that reach could've shook up the Allies' morale a bit and might have even pushed them back slightly. Of course this probably would've only lead to the Russians taking over all of Germany but hey, an impact's an impact.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    10. Re:Well by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      With working spies Germany could've reduced London to rubble

      No they couldn't have. The double cross system saved London from more extensive damage but it would not have been possible to reduce London to "rubble" with the V-2s even with a functional spy network. The V-2 was useless as a weapon of war. It's only purpose was as a terror weapon. The resources that went into developing it could have been better used elsewhere.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Well by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The influence of the Russian winter has been overstated by history. The autumn rainy season combined with Russia's network of largely unpaved roads did more to upset the timetable than the onset of winter.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Well by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Revising my statements to factually incorrect statements and then arguing they are incorrect doesn't then make your statements correct.

      I encourage you to go learn a lot more about WWII. In doing so, you'll learn why my statements were all completely accurate.

      To come full circle, the topic is about how overblown the technology of Germany is in history during WWII. The answer is, absolutely not. Accordingly, I'm forced to point you back to one of my original statements, from which you constantly seem to suffer. Do not confuse implementation and deployment of technology with technology. Your hand waving and placing words into my mouth doesn't mitigate that. Additionally, technology is not tactics. Tactics is not technology.

      Considering there are endless books and documentaries which contain all of this information, I see no reason to do such poor job here. Either you want to know - or you don't. Its up to you.

    13. Re:Well by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Other than rocketry I'm hard pressed to think of a sector that they beat the Allies in.

      Cool uniform design, and being evil are the two that spring to mind.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Panic by ADRA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This could be:
    a. Yet another part of the ever growing, ever large conspiracy to cover up the existence of seeming observational aliens
    b. A maneuver by Churchill to silence a few pilots who didn't want to fly the channel anymore and made up a story to get out of getting themselves blown up. If the story had gotten out (true or not), it would've caused possible panic and more importantly a good reasons for pilots to refuse to fly, this with the backdrop of the a truly catastrophic war.

    Read the article and find that the story is told by the grandson of a guard who overheard a conversation. Wow, that is just brilliant.

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:Panic by mangst · · Score: 1

      What if it is a conspiracy, but a different one. We as human beings need an Other to focus our attention on, otherwise we tear ourselves apart. But we can't afford to have wars anymore because there comes the risk that somebody will use a nuclear weapon and destroy all life on the planet. Aliens, UFOs, etc are a good way of taking our attention off of ourselves.

  10. Authoritative Sources by Jodka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nope, no room for doubt here. From the article:

    The allegations involving Churchill were made by the grandson of one his personal bodyguards, an RAF officer who overheard the discussion

    Apart from telling his daughter – the scientist’s mother – about the incident when she was nine, the bodyguard, who was “greatly affected by his experience”, only disclosed the details to his wife on his deathbed in 1973.

    The scientist, also an expert in astronomy who said he developed software for use in "spacecraft thermal engineering", was told years later by his mother.

    Stressing he was not a “crackpot”...

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Authoritative Sources by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      And in other news: Regarding last week's article about the carpenter that won 1,000,000$ in the lottery, there were a few errors: It wasn't the carpenter, but the barber; it wasn't 1,000,000$, but 10,000$; and he didn't win, but lose. Other then that, everything is correct.

      News - You gotta love it!

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    2. Re:Authoritative Sources by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      The third point is perhaps the most concerning (OK, maybe the game of telephone here is). The guy (who is unnamed, which isn't promising) claims to be a physicists with expertise in astronomy, but his work sounds a lot more like he's an engineer.

      Also,

      Stressing he was not a “crackpot”, he said he wanted to investigate the science behind the incident after his grandfather, who was bound by the Official Secrets Act,

      So... his grandfather couldn't talk to anyone about it and therefore had to bit his tongue in spite of his curiosity. (With me so far?) But granddad also tells his wife and daughter? Lookit, if the guy believes in official secrecy, he knows secret means just that: secret. You don't have a state secret that you religiously keep for 50 years, except telling your loved ones. Word leaks out, that's why they made a big to-do in WWII about "loose lips sink ships" and all of that.

  11. Let's be clear by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even assuming this nth hand story is true, UFO aliens. It could just as easily be one of Hitler's various secret experiments or any number of less exciting things.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Let's be clear by Jarred+Capellman · · Score: 2, Funny

      That or the Planet Express ship getting sent back in time again...

    2. Re:Let's be clear by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Because people aren't interested in facts or truth or have any interest in WWII outside of History channel programs like "Did Jesus defeat Hitler? Nostradamus's writings suggest so."

    3. Re:Let's be clear by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      That should of read UFO not equal to aliens, slashdot ate the angle brackets.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    4. Re:Let's be clear by easterberry · · Score: 3, Funny

      He was just covering for The Doctor when the Tardis went into space to destroy the Dalek ship.

    5. Re:Let's be clear by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      Or the forward-only time machine slowing down to take pot-shots at the Fuhrer.

    6. Re:Let's be clear by Rhaban · · Score: 1

      or so far forward that the future is identical to the past

    7. Re:Let's be clear by laejoh · · Score: 1

      There were zwei peanuts, walking down the straße, und one was a salted... peanut!

  12. Even worse post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should say:

    Newly released secret files show that the grandson of Winston Churchill once claimed that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber"

    Kinda different.

    Different yes, but how would making it more wrong be better? (Churchill's grandson died last year, and never made any such claim - and isn't even mentioned in the article.)

  13. I see by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    So after reading TFA, all we have is the word of what one person's mother was allegedly told by Winston Churchill's bodyguard about what Sir Winston apparently did to an alleged report by two crewmembers.

    Unfortunately there's a lack of any kind of "evidence" that said incident even took place, since any possible files with reference to the alleged event were destroyed 60 years ago. So, what was the news here again?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:I see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, UFO sightings were so common by WWII air crews, they were called, "Foo Fighters"; from which the rock band gets its name. Almost without fail, all sightings were classified and air crews were forbidden from discussing. Foo fighter sightings were in fact, one of the reasons Project Blue Book and others were created. About half way through project bluebook's life, they had enough unexplained sightings, the project was officially turned into a disinformation project for the government.

      To this date, a huge share of Foo Fighter sightings and a modest number of Project Blue Book sightings have been been properly explained.

      Lastly, do keep in mind, a fair number of Foo Fighter sightings might only be able to be explained via modern day technology - if so.

  14. The masses fear the anal probe... by strangeattraction · · Score: 1

    The masses have always feared the anal probe even before Roman times. He was correct in not disclosing the massive probe potential that alien civilizations posses. Only when have erected gigantic probe defenses should we contact alien worlds.

    1. Re:The masses fear the anal probe... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      WE already have them...

      It's called the butt plug.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  15. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by romu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Doctor who ?

  16. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by theVP · · Score: 1

    "Have a cigar!"

    --
    "No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
  17. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and still the doctor never gets any credit.

    the daleks too... don't forget them

  18. Contributor Summary is Incorrect by tkjtkj · · Score: 2, Informative

    Summary said: "t should say: Newly released secret files show that the grandson of Winston Churchill once claimed that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber" Kinda different." And Summary is incorrect: the person making the claim is the grandson of one of Mr. Churchill's bodyguards. He, the grandson, is a respected physicist and an expert in Astronomy. Please re-read the link in the /. article.

    --
    "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
    1. Re:Contributor Summary is Incorrect by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      You read too fast. It was Churchill's bodyguard's grandson.

      And he didn't hear it directly from his grandfather. Nor is there any confirmation that the grandfather actually served in that capacity.

      Is this more or less accurate than "A Bloke in a Pub told Me"?

  19. What UFOs couldn't do to belief in God... by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    ...the passage of decades managed to accomplish.

  20. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by blindbat · · Score: 1

    Knock Knock

    Who's there?

    The Doctor

    The Doctor Who?

    Just the Doctor!

  21. First thing that comes to mind by Arrow_Raider · · Score: 1

    Obligatory: I would like to call attention to the radio abridged reading of War of the Worlds and the panic that ensued when people thought it was a news broadcast.

    1. Re:First thing that comes to mind by geekoid · · Score: 1

      IO would lie to call toy Your attention some facts.

      1) The story was about Aliens attacking
      2) We where in a real threat of being bombed by the Germans.
      3) The 'panic' was from people who tuned in mid show and only heard the part about bombing and burnings. They assumed the Germans had attacked.

      In short, if aliens landed and did attack, people would flee for there lives.
      Whether those were Aliens from Germans or outer space. wouldn't matted in that case.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:First thing that comes to mind by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that never happened, at least not at that scale, at all. Just fantasy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)#Public_reaction

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  22. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Light reflected of swamp gass, and collided with a weather balloon.

  23. A Politician *did* cover-up to prevent mass panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that it's an allegation by the grandson of Churchill's bodyguard.

    Too many degrees of separation--although there are similar stories of government
    cover-ups intended to prevent mass panic of a UFO sighting. Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington III did
    just that in 1997 and explains why he did it (and how it's changed his perception of the topic) in a book
    about to be released in a matter of days.

    The book is by Investigative Report Leslie Kean
    The foreword is written by John Podesta (Obama Transition Co-Chair, and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff)
    Her other backers include: former CNN Sci-tech Correspondent Miles O'Brien, and String Field Theory Pioneer Michio Kaku:

    http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307716848

  24. Why the big fuss? by bcmm · · Score: 3, Insightful
    WWII produced quite a lot of UFO stories, and the event in the article sound pretty much like a foo fighter, which are a pretty well-documented, if unexplained, phenomenon. In other words, there are dozens of similar stories which nobody has made any effort to cover up.

    Also, the article annoys me greatly be implicitly equating UFOs with extraterrestrial spacecraft throughout:

    Another person at the meeting raised the possibility of a UFO

    Really? During a meeting discussing an unidentified flying object?

    The comment about the Church implies that the object was assumed to be extraterrestrial, which is perhaps the least plausible bit: why would a group of military experts assume such a thing?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Why the big fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the event in the article sound pretty much like a foo fighter, ... The comment about the Church implies that the object was assumed to be extraterrestrial, which is perhaps the least plausible bit: why would a group of military experts assume such a thing?

      Probably to throw a Monkey Wrench into the allegations.

    2. Re:Why the big fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > sound pretty much like a foo fighter, which are a pretty well-documented, if unexplained, phenomenon.

      Pesky extraterrestrial tourists...

    3. Re:Why the big fuss? by lennier · · Score: 1

      The comment about the Church implies that the object was assumed to be extraterrestrial, which is perhaps the least plausible bit: why would a group of military experts assume such a thing?

      Probably because that's exactly the conclusion that the first group of military experts assigned to investigate UFOs came to. The 'ET hypothesis' was not received well by the US military, and certainly did not become the official explanation. But it was out there, and people in a position to see the early evidence were thinking along those lines.

      The really interesting question to my mind is not, is it plausible that Winston Churchill may have reached such a conclusion a few years earlier than the public record shows (though that is both interesting and plausible to me), but why did the actual, documented, paper trail of Project Sign in 1947 reach such an out-there conclusion - even at substantial risk to their careers?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  25. What's the big deal? by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    Regardless of whether or not this story is BS, which I'm rather certain it is, I fail to see why it would be catastrophic to the human race to learn that extraterrestrials do exist, assuming they're not bent on our destruction. It would undoubtedly have profound implications on humanity, but I have a hard time believing that it would provoke mass panic.

    Additionally, why would such an event instill doubts in religion? Any logical religious person would simply see this as a sign that god is even more awesome than they had imagined. And if the aliens have their own religion it wouldn't render Earth religions any less relevant. Unless they had conclusive, irrefutable evidence about how the existence of God and the nature of the universe. But then it wouldn't be religion, it would simply be fact.

    Undoubtedly there would be some initial resistance, there might be some limited panic, some threat of violence but for the most part I think it would be a very enlightening experience for humanity. But then again, what aliens would want to meet us? Spend 15 minutes on Youtube and Earth ends up looking like the toilet of the universe. Some would probably even consider us a threat to the universe, worthy of destroying.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by taxman_10m · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A non-trivial percentage of the human race freaks out if women don't cover themselves in a tarp. So yes, I think aliens may ruffle some feathers.

  26. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    No credit is needed. Just the knowledge of doing his favorite species a favour. Even though we do look exactly like Gallifreians. That, a sonic screwdriver, a stolen TARDIS Type 40, and some of the hottest assistants ever, who needs thanks? A oddly long scarf and a card would be nice though.

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  27. Don't land in Arizona by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    hey you space aliens, don't land in Arizona or you'll be in big trouble! another question: how come you all are racist pigs? only ones that can qualify for your astronaut corps are those who are little, green, and men.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Don't land in Arizona by Is0m0rph · · Score: 0, Troll

      I hope they do land in Arizona with the intent of abducting cheap labor to build things and pick crops on their home planet. They can have all of our illegal Mexicans free of charge! All they would have to do is stop by almost any street intersections, Home Depot, and Lowes and pick them up.

    2. Re:Don't land in Arizona by Manos_Of_Fate · · Score: 1

      another question: how come you all are racist pigs? only ones that can qualify for your astronaut corps are those who are little, green, and men.

      As it turns out, some of them are women. Do NOT ask them to show you how to tell the difference.
      *shudders*

      --
      Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
  28. Remember by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    I've seen a lot of alien invasion movies, and all you need to remember is that if you spray an alien with salt water, they will melt. They are a lot like wicked witches in that regards.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  29. "...and destroy one's belief in the Church.'" by Jawnn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Like that would have been a bad thing?

    1. Re:"...and destroy one's belief in the Church.'" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the humanity that would have been a wonderful thing, but for the people who abuse others ignorance to make money from them thats is the end of all.

      Sorry to tell that, but american was built around ignorance and blind-faith.

    2. Re:"...and destroy one's belief in the Church.'" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I come from the Church did a lot of good, while secular (Communist) authorities did a lot of bad. I therefore think the opposite - assuming you base your opinion on some factual occurrences or experience.

    3. Re:"...and destroy one's belief in the Church.'" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got your foo fighter right here: Horten 229, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
      The 229 would be pretty quiet from the side compared to the noise of a propeller plane at speed with two or more of the radial engines of the time. The YB flying wings are the post war "flying saucers" Kenneth Arnold spotted in 1947 and got the whole craze going stateside.

  30. 'The Church' by imaswinger · · Score: 1

    is that a nickname for himself or did he mean organized religion?

  31. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes.

    --
    That is all.
  32. Re:They are among us. by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    Just look around at the Tea Party movement. Alliens are among us.

  33. The secret alien propaganda program... by bdwoolman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ahhh... But we must continue to wonder if aliens are secretly behind the sci fi scenes, molding us and educating us. But for what? Perhaps preparing us for the day when they will cook us and eat us. Perhaps our intelligence is just something their bio engineers built in as a way to insure that most of the biomass of Sol 3 is concentrated into six billion bite sized nuggets when they swing by three billion years later. "Hey Vorb! These are great. Just pull off the head and suck out the juice. Bitchin', dude."

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:The secret alien propaganda program... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps our intelligence is just something their bio engineers built in as a way to insure that most of the biomass of Sol 3 is concentrated into six billion bite sized nuggets when they swing by three billion years later. "Hey Vorb! These are great. Just pull off the head and suck out the juice. Bitchin', dude."

      Quick, start building a Sentience Collector!

  34. because you & slashdot don't understand religi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many religions teach that Earth is the center of the universe. This idea is used as a control system. Lose this control system, and suddenly people become free-thinkers. And the controllers at the top, who control all the UFO technology do not want free thinkers to ruin their game.

  35. Regardless, it is an interesting question by frog_strat · · Score: 1

    Is there other intelligent life out there ? I don't know. However, some claim that if evidence of aliens visiting here presented itself, goverments would be unable to resist indulging in yet another coverup. The referenced story strengthens that claim. So I would not look to the government to just share what it knows. Would this coverup be 100% effective ? Likely not. It would start to leak here and there. You would have military and intelligence folks, astronauts and others, coming out with these "I want to say something before I die" stories. Which is what we see.

    1. Re:Regardless, it is an interesting question by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 1

      Is there other intelligent life out there ? I don't know.

      Well consider this: there are around 10**20 stars in the universe. If you were to consider every star as a grain of sand, that would make for a cube of sand 5km in each direction, which is considered to be about as much as all the sand on all the beaches on planet Earth

      So, is our star system the only grain of sand with life on it? That strikes me as unlikely no matter how unlikely you consider the development of life to be.

    2. Re:Regardless, it is an interesting question by terjeber · · Score: 1

      At the same time we have the Fermi Paradox. Where are they? At our current rate of expansion and technological development we will have colonized the galaxy shortly (universe time-scale).

      If there is intelligent life on only a handful of the viable planets, given that some of that life necessarily have several millions years of a head start on us, the first thing that Galileo should have seen when looking up was
      "Welcome to the Galaxy humans.
      This message sponsored by MickyD's, 25 trillion served each galactic standard day".

    3. Re:Regardless, it is an interesting question by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 1

      At the same time we have the Fermi Paradox. Where are they? At our current rate of expansion and technological development we will have colonized the galaxy shortly (universe time-scale).

      If there is intelligent life on only a handful of the viable planets, given that some of that life necessarily have several millions years of a head start on us, the first thing that Galileo should have seen when looking up was "Welcome to the Galaxy humans. This message sponsored by MickyD's, 25 trillion served each galactic standard day".

      The simplest answer to the Fermi Paradox is that faster-than-light travel is not possible. If it's going to take a century to go ten light years, galactic colonization is just not going to happen.

      All societies eventually end up in a stagnant state, with countless generations doing the holodeck equivalent of watching sports. No doubt there will be a few that have been forced into the "Ark" scenario, but that's just moving house, not expanding.

      You might like Neal Stephenson's "Anathem". Well, or you might hate it.

    4. Re:Regardless, it is an interesting question by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The simplest answer to the Fermi Paradox is that faster-than-light travel is not possible

      No, it is not. We don't need FTL to colonize the Galaxy. Not even a significant fraction of the speed of light is needed.

      If it's going to take a century to go ten light years, galactic colonization is just not going to happen.

      There are several ways this can be done without FTL travel. One is the Ark scenario, and yes, it would be expanding since it is unlikely one civilization will fit into one ark and all go at one point in time. Several different arks going off in different directions is plenty. Two is enough to colonize.

  36. Completely Off Topic by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

    What about the fact that the pledge was written by a socialist to advance socialist ideas?

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    1. Re:Completely Off Topic by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Which "socialist ideas"? You mean liberty and justice for all? Do you find those ideas objectionable?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:Completely Off Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the fact that the pledge was written by a socialist to advance socialist ideas?

      Umm... I don't know, "what about it?" What does that have to do my opinion that "God" does not belong in the pledge or elsewhere in the public sphere? Does tacking His name on after-the-fact somehow undo the "socialist ideas" you think Francis Bellamy was trying to espouse?

      What a bizarre reply. You're not trying to pull something like this, are you?

      A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

            1. Topic A is under discussion.
            2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
            3. Topic A is abandoned.

      This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

    3. Re:Completely Off Topic by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1
      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    4. Re:Completely Off Topic by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 0, Troll

      My objections to the Pledge has nothing to do with the words "under God" (which I agree do not belong there, but for reasons different than yours) and everything to do with it's socialist origins.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    5. Re:Completely Off Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *facepalm*

      I can see why you're going to vocational school even though you're in your 30's.

    6. Re:Completely Off Topic by TehZorroness · · Score: 1

      Liberty and justice for all are indeed socialist ideas. Liberty and Justice for those who can afford it sounds more capitalist to me.

    7. Re:Completely Off Topic by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Do pray tell enlighten me.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  37. Alien race - discordnant memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UFO's are a sham perpetuated by little Stevie S'berg and a cabal of ultra-liberal Hollywood elite.

  38. UFO =! Alien Ship by muindaur · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's:

    1) Atmospheric reflection(hmm five lights moving really fast can't be a five fighter formation?)
    2) Many bombers encountered ball lightning in WWII but because of lack of science education classified them as UFOs
    3) Astronauts aren't seeing aliens.
    4) X Planes: Flying wings were classified as aliens but have been in development since WWII. Area 51 was just a base for testing classified military aircraft.
    5) Alien abductions are a) mass hysteria and b) usually involve some sort of dream or psychotic episode.
    6) Roswell was established as a military x-plane crash at a later date. (The aliens being test pilots in jump suits some drunken hick though were aliens.)

    1. Re:UFO =! Alien Ship by narcc · · Score: 1

      3) Astronauts aren't seeing aliens.

      Lots of astronauts have claimed to have seen UFOs they believe to be of extraterrestrial origin.

      Just one example: A couple years ago Apollo 14 Astronaut Edgar Mitchell made some serious claims regarding alien contact.

      This doesn't make the claims true, but it does stand in direct contradiction to point #3.

  39. Much simpler solution for dealing with "cowards" by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I.e. those soldiers and pilots who would refuse to fight.

    It involves a squad of soldiers armed with rifles and a brick wall.
    Blindfolds were optional.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  40. LIES! by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Gray-skinned men have been a part of the space program from the beginning.

    And just what kind of backward barbarian species would still have "gender"? DISGUSTING!
    What is next? You reproduce through sex and divide your society according to geographical features?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  41. Church, et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing about the church is that according to Genesis humans are created in God's image and are the crown of his creation, with all other creatures and the Earth subordinate to Man. To have materially advanced aliens flying about would contravene that assertion. This would then weaken the claims of the church. However, Winston was already on shaky ground, as the Church of England was founded by a monarch, Henry VIII, and not by a religious authority. This alone, when the New Testament puts the Church under Peter and his successors should have already weakened the Church. However, Winston had the law on his side and could enforce religious doctrine via the penal code. Very convenient. Lastly, the Church was weakened by the forces that were unleashed through technological advancement in the second half of the 20th century anyway. It was the the later generations that were the aliens! And their uncovering weakened the Church!

    1. Re:Church, et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the New Testament puts the Church under Peter and his successors

      Catholicism, eh? That is based on a very erroneous interpretation of something Jesus said. Matthew 16:13-20:

      When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

      They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

      “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

      Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.”

      Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

      Jesus’ statement makes no sense whatsoever if you try to interpret it as referring to Peter.

      First of all, you don’t switch from first person to third person in normal language. Secondly, it would be strangely repetitive, as it would make more sense to simply say, “Upon this ‘Peter’ I will build my church” – using a play on the meaning of the word – if that had been what he had meant. Thirdly, and most importantly, no church can be founded upon a merely-human leader – such a church would be fickle because human leaders are imperfect – but only on the Rock, the Son of God, the Christ: Jesus. As “Rock” was used in messianic prophecy, any well-versed Jewish man would have caught the reference.

      Jesus was referring to himself, directly, or more specifically the fact of his identity: “Who do you say that I am?” Peter’s answer – “You are the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the living God” – was the knowledge of the Rock upon which the church was built; the reference to Peter’s own name was a memory aid.

      In essence, Jesus was saying, “You are a rock; I am The Rock”. The church was built of rocks, such as Peter, built upon the one Rock, Jesus, its corner stone.

      What’s more — Peter got it. (Who better to ask, after all, to learn what Jesus meant by that, than Peter himself?) The memory aid, I’m sure, helped. 1 Peter 2:3-6:

      If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

      To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

      Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

      Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

      Jesus was the living Rock who was made the chief corner stone; Peter was a “lively (living) stone, ... built up [as] a spiritual house” upon Christ, its corner stone.

  42. Flying saucers at Roswell by edelbrp · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the crashed flying saucers that were recovered at Roswell which was truthfully reported by the military and then later called a weather balloon. For the interesting story from a physicist, check out lecture Tue 3/6/2007 of Physics for Future Presidents:

    Lectures of Physics for Future Presidents, Spring 2007

    (Spoiler: no aliens, but still interesting.)

  43. Re:Much simpler solution for dealing with "cowards by ADRA · · Score: 1

    You should watch Path of Glory.. good old Kubrick..

    --
    Bye!
  44. nothing to see here by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

    RTFA. "The allegations involving Churchill were made by the grandson of one his personal bodyguards..."

    I.e., what was released was a file containing a relatively recent letter from a UFO crank, not an actual Churchill document. "I am writing you because my mom told me that my grandfather told her that one time he overheard Churchill say..."

    Without a doubt the most pointless "news" story I've seen this week.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  45. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by damien_kane · · Score: 1

    When did Who ever say we were his favourites?
    The prophecies all say that Earth is Important, in the same way that he is Important, and that Master is Important. That's the only reason he works so hard to keep it around.

    (I capitalize Important because, within the context, this isn't "who won last night's game" important, or "we just unlocked the secrets to cold fusion" important, but more "the continued existence of, well, existence" Important)

  46. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doctor Yes?

  47. Nazi Germany build and fly experimental saucers by Parhelion · · Score: 1

    There are photos and descriptions of saucer-like experimental aircraft that Nazi Germany actually did build and fly towards the end of the second world war. So that's probably all this was. http://www.burlingtonnews.net/ufonazi.html

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Why do aliens != true church/bible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (John 10:16) And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

    Seems pretty clear to me. Sure sure sure, it could mean the native americans like the mormons believe, but I like aliens better.

    1. Re:Why do aliens != true church/bible? by daveime · · Score: 1

      I think the Bible can be pretty accurate in some respects ... there's an awful lot of chapters about sheep.

  50. Pondering the final religious frontier by Pyrus.mg · · Score: 1

    Ah, that age-old religious question, "What does God need with a starship?"

  51. You must be a silent minority... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You might mention that to the religious right. They trott out the 'gays' or the 'immigrants' every election cycle to rile up the righteous. We see this all the time about someone claiming to be a 'proper' Christian in a forum, but where are you when religious extremists are spewing vitriol all over the screen, the headlines, and in church? Nary a peep.

    I'm beginning to think you fear your own people, and you have lost all hope of control of your church.

    The "Christians" you're talking about aren't Christians at all, and it's extremely unfair and short-sighted to assume that all Christians (not to forget Atheists) support such extremist (and un-Godly) views.

    1. Re:You must be a silent minority... by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to think you fear your own people, and you have lost all hope of control of your church.

      There isn't a church. There's lots of them, many without leaders. I'm a Catholic, and while I have a "leader" (the Pope), many other Christian denominations (especially Baptists) operate on an entirely voluntary and individual basis. This is where a lot of the problems with Christian extremists come in because there isn't a clear idea of how things should be interpreted, used in context, etc. compared to the Catholic church.

      PS: Note that it's VERY easy to call yourself a Christian, but very hard to be one. For all I know, I'm not even a true Christian!

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    2. Re:You must be a silent minority... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute.... A member of the worlds largest international child molestation ring is trying to defend other "Christians"??? I'm not sure anyone that would fit your definition of a "true Christian" would want you defending them.

    3. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow.. You are defaming him with guilt by association. You have room to talk too, you are using the favorite tools of child molesters just to make that post (online message boards). See how that shit works, if it's ok to make someone guilting because of an association to others, you must be one sick pervert then. Seriously, grow up.

      Come on, lets get original, is there something he has done or are you grasping at straws and just trolling here?

    4. Re:You must be a silent minority... by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Wow.. You are defaming him with guilt by association. You have room to talk too, you are using the favorite tools of child molesters just to make that post (online message boards). See how that shit works, if it's ok to make someone guilting because of an association to others, you must be one sick pervert then. Seriously, grow up.

      Come on, lets get original, is there something he has done or are you grasping at straws and just trolling here?

      Hey there Dumass,

      I think the point the above poster may have been trying to make (in his or her crude way) was that if a church is led by a man who willfully supported and even enabled the sexual exploitation of children over a period of decades, then perhaps members of that church, once the behavior is made public, do not have the moral high ground if they continue to support that church. Perhaps they should not denigrate less centralized religions either, as such entities by their very nature cannot have a top-down core practice of concealing a disgusting betrayal of its own congregation.

      It really isn't a matter of guilt by association, but rather indirect complicity. This isn't a few instances of abuse after all, but a systematic conspiracy lasting decades, and perhaps a century or more. It speaks directly to the heart of the institution itself. By holding up his church as a standard for christian behavior, the GGP is defending that church's abhorrent practices.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    5. Re:You must be a silent minority... by FakeStreet123 · · Score: 0

      PS: Note that it's VERY easy to call yourself a Christian, but very hard to be one. For all I know, I'm not even a true Christian!

      Are you baptised? Do you believe in god? Then you're christian. The fact that you might go to hell or not is another story.

    6. Re:You must be a silent minority... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It is not guilt by association. If another Catholic was convicted of child molestation, I wouldn't call his membership in the Catholic Church a membership in an international child molestation ring. That isn't what happened though. What happened was that he declared his allegiance to an organization where the organization actively used their vast resources to directly support child molestation. Presumably, the poster donated money to this organization knowing that the organization used money he collected to support members of it's staff to commit child molestation.

      Now, if you want to compare the Catholic Church to the internet, you would need to change your analogy. Christianity as a whole would be the equivalent of the internet, and the Catholic Church would be the equivalent of AT&T. If it turned out that AT&T leadership was systematically collecting up children and molesting them, it was well known by both the public and everyone onside the organization that this was a common practice and there were other ISPs, then yes, I would considers someones use of AT&T internet access to be supporting child molestation. I would certainly consider them to support child molestation if the DONATED money to AT&T and was going to take their moral guidance from executives who were known to be directly involved with setting the policy to use AT&T funds to keep the molesters in positions where they would continue to have access to kids. As far as I know, AT&T has not done this, and I don't know anyone that looks to AT&T to give them moral guidance.

      It is attitudes like yours and the OP that have allowed the Catholic Church to continue to molest children.

    7. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It is not guilt by association. If another Catholic was convicted of child molestation, I wouldn't call his membership in the Catholic Church a membership in an international child molestation ring. That isn't what happened though. What happened was that he declared his allegiance to an organization where the organization actively used their vast resources to directly support child molestation. Presumably, the poster donated money to this organization knowing that the organization used money he collected to support members of it's staff to commit child molestation.

      That's not what happened at all. He follows a religion that doesn't condone child molestation although a percentage of other members may have been involved in it. And to that, the number of people involved in Child molestation is no different from any other occupation that has access to children (IE, Schools, juvenile courts system and so on. You are living in some fallacy that because you hear more of a stink being made about the members of the church and the church's inability to hide the molestations you somehow think it's happening more or it's sanctioned by the church which is an absolute fabrication. Nowhere in the Catholic church does any document or policy written or understood accept the molestation of children.

      You are in fact operating under guilt by association.

      Now, if you want to compare the Catholic Church to the internet, you would need to change your analogy. Christianity as a whole would be the equivalent of the internet, and the Catholic Church would be the equivalent of AT&T. If it turned out that AT&T leadership was systematically collecting up children and molesting them, it was well known by both the public and everyone onside the organization that this was a common practice and there were other ISPs, then yes, I would considers someones use of AT&T internet access to be supporting child molestation. I would certainly consider them to support child molestation if the DONATED money to AT&T and was going to take their moral guidance from executives who were known to be directly involved with setting the policy to use AT&T funds to keep the molesters in positions where they would continue to have access to kids. As far as I know, AT&T has not done this, and I don't know anyone that looks to AT&T to give them moral guidance.

      No analogy change is necessary, you just need to practice fairness in your accusations and get you facts straight. The leadership of the catholic church was not in any way systematically collecting up children and molesting them. Leaders in the catholic church were but it was never a church sanctioned event.

      Now I can tell you are of limited mental capacity so I will explain what the difference there is. In order for the leadership to do something, it has to be a sanctioned event that is progressed down the line. When leaders act on their own, it's simply an abuse of their position of trust. In all occupations where access to children is possible, people who want to molest children seek to be employed. This is why there are law concerning employment at schools and daycare facilities, parks and so on. The church for some reason wasn't really included in those mostly because the government can't have direct control over them (just like scout leaders and such) but generally because it's the last thing one would expect from a church who's message is quite the contrary. And yes, the Jedeo-Christian-Muslim religions all do not accept the molestation of children or even adults for that matter, as part of their religion. But because people sought out jobs to gain access to children like the pedophiles who became boy scout troop leaders, does not mean that the organization accepts it, sanctions it, or allows it to happen.

      If someone is guilty because others who participate in the same activity, club or organization does something wrong, then it's transferable to anything

    8. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think the point the above poster may have been trying to make (in his or her crude way) was that if a church is led by a man who willfully supported and even enabled the sexual exploitation of children over a period of decades, then perhaps members of that church, once the behavior is made public, do not have the moral high ground if they continue to support that church. Perhaps they should not denigrate less centralized religions either, as such entities by their very nature cannot have a top-down core practice of concealing a disgusting betrayal of its own congregation.

      Unless you mean enables by lack of positive actions when the circumstances were known, then the accusation would be completely wrong. The pope did not support or enable sexual exploitation of children over a period of decades outside of failing to act responsibly when he knew about it. And during the time period, it was somewhat common for people to push things like sexual abuse under the rug because they didn't want to deal with it. It's not just the Catholic church that has had to deal with it, it's all of society. Look at how long it took to get laws about background checks for workers who have access to children? Hell, it wasn't even illegal in most states for a convicted child molester to go down to the play ground at the local park and hang out all day until the late 1980's early 90's.

      Now, I'm not saying what the pope did while he was a bishop was right or anything, I'm saying it doesn't equate to how you or the op presented it. Nowhere in the catholic religion does it support the sexual exploitation of children or even adults, and in fact, it actually states the contrary. So you end up with the actions of people in positions of power who were not acting within the scope of the church and leaders who failed to do something about it when it was found out. One of those lacking leader is not the top leader of the church which makes him about as morally equal to the leaders of many other countries including some of the leaders of the USA.

      t really isn't a matter of guilt by association, but rather indirect complicity. This isn't a few instances of abuse after all, but a systematic conspiracy lasting decades, and perhaps a century or more. It speaks directly to the heart of the institution itself. By holding up his church as a standard for christian behavior, the GGP is defending that church's abhorrent practices.

      Well, I'm glad you actually see that it's not a direct action of the church or the current pope. Now, if you ask most Christians who are not part of the catholic church (more precisely the roman catholic church), they will say they are somewhat of a cult and not a church. However, even with their insane worshiping of idols like Marry, or the insistence on the divine right of kings, and so on, the church itself is not indicative of the lousy leadership it has had over the last century or so.

      But the clearer problem is that the GGP did not in any way hold up his church as a standard for Christians or defend that church's abhorrent practices. He simple states (in layman's terms) that some churches interpret things differently and there isn't just one church there are many. He goes on to say that because of the different interpretations he might not even be a true Christian. That's hardly holding his church up or setting it as a standard for others. His point was to why the actions of some should not dictate a belief towards all which was clearly lost in this thread.

    9. Re:You must be a silent minority... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      And Vietnam wasn't a war, and neither was Korea. I cannot speak for before I was born, but I knew that kids were being molested by church officials since Paul VI. Certainly the Popes knew it was happening and continued to not only ignore the problem, but make policy that protected it. Growing up, calling someone an 'alter boy' was basically accusing them of getting buggered by old men. Priests molesting kids was an open secret. It does not take an official statement by an organization to make the organization responsible for it's actions. By your standards, there isn't, and never has been a Mafia. After all, they haven't made any official statements.

    10. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And Vietnam wasn't a war, and neither was Korea. I cannot speak for before I was born, but I knew that kids were being molested by church officials since Paul VI.

      Wow, you can't see the difference between a government ordering troops to do something and people acting on their own? Are you serious?

      Certainly the Popes knew it was happening and continued to not only ignore the problem, but make policy that protected it.

      Pure conjecture. In fact, there is no direct evidence that any pope knew what was going on outside of the current pope- at to that extent he knew as in a position other then being pope. The pope might have been aware of some accusations but accusation have been made in order to hurt an image or reputation that have turned out to be nothing but that. So the question is, was there any creditable evidence that the pope knew about that the church refused to act on or actively covered up? And the answer to that is no, specifically because most of the accusations were made after the abused came of legal age. And to that extent, a lot of the accusers were converted self proclaimed evangelical atheists who seems to be backing a motive other then stopping the abuse. Now that does not excuse the church from taking the claims seriously, but I can see how they would tend to ignore frothing at the mouth god haters making accusations. That is a reasonable error as it happens all the time.

      Growing up, calling someone an 'alter boy' was basically accusing them of getting buggered by old men.

      Bullshit. Unless you were in some secrete club that got molested all the time or grew up in the last 10 years. The actual percentage of priest molesting children or anyone else in the congregation is no different from the average for any other occupation that comes into contact with children. the difference is that you hear about it more because the religion behind the church stands for the opposite of that happening and calls it a sin. This creates not only a shock value to keep it in front of the public, but is cause for ammunition from those who actively work against the church or religions.

      Priests molesting kids was an open secret. It does not take an official statement by an organization to make the organization responsible for it's actions

      Bullshit again. That is nothing but pure conjecture by you with absolutely nothing backing it's accuracy.

      By your standards, there isn't, and never has been a Mafia. After all, they haven't made any official statements.

      Actually, the Mafia has made official statements. That's how crime bosses get busted for the actions of their lackeys. And you have absolutely no evidence to even remotely suggest that the Roman Catholic Church acted even somewhat officially like the the mafia in it's endorsement of abusing children. You should stick with reality and not let your mind get carries away.

    11. Re:You must be a silent minority... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You have made your position absolutely clear. No doubt the "ignorant" popes took the same stance.

    12. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why are you insisting on attributing malice to what can easily be explained by ignorance?

      I mean this crap happens all the time in a large organization which some people know some things but do not fully understand the scope of it. Crap, the government had enough information to of stopped or severely hampered 9/11 from happening but it was only after the fact that all the pieces of known information came together in one room to create the larger picture of the events of 9/11. Are we supposed to believe that Clinton and all his lackies as well as Bush were behind 9/11 because they allowed this information which didn't present a clear picture because it wasn't all in one place to not be used to stop 9/11 from happening?

      Listen, I don't know anything about you, but suppose you have kids, applying the logic used to indict the pope is akin to you seeing your kids show lace is untied then being blamed for him tripping on it and injuring himself moments later. Of course you wasn't trying to hurt your kid, you just didn't seem an eminent threat of a shoe lace being untied to race over and tie it. Suppose when the kid fell, he knocked over a stand with an expensive vase on it at someone else' house. Does this mean you intended to break the vase? No it means a chain of events happened and while you are responsible for the child, saw his untied shoe lace, and didn't get over to tie it fast enough or didn't even think twice about it until after the incident happened in which a vase got broken. Suppose the neighbor is always accusing you kid of trampling her flowers. Suppose this happens all the time, even when the kid was with you all day long. Now suppose you found that the neighbor didn't like kids and used any excuse to get them in trouble. Now, are you going to discipline your child every time this neighbor makes a complaint about your kid? But suppose you kid did run through her garden once or twice and trample the flowers, does that now mean you endorsed it? Suppose you saw it once and took the kid elsewhere, punished him and kept him away from her yard, does that mean you endorsed the behavior? does that mean you sanctioned it or told the kid to do it? Does that mean anything other then what it is?

      That's the fucked up logic being used to accuse the pope and the catholic church of being responsible for the wrongdoings their members or employees were involved in. And just like the neighbor lady who hates kids, it seems that your hatred or disdain for the church has allowed your imagination to work overtime.

    13. Re:You must be a silent minority... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      After decades of my kid tripping over his shoe laces and breaking expensive vases again and again. Yes it would be my fault.

      Look, you made your case perfectly clear. You think the Catholic Church has plausible deniablity. You think that pretending to be ignorant of a fact that is considered common knowledge absolves the Church as on organization of guilt. I don't know what hole you were living in, but at least for the last thirty years, it was well known that priests were molesting kids. Given your tone, it isn't surprising that you were in denial about it, and just chalked all of the jokes, innuendos, and accusations about it up to people "hating the church" back then too. You are what is known as an enabler.

    14. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And here you go again.

      You think that pretending to be ignorant of a fact that is considered common knowledge absolves the Church as on organization of guilt.

      First, this is pure conjecture that they are pretending. Fuck, do you have any proof? No, then why are you making assertions as if they are true without knowing they are? Second, it's only common knowledge after the fact when it's been exposed. No one has had any idea of how wide spread something like this was until the last 20 years or so when it's been highly publicized. Again, you are working completely from you imagination here.

      I don't know what hole you were living in, but at least for the last thirty years, it was well known that priests were molesting kids. Given your tone, it isn't surprising that you were in denial about it, and just chalked all of the jokes, innuendos, and accusations about it up to people "hating the church" back then too. You are what is known as an enabler.

      Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The John Jay report issued by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, noted that between 1950 and 2002, 10,667 people made accusations against 4,392 roman catholic priests out of 109.5k priests in the US during that time. Of those ten thousand people, two thirds of the allegations happened after 1993 with one third happening between 2002 and 2003. This means that of the 10,667 people or allegations, 7111 of them came to light in just 11 years with half of them in the last 3 of those 11 years with the remaining 3555 people or allegations happening in the 43 years prior. and just for perspective, that's roughly 82 a year from 1950 to 1993 in an organization with over 41,406 diocesan and religious-order priests and 30,000 lay ministers currently operating in the US. Even if we neglect the lay ministers, that's something like one tenth of one percent of of the priests being accused of sexual misconduct up until 1993. And yes, 1993 is less then 30 years, in fact, it's about half the time.

      It also noted that the 4300 priests represent only 4% of the priests employed during that time and 56% were the subject of a single allegation. Of those priests the allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. This means that they only knew the claims against 1,872 of them to be true and real and thought the other claims against 1,671 priest to be plausible. That leaves us with 1,169 priest who were wrongly accused or the accusations against them lacked merit. This also brings us to the accusations against the remaining 3041 or so priests. There were 109,694 priests operating in the US at the time so this brings us to a percentage of about 2.7%. That's hardly an indoctrination by the church. It doesn't even support the idea that it endorses it or anything. But hey, lets no let facts or the correct interpretation of them get into you way right?

    15. Re:You must be a silent minority... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      First, this is pure conjecture that they are pretending. Fuck, do you have any proof? No, then why are you making assertions as if they are true without knowing they are?

      No, I don't have physical evidence. It is possible that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church are complete idiots so out of touch, that they have had no clue as to what was commonly known to have been going on in their own organization. I also have no proof that we have actually landed men on the moon. It COULD have been a hoax filmed in a studio. I also have no proof that the planet is more than 40 years old. Heck, I can't truly prove that we even exist. I have to take the evidence presented and come to a reasonable logical conclusion.

      Second, it's only common knowledge after the fact when it's been exposed. No one has had any idea of how wide spread something like this was until the last 20 years or so when it's been highly publicized. Again, you are working completely from you imagination here.

      No, it wasn't. It has been common knowledge since at least the 70's.

      Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The John Jay report issued by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, noted that between 1950 and 2002, 10,667 people made accusations against 4,392 roman catholic priests out of 109.5k priests in the US during that time. Of those ten thousand people, two thirds of the allegations happened after 1993 with one third happening between 2002 and 2003. This means that of the 10,667 people or allegations, 7111 of them came to light in just 11 years with half of them in the last 3 of those 11 years with the remaining 3555 people or allegations happening in the 43 years prior. and just for perspective, that's roughly 82 a year from 1950 to 1993 in an organization with over 41,406 diocesan and religious-order priests and 30,000 lay ministers currently operating in the US. Even if we neglect the lay ministers, that's something like one tenth of one percent of of the priests being accused of sexual misconduct up until 1993. And yes, 1993 is less then 30 years, in fact, it's about half the time.

      Are you seriously trying to claim that because 11 year old boys didn't come forth in 1950 and tell people that old men had raped them in the butt that it didn't happen? Heck, in 1950, 30 year old women generally didn't come forward and make accusations if they were raped. Thinking that young boys would tell people is ludicrous. Even more so when the person that raped them was a priest. What do you think would happen to a boy even as recent as the 1980s if he came forward and said that a priest had had anal sex with him? Combine that with your attempt to twist the numbers. It is one tenth of one percent of all reported cases that were reported were reported each year between 1950 and 1993. That is a meaningless number. A more meaningful number is that approximately 4% of all priests between the years 1950 and 2002 were accused of molesting someone. That is 1 in 25.

    16. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, I don't have physical evidence. It is possible that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church are complete idiots so out of touch, that they have had no clue as to what was commonly known to have been going on in their own organization. I also have no proof that we have actually landed men on the moon. It COULD have been a hoax filmed in a studio. I also have no proof that the planet is more than 40 years old. Heck, I can't truly prove that we even exist. I have to take the evidence presented and come to a reasonable logical conclusion.

      Wow, you really are mentally challenged aren't you? I mean you are the same guy who couldn't tell the difference between a government ordering people to war and people within an organization acting on their own aren't you? And now you are attempting to compare things that have not only eye witness testimony from the people involved in going to the moon, but also the people who recorded it on camera, working in the control rooms and so on, with your insinuations about something the accused completely denies. Umm, that simply doesn't make sense. It might if the Catholic church was making the same claims as you are, I mean when you say the earth is older then 30 years, you obviously are forgetting about your parent and their parents being around if you think you have no proof of it. But hey, I guess anything you can wrangle into fitting your view I guess, right? As I already showed. it wasn't common knowledge until after the lawsuit in the mid 1990's when more and more people started coming forward. And before that, the instances reported happening was less then in any other field, which became about equal to all other fields once the bulk of the reports started coming in. But hey, let's not let facts get in your way right?

      No, it wasn't. It has been common knowledge since at least the 70's.

      The number of reported incidents simply do not back that up. Stop making shit up. Less then .5%, that's five tenths of one percent or .005, of the priests were ever accused of sexual abuse between 1950 and 1993. How does that insignificant number of priest being accused make something common knowledge? Especially when you are claiming that the Church covered it up, endorsed it, and kept it quiet. You can't have it both ways, either it's true and common knowledge and the law failed to intervene making it the laws problem, or the covered it up and encourage it in which it wouldn't be common knowledge. Have you even thought that out? Have you ever attempted to follow logic?

      Are you seriously trying to claim that because 11 year old boys didn't come forth in 1950 and tell people that old men had raped them in the butt that it didn't happen?

      Lol.. That's almost laughable if it wasn't A: such a serious subject, and B:, another failing in your ability to follow logic and comprehend what was said. No, I'm not saying it didn't happen. What I'm saying is, if they didn't tell anyone, then it can't be known so it's impossible to be common knowledge. You do realize that if something happens, it has to be told in order to be known in order for it to become common.

      Heck, in 1950, 30 year old women generally didn't come forward and make accusations if they were raped. Thinking that young boys would tell people is ludicrous. Even more so when the person that raped them was a priest. What do you think would happen to a boy even as recent as the 1980s if he came forward and said that a priest had had anal sex with him?

      Again, your imagination is working overtime. And yes, the surge in numbers or reports between 1993 and 2004 were reports of past years when people finally got the courage to say something. It wasn't 7000 molestation accusations claiming to have happened in those 11 years, it was 7000 accusations claiming something happened in any year. The proble

    17. Re:You must be a silent minority... by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      You are either wrong or lieing. You are trying to cherry pick numbers and then perform bad math to get a lower number than what really happened. Directly from the report:

      The calculation of an overall percentage of priests in ministry was initially derived using information from the Diocesan Profiles for total numbers of priests and deacons subject to allegations compared to the total of those in ministry between 1950 and 2002. The surveys reported 75,694 diocesan priests and approximately 34,000 religious priests in ministry with 4,392 accused of abuse. If the total of the accused priests (4,392) is divided by the total of all priests in ministry between 1950 and 2002 (109,694), the result is 4%

      The fact that even today, there are people like you who will throw insults and lie about what has been done is clear evidence that these numbers are low. As the very report that you keep quoting says that not only are sexual assaults under reported, but that these are just the cases that the Catholic Church admits to. It does not include any of the cases where the church swept the issue under the rug, or the priest completely got away with it.

      Especially when you are claiming that the Church covered it up, endorsed it, and kept it quiet. You can't have it both ways, either it's true and common knowledge and the law failed to intervene making it the laws problem, or the covered it up and encourage it in which it wouldn't be common knowledge.

      You are a sick puppy. Claiming that it is the laws problem because Catholic priests are rapists? Yes, the law not going in a making huge numbers of arrest of Catholic priests when it is common knowledge that they are rapists is bad. That does not take the blame away from the church. Your attempt to claim that the law gets involved in every crime that is well known to be happening is absurd.

      Again. The report you quote from says that 4% of ALL priest working between 1950 and 2002 had accusations of sexual abuse. That is 1 in 25 as a best case scenario. That is atrocious, and when a group has an activity that common, people find out. You have not shown that it wasn't common knowledge. What you have done is shown that even when there is MASSIVE evidence and even confessions, people like you will still go into denial. It is people like you that acted as enablers for these priests.

    18. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are either wrong or lieing. You are trying to cherry pick numbers and then perform bad math to get a lower number than what really happened. Directly from the report:

      There is nothing wrong or false about what I said. and you can quote the report all you want, you simply have to also quote the part about when the complaints were filed which would give the church cause to know something was happening.

      As I stated before and the report also states, "one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002 and 2003. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001". This means that for the bulk of the time, regardless of what was happening, the church only knew about 1/3 of the accusations from 1950 until 1993 This completely fits with my numbers that were also explained. At that time (1993), the accusations increased another third of the total until 2001, so between 1950 and 2001 the church could have only knew about 2/3rds of the accusations. And as the report states, another one third came in between 2002 and 2003*-4 when they started the investigation. So it wasn't until 2003-4 that they knew of the entire scope of the matter.

      The fact that even today, there are people like you who will throw insults and lie about what has been done is clear evidence that these numbers are low. As the very report that you keep quoting says that not only are sexual assaults under reported, but that these are just the cases that the Catholic Church admits to. It does not include any of the cases where the church swept the issue under the rug, or the priest completely got away with it.

      Lol.. Ok, if I have lied about it, then show me what I have said that isn't supported by the report or facts. And FYI, I'm not claiming the abuses never happened, I'm claiming that your unsupported accusations that the church condoned the behavior is unsupported because they didn't know of the full scope and magnitude until the final years of before the report. And to that end, you just supported my claim by stating where the report says that not only are sexual assaults under reported, but that these are just the cases that the Catholic Church admits to. Except I believe the correct wording "admits to knowing about". and you are claiming I'm cherry picking data.

      And yes, if the parishes swept something under the rug or the priest got completely away with it, then how in the hell is the pope and the church leadership supposed to know about it in order to be so called supporting it as you claim? Do you even understand the concept of accountability at all? You have to know of something in order to be accountable to it. It the church didn't know, then how can they have covered it up, how can they have endorsed it, how can it be common knowledge when it simple wasn't reported? Like I said before, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. But that fails the very elementary wacko conspiracy test in which something doesn't sound logical enough to even be plausible.

      And no, you attempting to insult me or wave your hands in the air yelling it isn't so because I closed my eyes and wished really hard while ignoring the facts, does nothing to strengthen your case.

      You are a sick puppy. Claiming that it is the laws problem because Catholic priests are rapists? Yes, the law not going in a making huge numbers of arrest of Catholic priests when it is common knowledge that they are rapists is bad. That does not take the blame away from the church. Your attempt to claim that the law gets involved in every crime that is well known to be happening is absurd.

      Well, I see once again that any effort of intellectual debate is lost on you. The law didn't go in because it's not true that it was common knowledge. It's that simple. The amount of shear audacity you have to purposely maintain in order to believe that ever state in the country with every country, city and tow

    19. Re:You must be a silent minority... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was common knowledge to you because you were one of the but boys?

      What enables the priests are asshats like you who make up shit and stand firm against all evidence to the contrary in order to express our disdain and hatred for the church

      And there it is. If you believed for a second that that was true, you would be a sick human being for calling a rape victim names and telling them that it was their fault. Exactly the behavior that helped the priests to rape the victim in the first place.

      If you don't believe it, then you are willing to lie to try to insult me by mocking the rape victims and then saying that I was one of them.

      Either way, your attitude is still evidence of how the problem was allowed to go on for so long. No doubt attitudes like yours were even more common prior to the 70s when the Catholic church had much more influence in the US.

    20. Re:You must be a silent minority... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You really are an ignorant ass aren't you?

      And there it is. If you believed for a second that that was true, you would be a sick human being for calling a rape victim names and telling them that it was their fault. Exactly the behavior that helped the priests to rape the victim in the first place.

      Your right, constantly bashing the church by taking crap out of context and applying after the fact information to before the fact knowledge does make them tend to dismiss accusations as just another wild bullshit accusation from someone with an agenda and allows the behavior to continue. I'm glad that you are finally realizing what you are doing is wrong. However, I don't think you even know you are doing it or realizing it's wrong.

      BTW, The term but boy was directed exactly at you, not the people claiming to have been molested by the priests. Second, But is spell in the extend of but they did this, not the spelling of Butt meaning the ass. But hey, I guess all fair in your world right? And of course I have never said it was their fault. But that doesn't matter to you, you will take anything you want, even if it wasn't said and use it to what you think is your own advantage. And the false allegations just gives more people the willingness not to believe you when you make an accusation. Have you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

      If you don't believe it, then you are willing to lie to try to insult me by mocking the rape victims and then saying that I was one of them.

      Lol.. Once again, you are working primarily from nothing but your imagination. Nothing I said was a lie, and asking if you were one of the but boys was a question, not calling you a name. But hey, you haven't let facts get in your way so far, I guess it was too much to assume that they would be beneficial here.

      Either way, your attitude is still evidence of how the problem was allowed to go on for so long. No doubt attitudes like yours were even more common prior to the 70s when the Catholic church had much more influence in the US.

      You see, you such an ignorant fuck that you won't get it if it was handed to you. What allowed it to happen for so long was that no one was reporting it until way later after it happened. As the report said, and my numbers back up, two thirds of the people this happened to kept quiet about it until 1993 when a lawsuit was brought against the catholic church in Boston and made it all very public. After the lawsuit happened, then another third of the reported abuses that happened between 1950 and 2001 started pouring in. This raised the alarm and cause it to be in the public's mind while also summoning the courage for another ~3500 people, or one third to come forward in the last 3 years after they saw the 1993 lawsuit being won and the guy getting a large sum of money.

      So what allowed it to happen was people being embarrassed to say anything and delaying their accusations until years or decades later, the thought that they wouldn't have been believed because wild and out of context accusations like yours were being thrown around and dismissed with all real evidence at the time saying the contrary, and a willingness or ability to underestimate the scope of the problem because no one was really reporting it until way later or well after it happened.

      Now my attitude is to realize that the failure in stopping this was in the lack of reporting and the attitude towards the victims from the church and society in general which caused the failures to report to be extremely high. You can sit there and ignore all that and say someone should have known and lie about it being common knowledge when it wasn't even reported, but in order to stop it from happening, you need to find why it failed, stop making wild and out of context accusation like you are, and encourage a change in perception to the victims so that they report the abuses without fear of reprisal

  52. "Accused" by internetdarwin · · Score: 1

    –adjective
    1. charged with a crime, wrongdoing, fault, etc.: the accused boy.
    –noun
    2. a person or persons charged in a court of law with a crime, offense, etc. (often prec. by the ).

    "Churchill Accused of Sealing UFO Files, Fearing Public Panic"

    As far as I know, a prime minister classifying military encounters isn't a crime...

  53. Spoken like a True atheist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I find your open-mindedness and unique perspectives refreshing.

    However, about reincarnation, I would urge you to read this: http://www.amazon.com/Many-Lives-Masters-Prominent-Psychiatrist/dp/0671657860
    It may give some insight into what is so misunderstood, both by "believers" and by "deniers".

    In fact, the concept of reincarnation actually solves alot of puzzles about who we are, and why we experience what we do. Why some people have it "easy" and others seem to attract crisis, pain and depression, even murder or crimes. Why certain people are important to us in this lifetime while others aren't. Nothing else can explain things like that like reincarnation might, which is deeply linked with karma (a topic that could cover entire libraries of books in itself and is linked with all of life's most important topics).

    If mind and the body is energy. Why would it be impossible that the energy patterns (mind) can outlive the body (matter)? In fact, it is more probable than not, but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the reasons for that.

    Let's find the truth in the calmness in between these agitated states of mind of "believing" and "denial", and discuss important matters with interest, enthusiasm and curiosity!

    Also, a book called "Lives between lives" I think, is also nice and elaborates on interviews with people having experienced death. There seems to be common traits to the death-process, across cultures, traditions and ages, even among so-called "atheists"..

  54. Actually it should say by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Newly released secret MS Word files contain unlinked text that happened be in memory when the typist was also editing a SciFi movie script at the time, which contain a suggestive typo implying Winston Churchill's father's cousin's former roommate once made an ambiguous statement to a girl in a pub who then repeated it 40 years later (when she was dying of Alzheimer's), to her grandson (who was tripping on LSD at the time to better handle the stressful family reunion), who thought it might hint that Churchill ordered a cover-up of an unexplained lit phosphor on an RAF bomber's radar display which had been assembled by the lowest-bidding English electricians.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Actually it should say by Runefox · · Score: 1

      Sir, you are win.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
  55. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Doctor who?

    Yes.

    Doctor Yes?

    No.




    Lameness filter new lameness: Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.6).

  56. Re:Much simpler solution for dealing with "cowards by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Wrong war, wrong country, wrong army branch.

    On a side note, A Very Long Engagement also deals with that subject.
    In a COMPLETELY different way.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  57. I wonder ... by SwampChicken · · Score: 1

    ...if the US would ever release their own UFO data?

  58. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    He plays first base.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  59. Re:They are among us. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    They're looking at you saying the same thing.

    Seriously, put away the dehumanization

  60. Nice analogy, but... by RichiH · · Score: 1

    Nice analogy, but if I brought you before a court of law, chances are you would walk away freely. Precisely because there would not be any verifiable _proof_.

    Not that I have ever met anyone who presented me with his/her story of how he/she knows God which I found credible even if I trusted the whole story without questioning anything.

    This is not to say that I am against religion per se, but at least up to now all religions are _faiths_ based on _belief_, not _facts_.

    As an aside, don't you think it's funny that the larger miracles seem to have happened in times when scientific verification was a lot harder? The only one in "recent" times I can think of right now is based solely on the story told by one single adolescent boy who profited from the story, so yah..

    1. Re:Nice analogy, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Nice analogy, but if I brought you before a court of law, chances are you would walk away freely. Precisely because there would not be any verifiable _proof_.

      I think you are severely underestimating the power of witness testimony in a court of law. There have been murder convictions based entirley around people claiming to have seen someone in a certain area arguing with someone moments before someone was killed.

      Not that I have ever met anyone who presented me with his/her story of how he/she knows God which I found credible even if I trusted the whole story without questioning anything.

      I'm not arguing the existence of a god or God, I'm not arguing that those who told you about them were telling the truth. Please don't take as that. I'm simply attempting to say that there are conditions to which evidence is only available to a few people and you have to take their word for it.

      This is not to say that I am against religion per se, but at least up to now all religions are _faiths_ based on _belief_, not _facts_.

      Well, partially faith based. There are a lot of facts in most religions. These facts pertain to outcomes of events and historical accounting much like any other history is shown to us. To say something like Christianity is not based on any facts is sort of missing the forest for the trees. There are plenty of facts surrounding it. Biblical people actually existed, evens in the bibles actually transpires (perhaps not as recorded but the essence is real) and so on. Hell, even the plagues on Egypt in which Pharaoh was convinced to let the Jews go can be explained scientifically with the exception of one (which seems to be a combination of two separate conditions), and the weird thing is that one plague invites the others as a consequence of the effect the one had. Now attributing that to a god or God in faith, but the events can be very real and a fact.

      As an aside, don't you think it's funny that the larger miracles seem to have happened in times when scientific verification was a lot harder? The only one in "recent" times I can think of right now is based solely on the story told by one single adolescent boy who profited from the story, so yah..

      Well, you are talking about the time span of 4000 or more years in which the miracles have happened. You can probably list them to less then 1 per century. The process of scientific validation or verification has been around for less then one century in the capacity it is today. No, I don't think it's funny that something that averages 1 in 100 or less and is recorded in a specific book or books that were propagated with an intent behind them is not happening in the 100-200 years or less that science has been around and capable of verifying the events in which the books or propagation of books seemed to lessen on the intent (In other words, they don't update the bible with current events anymore).

      On another note, a lot of things don't look like miracles any more with the progress of technology and special effects. This reminds me of Chris Angel, the "mind freak" dude. He had a heavy metal band in which he attempted to insert his illusions as part of the act. The music wasn't that bad but the audience saw the entire thing as a fraud and stopped showing up. This is because the audience was conditioned to expect crap like that and was intelligent enough to figure it out. But when he dropped the band and attracted a much larger audience, people actually thought he was somehow levitating in air, or climbing through solid glass or whatever the illusion was. So yes, some things that might appear as miracles wouldn't be suggested as one now compared to earlier when the tech to do the tricks simply weren't there. This might also cause the reporting of them to stop or slow quite a bit.

      I have a ghostly personal experience that some would call a miracle which both defies scientific explanation and presented me with evidence to act that couldn't be verified is you are interested in it. But it's sort of long winded so I won't post it unless specifically asked to.

    2. Re:Nice analogy, but... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > I think you are severely underestimating the power of witness testimony in a court of law. There have been murder convictions based entirley around people claiming to have seen someone in a certain area arguing with someone moments before someone was killed.

      At least in Germany, if there are two people claiming opposite things with nothing else in supporting evidence either way, and unless either side is too likely to be lying, the old in dubio pro reo works.
      You might be right about those pesky non-caucasian white males that have the nerve to annoy a jury with testimony, though.

      > I'm not arguing the existence of a god or God, I'm not arguing that those who told you about them were telling the truth. Please don't take as that. I'm simply attempting to say that there are conditions to which evidence is only available to a few people and you have to take their word for it.

      That's the thing. I don't have to take the word of anyone for anything. I am free to apply my own logic, reasoning, moral framework and mood of the day to any and all information I receive. I am free to re-evaluate this information based on other information and turn around 180 degrees the second I realize that I have been wrong.
      What you might have meant was "if you are inclined to believe someone (for whatever reasons) and want to believe in a particular story told by said person (for whatever reasons), sometimes you can only base this on faith".

      If you tell me you like tofu, I will prolly believe you even though I disagree with your sentiment.
      If you tell me you can burp the alphabet, I might ask for proof.
      If you tell me you met a holy spirit that told you it's OK to get out of debt by stealing from the local church (this has happened!), I might not believe you.

      > Well, partially faith based. There are a lot of facts in most religions. These facts pertain to outcomes of events and historical accounting much like any other history is shown to us. To say something like Christianity is not based on any facts is sort of missing the forest for the trees. There are plenty of facts surrounding it. Biblical people actually existed, evens in the bibles actually transpires (perhaps not as recorded but the essence is real) and so on. Hell, even the plagues on Egypt in which Pharaoh was convinced to let the Jews go can be explained scientifically with the exception of one (which seems to be a combination of two separate conditions), and the weird thing is that one plague invites the others as a consequence of the effect the one had. Now attributing that to a god or God in faith, but the events can be very real and a fact.

      Knocking down the strawman with a red herring. The fact that a particular faith incorporates certain facts into their stories does not prove the faith. The facts in faith are facts (though some people tend to be confused about what defines fact). The faith in faith are faith.

      > Well, you are talking about the time span of 4000 or more years in which the miracles have happened. You can probably list them to less then 1 per century. The process of scientific validation or verification has been around for less then one century in the capacity it is today. No, I don't think it's funny that something that averages 1 in 100 or less and is recorded in a specific book or books that were propagated with an intent behind them is not happening in the 100-200 years or less that science has been around and capable of verifying the events in which the books or propagation of books seemed to lessen on the intent (In other words, they don't update the bible with current events anymore).

      So because the scientific process did not exist, I should take the old stuff at face value? Thanks, but no thanks.

      > On another note, a lot of things don't look like miracles any more with the progress of technology and special effects. This reminds me of Chris Angel, the "mind freak" dude. He had a heavy metal band in which he attempted to insert his illusions as part of the act. The music w

    3. Re:Nice analogy, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      At least in Germany, if there are two people claiming opposite things with nothing else in supporting evidence either way, and unless either side is too likely to be lying, the old in dubio pro reo works.
      You might be right about those pesky non-caucasian white males that have the nerve to annoy a jury with testimony, though.

      I'm not entirely sure why you brought race and gender up. In dubio pro reo works in the US too, however, there is generally circumstantial evidence which accompanies the accusations so there would practically never be someone on trial at the single accusation of someone else with nothing else in supporting evidence. For instance, someone was shot by a 6 foot tall person as calculated from a picture that only had a shadow of the figure, he was shot with a 9 mil handgun as evidence of the bullet and bullet wound indicate. Now suppose you are 6 foot tall and own a 9 mil that you can't seem to find for ballistics testing, you claiming you were across town at the time of the shooting so it couldn't be you apposed by someone claiming they saw you arguing with the murdered victim minutes before being found dead would get you convicted of some sort of murder related crime. And that would generally be true if you were Caucasian or not, male or female.

      That's the thing. I don't have to take the word of anyone for anything. I am free to apply my own logic, reasoning, moral framework and mood of the day to any and all information I receive. I am free to re-evaluate this information based on other information and turn around 180 degrees the second I realize that I have been wrong.
      What you might have meant was "if you are inclined to believe someone (for whatever reasons) and want to believe in a particular story told by said person (for whatever reasons), sometimes you can only base this on faith".

      If you tell me you like tofu, I will prolly believe you even though I disagree with your sentiment.
      If you tell me you can burp the alphabet, I might ask for proof.
      If you tell me you met a holy spirit that told you it's OK to get out of debt by stealing from the local church (this has happened!), I might not believe you.

      Listen, I'm not telling you that you have to believe someone, I telling you that just because there is no empirical evidence left for you to inspect or that you can test, does not mean that something did not happen. I have personally known people who have survived crap that no one would have thought possible and walked away with a few scratches but otherwise fine. I saw a guy climb onto the roof of a car and attempt to surf like in the movie teen wolf, get hit in the head by a tree branch hanging over the road while going 40 mph down a country road, get thrown off and ended up being ran over by the truck behind us, and walk away with nothing more then scratches on his arm and face. and let me tell you, when the truck behind us hit him, it looked like it was going to flip the truck as both tires on the drivers side hopped about 20 inches off the ground on when they went over him. You can believe me or not, but just because I don't have pictures or video or the ability to recreate it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      Knocking down the strawman with a red herring. The fact that a particular faith incorporates certain facts into their stories does not prove the faith. The facts in faith are facts (though some people tend to be confused about what defines fact). The faith in faith are faith.

      Lol.. I said nothing about it proving anything. I said that your assumption of it religion being pure faith is inaccurate.

      So because the scientific process did not exist, I should take the old stuff at face value? Thanks, but no thanks.

      Are you trying to troll now? I said nothing of the sorts, I said the reporting of miracles have declined as science and technology has adva

  61. Somewhat more info in here by RichiH · · Score: 1

    > It can be readily created in the lab.

    You prolly know it as you said above, but most others do not. There is a drug which can reproducibly create the tunnel of light. Said compound is also occurring naturally in the body. IIRC, it's main use is preservation of the brain in extreme circumstances.

    I can't remember the name of the compound, though.

    1. Re:Somewhat more info in here by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Ketamine, or so I've heard.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
  62. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by Nyder · · Score: 1

    When did Who ever say we were his favourites?

    Let's see. He spends a lot of time on earth, and likes to pick up "traveling companions" usually female, and younger.

    How many aliens have we seen him traveling around with? There's been a few, but mostly earth females.

    So ya, I'd say this is one of his favorites places to go.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  63. Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . by danskal · · Score: 1

    He's on first.

  64. Everything you believe is a lie... by Finite9 · · Score: 1

    Matrix fanboy references aside, what, you don't think they had crazies in 20 BC? Some guy goes up a mountain and comes down again and says God spoke to him? Give me a break. The bible in it's entirety is written by man, not god, and has been used through the ages to assert some form of control over the populace (generally no longer effective). "yeah, I think the church is a bit phoney... But I still believe in god". Errm. Yeah, but your entire belief has been heavily affected but what religion has brainwashed you with since childhood. You cannot quite let go of the self-image that contains so much religious propaganda from your childhood. This question is as old as the human species: Man wonders where he originated from and looks to the mysterious stars above and starts contemplating his own existence. It's only a matter of time until some geezer decides there _must_ be an ultimate being, lets call him god. Even secluded tribes in the rainforest who have yet to meet more than a handful of outsiders probably believe in some form of ultimate being due to pyscological needs.

    But hey, im not ruling out the fact of an ultimate being. No current evidence doesn't mean no evidence at all. But until _someone_ can show me _any_ evidence (no books allowed), then i'm holding out.

    --
    "Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman
  65. You know there is a god. by inthealpine · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has gotten sickening and shaking drunk knows there is a god. You talked to him, you made a deal with him. ...He remembers...

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
  66. I don't know about all of you, but... by richardkelleher · · Score: 1

    frankly, the Church destroyed my belief in the Church. I didn't need any help from beings from a distant solar system.

  67. Re:They are among us. by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    Seriously, carrying signs that have Obama with a bone in his nose, and Gay bashing, I think we are talking exactly talking about dehumanization. Like they have to live with the fall out of their treating others as second class citizens, walling themselves off with a we vs them mentality that puts something like a third of the population as the them (maybe more). Alliens I say, or less than fully human, you choose.

  68. Duh. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    It was recently revealed that it was just Dr. Who and his Tardis....