Slashdot Mirror
The Advent of Religious Search Engines
Beetle B. writes "Do Google search results contradict your religious views? Tired of getting pornographic results and worried you'll burn in Hell for it? Are you Christian? Try SeekFind — 'a Colorado Springs-based Christian search engine that only returns results from websites that are consistent with the Bible.' Muslim? Look no further: I'm Halal. Jewish? Jewogle is for you. NPR ran a story on the general trend of search engines cropping up to cater to certain religious communities. I wonder how many other 'filtered' search engines exist out there to cater to various groups (religious or otherwise) — not counting specialized searches (torrents, etc)."
There have been "vertical search engines" that only search within particular fields for a very long time now -- everything from cars to plumbing. Not sure how newsworthy it is that there are also ones for Christian and Muslim theology. Rather useful if you're looking up material to help you write a sermon, bible study, or for use in your own bible reading. There are also religious bookshops, selling religious books. So what a surprise that if there's a lot of written material around, someone's made a search engine for it. In other shocking news, there is a search engine exclusively for knitting. Clearly its users must only believe in woollen dinosaurs!
there. i said it.
millions of people around the world are suffering because they don't have access to information that is freely available on the internet, and still there are idiots out there who want to have their search results filtered.
ok, you don't wanna see a naked lady by accident. I get it. there's tons of things on the internet that I personally don't want to ever see (and I would do my best to keep children from seeing them). but if you don't want to hear what people with other convictions have to say in reasonable scenarios, then I say you're an idiot.
go ahead. sick your gdodg on me.
new sig
Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation.
Nope, absolutely false. Many atheists are simply skeptics who refuse to accept the existence of the Gods unless you provide irrefutable proof. No blind faith required, any more than blind faith is required to not believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy. Furthermore, many atheists have investigated various religions in great depth--quite a few became atheists only with great reluctance, when their search for a plausible faith turned up empty. I say this as an agnostic, not an atheist, but one who knows many atheists. There are probably some atheists who are as you describe, but in my experience, they are a rare minority.
Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation.
Nonsense! Rejecting superstition on the grounds that there is no scientific evidence is not blind faith, it is purely logical. Would religious people accept being labeled as blind faith atheists of other deities such as Thor or Zeus? As an example, Christians reject belief in countless deities, is it really so unreasonable to merely subtract one more deity from that list without being labelled a blind faith fanatic of atheism?
---"atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation"
not true at all. allow me to present myself as someone who has studied the synoptic gospels in far more detail than (and I'm guessing now) 98% of people who call themselves christian.
Re stating 'I Know', Richard Dawkins has a great thought experiment on this.
-Statement: There is a perfect Victorian china tea set orbiting the sun in an orbit about half way between the sun and the earth.
My position: I'm willing to say that I know this statement is false.
Nope, I haven't been to look and I don't think any rockets have gone to check. However from my understanding of the field, I am willing to take a position.
I could say 'I don't know'. It's possible that the Russians set this up as an elaborate joke. However at some point, saying 'I don't know' just becomes fetishism. It is useful to take a position when the opposing one is vanishingly unlikely.
The same applies to god. If you show me some evidence, then I'll change my mind. But from an examination of current evidence, I say that the existence of some involved creator is vanishingly unlikely.
Therefore I say that god does not exist and declare myself an atheist.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
The sun doesn't "come up" ;)
It will, however, appear in the eastern sky due to the rotation of the Earth. There's enough evidence available for me to draw that conclusion. There isn't, however, enough evidence to tell me that there is a being that created everything, could control everything but chooses not to, could see the future but chooses not to, etc.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
You know I'm fed up of this every atheist has blind faith thing...
I, on the hand, have blind faith that theists will continue to offer no evidence for their beliefs. As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Don't be silly.
If that's your definition of agnostic then anybody with half a brain cell is agnostic on absolutely everything.
Even 2+2!=5 depends on a belief that ZFC is consistent.
An atheist is someone who puts belief in gods on the same level as belief in magic and belief in leprechauns.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
The problem with your supposition is that you first create a supernatural world (that which we can not observe) and then label those who do not believe in it.
The fact that you first have to construct a supernatural world, then place beings in it, is what atheists disagree with you on. They do not disagree on your supernatural beings, they disagree with your supernatural world.
If something can be observed there is no reason for belief. If something can not be observed in any way, other than some human being is convinced that something is so, there is no reason for belief. And the only reason someone is labeled an atheist is because the human being who is convinced in the supernatural world wants to put a label on those who do not.
This supernatural world can contain titans, gods, fairies, leprechauns, vampires, magic, etc. Currently, only the people who believe in a supernatural world filled with gods seem to feel a need to label the non-believers. And since this is apparently so important to them, I let them.
If you feel you can not cope with the natural world, and a supernatural one on top of it helps you, you are free to do so. It is when you start asking me to believe in the same supernatural world that you do, that I draw the line. Especially when the asking is done at the point of a sword.
They're absolutely right, there's no proof that god doesn't exist.
Having worked on experiments that helped prove the non-existence of specific particles (the 17 keV neutrino and the non-existent axion that hovered ephemerallhy in the wings of heavy ion experiments in the late '80's) I find this whole arguement bizarre in the extreme. Anyone who uses it on either side of the god debate is simplyh declaring their absolute ignorance of how science--which disproves the existence of things all the time--actually works.
The basic method is simple: if X exists, then under circumstances Y phenomenon Z will occur.
We then create circumstances Y and see if Z occurs. For bonus points we demonstrate our sensitivity to Z with various calibrations.
We do this all the time, both in the lab and in ordinary life. Whenever we do it with regard to anything other than god, no one takes any exception to it, and rightly so because it is an entirely unexceptionable procedure.
When we apply this perfectly ordinary procedure to "god" a bunch of wingnuts start equivocating between "evidence" (which is all we ever have in science) and "proof" (which is the exclusive concern of a very small number of extremely up-tight mathematicians.) And unfortunately a number of purpoted atheists don't call them on this.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Anybody who uses "outside the domain of science" to describe anything doesn't understand what science is. If there is a god, and it has any sort of measurable effect on the universe then it is within the domain of science. Because we can measure its effects. We can test various religions' prayers to see if they get answered at a rate different from chance.
We can compare various religions creation myths against what we know about the nature of reality.
Lots of things can be tested scientifically. If you give us a solid, meaningful definition of "god" then we can probably define a test for it.
What about god? What observation tells us that he does not exist? Well, we haven't seen him, and nobody we know has seen him, but given his scope, he could be literally anywhere, in (or even outside) an extremely expansive universe. We haven't found any gods occurring naturally in the universe, but then again, the god that is claimed to exist by christians isn't exactly claimed to be common.
What about Space Unicorns? What observation tells us that they do not exist? Well, we haven't seen them, and nobody we know has seen them, but given their scope, they could be literally anywhere, in (or even outside) an extremely expansive universe. We haven't found any Space Unicorns occurring naturally in the universe, but then again, the Space Unicorn that is claimed to exist by believers isn't exactly claimed to be common.
What about Thetans? What observation tells us that they do not exist? Well, we haven't seen them, and nobody we know has seen them, but given their scope, they could be literally anywhere, in (or even outside) an extremely expansive universe. We haven't found any Thetans occurring naturally in the universe, but then again, the Thetans that are claimed to exist by Scientologists aren't exactly claimed to be common.
What about ghosts? What observation tells us that they do not exist? ......
What about Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Or Norse Gods? Or Mbaba Mwana Waresa? What observation tells us that they do not exist? ...... ....(This could go on forever)....
So you would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design?
Not in the least. However, I advocate discussing Intelligent Design. By showing kids how a scientific theory works in contrast to some made-up bullshit they would learn much better which is which. I would definitely confront them with the shit and let them rip it apart, applying the knowledge they have acquired until that point.
Opposing views can remain just that. I never said you should give all possible views equal credit or even just time. But what you shouldn't do is filter them out entirely, pretend that they don't exist, and set up a fantasy world around yourself where nothing critical or no other opinion even exists.
It is by challenge that we find out if our opinions have merit.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org