The Advent of Religious Search Engines

Atheist by nacturation · 2010-09-13 21:17 · Score: 5, Funny

http://www.atheistsearch.net/

Search: creationism

[Click "I'm Feeling Lucky"]

Error: there's no such thing as luck!

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

Re:Atheist by maxwell+demon · 2010-09-13 22:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Atheists believe in the power of citations. :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Atheist by Xtifr · 2010-09-13 22:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Atheist by rufty_tufty · 2010-09-13 22:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

You know I'm fed up of this every atheist has blind faith thing...
So if I state that I don't believe in any god then am I an atheist? This being different from saying I believe there is no god. The second statement requires faith, the first does not. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that I see no evidence for one therefore it doesn't make a point of my world view.
Is lack of belief a belief? (except the belief in logical conjecture based upon repeatable experiment and evidence)
I don't claim to be agnostic because that has connotations of god potentially being allowed in my current world view, which isn't the case. Can't an atheist be someone who just doesn't believe in god, as opposed to believes that there is no god.
I think historically - say middle ages - then someone would have to say they believed there wasn't a god because there wasn't a good explanation for many natural phenomenon. These days so many phenomenon are explained then it is more applicable to be able to say I don't believe in any god (because there is no evidence/need for one).
So there is, for me, no faith needed that there is no god, just like there is no faith needed that there is no invisible pink unicorn that makes sure that gravity happens. Be careful what you ascribe to faith, faith is a concept held in lack of evidence. There is sufficient evidence for me that no god is needed and that my world view can be almost completely described as a lack of faith in pretty much anything, but a marvel and wonder at everything.

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:Atheist by rainmouse · 2010-09-13 22:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
Re:Atheist by ConfusedVorlon · 2010-09-13 22:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

---"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
Re:Atheist by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 22:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem, speaking as an atheist (and also the light version of how I became an atheist), is not whether or not an invisible man exists, its whether or not the invisible man that you believe in (as described by whatever religious works you have) exists. Indeed, if you actually examine your faith, you will quickly discover that you don't believe in most of what your faith prescribes, that you have only accepted the parts of your religion that agree with your sense of self and culture and rejected the parts that don't. In doing so, you have created your own god that doesn't exist. You are no longer a Christian, Muslin or Jew, you are a religion of "I made up my own god that I'm okay with" religion. When you realize that, you will realize YOU made up god. Therefore, god doesn't exist.
Also, for anyone that might reply with atheism is a religion: If atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color.
Re:Atheist by nschubach · 2010-09-13 23:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Atheist by yyxx · 2010-09-13 23:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation.
There have been plenty of investigation: physical experiments, attempts at communication, etc. None of them have ever provided any evidence that God exists. In fact, time and again, properties postulated for God by churches have shown not to be plausible. That is what "X does not exists" means; we apply the same standard to everything else whose non-existence we take as given.
Stating "I know..." about a thing that is, by definition, unknowable, is irrational.
Things that "exist" are observable, and hence knowable, as part of the real world. If something is unknowable in principle, it doesn't exist, by definition.
Re:Atheist by paiute · 2010-09-13 23:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:Atheist by locofungus · 2010-09-13 23:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

...Many atheists are simply skeptics who refuse to accept the existence of the Gods unless you provide irrefutable proof.
This describes agnosticism, which is a vastly different thing than an atheism, what the individuals choose to call themselves notwithstanding.
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.
Re:Atheist by Anne_Nonymous · 2010-09-13 23:24 · Score: 5, Funny

>> there is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny and no Tooth Fairy.
You jackass, how about putting --SPOILER ALERT-- in your title. Thanks for ruining my life.
Re:Atheist by Jurily · 2010-09-13 23:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stating "I know..." about a thing that is, by definition, unknowable, is irrational. "I don't know...", on the other hand, not so much.
"Is," "is." "is" -- the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment. - Robert Anton Wilson
Re:Atheist by Stooshie · 2010-09-13 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

That would be true if you were arguing with a deist (which very few people are). Most religious people are theists and believe their god intervenes after the big bang at some point. That is where evidence is lacking.

--
America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
Re:Atheist by Unipuma · 2010-09-14 00:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Funny how people keep confusing not believing in something with believing something is not.
Re:Atheist by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2010-09-14 00:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
So where's the proof that the existence of a god is vanishingly unlikely? I mean, with a tea set orbiting in space, the existence of such a tea set implies one of a small set of observably unlikely situations (note the word "observably"). The most likely explanation is that some country with an oversized space budget and sense of humour decided to plant the tea set there. Other less likely possibilities include the tea set formed on its own, or that a god placed the tea set there, but since we haven't observed any tea sets occurring in nature, or any divine tea sets handed down from any deities in odd places, we can conclude, with a reasonably strong degree of certainty that the tea set does not exist.
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. We haven't found any intelligible message for humanity hidden in quantum mechanics or in the digits of Pi, but we supposedly have all the messages we are supposed to receive for now, so we weren't exactly anticipating them. We haven't found the hand of god measurably influencing the lives of faithful christians, but if anything could influence the course of events profoundly and cover his tracks, it would be god.
What evidence do we have against his existence? Well, about as much as we have for his existence. All we know is that, if he exists, he is thoroughly outside our sphere of perception. We can't determine a likelihood of events outside our sphere of perception, unless we make the assumption that what we perceive inside holds uniformly true outside, an assumption that presupposes that God doesn't exist anyway.
I suppose you could make an inductive argument: "We've seen what we've seen of the universe (or of any greater realities encompassing it, if they exist), and it holds true everywhere we've seen. Therefore, it holds true everywhere." The problem with that is that its strength relies on our perceiving a representative sample of reality, but we have little to back that assumption up.
Actually, this reminds me of a discussion I participated in a month or so ago. We were discussing how calculating Pi to 5 trillion digits could potentially be used as evidence as to whether or not Pi was a normal number. I argued that such a calculation actually tells us no more about normality than a calculation of the first 10 digits, because without some idea of a pattern that the infinite expansion follows, we have only a vanishingly small sample of the complete expansion of Pi, and we have no clue as to whether it is representative of the whole expansion or not. So, even though the number of digits we've calculated seems large by our standards, in the scheme of proving by brute force that Pi is normal, we've discovered almost nothing at all.
The same thing clearly applies here. We've observed a slice of reality, but we don't really know how large the whole of reality is, or what it looks like as a whole. Can we actually claim that we know reality just from the observable universe?
(FYI, I'm an agnostic.)

--
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Re:Atheist by Tom · 2010-09-14 00:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation.
Next please, this one has no idea what he is talking about.
Semantics hint: Every sentence starting with "every" or any other all-quantor is by definition false. You are always able to find an exception. Yes, this is an intentional paradox.

atheism is often far less harmful than some religious notions, but it is no more rational.
1rational
adj \rash-nl, ra-sh-nl\
Definition of RATIONAL
1
a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
2
: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3
: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers
-- rationally adverb
-- rationalness noun
(source: Merriam-Webster)
I must assume from context that you mean that 1st definition. I must also assume that you are referring to early 21st century atheism, not some ancient or fictional one. If my assumptions are correct, then you should maybe try to do a bit of research on the subject matter. Most of the current-day atheists are also strict rationalists. It is not an accident that most of the famous ones are scientists.

Stating "I know..." about a thing that is, by definition, unknowable, is irrational.
Only in a simplified universe that doesn't want to open itself to reason and insists that by fiat, some things are unknowable. Where do you even take it from that some things are "unknowable"? Oh yes, "by definition". Wait, isn't that exactly the kind of a priori reasoning that you are trying to put down?
21st century atheists do not usually state "I know there is no god". What they do state is that there is no evidence whatsoever, that all the claims made by believers either have been disproved or are easy to disprove, or are pure semantic trickery to avoid falsification. The end result, as Dawkins put it so nicely, is that there may be a chinese teapot in orbit around Saturn, and with current technology it is impossible to be absolutely certain that there isn't - but it is so unlikely that whoever makes the claim ought to provide the evidence, not the other way around.
Atheists differ from Agnostics in that an agnostic essentially assumes the chances are 50:50 while an atheist has come to the conclusion that the chances that there is a god even remotely resembling the description of any of the major religions is so ridiculously small that believing in a teapot orbiting Saturn is a better idea, because that's more likely.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Atheist by geckipede · 2010-09-14 00:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Bertrand Russell got there first with that analogy, Dawkins didn't come up with it. It's fairly famous under the name "Russell's Teapot."
Re:Atheist by tverbeek · 2010-09-14 00:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you were to bother... y'know.. investigating, you would find that a great many atheists arrive at that position following a great deal of investigation. Not scientific empirical experimentation necessarily, but certainly philosophical deliberation based on their studied observations of the world. After confirming that some arbitrarily large number of theist assertions appear to be untrue (e.g. the universe was created ~6000 years ago, God rewards faithfulness, Muhammad is the prophet of Allah), they conclude that the primary assertion of theists (God exists) is also untrue. You might challenge the soundness of their conclusion, but to say that "every atheist" accepts it "on blind faith and without further investigation" is demonstrably false.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Atheist by Unipuma · 2010-09-14 00:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Atheist by mapkinase · 2010-09-14 00:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

"then label those who do not believe in it." I do not accept your premise that "I" construct this world.
First of all, it existed long before my birth. Second, Muslims, Christians and Jews believe that the notion of such a world comes from God via Prophets, who have connection with Him.
"they disagree with your supernatural world." I know that, I am just saying that the basis of their disagreement is not scientific.
"If something can be observed there is no reason for belief." I just gave you very reason: religion helps a believer to lead happy life and frees him from anxiety.
"Currently, only the people who believe in a supernatural world filled with gods seem to feel a need to label the non-believers." Well, that is not surprising: they constitute a majority (Christians and Muslims). The pagans, most importantly Buddhists and Hindus are in minority.
"If you feel you can not cope with the natural world" Slide of hand. Your statement lead to presumption that religious people do not cope with all natural world or significant part of phenomena. In fact, religious people cope BETTER than atheists in emotional sphere of natural world because of their belief.
"It is when you start asking me to believe in the same supernatural world that you do, that I draw the line. "
It's your choice.
"Especially when the asking is done at the point of a sword." Muslims do not do that. Qur'an: 2:256:
"There is no compulsion in religion".
What we do with a sword is not forcing others to believe, but to obey the law of Allah, which you can do without believing it. The law of Allah for non-Muslims does not force them to do any of religious activities, like paying obligatory charity, fasting or praying obligatory prayers. In fact, it allows them to practice their own religion.
I do not believe in many American laws, finding them ridiculous and leading to the destruction of society, yet I obey them (I did choose them by voluntarily coming here, but the place I came from had even more stupidity in man made laws).

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Atheist by Dexter+Herbivore · 2010-09-14 01:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

To be fair, most "average" atheists are actually agnostic. This is not a troll, I'm just saying that most people who proclaim atheism actually hold no firm convictions either way.
Re:Atheist by bsDaemon · 2010-09-14 01:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

I was raised Episcopal, but figured out a young age that it was kind of bullshit. I mean, the church was basically started so a fat guy could divorce his foreign wife, even though divorce counts as adultery, which violates one of the 10 commandments. Being able to get away with violating a commandment doesn't seem like a good basis for starting a large protestant sect, if you ask me.
That lead me to eventually get to doing a study of Buddhism, particularly Zen. The books I read, largely from people in the Soto sect, just make it seem infinitely practical. I think a lot of people in the West get a sort of Beatles-in-India image of Eastern religions, but what I got out of Zen was that its the quest to be able to see things how they really are.
There is a Zen proverb I remember that goes something like, "Before you study Zen, you see the mountain. While you study Zen, you see the rocks and dirt. When you have mastered Zen, you'll see the mountain again."
I bring this up because it just seems to me that a lot of people get stuck on the "there is no spoon" and think that enlightenment is supposed to bring them to someplace special that looks like Rainbow Unicorn Attack. Really, its about cutting through the bullshit.
A lot of philosophy majors I knew in college were indistinguishable from the kids who would just get high and watch the Matrix. Sometimes they were one in the same. I don't claim to be an enlightened being or a Zen master, but I do think I'm pretty good at cutting through the bullshit and seeing the reality of situations. The world could use a little more of that.
Re:Atheist by RogerWilco · 2010-09-14 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I see religion as something that had a function in the past when we didn't understand the world around us very well and many things were an "Act of God".
From the seasons, to eclipses to floods, to many other things have been attributed or still are to gods or mythical creatures in the history of mankind. Man is very good in seeing cause and effect in things, even if there is none. I think that is how mysticism and religion came into existence, as a need for mankind to explain phenomena around him that he didn't understand and could not predict. I even think it's what defines us as a species in the sense that we have always tried to figure out cause and effect and then use the knowledge to our advantage to predict the future.
I think over time this simple attempt at explaining the world around us evolved into a way to order our society when we started to live together in larger and larger groups. Successful religions usually seem to do three things: They offer a social structure, they promote procreation and they try to give people control over the unpredictable things in their lives.
If you look at Christianity it's very clear that the current Church is very much based around these three cores.
I think in a way humanity developed religion as an evolutionary survival strategy that has proven highly successful.
Promoting procreation is the most essential. All versions of Christianity that were to averse to this (there were many in the first few centuries), have since died out. This is probably true for other religions as well, but my knowledge is less detailed.
The second thing is offering social structure. From Kings ruling by God given right, to clerical hierarchies to the Ten Commandments. Knowing your place in society, keeping those in power secure and giving rules to judge disputes by are the core of many if not all of the older religions.
The third thing hark back to how I think religion started. People do not cope well with uncertainty. Knowing that if you pray to the gods you will have a good hunt or bountiful harvest makes life predictable. And if things don't turn out well, you must have Sinned, failed to perform a ritual or something like that.
The last thing of course reinforces the previous, as the need for explanation and rules and guidelines helps keep the clergy in power.
Religion is a very powerful tool that humanity used in it's evolution. It is one of the big contributing factors that made us the dominant species on this planet. But I think that it has largely served it's purpose having been replaced by Science, insurance, law and newer forms of government like Democracy.
We now know that spring returns because of the orbit the Earth has around the Sun, not because we sacrifice an animal on midwinter.
Those that defend religion are proof of how powerful a mechanism it is and how good it is at defending itself and surviving. But they are defending something that is entirely constructed by man itself with no actual supernatural beings, powers or world existing. It has helped humanity survive and evolve but it's no longer needed, we now have better ways to organise ourselves and explain the world around us.

--
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Re:Atheist by Johnny5000 · 2010-09-14 02:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

religion helps a believer to lead happy life and frees him from anxiety.
Really? Many religious people I know are intensely anxious because their religion teaches them that they're one false move away from burning in hell for all eternity. In fact, in many religions there is an attempt to reject our animal instincts, things that feel very natural for us to do, and threaten unimaginable punishment for those unable to resist our natural urges. That tends to cause a bit of anxiety and unhappiness.

--
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Re:Atheist by easterberry · 2010-09-14 02:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Atheist by Thangodin · 2010-09-14 02:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Never go to a dictionary for a philosophical definition. It's sloppy, and the definition will always be wrong. In this case, the definition seems to have been deliberately slanted (I suggest you find another dictionary.)
As just about everyone else here has mentioned, gnostic atheism is very rare. However, most atheists consider the existence of God to be a highly unlikely proposition, because of the complete lack of evidence even though billions of people have been highly motivated to seek proof. In the absence of any evidence for a belief, the only fact left to be explained is the belief itself, and there are a broad range of explanations sufficient to the task of explaining religion.
Doubting the unlikely is an example of what we call the Null Hypothesis. It is entirely possible that someone has put a cobra under my bed, poisoned the food in my refrigerator, put a bomb in my car, or is waiting outside my door with a gun. But all of these are unlikely, and I simply do not bother worrying about them. A person unable to dismiss unsubstantiated and unlikely possibilities would not be able to function (an extremely severe psychotic episode can cause this.) So what does it say about belief in God that it requires you to discard a principle that you must use hundreds or even thousands of times a day, just to keep yourself sane?
Re:Atheist by Solandri · 2010-09-14 02:56 · Score: 3, Informative

what evidence is there that the world turns
A Foucault pendulum. It's only translational reference frames which have no absolute reference (if you and someone else are moving apart at constant direction and speed, you can't tell who is standing still and who is moving, or if both are moving). It's fairly easy to distinguish a rotating reference frame from a non-rotating one since rotation generates phantom centrifugal "forces" (consequently there is only one single absolute, universal non-rotating reference frame). These "forces" are what make a Foucault pendulum appear to rotate.
Re:Atheist by Mr2cents · 2010-09-14 03:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Aren't you mixing duality and theism? Duality deals with an assumed distinction between body and mind (-> Descartes). Theism is a belief in magical superheroes. The one does not imply the other. Even if you were to convince me of dualism, that doesn't imply the existence of a god.
Anyway, there are some serious objections to dualism. If there is an immortal soul, there should be a mechanism by which it connects to your brain. How else can your soul perceive what your senses feel? So the claim you thought was so safe from science is suddenly under siege. Dualism, since it interacts with reality, should be testable.
In fact, the current data all points into the direction that the mind is what the brain does. This explains neurological disorders quite well. In fact, you can be a kind, honest, gentle person, but if I were to remove a specific, small part of your brain, you would become a lying, cheating son of a bitch. So if you have the misfortune of a hemorrhage and you become a bad person, after you die you get punished in the afterlife as well?
So yes, you can try to convince some atheists using those arguments, but it won't work on me. I ask too many questions.

--
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Re:Atheist by chrb · 2010-09-14 03:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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)....
Re:Atheist by ConfusedVorlon · 2010-09-14 03:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was fairly careful to define 'god' as an involved creator.
If by 'creator', you just mean 'the next level of physics that we hope to eventually discover which explains things a bit better', then I'm quite happy to agree that a creator exists.
I'm not going to pray to it though, or expect it to take any personal interest in my life.

--
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
Re:Atheist by Quirkz · 2010-09-14 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think most evangelical atheists are pushing back because so many religious folks are evangelical about trying to force the atheist to live the way the religious person wants. It would be a double standard to condemn pushy atheists and not condemn pushy religious, wouldn't it?

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Re:Atheist by darnkitten · 2010-09-14 04:38 · Score: 2, Informative

I believe the "atheist of other deities" concept predates the "atheist of all deities" concept. The early Christians were accused of atheism because they rejected the state gods of Rome, and specifically the deified emperors, not because they denied the existence of all gods.

Religious search engine? by maxwell+demon · 2010-09-13 21:26 · Score: 2, Funny

How do I know that the search engine really is religious and doesn't just claim to be a true believer? Does the search engine go to church regularly? Does it pray? Is it baptized? :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Re:Religious search engine? by TheGratefulNet · 2010-09-13 21:40 · Score: 2, Funny

you know the search engine is religious when its logic gates have been circumcised.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

How Modern Tech Narrows Minds ... by foobsr · 2010-09-13 21:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now you can know all that you can see with a diminished field of view. Another way to look at how technology does not equate with 'progress'.

CC.

--
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)

Re:How Modern Tech Narrows Minds ... by somersault · 2010-09-13 22:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

More like how narrow minds abuse modern tech.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:How Modern Tech Narrows Minds ... by hitmark · 2010-09-14 00:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or that tech makes more visible what have always been there? I recall various communities having their own enclaves and news sources as far back as recorded history goes.

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:How Modern Tech Narrows Minds ... by burnin1965 · 2010-09-14 03:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Another way to look at how technology does not equate with 'progress'.
Only because you are looking at the wrong end of the eye piece your using to judge society.
Are followers of bronze age religions who have learned to click a few buttons a sign of progress through technology? No.
Holding a chunk of technology in your hand that required 100 years or more of scientific research and study to develop does not transfer the progress made by the many people before the subject into the subject's mind through osmosis. It is a very common misconception that wielding technology somehow makes you an advanced technological being, it doesn't.
Without the education to fully understand the wielded technology and a good dose of critical thinking that may very well dispel the stone and bronze age myths a society has lived by for many generations the technology will only become a part of the mythology.
If instead of viewing and judging the effects of technology by looking at the end users you viewed those who actually do the study, research and development it is more likely you will find the progress you are looking for.
But I will state that continuous technological advancement and progress of humanity is not guaranteed by the advances in science and technology. While it may not be the stated intent of these religious search engines, and the political engines I've seen mentioned as well, to halt, impede, and often reverse all technological advancement and human progress that is the result they will affect if not critically addressed.
Tolerance of ignorance and stupidity are the enemies of human progress and they are the enemies of scientific and technological advancement. While individuals should be allowed to tightly grasp their failed ideologies they should not be allowed to evangelise their failed dogma without rebuttal no matter how much it hurts their feelings.

Fixed by sakdoctor · 2010-09-13 21:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Does the real world contradict your religious views? Tired of getting (insert taboo here) and worried you'll (moralising afterlife disincentive here)?

Vertical search is fairly old by williamhb · 2010-09-13 21:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Re:Vertical search is fairly old by Beetle+B. · 2010-09-14 02:23 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
Did you read the article? This isn't about searching theology. This is a "general" search engine that filters out material not acceptable to their religion(s).

--
Beetle B.

So one might say... by pi8you · 2010-09-13 21:46 · Score: 5, Funny

they're using Church Engines?

Re:So one might say... by maxwell+demon · 2010-09-13 21:52 · Score: 3, Funny

they're using Church Engines?
Do those use Church numerals for calculating the page rank?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Re:Jewgle would have founded better by Mike+Kristopeit · 2010-09-13 21:48 · Score: 2, Funny

either they could register jewogle for $7.95, or pay a large sum of money for jewgle.com to the domain squatter who acted quicker than them...

what do you think a jew would do?

stupid people by chichilalescu · 2010-09-13 21:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:stupid people by Aqualung812 · 2010-09-13 23:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Having your information filtered against your will != choosing a filter for your information. Every time you use a search engine, you're filtering data, otherwise, it will just be a list of sites on the Internet. These sites just start with a pre-defined filter.

--
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.

Seekfind is down by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-09-13 21:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Guess I won't be able to find God after all.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

MilitantAgnosticDancers.org by MRe_nl · 2010-09-13 21:55 · Score: 2, Funny

"We're M.A.D and you're crazy".

top ten results
I don't know and neither do you.
Believe nothing, question everything.
There is no truth, only perception.
There is no such thing as infinity.
Organized religion is a bot-net.
You are responsible for your own actions.
There is no authority but yourself.
If you think otherwise, you've been hacked.
Give peace a chance: Nuke Jerusalem.
Death to the fidels!

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"

Rather, Church encoding by Kupfernigk · 2010-09-13 21:56 · Score: 2, Informative

hereThis WP article can be read in the context of the parent article in just so many ways. I particularly like "Church booleans are the Church encoding of the boolean values true and false", which could be taken as a sideswipe at the way so many religions distort truth and falsehood.

Your comment is particularly nice because, of course, Alonzo Church collaborated with Alan Turing, and both of those atheists would have been equally horrified at yet another example of the way that some so-called Christians seek to exclude any information that is incompatible with their "truth".

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Search engine for true believer by noidentity · 2010-09-13 21:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Bah, the search engine of a true believer would be to type in a random IP address and rely on the hand of God to ensure it's the very one you're looking for.

Re:Search engine for true believer by maxwell+demon · 2010-09-14 02:06 · Score: 2, Funny

If God manages to create a complete world, stop the sun and split the Red Sea, He really should be able to manipulate a few HTTP headers.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

imstupid.com by yyxx · 2010-09-13 22:04 · Score: 5, Funny

First link for "atheism" points to Conservapedia, which says:

Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.

If you were a comedian, you couldn't come up with something better than that. Are these people really that stupid?

Re:imstupid.com by Somewhat+Delirious · 2010-09-13 22:36 · Score: 2, Funny

If you don't like what it says just edit it! :)
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Play_Conservatroll

--
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
Re:imstupid.com by Spad · 2010-09-13 22:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're absolutely right, there's no proof that god doesn't exist.
Of course, there's also no proof that unicorns, pixies or demonic badgers from Neptune don't exist either - it's amazing how many things you can't prove don't exist.
Re:imstupid.com by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 22:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

To me this is one of the common fallacies that is purported by religious folk: the idea that a God cannot be argued against since it is impossible to prove that he does not exist.
This is true only in a certain limited instance. This instance is only for a god that does not interfere with the world around us and, for all intents and purposes, does not affect it. The Christian god (and the Abrahamic god in general) does not follow this routine. The holy texts of these religions (and the followers themselves) all agree on one thing: God interferes with the day to day lives of his people.
Therefore - the absence of proof that this is the case is proof that the Abrahamic god does not exist. While obviously this cannot be taken as absolute proof against the existence of the god, to say that there is no proof is just as wrong.
This fundamental argument seems to be lost on many that hide behind the lack of "proof" against a god. While one can argue that the god is trying to hide, I find this unlikely. Why would the Abrahamic god try to hide after all of the interference done in the Bible? It is contradictory to the core beliefs of the Abrahamic religions. Ergo, there is strong proof against the existence of the Abrahamic god
Re:imstupid.com by Gofyerself · 2010-09-13 22:56 · Score: 2, Funny

I love their main page

Is Fox News too liberal for you?
Re:imstupid.com by paiute · 2010-09-13 23:26 · Score: 2, Funny

First link for "atheism" points to Conservapedia, which says:

Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.
If you were a comedian, you couldn't come up with something better than that. Are these people really that stupid?
Oh yeah? There is evidence for Christ in every bedside table in every hotel and motel room. Where's your precious atheist evidence now?

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Re:imstupid.com by DrXym · 2010-09-13 23:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you were a comedian, you couldn't come up with something better than that. Are these people really that stupid?
Yes they are. Wikipedia sets a standard for NPOV that fundamentalists has no hope of comprehending let alone meeting. So they set up their own wiki which represents some of the nuttiest, illogical, nonsensical and laughably wrong articles you will ever see gathered in one single site. It's the motherlode of stupid.
Re:imstupid.com by Tom · 2010-09-14 00:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you were a comedian, you couldn't come up with something better than that. Are these people really that stupid?
Yes, they are. And one of the reasons they are is that they filter out evidence to the contrary. Having their own search engines just reduces the mental load, but one key point of all religious teaching is that you know the truth and everything contradicting it is false and/or a temptation by the devil (or whatever your equivalent is). So you train in filtering it out mentally. Having your computer do it for you is only the next logical step.
But without opposing views, your chosen view of the world gets ever stronger and - over time - ever more absurd. Do it long enough and you lose touch with reality entirely and start to believe in... I don't know, gods or some such nonsense.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:imstupid.com by radtea · 2010-09-14 02:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:imstupid.com by Tom · 2010-09-14 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:imstupid.com by jav1231 · 2010-09-14 09:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Thanks. I just wanted to be clear that you weren't being intellectually honest.
Re:imstupid.com by Tom · 2010-09-15 00:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because of what? Me calling a debunked propaganda theory what it is?
Pick another example if you want a neutral opinion. Being honest does not mean being nice or even neutral about everything, and neither does being rational, scientific, etc.. The verdict is in on ID, and it is precisely by not dancing around the fire but saying out clearly that what it is, that we are being honest.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:imstupid.com by jav1231 · 2010-09-17 06:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Say it loud. It makes you sound right. You got that going for you. I like to wrap myself in being right. It's warm, albeit sarcastic. But it's assuring. Sarcasm without being right is somewhat empty feeling. Which is why people resort to insulting language.
Re:imstupid.com by Tom · 2010-09-19 00:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Am I missing a few steps in this conversation? I think you lost me at the turn where you started talking about right and wrong without offering any evidence that would make a reader think twice about the general knowledge.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:How customizable is it? by somersault · 2010-09-13 22:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Pah. Real Christians just use prayer for all their search needs.

--
which is totally what she said

Creationist Wolfram Alpha? by vk2sky · 2010-09-13 22:29 · Score: 2, Funny

I imagine that the Creationist version of Wolfram Alpha would be very easy to implement:

Q: [anything, really]
A: God did it.

Re:Creationist Wolfram Alpha? by icebraining · 2010-09-13 23:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, God is supposed to have killed "all life that lived on dry land and breathed through its nostrils". Seems pretty evil to me.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

smart by X10 · 2010-09-13 22:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's always smart to exclude search results that don't match your personal prejudice.

--
no, I don't have a sig

Recovering Christian by DrugCheese · 2010-09-13 22:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Server Error in '/' Application.
Jesus not found.

--
*DrugCheese rants*

Re:What about buddhism? And hinduism? by AnonymousClown · 2010-09-13 22:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't need to search for answers in Buddhism because the answers are within.

--
RIP America

July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

Omphalos - The Pagan Search Engine by Phrogman · 2010-09-13 22:43 · Score: 2, Informative

I did this many years ago. I built and maintained a yahoo style directory of Pagan and Wiccan websites called Omphalos. I added a search engine that indexed all the sites in our directory, using an open source search engine called UDMsearch. I had a pretty extensive index by the time I was done, and the site was fairly popular, given the small size of the potential audience. Sadly, I lost the domain name and then lost the ability to host it eventually, and the whole thing died. The domain name belonged to a squatter last time I looked (Omphalos.net).

It was a lot of work and took a lot of my time up. I still have a backup of the site itself somewhere on my HD I think. Certainly I have the old text files I had posted there from my BBS days kicking around. I am sure Omphalos must have been superseded by something better by now, but at the time it was the only pagan search engine.

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid

Ooh! Ooh! I found another! by arielCo · 2010-09-13 22:46 · Score: 2, Funny

http://search.slashdot.org/search

(I kid, I kid. I know fully well about diversity of opinions here, but you gotta admit there's still prevalence of some)

--
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.

Re:What about buddhism? And hinduism? by netsharc · 2010-09-13 22:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Boo, predictable.

How about, "The quest for answer is suffering. Only when you have stopped searching can you reach enlightment."

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!

It's just a targeted sales angle by dbIII · 2010-09-13 23:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sure you guys have seen the "Christian Debt Financing" spam emails to trap the gullible. Imagine an entire search engine trying to scam you by pretending to share your morality.
It may even start off with good ideals, but you can bet that after a short period of time that it's just there to shear the flock.

Advent? by gringer · 2010-09-13 23:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Advent? But it's not December yet!

--
Ask me about repetitive DNA

Censorship by rainmouse · 2010-09-13 23:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Anyone else find this could become a potentially deeply worrying form of censorship? A weapon to use against science.

"Server Error in '/' Application." by elronxenu · 2010-09-13 23:10 · Score: 3, Funny

Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.

Your God is not so powerful now, is he??

Thoughts on Seekfind from a Christian perspective by Micah · 2010-09-13 23:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

(Based on its static pages. Haven't been able to search yet.)

A while ago I saw another Christian general search engine (I forget the URL). I tried a few searches on it, and it was absolutely pathetic. The results could not have been less relevant if they tried! That is deeply disturbing to me, as I believe that we as Christians should should aim for excellence in all that we do.

It looks like this Seekfind will be different in that it doesn't aim to be a general search engine. I could see some value in that, if you're looking for thoughts on specific Bible passages or whatnot from a Christian perspective. I suspect that users who use Seekfind for that would have no trouble using Google for everything else, so there is no need to claim that they are "sheltered".

However, what disturbs me about Seekfind is its apparent narrowness in what they deem as "Christian-enough." Apparently they will not index sites that describe end-times from an amillennial perspective -- which is the most widely held view in all of Christendom (not American fundamentalism), and they won't consider infant baptism (as we in the Presbyterian Church do) or even believers' baptism by sprinkling. What the? It would be much more valuable if I could find commentaries from various Christian perspectives.

I'm looking forward to searching them for creation apologist material. From a comment above it looks like they only cover the young earth think tanks. I bet there won't be any results from reasons.org, which IMHO has a much saner interpretation of Creation (they argue that the Big Bang is fully compatible with a literal reading of the Bible).

"belief" by LKM · 2010-09-13 23:18 · Score: 2, Informative

The problem with your statement is that atheists use the word "belief" differently from how religious people use it when they talk about their religion. When a religious person say "I believe in God", they mean that they have absolute faith that their god exists. They know that their god exists.

When an Atheist says "I believe that there is no God", that person means "given the current evidence, I've come to the conclusion that it makes sense to live my life under the assumption that no god exists."

Atheists use "believe" in that sentence in the same way most people use it when they say something like "I believe it will rain tomorrow", not in the "absolute faith" kind of way.

And let's also note that atheism per se doesn't require that you believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism merely requires that you don't believe that a god exist. A lot of atheists are agnostics as well. In other words, the absolute absence of faith in a god is not the same as absolute faith in the absence of a god.

Re:As an atheist... by mastropiero · 2010-09-14 00:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

They are not mutually exclusive.

(A)gnosticism refers to what you know, and (a)theism refers what you believe in terms of gods. They are two independent dimensions. Think cartesian plane with one axis for theism and the other for gnosticism. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or everything in between. Gnostic atheists are hard to come by, but many gnostic theists are pretty loud about it.

Re:How customizable is it? by hedwards · 2010-09-14 01:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Meh, stupid Christians, I've been using a magic 8-ball for years.

Re:Here is "some evidence" by Rosy+At+Random · 2010-09-14 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am not impressed.

People's lives change (or not) with and without Jesus, with and without Christianity, and with and without religion. It happens in other cultures, it happened thousands of years ago, and will continue to happen long after Christianity is forgotten.

It's not evidence for anything but the fact that people's lives change, with or without catalysts that are or are not objectively real.

The fact that you think your particular belief, and its object, is somehow special is galling arrogance.

--
Would you like a slice of toast?

Re:No results necessary by jav1231 · 2010-09-14 02:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Archeological expeditions of the Holy Land depended largely on the Bible. Often, nations thought not to exists were eventually found there. So that there are facts in the Bible is indisputable. What they mean, what evidences they pose to the existence of God is up to the hearer.

Re:Walk along the bed of the Red sea. by maxwell+demon · 2010-09-14 02:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

You cannot test that the red sea was parted millennia ago by walking through it today. Otherwise I'll prove the Pangaea claim wrong by not being able to go from Australia to Europe without crossing the ocean.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Re:Censorship vs Focus by darnkitten · 2010-09-14 04:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

That will only happen if someone is forced to use a religious search engine, but disallowed from using others.

That is assuming that the "someone" knows it is censored.

Vivismo's Clusty metasearch was bought out and renamed Yippy (http://search.yippy.com/). I used it for a couple of days before realizing it was filtering the search results. The only reason I found out the search was censored was that I ran a search where I knew what the results should have been. When I went searching for a search mode that would return accurate results, I eventually found the "Censorship" page (http://search.yippy.com/censorship), two clicks down, where they stated what they were filtering (based on their political and religious views.)

The front page should have linked to the censorship policy, or at least should include a notice that it is a "conservative, Christian, family-friendly search engine." Unfortunately, the front page is a generic search box, with no indication of what it does.

I can't make a choice if they are not open about their activities.

Slashdot Mirror

The Advent of Religious Search Engines

87 of 583 comments (clear)