Slashdot Mirror


Pope's Astronomer Would Love To Baptize an Alien

Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Guardian reports that Guy Consolmagno, curator of the pope's meteorite collection and a trained astronomer and planetary scientist, says he would be 'delighted' if intelligent life was found among the stars. 'But the odds of us finding it, of it being intelligent and us being able to communicate with it — when you add them up it's probably not a practical question.' Consolmagno adds that the traditional definition of a soul was to have intelligence, free will, freedom to love and freedom to make decisions. 'Any entity — no matter how many tentacles it has — has a soul.' Would he baptize an alien? 'Only if they asked.' Consolmagno dismisses the ideas of intelligent design as a pseudo-scientific version of creationism. 'The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn't originally mean at all. It's another form of the God of the gaps. It's bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning.'"

308 comments

  1. It'll make great TV by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    I can see it now... the ships land at the UN and...

    Alien: Greetings. We come in peace.
    UN: Where do you come from?
    Alien: A distant galaxy nearly 10 billion light years away. Our world has no crime, no disease, no wars; we value learning as the pinnacle of achievement. We have been waiting 2,000 of your years for the moment when Humanity is ready for contact. We feel the time is right.
    UN: Why are you here?
    Alien: We came to be baptized. Praise Jesus!

    or not...

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:It'll make great TV by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      If that happened, I would hurl.... Or many would suspect it was a hoax by the vatican...

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    2. Re:It'll make great TV by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      It would probably be picked up as a pilot by FOX. They love making faith win at the end of their shows; how many times has the atheist House been outsmarted by a patient who has faith? Multiple episodes.

    3. Re:It'll make great TV by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Alien: We came to be baptized. Praise Jesus!

      You ought to read Sawyer's book, Calculating God.

      It's about an atheist curator of a natural history museum when an alien spaceship lands nearby.

      They get into a long conversation, and the aliens are completely befuddled why he doesn't believe in God. If you look at all the cosmological constants, they say, it seems pretty clear the universe was engineered to support life.

      Atheist: "But if there were multiple universes, we'd naturally be in one that can support life."

      Aliens (dismissively): "Oh, there's no multiple universes."

      Quite an amusing book to read, actually.

    4. Re:It'll make great TV by Pojut · · Score: 1

      There is also the ancient astronaut theory, something we've been studying as of late (mainly because it's interesting, and because there is a lot of interpretive evidence supporting it).

    5. Re:It'll make great TV by ComaVN · · Score: 1

      how many times has the atheist House been outsmarted by a patient who has faith?

      Oh please. How boring would that show be if everything happened for logical and fully understood reasons. Of course there's going to be people who disagree with his analytical approach, and of course they're going to be right every once in a while.

      Or would you prefer it if he was somehow always magically correct?

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    6. Re:It'll make great TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be hilarious.

    7. Re:It'll make great TV by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Uhm... you're joking, right?

      Pay attention. The most House ever gets is a "God sent us to you" bit. The whole "he works in mysterious ways" thing.

      The episode with the nun was hilarious that way.

    8. Re:It'll make great TV by timlyg · · Score: 0

      Pope: Consolmagno, you are to meet the inquisition tomorrow on how you obtained the right to baptize others.

    9. Re:It'll make great TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or many would suspect it was a hoax by the vatican...

      Not if we want to be baptized by a pastor at a black Baptist Church.

      Singing, dancing, bitchin' BBQs and picnics. Why else would we come here...?

      Yeah, there is the-right-kind-of-curves-curvy-women.

      As for what we have to offer in return, as they say in the stars, "Once you go Alpha Centauri, you will not be sorry!"

      Out tentacles are not made for walkin', ladies.

    10. Re:It'll make great TV by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The more interesting question is why the Vatican astronomer thinks that an alien would need baptism.

      If we grant the fellow his premises(which I in no way agree with; but theism/atheism arguments are boring at this point), humans must be baptized in order to achieve salvation because of original sin and the resultant human concupiscence. That was a particular event that occurred somewhere in the ancient middle/near east on a small rocky planet orbiting a not especially distinguished star.

      Why would an entity that was created or evolved on an entirely different rock, without the slightest connection whatsoever to humanity, be affected in the slightest by some human behavior in the early pre-lapsarian habitat?

      Is the Vatican's official policy that humans managed to sin-ify everything in the entire universe that has a complex neural net(or analog thereof), or that a separate Fall occurred on all planets with sentient life?

      I'm not at all surprised that the Vatican acknowledges the possibility of alien life. Not doing so would be placing limits on God's creative power(which would be a doctrinally unsound move) as well as ignoring the scientific fact that space is pretty fucking huge. I am rather surprised that they would view alien life as being in need of their attention(particularly when some fairly clever, if not exactly unequivocally sentient, terrestrial species are viewed as being wholly unaffected by human Fall and salvation. If the higher primates don't need baptisms, why would the xenofungus of Alpha-Centauri?

    11. Re:It'll make great TV by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Actually that was the premise behind the short story "The Magi" by Damien Broderick. Good story.

    12. Re:It'll make great TV by Combatso · · Score: 1

      A planet with no crime and no wars? Give them religion and see how long that lasts

    13. Re:It'll make great TV by Inda · · Score: 1

      His joke was funnier as it was relevant to the topic and a joke.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    14. Re:It'll make great TV by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I find the idea of spawned-again Christians with death rays a bit disturbing.

    15. Re:It'll make great TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will this priest be ex-communicated?! His wish goes directly against centuries of proof that the church has which show the earth to be flat, center of the universe the only life anywhere. Anything else is not of god and therefore cannot exist.* Does the Alien have any idea of what he is getting into and will there be a requirement for him to be an altar boy? (RUN FOREST, RUN!!!) *Vatican's rules, not mine. Maybe this is the plot of V season 2; its their way of getting into the Vatican and they're bringing LOTS of sauces for dipping!

    16. Re:It'll make great TV by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      All he has to do is move to Arizona, Or Texas, or New Mexico.

      I would suggest California but lawsuits indicate they have been there performing "Penetration Testing".

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    17. Re:It'll make great TV by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the existence and salvation of aliens is a challenge, but only in understanding the concepts, it is not ruled out by doctrine. The official position of the Church is that God decides who is saved or not. The Church is merely the best possible path to salvation, as well as being a group empowered by Apostolic succession to provide certain tools and doctrines to support that path.

      Why would aliens need the Church? Presumably because they have learned about the Christian God and they want to go to heaven and for some reason they believe that the Catholic Church can get them there. The cleverness of the species in question does not appear to be a bar to that. As far as I know, no one has ever said that being sinful requires you to be stupid.

      To put it another way, the Church is founded on revelation. That revelation is of something that we are told could not come as a product of human reason. You could invent FTL drives, become virtually immortal, and have colossal databases and analytical capabilities over all of that knowledge and still never find out a single detail about God via deduction or scientific method. Any aliens that contact us could well have all of those achievements and still not know anything about this particular deity. According to the doctrine anyway.

      As for sin-ifying the galaxy, it would be unclear as to what that would mean. The Bible story of the Garden itself is considered to be an allegory by the mainstream Catholic Church. If taken from that perspective, the whole original sin situation isn't an actual act by two individual humans named Adam and Eve on Earth in 6006 BC, it is humanity's choice to undertake knowledge of Good and Evil. Presumably, that could be extended to any species' choice to do the same. Indeed, the fundamental ability to make that choice may well be the line where we are considered to have souls or not.

      You need to bear in mind that when you are being all humble about our species and our not-so central place in the Universe, you may well be going too far in the other direction. There is nothing about the Universe that requires humanity to be insignificant, it just seems that way based on the sheer expanse of the Cosmos. Human beings themselves are insignificant in size and direct physical force compared to the Earth as well, but it is quite clear that we have grown in significance to the point that we are having some noticeable effects on it. It is not impossible that the future of humanity can expand to fill a much larger volume. That doesn't even require humanity to be alone in the Universe or somehow central to it, but it definitely does not rule out being "divinely appointed".

      Finally, this article is about the Vatican astronomer's opinion. He's not the pope or even a theologian, he's an astronomer, he's not likely to be able to teach completely coherently about doctrine. Nor am I, of course, so buyer beware.

    18. Re:It'll make great TV by vlm · · Score: 1

      I'm not at all surprised that the Vatican acknowledges the possibility of alien life. Not doing so would be placing limits on God's creative power(which would be a doctrinally unsound move) as well as ignoring the scientific fact that space is pretty fucking huge.

      Don't forget, the Vatican is also Very, Very, old. Pre age of discovery. So they are already pretty experienced with the concept of discovering new continents / cultures / etc.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    19. Re:It'll make great TV by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      CS Lewis has a great series about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Trilogy Granted, it was written before space travel was possible, but it has some clever twists on aliens that don't "violate" anything church would say. In his story, Earth is the "silent planet" and when the "devil" fell he took us with him. In his story "god" has many worlds, something which also applies to Chronicles of Narnia. It's a very clever take that we only know what we're "supposed to know", and other stuff maybe going on with angels, aliens, etc.

  2. Good read by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This, believe it or not, is a very good read. It brings up some interesting thoughts on science and how it interacts with religion. It shows that the stereotype of the church is against is untrue. It has some interesting observations on the Catholic church and its views on things.

    But, this being Slashdot, I am afraid all we will see is a mindless trollfest.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Good read by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree, and I'm glad that the Slashdot summary doesn't try to pick out sensationalist statements like a lot of other blogs have.

      For example, the comment about the baptism. A lot of places phrased their summary in an attempt to suggest that he would be running around trying to baptise aliens at the earliest chance. I like that Slashdot included his actual statement which was a response to a question.

      "Only if they asked." seems a perfectly fair and rational response to the question.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:Good read by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually the idea of baptizing an alien brings up some interesting theological questions. You have to remember why Christians get baptized in the first place: to remove original sin. You know, the sin of Adam and Eve eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. If you stop and think about that assuming that aliens can be baptized has a few problems to it.

      Is he assuming that any alien's that we meet had a similar fall, and need to be redeemed? Or is he assuming that Adam and Eve's sin has somehow tainted the aliens across interstellar distance (after all, it is supposed to taint us across thousands of years of time, why not distance as well)? Or is he thinking that Adam and Eve were the original ancestors of all intelligent beings (in a spiritual sense, I'm thinking along the lines of Adam and Eve being the first souls rather than the first humans)? Or did he just forget what the actual purpose of baptism was when a journalist asked him a question that he wasn't really prepared for?... yes, that seems most likely. Drat it all, I thought I was on to something here.

    3. Re:Good read by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, I should have read the title instead of the summary.

      "Idle: Pope's Astronomer Would Love To Baptize an Alien."

      Slightly sensationalist

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:Good read by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>You have to remember why Christians get baptized in the first place: to remove original sin

      If you consider Original Sin to be a nature that is anything less than perfect (which is what it more or less means these days), it makes sense. Redemption for your fuckups.

      >>Or is he thinking that Adam and Eve were the original ancestors of all intelligent beings

      Doubtful. Back in the middle ages, the question arose if elves and giants could be baptized. They'd been sending missionaries out to the northern reaches of Europe, where everyone knew giants and elves lived. So the pope considered it, and said, sure. They could be baptized, too, if they wanted it.

      So this isn't much of a departure from precedent.

    5. Re:Good read by fmobus · · Score: 1

      Or is he assuming that Adam and Eve's sin has somehow tainted the aliens across interstellar distance (after all, it is supposed to taint us across thousands of years of time, why not distance as well)?

      Also, how fast is this taint travelling? It certainly couldn't go faster than light - otherwise we would just build spaceships fueled by taint.

    6. Re:Good read by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many journalists and "wannabe journalists" are biased against religion, and/or they like to troll (to get more hits/views/purchases).

      So they sensationalize stuff.

      That's why Michael Reiss lost his job- the media kept claiming that he wanted to teach creationism in schools:

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

      With headlines like "Call for creationism in science" and "Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools"

      --
    7. Re:Good read by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you consider Original Sin to be a nature that is anything less than perfect

      But, according to theology, we were created perfect. It was only the actions of Adam and Eve, going against the will of God, that made us imperfect and requiring baptism. So if you're going to say that aliens are imperfect that would mean that they had a fall similar to humanity's.

      That's fine, it answers the question as well as anything, though it does raise the question of why so many of God's sentient creatures chose to disobey him. To paraphrase a Douglas Adams quote: If he the type of guy to go around putting bricks under hats and waiting for people to kick them? Is he hiding in the corner of the garden just waiting for someone to eat that fruit so he can jump out and say "Aha!"?

    8. Re:Good read by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Obviously, Adam and Eve had kids, some of them built a space ship and set off to explore space while the others stayed to worship his holiness. The ones who went off to abandon their maker were deformed beyond recognition as punishment. That's why all Star Trek/Wars aliens bear similar resemblance to humans, but are all twisted and deformed by Satan.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:Good read by irenaeous · · Score: 1
      Also, how fast is this taint travelling? It certainly couldn't go faster than light - otherwise we would just build spaceships fueled by taint.

      The souls would be subject to quantum entanglement so no travel is necessary.

    10. Re:Good read by EricTheGreen · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Great article. Knowledge and faith co-existing...who knew?

      I'd be interested to learn if has he ever read "The Fire Balloons" and what impression it made on him, if any.

    11. Re:Good read by silverglade00 · · Score: 1

      spaceships fueled by taint

      Guys, I'm off on a Rule 34 search. I'll see you all tomorrow.

    12. Re:Good read by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Informative

      It shows that the stereotype of the church is against is untrue. It has some interesting observations on the Catholic church and its views on things.

      It should be pointed out that he is no ordinary priest (actually, he's a monk). He is a Jesuit. An order organized during the renaissance to preach to the more educated people of the time.

      Today they are known for administrating most of the church's universities. One of the requirements is to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    13. Re:Good read by swillden · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that most non-Catholic Christians don't accept the notion that original sin taints all of us. Still, since this article is about a Catholic astronomer, your points are interesting ones.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Good read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think my world has just been completely upended...

      From reading the parent thread, it appears there has just been a conversation about religion on Slashdot that was both interesting, insightful, fair-minded, and intelligent...

      WOW.

    15. Re:Good read by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that most non-Catholic Christians don't accept the notion that original sin taints all of us.

      Wait, what? I'm confused by your statement. Original sin is the very foundation of Christianity. Do most non-Catholic Christians choose to ignore Paul?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    16. Re:Good read by Jawnn · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually the idea of baptizing an alien brings up some interesting theological questions. You have to remember why Christians get baptized in the first place: to remove original sin. You know, the sin of Adam and Eve eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. If you stop and think about that assuming that aliens can be baptized has a few problems to it.

      You expect us to abandon our religion just because you trot out one logical inconsistency? Some of us true believers have actually read the Bible (including it's many, many contradictions and logical fallacies) and still choose to believe, you insensitive clod!

    17. Re:Good read by tacroy · · Score: 1

      Just a clarification: Catholics believe that baptism removes original sin. Many (most?) other Christian style religions believe that Baptism is a SYMBOL of Christs death and is not in any way a salvation issue but instead a way to show that a person is publicly associating with Christ and being a Christian.

    18. Re:Good read by magarity · · Score: 1

      the sin of Adam and Eve eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge
       
      What if way back when the original aliens naughtily ate the Froob of the Gorblebump? Could modern aliens be absolved by a human version baptism or do they require the alien version?

    19. Re:Good read by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      He's relatively clear in dismissing a literal intelligent design version of creationism as nonsense. That would mean that a literal Adam and Eve, and the literal events of Genesis, did not happen as written either.

      If you take Genesis as some sort of elaborate metaphor, I'm sure you can broaden it to include aliens.

      IANAChristian, incidentally, so official interpretations may vary.

    20. Re:Good read by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The ones who went off to abandon their maker were deformed beyond recognition as punishment. That's why all Star Trek/Wars aliens bear similar resemblance to humans, but are all twisted and deformed by Satan.

      I always wondered how it was possible that hybrids like Spock could be born.
      Didn't Sagan say you'd have more chance of mating with a begonia than a space alien?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:Good read by OlRickDawson · · Score: 1

      Actually, according the the bible, the purpose of baptism depends upon your interpretation of the bible, and/or which demonination you belong to. Most protestants believe that it is a symbol to publicly declare that the person has accepted Jesus, but is not necessary for salvation itself. Therefore the symbol itself would not save you from your sins. Jesus himself was referenced as being baptized (John 1:29-33), and he, according the bible was also without sin (1 Peter 2:22), and had never sinned. The point of baptism is argued about among the various Christian demoninations. There are several references in the bible that have people being saved without baptism, such as one of the criminals that was crucified at the same time Jesus was. Some, like the Catholics, allow sprinkling, while others, like the Baptists do not. As for why any aliens would need to be redeemed, that is something for debate, and is actually something that many theologians have debated for years. C.S. Lewis, being one of the most accessible theological writers, has his own interpretation, which you can see in his Perilandria series and his Chronicles of Narnia series. I've seen several others. Several seem to think that if we can reach them, then they have 'fallen from grace' as well. Some have Jesus coming to them in their form, while others have us going to them to preach to them. Most Christians ignore it, because since their documentation of God's word, the bible, doesn't say anything about it. Therefore, no one knows.

      --
      Ol' Rick Dawson had a farm EIEIO
    22. Re:Good read by horza · · Score: 1

      It brings up some interesting thoughts on science and how it interacts with religion.

      That's all well and dandy. It's how religion interacts with science that is the problem.

      Phillip.

    23. Re:Good read by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      It's that whole Galileo thing...Slashdot is still kind of touchy about that....

    24. Re:Good read by the_womble · · Score: 1

      No. Can you imagine any environment in which a sinless being could evolve? Evil pays in evolutionary terms - examples from our own evolution include rape (good way of spreading your genes) and murder (good way of eliminating competition).

      Any imaginable environment has some incentives to evolve evil behaviour, therefore aliens will also be fallen. They might be substantially better or worse than us, but they will no be perfect.

      Of course there may be some environment that allows pure goodness to evolve, but I think its very unlikely.

      As he attacks creationism, and the creationist version of intelligent design, in particular as "bad theology", he obviously does not believe in a literal sin by Adam and Eve.

      Actually, science confirms the Christian belief in original sin. A new born baby looks completely innocent, but Christians always held, and science know confirms, that they have inherited tendencies to both good and evil.

    25. Re:Good read by swillden · · Score: 1

      Original sin is the very foundation of Christianity.

      No, Christ is the very foundation of Christianity.

      The Wikipedia article on original sin covers the various viewpoints quite well, if you're interested. The article on infant baptism also provides a pretty good list of the Christian faiths that believe in original sin vs those who don't, because those who accept original sin practice infant baptism to redeem the newborn from sin in case it should die while young, while those that reject original sin generally delay baptism until the person is a believer.

      I did perhaps overstate things when I said that "most" non-Catholic Christians reject original sin. Nearly all reformation protestants do, and the eastern churches do (including the Eastern Catholic). I don't know if that adds up to "most" or not.

      Do most non-Catholic Christians choose to ignore Paul?

      Of course not. Paul said that sin and death entered the world through Adam, and that death came to all men through him, but that doesn't necessarily imply that his sin also fell upon all. Consider Ezekiel 18:20.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    26. Re:Good read by perpenso · · Score: 1

      But, according to theology, we were created perfect.

      That does not seem correct. Perhaps doctrine says that we were merely created in the image of something perfect (God) and that we originally existed in some kind of state of grace.

    27. Re:Good read by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's rather nuanced, so I'll just link to WP.

    28. Re:Good read by vlm · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. Back in the middle ages, the question arose if elves and giants could be baptized. They'd been sending missionaries out to the northern reaches of Europe, where everyone knew giants and elves lived. So the pope considered it, and said, sure. They could be baptized, too, if they wanted it.

      Is there a Papal Bull on baptism of (internet) Trolls? I suspect he's cool with that.

      Bigger question. This Baptism thing will not take off unless you can train some priests and send them back home. And most of our local religions have a serious anti-female pro-male bias. So what happens if the intelligent, baptized xenofungus wants to become a priest but their species does not have a biological male concept, unlikely as that may be?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    29. Re:Good read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not forget the Doghead people... They can be baptized also

    30. Re:Good read by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      you consider Original Sin to be a nature that is anything less than perfect (which is what it more or less means these days), it makes sense. Redemption for your fuckups.

      And if you try to whitewash everything as a loosely interpreted metaphor, then you can find God in a lump of coal. ("God is energy"). Why not admit that the bible, the holy foreskin, virgin birth, etc etc. are not metaphors, just collaborative works of fiction that evolved over time, but not fast enough to keep up with humanity extracting itself from the bronze age.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    31. Re:Good read by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. Back in the middle ages, the question arose if elves and giants could be baptized. They'd been sending missionaries out to the northern reaches of Europe, where everyone knew giants and elves lived. So the pope considered it, and said, sure. They could be baptized, too, if they wanted it.

      Is there a Papal Bull on baptism of (internet) Trolls? I suspect he's cool with that.

      Bigger question. This Baptism thing will not take off unless you can train some priests and send them back home. And most of our local religions have a serious anti-female pro-male bias. So what happens if the intelligent, baptized xenofungus wants to become a priest but their species does not have a biological male concept, unlikely as that may be?

      Then they'll convert to Indic religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism instead, where the concepts of male and female mater a lot less ;p

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    32. Re:Good read by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Why not admit that the bible, the holy foreskin, virgin birth, etc etc. are not metaphors, just collaborative works of fiction that evolved over time, but not fast enough to keep up with humanity extracting itself from the bronze age.

      I'm pretty sure that the Bible is not a metaphor, and that foreskin is not a collective work of fiction.

      You might want to rephrase what you're trying to say.

    33. Re:Good read by muridae · · Score: 1

      I guess that would depend on whether Christ's death was for their sins as well, or just us humans. Or whether they had their own Christ...maybe Christ traveled there, perhaps on a DC-8, or just reincarnated.

    34. Re:Good read by Xerolooper · · Score: 1

      If you consider the actual purpose of baptism it makes perfect sense. You are reborn as the son or daughter of God. It's more of an adoption ceremony than just purification. Also it is a public statement of faith. It is the blood of Jesus that purifies us in God's eyes. So aliens might not participate in the communion ceremony.

      --
      "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
    35. Re:Good read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you are mistaken. The purpose of baptism is to show an outward expression of an inward faith. Sin is never removed by baptism or ritual act that human beings can do... man's sin was paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ alone. God does not need us to do anything to save ourselves.. we can't. Only by the grace of God is anyone saved from the sin that is part of every human being since Adam.

    36. Re:Good read by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      This, believe it or not, is a very good read. It brings up some interesting thoughts on science and how it interacts with religion. It shows that the stereotype of the church is against is untrue. It has some interesting observations on the Catholic church and its views on things.

      But, this being Slashdot, I am afraid all we will see is a mindless trollfest.

      Errm, I'm more worried about those for whom this article is proof that Catholics aren't "Real Christians"(TM).

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
  3. What about Gingers? by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why doesn't he try to baptize a Ginger Kid instead, they are assumed to have no soul and there are a lot more of them then there are aliens.

    1. Re:What about Gingers? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Belfast 1969-1990s. 'Nuff said.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:What about Gingers? by allanmackenzie · · Score: 1

      Your sig is right. If the facts don't match your ideology it does NOT mean that the facts are wrong.

      The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.
      -Saint Thomas Aquinas

      I found Consolmagno to be thought provoking and insightful.

      Allan

    3. Re:What about Gingers? by KazW · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't he try to baptize a Ginger Kid instead, they are assumed to have no soul and there are a lot more of them then there are aliens.

      Kill two birds with one stone.

      Have the inquisition chase after Doctor Who once he finally gets a ginger body.

      --
      Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
    4. Re:What about Gingers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about one of those test tube kids.

      According to the Catholic Church, they don;t have any souls either.

    5. Re:What about Gingers? by muridae · · Score: 1

      Okay, this is /. and you should be geeky or nerdy enough to know that he is The Doctor, not Doctor Who. Turn in your geek/nerd card at the next sci-fi con.

  4. Definitely discuss beforehand by starfishsystems · · Score: 4, Funny

    Water could be extremely toxic to some life forms. You don't want to start out a first encounter on the wrong foot.

    Christian: Welcome to Earth. Hey, you want to be baptized?
    Alien: Sure!
    Christian: Lean way back. Okay, here we go.
    Alien: [tszzz]

    --
    Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
    1. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water could be extremely toxic to some life forms. You don't want to start out a first encounter on the wrong foot.

      Christian: Welcome to Earth. Hey, you want to be baptized?

      Alien: Sure!

      Christian: Lean way back. Okay, here we go.

      Alien: [tszzz]

      If a species is capable of interstellar travel,
      If a species is capable of determining the composition of our atmosphere,
      If a species is ready to drop down on our planet without any type of protective gear,

      then I'd presume that they would have determined that they can handle water.

      Would we let our astronauts onto the moon without special gear? No. And that's considering how primitive we would be in comparison. I think that a bigger concern would be bacteria, viruses, particulate matter, et cetra. Water is pretty abundant throughout the universe. I'm sure that they would be familiar with what it is by the time that they got here.

    2. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If water was toxic to them, why would they come to a planet where water makes up 70% of the surface area? Although it would make fighting off an invasion more fun if we could use super soakers and water balloons.

    3. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If water was toxic to them, why would they come to a planet where water makes up 70% of the surface area?

      Because M. Night Shyamalan invited them? Or maybe he is working for them to prepare for the inevitable invasion. What a twist!

    4. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      But maybe it's only holy water which kills them. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by blhack · · Score: 1

      If that was the case, they probably wouldn't come out of their spaceship. Our atmosphere is filled with water.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    6. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Presumably, before they land, they would notice that our planet is 75% COVERED BY WATER.

    7. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this, Signs? Swing away!

    8. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      If I learned anything from Mel Gibson its that Aliens are killed by water.

      I also learned that he doesn't seem to like Jews very much, or his wife for that matter...

       

    9. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They how are they not burned by the air?
      Unless they are visiting in the middle of death valley, there is going to be some humidity.

    10. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by seanonymous · · Score: 1

      Apparently, aliens are here, they read Slashdot, they're defensive, and they're not familiar with our humor.

    11. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by RichiH · · Score: 1

      We would not descent on a planet running on acid (unlikely as acid is chemically reactive, water is not).

      They would prolly not travel a gazillion frolwotshs just to die in our water. Presumably, they have their own.

    12. Re:Definitely discuss beforehand by starfishsystems · · Score: 1

      What part of "Score:5, Funny" do you people not understand?

      --
      Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
  5. Forever may be right by suso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As much as I dislike religion. I've come to accept that probably for a long time to come, we are going to be stuck with it. Because no matter how much we discover and can explain of the universe, no matter how many other worlds and civilizations we discover. There will always be something that can be explained at the time, and people will fear and respect it and even worship it. Probably every generation has had its share of people that thought that they were going to see the downfall of religion in their time.

    1. Re:Forever may be right by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike religion. I've come to accept that probably for a long time to come, we are going to be stuck with it. Because no matter how much we discover and can explain of the universe, no matter how many other worlds and civilizations we discover. There will always be something that can be explained at the time, and people will fear and respect it and even worship it. Probably every generation has had its share of people that thought that they were going to see the downfall of religion in their time.

      People just do religion. Always have and always will.

      Also, I like this astronomer! I think I have heard his position before and liked it then too.

    2. Re:Forever may be right by alvinrod · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Call me more skeptical, but religion will always be around because a lot of people are really stupid and it's easiest to keep them in line with religion or something similar. Really, anything that pits them against some other group and creates and us vs. them mentality. Religion is just one convenient way to do this.

      If religion ever does get stamped out it will just be replaced by something else that is virtually indistinguishable from it.

    3. Re:Forever may be right by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Not for very long. Religion is at an all-time low, and keeps decreasing. Also true believers are becoming very rare. Lots of people will tell you they believe but don't read the bible, don't go to church, and can't coherently explain what they believe. They're more going with the flow than anything else. In Europe, religion is a highly private matter and you generally don't know who's a believer or not.

      Irrational beliefs and "there's something higher" probably will be with us for a very long time, but I think organize religion will shrink dramatically much faster.

    4. Re:Forever may be right by jlf278 · · Score: 1

      I we will see certain religions (or religious sects) disappear or change beyond recognition over (a long long) time. However, I believe religion will always exist within human society. Religion really just explains the unexplainable. Since we will never know all that there is to know about the universe, there will always be a good deal of unknown for religion to claim. While religions cannot claim as much goings-on-of-the-world as they used to, some of the most significant unkowns are unlikely to ever yield undeniable answers.

    5. Re:Forever may be right by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      The Quantum Lord prohibits such blasphemy! You must bow down to his holy quark and kiss his many gluons of kindess.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    6. Re:Forever may be right by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I'd wager to suggest that true believers have always been rare. There's the fruitcakes on one end and the cunning priests looking for political power and a cushy job indoors on the other. In between there's the silent majority just trying to put food on the table/in the cave/etc. They've been raised with a religion and sort of go through the motions because that is what all the neighbours do, but in reality they don't give it all that much thought.

      Then again...perhaps I'm just underestimating the ability for self-delusion when it comes to Homo Sapiens

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    7. Re:Forever may be right by rash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might want to have a look at the downfall of atheistic communism, the rise of paganism in europe and the rise of christianity in asia.

    8. Re:Forever may be right by Jawnn · · Score: 0, Troll

      As much as I dislike religion. I've come to accept that probably for a long time to come, we are going to be stuck with it. Because no matter how much we discover and can explain of the universe, no matter how many other worlds and civilizations we discover. There will always be something that can be explained at the time, and people will fear and respect it and even worship it. Probably every generation has had its share of people that thought that they were going to see the downfall of religion in their time.

      I share your fear. People, in general, are not predisposed to rational thought when it comes to big questions like those religion puports to answer, but one can hope. I can envision a day when enough of the so-called revelations have been shown to be the rantings of lunatics or, more commonly, carefully crafted stories, designed to manipulate fearful and gullible people. Wouldn't it be wonderful if, the next time someone stepped up and said, "The Great Invisible Man in the Sky has commanded that you should stone to death anyone who eats shellfish or is gay," was met with a collective, "What? That's bullshit..." from the rest of us?

    9. Re:Forever may be right by martinux · · Score: 1

      It's a pity that the church is not as enlightened in its view of contraceptives where the scientific evidence is clear.

      Catholicism's approach to science seems to be, 'We accept it unless it competes with our interpretation of the bible.'

      I cannot say for sure that your first point is invalid but I would contend that if children were not indoctrinated, faith* would supersede religion quite quickly.

      * A considerably less malevolent affair that rarely demands that the believer spread said belief.

    10. Re:Forever may be right by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > As much as I dislike religion. I've come to accept that probably for a long time to come, we are going to be stuck with it.
      That's because you can't use logic to fight blind faith. Some people just don't want to take responsibility for their lives, no matter what the evidence.

      > Probably every generation has had its share of people that thought that they were going to see the downfall of religion in their time.
      Actually this century you will see Judaism, Christianity, and Islam be made obsolete, and be replaced with something far less corrupted and dumbed-down.

      --

      This post brought to you by the letters 'D','r', 'A', 'n', 'n', 'D', 'e', 'W', 'e', 'e', 's', 'A', 'l', 'l', 'e', and 'n', and your favorite Trademark Troll.

    11. Re:Forever may be right by nbauman · · Score: 1

      It's a pity that the church is not as enlightened in its view of contraceptives where the scientific evidence is clear.

      Catholicism's approach to science seems to be, 'We accept it unless it competes with our interpretation of the bible.'

      Pope John Paul II was actually pretty cool in some ways. He put together a group called the Papal Academy of Sciences, and invited the best scientists he could get, including several Nobel laureates, regardless of religion, including some atheists. They gave him advice on the scientific background of moral issues,like nuclear war.

      One of the panelists (I can't find the citation) said that John Paul was a real intellectual, interested and knowledgeable about everything. There was only one exception -- you couldn't talk to him about human sexuality.

      Science 23 February 2001:
      Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1472 - 1474
      DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5508.1472

      News Focus
      PAPAL SCIENCE:
      Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy
      Charles Seife

      VATICAN CITY--The Casina Pio Quattro ... now serves as a meeting place for the religious and secular worlds. It is the headquarters for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: 80 esteemed scientists appointed for life to make their cumulative collective wisdom available to the pope. Members run the gamut of disciplines, backgrounds, nationalities, and religious beliefs. Twenty-five of them are Nobel laureates. Some of the most famous scientists in the world are members, such as physicists Stephen Hawking and Carlo Rubbia, astronomers Martin Rees and Vera Rubin, biologist David Baltimore, and numerous others. Every other year, the group gathers in the Vatican Gardens for a plenary session at which members hold forth on the state of science and the world, pass resolutions for improving the latter, and renew acquaintances. They have, by all accounts, a heavenly time. As member Joseph Murray, a 1990 Nobel laureate who performed the first kidney transplant, puts it, "Every day is like Christmas." If so, the gift giving is mutual. The pope gets access to the scientific expertise of people at the top of their fields in astronomy, cosmology, genetics, and other areas that interest the church. In return, the scientists get the ear of one of the most important people in the world--and, through him, a chance to influence whether people accept or reject new knowledge and technology. ...
      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/291/5508/1472

      (Subscription only, infopeasants)

    12. Re:Forever may be right by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      You might want to have a look at the downfall of atheistic communism

      That was an imposed system, and with the replacement of religion with leader worship, which amounted to about the same thing in the end. Not the kind of thing I'm interested in.

      Its rise was a political event imposed forcefully on a lot of people, and its fall of it was a political and economical issue. People who were pressured to abandon religion of course returned to what they were doing before once the pressure wasn't there anymore. And they coped with it meanwhile by doing the same things in a less obvious way. For instance, christmas celebrations shifted to the new year's eve.

      This is not the kind of thing I'm talking about though. I'm talking about a much less forceful abandonment of religion, which happens not because the leader says so, but because people stop caring, and religion becomes unnecessary.

      the rise of paganism in europe

      For the most part, a non-event, neopaganism amounts to about 0.02% of the world population. It also lacks a strictly defined morality, and as such the members seem to be uninterested in forcing it on the rest of the world. Due to this I don't particularly care about it. If somebody likes dancing naked around a fire or conducting elaborate ceremonies with candles, whatever rolls your boat. My problems with religion only start when they try to legislate their weird morality.

      and the rise of christianity in asia.

      Where specifically you mean? In Japan for instance it's very minoritary. Also I bet most of that is conversion.

      In any case it doesn't concern me a whole lot, because what they do over there doesn't really affect me.

    13. Re:Forever may be right by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      There will always be something that can be explained at the time, and people will fear and respect it and even worship it.

      Heck, was see that right on Slashdot with Microsoft/Google or closed source/open source, on a daily basis.

    14. Re:Forever may be right by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Who ever thought religion was going to die? Religion is about belief not fact. It doesn't take much to believe in the virgin birth but it'll take a whole lot of evidence to prove that happened.

    15. Re:Forever may be right by horza · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike religion. I've come to accept that probably for a long time to come, we are going to be stuck with it.

      Where is your entrepreneurial spirit? Don't just accept it, embrace it and start your own religion! You don't need to be a Pope, a Rupert Murdoch, or Ron Hubbard to have the unwashed masses following you. Remember, prey on people's fears and the best recruits are the most vulnerable ones (widows, alcoholics, etc). Not only is it a good money spinner but you get laid more too.

      Phillip.

    16. Re:Forever may be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are people who truly do not believe but when faced with varying levels of strife will turn to religion. Some people are fine with explaining away natural phenomenon with "God did it!", but I believe that religion's firmest grip is in our capacity for fear and pain.

      It would be nice to have a religion based on sound logical principals, but that is usually not comforting to those people experiencing pain so conversion would be low.

      It seems like the biggest argument I get for being atheist, I've heard the same argument for agnostics, is "So, when you die, you believe that you will just be worm food?", I reply "Yes, I can at-least prove that." I do hope that we as a species move beyond religion, and if we do that whatever we replace it with, that anyone who wants to verify it can do so based on the basic axioms of the system. If anyone wants to believe in god, fine, but it should not be a concept that appeals to emotional responses like the whole heaven and hell eternal battle. As long as spirituality doesn't dance with emotion, it can mingle with science and mathematics. Other than that, it is just another tool to control the masses and not one to explorer spirituality.

      OH MY SCIENCE!

    17. Re:Forever may be right by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I hope you are right, but that is a rather grandiose claim to make. What will fill the gaps of Christianity, Muslim and Judaism? Will it be Scientology? In my mind that is much worse.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    18. Re:Forever may be right by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > What will fill the gaps of Christianity, Muslim and Judaism?
      The truth. The Dead Sea Scrolls are only the tip of the revealed iceberg...

      > Will it be Scientology? In my mind that is much worse.
      God no, that is extreme brainwashing.

    19. Re:Forever may be right by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      Cult of celebrity, maybe? It is already happening.

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    20. Re:Forever may be right by Xerolooper · · Score: 1

      I can understand why you might dislike religion. However I think most of the problems with religion can be traced to political roots. In today's American society I see it as more of a social necessity than anything. Stupid people would go nuts without it. I think when we no longer need religion there won't be a revolution. I believe it will just no longer be something people need and will slowly fad away till no one even notices it is gone.

      --
      "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
    21. Re:Forever may be right by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "There will always be something that can be explained at the time, and people will fear and respect it and even worship it."

      You're assuming that the principle purpose of religion is to explain natural and other physical phenomena. However, the focus of religion is actually on the human condition, and ultimately has more to do with sociology than cosmology.

      This guy is a Roman Catholic. The entire creation myth of his religion, from "In the beginning" to Noah's Ark, fills only the first 10 chapters of the 50 chapters of Genesis, one of 41 or so books in his version of the Old Testament, which is only roughly half of his core religious scripture. His Christian denomination, at least, really doesn't care about the realm of the physical sciences as much as you seem to think it does.

    22. Re:Forever may be right by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1
      Every belief system that I know of except the actual bible teaches every human has some immortal/ethereal spirit or soul. I suggest that the next time some 'christian' asks you the worm food question, reply by asking what happened to Adam when he died? The answer is in Genesis 3:19:

      By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

      For added fun, ask them what the original lie was(according to the bible it's this:Genesis 3:4,5: You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."). If they know, then ask them, Is it really a lie since Adam and Eve are immortal souls still alive. (as a side point, almost all 'Christians' I have asked say Adam is in Heaven or will be soon.)

    23. Re:Forever may be right by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      I would say, to be a bit more realistic, that no matter how much we discover and can explain of the universe, no matter how many other worlds and civilizations we discover. There will always be people who can't be arsed to try to understand, and instead take the simple microwave meal version of the universe. That and the indoctrination of children is a powerful and evil force.

    24. Re:Forever may be right by suso · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike religion. I've come to accept that probably for a long time to come, we are going to be stuck with it.

      Where is your entrepreneurial spirit? Don't just accept it, embrace it and start your own religion! You don't need to be a Pope, a Rupert Murdoch, or Ron Hubbard to have the unwashed masses following you. Remember, prey on people's fears and the best recruits are the most vulnerable ones (widows, alcoholics, etc). Not only is it a good money spinner but you get laid more too.

      Phillip.

      Your statement wouldn't be so funny if it weren't true.

  6. Deliberately misconstruing speaker by Skexis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even reading just the summary, the title does no justice to Consolmagno's response.

    1. Re:Deliberately misconstruing speaker by the_womble · · Score: 1

      All Slashdot religion stories are either outright flamebait, or designed to cater to the atheist prejudices of Slashdotters.

    2. Re:Deliberately misconstruing speaker by Delusion_ · · Score: 1

      I'm an atheist. I also thought that the headline and summary were grossly unfair to Consolmagno.

      The quote starts out in the Guardian article as:
      Would he baptise an alien? "Only if they asked."

      The Guardian trumps it up to:
      "Pope's astronomer says he would baptise an alien if it asked him" as if this were something that Consolmagno were actively interested in.

      By the time it gets to Slashdot, it's:
      " Pope's Astronomer Would Love To Baptize an Alien" as if it were his primary interest.

      Very shady, Slashdot. What the man said about intelligent design and the "God of the Gaps" hypothesis are important. What he said about aliens was an aside that reveals more about the author of the Guardian article than Consolmagno himself.

  7. Pre-Fallen? by flogger · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I've loved the idea of Religion and Aliens. :-) Who knows, maybe Angels/spirits/demons are aliens. (Well they are alien to us, but maybe that are ET-type aliens.)

    I recall having many long conversations with a priest about the possibility of the existence of Aliens. religiously speaking, one of the questions that intrigues me the most is are the aliens corrupted by "Original Sin?" What would society be like if we did not have this tendency to do "wrong" when now one was looking? What if the aliens do not have that tendency? What if they have never "eaten of the forbidden fruit?"

    Are they Pre-Fallen or have they fallen?
    • Pre-Fallen: THey are going to be nice and cure our cancer and help us in any way possible.
    • Fallen: They are going to wipe us out and destroy us in a way that S. Hawkins is going to say, "I told you so."
    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:Pre-Fallen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems to be an awfully simplistic and false dichotomy. By the Judeo-Christian reckoning, humanity is in the "Fallen" category; yet I don't think we'd automatically attempt to wipe out and destroy any alien civilization we might come across (although I would include it as a possibility.) Besides, if they were "fallen", wouldn't a benevolent God dispatch an Alien Jesus to redeem them too?

    2. Re:Pre-Fallen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      angels ? spirits ? demons ? you serious ? if anyone tried to blabber out similar stuff and not claim to be religious about it, men i white coats pick you up. why does the religious have a right to be insane while other not ?

    3. Re:Pre-Fallen? by chronosan · · Score: 1

      Who is S. Hawkins?

    4. Re:Pre-Fallen? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      "Alien Jesus" - best name for a cover band, ever

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    5. Re:Pre-Fallen? by bendytendril · · Score: 1

      He's a fucking Quake god.

      --
      sig: pv qid
    6. Re:Pre-Fallen? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think we'd automatically attempt to wipe out and destroy any alien civilization we might come across

      Judging from our behaviour down here on earth, I'm not so sure.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Pre-Fallen? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      The simple answer is that every thing any priest has ever told you regarding religion is a lie.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    8. Re:Pre-Fallen? by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      I think if they're "pre-fallen" they'll leave us alone, at least in any way we recognize, or they'll interact with us and we'll corrupt them. Then they'll fall spectacularly towards our level until they withdraw.

      It seems to me that any contact between individuals is a small act of creation. I don't see how they can feel and know us without partially becoming like us.

      I think there are levels of sin that we can scarcely imagine because our thinking is too primitive and corrupt. This is one reason scripture writers have trouble cooking up a credible 'fall' stories that fit what we know about natural history. We can only understand sins that are possible for us in our current condition. And we can only know history as it leads to our current condition: we do not know history that leads to other better conditions. Lacking imagination of any other possibility, people try to place 'the fall' in our past, but they can never make that work without ignoring contradictions with what we know about our evolution.

      I think its probable that there are aliens who are both more advanced than us and more psychologically messed up than us. But there are reasons why its difficult for them to visit, in addition to the astronomically large distances, which they wouldn't be traversing anyway.

    9. Re:Pre-Fallen? by perpenso · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've loved the idea of Religion and Aliens.

      Good geek fun huh? :-)

      What if they have never "eaten of the forbidden fruit?"

      Their fall may be quite different in nature, angels had a fall unrelated to fruit.

    10. Re:Pre-Fallen? by KazW · · Score: 1
      Sad to see some bible thumpers have modded you up... Your post is filled with purely religious concepts, I'll list them, then fully respond to the ones that are worthy of a detailed response.
      • Spirits
      • Original Sin... Or just sin for that matter
      • Forbidden Fruit
      • The notion that all people do "wrong" when no one is looking

      I'm only going to address the points of sin and your over generalized use of the word "wrong", because the notion of forbidden fruit(therefore "fallen" and "pre-fallen") and spirits are just plain silly and belong in a conversation at an intellectual level on par with a kindergartener's. First off, you have to consider that the terms "sin" and "wrong" are incredibly subjective, they're influenced by things like cultural values, geography and a person's own beliefs, just to name a few. So if we can make the observation that someone else is doing "wrong", aliens probably could too, and there would be groups among their populous that would say the same things your saying, regardless of how benevolent they may be. What people fail to realize is that there are very few things which can almost universally be considered "wrong" for sentient life, and they are as follows:

      • Killing, assuming most creatures would prefer to not be killed, we can therefore say pretty safely that killing is wrong. The obvious exception is killing for food, and with all the non-sentient life on the planet, there's no excuse to kill a sentient being for food. I'm not going to get into when killing is "right" because it has an elasticity to it that is much like the afore mentioned terms "sin" and "wrong".
      • Causing physical harm, again assuming most creatures would prefer to not be abused, we can also say physical abuse is wrong. There is a more clear cut time when physical abuse is right, and that's when it's in self defence, and most sentient life would also probably agree that if someone slaps you in the face, taking a bat to their head isn't the right thing to do. To sum it up, the punishment must not exceed the crime.
      • Lying with the direct intention to do harm, be that physical harm or monetary harm (stealing or vandalism). The exception here is lying to hurt someone's feelings, that is something that can cause emotional pain, but doesn't threaten your life or well being, so in this case, lying isn't wrong.
      • Last and most importantly is the removal of personal freedom, every sentient being should be entitled to personal freedom, as long as that expression of freedom doesn't harm anyone or their property, unless the second party consents to it. The major exception here is if someone has committed an act of any of these 4 examples, then they should be imprisoned, but the duration of that imprisonment should match their crime, and they should be forced to do labour to repay their debt to society and have a very limited set of rights during this imprisonment. The only other exception is a parent removing the freedom of their child, as long as it benefits the child in someway (although this is admittedly difficult to measure).

      Those are really the only things that can be considered "wrong", everything else is purely opinion, some could even argue that these are opinion. So when you state your opinion that humans have the innate trait to do " wrong" and are "fallen", it is just that and only that, opinion, not fact.

      --
      Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
    11. Re:Pre-Fallen? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Who is S. Hawkins?

      An early-90's pop singer. I had no idea she dabbled in xenosociology.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:Pre-Fallen? by g2devi · · Score: 1

      > I've loved the idea of Religion and Aliens. :-)
      > Who knows, maybe Angels/spirits/demons are aliens.

      You might like C.S. Lewis' space trilogy. He handles demons as Aliens/Angels along with alien Original Sin, etc.

    13. Re:Pre-Fallen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all made up!! And it doesn't matter!! Don't think so hard about trying to reconcile the religion to either reality or scientific possibility.
      It's just the same kind of reality disconnect as arguing seriously about "what if superman and spiderman had a fight, who would win?".

    14. Re:Pre-Fallen? by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

      John Gault's pseudonym?

  8. Seriously? by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Let me get this straight — Creationism is silly pagan nonsense, but the notion of an ancient zombie born of a Jewish virgin that a modern shaman can manifest in the flesh by chanting incantations over stale bread...and cannibalizing said zombie will turn you into a similarly-immortal zombie...and that E.T. would be interested in such nonsense for anything other than anthropological reasons....

    I’m sorry. I know I was heading towards some sort of point, but teh shtupid must be contagious....

    Cheers,

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    1. Re:Seriously? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Other than the fact that none of your points are accurate, you had a very ontopic post.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know the bible is extremely metaphorical, and the stories within it were never meant to be taken LITERALLY, more as lessons demonstrating the goodness of mankind through a series allegorical tales, how to live in peace and respect you fellow people, that's why churches should never be viewed as simply "place of worship/sacrifice/bullshit", it is a reflection of the goodness that is inherent in all people; it is when all people come together, what they are capable of creating in the name of love, peace, fellowship, that is how these churches came to stand. Wether you insert the jewish zombie born of a virgin, you can see how this story comes from a simpler time, when perhaps people werent as educated and the only viable means of imparting the belief that you should treat others as you yourself would want to be treated, was through this book, the bible. That is what catholics are taught in a catholic school system, it is not a pagan god that we worship that controls the moon and stars, that it is an extremely metaphorical system of beleif that needs to be constantly questioned by oneself. The reason we believe in jesus is that through scarifice he has "saved" our souls, that also becomes an extremely metaphorical statement, through living a good life, and sacrifices yourself for the ones you love, that is how you will recieve spiritual enlightenment. It seeks to tell us to be humble towards one another, to go out of our way to help each other. You look at all of the foolish things done in the name of democracy, yet we never condemn democracy because of something bush had done, no we condemn bush, so i hope too that you can see that everything done in the name of the church was not always reflectant of the values within the church.. ... but that would be hoping too much

    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no serious theologian thinks that Mary's pregnancy has a scientific explanation. It has/may have a theological/philosophical explanation as it is a supernatural thing. Trying to ridicule a supernatural phenomenon for not fitting well in natural rules and behaviors is a fallacy. You can choose not to believe it, doubt/contest the witnesses and historical evidences, you can point to philosophical problems with the phenomenon. But you can't point your finger and say: "That miracle over there contradicts such and such physical laws".

    4. Re:Seriously? by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      No. The eating of flesh, and drinking of blood is quite clearly literal.

      The Catholic Church is quite clear in its belief structure when it comes to communion. The stale bread, and wine, it is believed by the followers(or should be, or they arent really catholic) that this REALLY becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus, that they then proceed to 'cannibalize' every Sunday.

      Eucharist

    5. Re:Seriously? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      Of course, not everybody agrees with the nature of the eucharist - there's substantiation, trans-substantiation and consubstantiation, the list goes on. Not everybody takes it literally; no more than everybody believes that Mary was holy or not.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    6. Re:Seriously? by Liquidrage · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse "I don't take them literally" with "they aren't meant to be taken literally".

      Especially since they were and still are by many.

      We could argue that the intent of "some" parts were parable even though they were taken literally. The intent is hard to discern. The Four Gospels and the Pauline epistles were certainly taken literally from the start (not that they all started at the same time) and without authorship issues of the epistles it's pretty obvious they were exactly meant to be taken literally. The Pentateuch has been taken literally despite it obviously (to modern criticism) being fictitious.

    7. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The notion of an ancient zombie born of a Jewish virgin at least doesn't contradict everything we see in the world around us. Yeah, it does go against the known laws of nature, which is why they call it a miracle, and it's most likely complete non-sense, but it doesn't say that everything we know is wrong like the intelligent design folks do.

    8. Re:Seriously? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      All "pagan" means is "not Christian."

    9. Re:Seriously? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      strawmen are fun!

    10. Re:Seriously? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that idea (transubstantiation) is utterly rejected by mainstream protestantism.

    11. Re:Seriously? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Would it be better if it is symbolic cannibalism? I guess, but not much.

    12. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well let's see...creationism is silly. So that's correct. There are creationists from every different religions including Christians, so that's only partially correct. Central to Christian mythology is that Jesus' mum was Jewish so as to link to the lineage of King David, and even more important was that she was a virgin so another two points correct. Jesus snuffed it, and then came back, making him undead. He was still fleshy when he came back, so zombie isn't really far off although apparently he retained sentience which generally is against the whole zombie thing, so partially correct. A priest is another name for a shaman, so that is also correct. He does wave his hands and prays over the stale bread (correct again), which in the Catholic tradition of Christianity literally transforms the "essence" of the stale bread into the body of sweet zombie(oid) Jesus, so that is correct. The stale bread, the "essence" of which is zombie(oid) Jesus, is then eaten by the congregation in what can best be described as symbolic, ritualized cannibalism. The point of said cannibalism is to partake of a holy sacrament and partially eat God, which God wants for some reason, and which puts you better terms with God as you slowly digest his reanimated corpse/essence/stale bread, which gains you a better shot at immortality in heaven after you, like Jesus, snuff it.

      So the GP's only partially wrong on two counts, and probably warrants at least an A-. You on the other hand...

    13. Re:Seriously? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      However, the article was specifically about the Pope's astronomer and, therefore, Catholic views, so it wasn't an unreasonable point to make.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    14. Re:Seriously? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you mean by "really becomes". Surely "really becomes" in the way you use it means both substance and accident (to put in in Aristotelian terms), but the Church only teaches that the substances changes, not the accident.

      It is not even essential to believe this to be a Catholic. Many Catholic theologians do not.

    15. Re:Seriously? by perpenso · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and that E.T. would be interested in such nonsense for anything other than anthropological reasons...

      Given that science and religion can coexist and that science ultimately displacing religion is wishful thinking by some and not a law of nature(*), who is to say that aliens have no religion? They might.

      (*) Going with the meme that all scientific discovery merely reveals the "mechanisms" of God's universe. Ie that the big bang, quantum mechanics, evolution, etc are just such "mechanisms". Given this last point I can not help but mention that the current cosmological theory of creation, the big bang, was developed by a catholic priest and that some prominent scientists dismissed the theory merely because it was developed by a priest. I think the relationship between an honest search for knowledge and belief/non-belief is not as simple as some believe.

    16. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not even essential to believe this to be a Catholic. Many Catholic theologians do not.

      Just to clarify, transubstantiation is a central doctrine of Catholicism: i.e. if you want to say you believe the Catholic Faith, you must believe this.

      The Catholic Church specifically teaches that the form (accident), however, does not typically change in any physical way (there are reported miracles where this is believed to happen, but the Church never requires belief in them).

  9. Would he baptise an AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because we do not have one today that meets the qualifications does not mean it is impossible we one day could. This suggests a brand new version of the Turing test, too!

  10. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    If an intelligent being embrace religion (or politics for that matter), would it still be considered as "Intelligent"???

  11. Any entity by DevConcepts · · Score: 5, Funny

    — no matter how many tentacles it has — has a soul. Ummm... The Flying Spaghetti Monster??

    1. Re:Any entity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese cartoon porn?

    2. Re:Any entity by Vixe · · Score: 1

      In the name of his Noodly Goodness. RAmen.

    3. Re:Any entity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> -- no matter how many
      tentacles it has --

      If we can molest it, it can be baptized.

    4. Re:Any entity by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      what about an octopus or cows or pigs or fish or chickens?

      Those are alien enough, but if they have souls is it correct to eat them? :)

    5. Re:Any entity by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You can molest a goat. You cannot baptize it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Any entity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about God? What if we find the guy (for what is worth, he would qualify as an alien), and he refuses to be baptized, claiming that Christianity is all non-sense?

    7. Re:Any entity by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      The almighty Cthulhu begs to differ.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    8. Re:Any entity by g2devi · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Christian God isn't anything in the universe. He's the creator of the Universe.

      A good analogy is that God is the programmer of a video game. Humans would be character in the Game. If you're a Christian, you believe that God assumed the persona of one of the video game characters.

    9. Re:Any entity by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Almost a technicality as far as Catholic Church is concerned, it would seem - it's a common sight to witness their "blessings" of any new contruction, roads, cars (those two make me wonder what the priests really represent - I have one of the more pathetic road accident rates in the EU; in contrast, druids supposedly improved situation in Austria), food and, yes, farms.

      OK, the theological and mythological reasons, sometimes recalled by someone in the background, might differ - but in both cases it's mostly just a social occasion at the acknowledgment of a new beginning and involves similar treatment of water (and vodka), so...

      PS. Food might be more disturbing than goats TBH, it might be just prior to somebody else eating it...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:Any entity by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Might be just one of the whole lot of many other gods...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  12. The Vatican dismissing creationism? by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This seems very appropriate.

    1. Re:The Vatican dismissing creationism? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Um, the Vatican hasn't supported Creationism for as long as I've been alive. That's not meant to be a priest in that comic (unless the artist is as ignorant of modern religious beliefs as you are).

    2. Re:The Vatican dismissing creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the joke is "A group of non scientists whose job is not at all scientific (The Vatican) takes 100 years to accept scientific data, but does eventually accept it"?

      All religious leaders have only one job: Help people cope with life by telling stories.
      Almost by definition, this will not be scientific. (Storytellers aren't the most rigorous fact checkers)

    3. Re:The Vatican dismissing creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Vatican don't support the god-created-the-universe thing, what do they support?

    4. Re:The Vatican dismissing creationism? by aBaldrich · · Score: 1

      Well since the Big Bang was invented by a priest I don't see how is it strange that they don't preach the 7-day story as factual science.

      --
      In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
  13. Based on past performance... by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...the aliens should lock up their young. If they don't, the priests will be at 'em sure as the pope dresses like a Fairy Godmother.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  14. I guess the trick is you have to ask? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    This baptism thing has me confused. If every entity has a soul then why not baptize my dog? Is it because the dog has to ask or at a minimum be cabable of understanding what it means? Well then what about babies then. Is there baptizement meaningless until they reconfirm it later in life? Finally what about all the bacteria in my gut. Do we share a common soul?

    If the sole criteria is that you have to be a sentient entity cable of accepting christ as your savior, at least potentially (to cover the baby loophole) then I suppose this ought to include Gorillas then since they are able to converse by sign language and thus have the potential for religious instruction.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by TheLink · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As the guy said: "only if they asked".

      That's why many Christians disagree with infant baptism.

      So if a dog or gorilla understood the implications of baptism and wanted to be baptised, then I personally see no reason why the dog or gorilla shouldn't.

      Even a reasonable Atheist should allow such a creature the freedom to do so, despite disagreeing with it.

      FWIW, I think it may not be such a great idea to keep creating more and more transgenic animals (or even very advanced AI). It looks like society wouldn't be able to handle/treat such creatures appropriately.

      Just because it can be done now doesn't mean it should.

      Better wait till we grow up first.

      --
    2. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      sole criteria

      So in order to have a soul, you have to fulfill the sole criteria?
      "Sole criteria," get it?

      Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    3. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by hughJ · · Score: 1

      Or if gorillas are not deemed to be intelligent enough, and babies are reconfirmed later, what of adult humans who are severely mentally retarded, or even brain damaged. Perhaps there should be a soul IQ test to judge whether or not you're mentally developed enough to even be considered for the prospect of heaven or hell.

    4. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I suppose this ought to include Gorillas then since they are able to converse by sign language and thus have the potential for religious instruction

      Hey Magilla, if you accept Jesus as your saviour, I'll give you this banana, which is proof of God's existence!

    5. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by nschubach · · Score: 0, Troll

      Even a reasonable Atheist should allow such a creature the freedom to do so, despite disagreeing with it.

      I must have skipped the part of my Atheist handbook that explained how we must suppress choice. I only found the chapter where it's perfectly alright for both sides to pitch their sales. There is this chapter on how it's not cool to force everyone in a nation to speak of that which they do not believe during a pledge, swearing in, or simply using money. (Maybe you got confused by that last chapter?)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    6. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by TheLink · · Score: 0

      I'm not confused at all. In fact I think the tone and content of your response is good evidence why the sentence I wrote was justified.

      --
    7. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      That's why many Christians disagree with infant baptism.

      Correct. Some sects, like the Amish, don't perform baptisms until the person is an 'adult'. Typically between 16 and 25 years old.

      Personally, I think it carries more significance.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    8. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTH, are you smoking? Where did GP say anything about removing choice? (except the choice of the religious to force their religion using the government?) Is GP's choice of non-religion less valuable than your choice?

      Nowhere in that post was a tone of rights removal... heck GP even has a signature that says "rights are not entitlements." You are not entitled to be religious, but you have a right to choose one. You have no right however to force your religion on Atheists through pledges, swearing in or money.

      I thought it was a very well phrased post pointing out your ignorance on Atheism.

    9. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baptism for catholics is a very important ritual as it is supposed to clean you from the original sin (Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit). Although is true they baptize children before they can decide, is always because the parents ask for it, is because if they are baptized and die, they won't spend time in purgatory and go directly to heaven.

      There's also a confirmation ritual you can do when you're able to decide being a catholic for yourself.

    10. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think you're an idiot, all the more so after your response to him. He explained exactly why your statement was silly, and your response to him was "AHA! INTOLURANCE!". Either respond to what he said, or STFU - don't wast our time and bandwidth with your passive-aggressive bullshit.

    11. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It might carry more significance, but really makes no difference. You can baptize a baby and then brainwash it for 16 years, or you can brainwash it for 16 years and then baptize it. The latter might be slightly more moral, but the difference is so minor as to be insignificant.

    12. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you all come under the unreasonable atheists category?

      I don't see why the reasonable ones would have problems with it. :)

    13. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's unreasonable about inquiring for elaboration.

    14. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      It might carry more significance, but really makes no difference. You can baptize a baby and then brainwash it for 16 years, or you can brainwash it for 16 years and then baptize it. The latter might be slightly more moral, but the difference is so minor as to be insignificant.

      I guess that's why I joined the church when I came of age. Oh wait, I didn't.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    15. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally what about all the bacteria in my gut. Do we share a common soul?

      No. They each have their own individual soul.

      The most effective way to ensure all those bacterial souls are baptised before they die is to ensure that your toilet's cistern is filled with holy water.

    16. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Whoa.. stirred up the hornet's nest. I'm simply curious why you'd say that. It sounds like a passive aggressive comment to me and it simply doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things. Atheists do not want to take away freedom of religion. (I don't know of any that do...) However, I know some Atheists who seek to "educate" others (just as highly religious people try to "educate" others.) Both sides have their puppets and puppet masters. My post was questioning the motive as you why you put that statement in there.

      I'm not sure that tone you read into my post, but I assure you it's probably not what you read into it.

      Also, I see no problem with removing "God" from government, but you seem to have a problem with it? I'm curious as to why. What if someone decided to put the Flying Spaghetti Monster on money? Would you complain?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    17. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally don't see anything wrong with that. However the "STFU", name calling and other stuff tends to hint that the poster belongs in the unreasonable category of Atheists.

      To me it's somewhat amusing. Just like when people (wrongly?) claim "muslims are intolerant" and immediately muslims hold violent protests, burn buildings and kill people to prove their tolerance.

      Looks like many atheists have religion too ;).

    18. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jesus Christ this thread is painful, both parties in it need to learn how to read. Neither side said anything about the other limiting choice, the religious dude said any reasonable atheist wouldn't restrict that choice, and then the atheist dude made a comment like the christian dude said atheists were restricting choice and then the religious dude instead of explaining decided to be snippy back and now theres been like 8 replies over a non issue that everyone is in agreement over: Aliens can do whatever the fuck they want. Especially once they harvest our delicious kidneys.

    19. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      And if you had been baptized, you may have left when you came of age. As I said, it's largely insignificant, and your personal anecdote doesn't change that.

    20. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I asked in another post what the intent of him even putting that statement in there was. That was my sole inquiry.

      It sounded to me like a "jab" or a false stereotype. Like the Atheist is such an immoral person that they wouldn't agree that aliens have a choice. I equate it to: "Even a reasonable (Christian/Muslim/Democrat/Republican/singled out group) would agree." What does being an Atheist have to do with the alien's choice? What does being anything have to do with agreement. There seems to be some aggressiveness in his post and I pointed it out. Right or wrong, the deed's been done. It simply wasn't needed.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    21. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by bsane · · Score: 1

      I know you're probably joking, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the RCC has already hashed this out (other than the test).

    22. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      That's why many Christians disagree with infant baptism.

      Yeah, so instead they brainwash their children from birth to believe sky fairies, *then* ask them if they want to be baptized.

      Such a choice they give their youth...

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    23. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Atheists do not want to take away freedom of religion. (I don't know of any that do...)

      Lenin, Marx, Mao did. The reasonable atheists don't.

      As for removing God from government, in my opinion all the current governments (I'm aware of) can very well take full responsibility for what they do and not claim it as an "act of God" ;).

      What if someone decided to put the Flying Spaghetti Monster on money? Would you complain?

      I don't see a big difference between that and the other symbols people put on money.

      In my opinion, from a Christian perspective money shouldn't be treasured in the first place: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:19-24&version=NIV

      What should be treasured is stuff that lasts forever, and from a Christian POV at least some people will last forever, therefore one should "store up" friends: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016&version=NIV

      I'm definitely not doing a good job of it (as you can see ;) ). Hopefully I'll improve :).

      --
    24. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I admit I do have a "stereotype" category for certain atheists, and many of the alleged atheists on Slashdot and elsewhere have helped create and reinforce that stereotype[1]. Not all atheists fall into this stereotype (just like not all christians fall into the "Southern Baptist" stereotype, fortunately for all of us ;) ). Nor does my stereotype assume that atheists are automatically immoral people.

      So perhaps it was indeed a jab at Atheists, subconscious or otherwise. But is it that false a stereotype? I'll be happy to let the atheists prove me wrong by their actions and deeds.

      As for whether the jab was needed or deserved, from the various responses I got, I think at most my mistake was starting the sentence with "Even". Sometimes a group deserves a jab. I'll go jab the muslims another time OK?

      [1] Just look at the usual responses from atheists whenever a religion related thread or story crops up. A large number will fall into a neat stereotype (so much so, that I've seen some other atheists get rather annoyed or even offended :) ).

      --
    25. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Rhacman · · Score: 1

      I fit that case. Raised as a Catholic, confirmed even. Soon as I was 18 (or therabouts) I laid it down that the whole thing made no sense to me. Prior to that I remember rolling my eyes touring a prospective college and having my Mother point out the chapel where I could go to services. Then again my Father never really went to church so that might have helped. Not that it proves anything, just thought some might like to hear there are indeed escapees out there. That said, I'd be curious to know the statistic for how many religious folk simply adopted the religion of their parents as opposed to seriously evaluating the alternatives and picking what they felt to be best (or accepting that they don't know the answer).

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    26. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just trying to ensure their children won't turn out like you... :)

    27. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Human souls are supposedly weighed down by original sin, and baptism rectifies that. I don't believe the topic of animal souls is addressed in Catholicism. I could be wrong. However, since apparently no other animal disobeyed God and ate the apple of knowledge in the Garden they still don't need baptism, with or without souls. (Insert image here of an ancient apple tree surrounded by 6,000 years of uneaten apples.)

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    28. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Entropius · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      +1, trufax

      In a society that will refuse to hire you if they find out you do not believe in their faerie tales, one assumes Christians are hostile until proven otherwise -- since they usually are.

    29. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by daeglo · · Score: 1
      I'm fairly certain I have no involvement with LanMan04, but I can't see any reason I would not want my children to turn out like him. Perhaps you know LanMan04 personally and could enlighten the rest of the class as to what he has done to be so despicable?
      Perhaps, you were speaking of the infinitive "you." If that is the case, what have I or anyone else here done do deserve such a libelous declaration.

      (Yes I see the smiley face. What a wonderful way to make an aggressive allegation and passively deny any ill intent. I've followed many of your posts, Mr. Coward and can say for certain that you are nothing more than a bi-polar, passive-aggressive, manic-depressive, schizophrenic, trans-gendered, homophobic, atheo/religous zealot. :D [my smiley is bigger])

    30. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      As far as freedoms go: opt-in is much better than opt-out.

    31. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Apparently, a lot of Christians with mod points have decided to prove you right.

    32. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by FrankHS · · Score: 1

      I have never been asked by an employer what my religion was. Presumably, It was not a factor in the decision to hire me or not.

    33. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      How would you baptise an octopus? Raise it out of the water? Sprinkle holy air on it?

    34. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

      Please, no. Brevity is the soul of wit. Don't let the sole of my shoe hit you on the way out the door.

    35. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Sadly, that is exactly what they are doing.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    36. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      In the real world, children don't get much choice.

      It is the duty of parents to domesticate their children in a manner they see fit (unless the laws of the land say otherwise).

      And even if the parents don't brainwash their children, I'm sure MTV, Hollywood, advertisers, Steve Jobs ( ;) ), will be very happy to take over the job.

      Not all religions and belief systems are good. But not all would be detrimental to society even in the long term.

      Having a widely-established "syllabus" or programme that biases more people (children or adults) into "doing good" would tend to be more beneficial in the long term than not having one, or having one that doesn't work as well[1].

      [1] If atheism is the default for animals, then religion is likely a recent emergent phenomenon. I would then suggest that over the millennia the current surviving religions have outcompeted other religions and atheism, and proven themselves evolutionarily fitter. Many different societies and tribes grew on top of many different religions and many died out.

      Many religions were/are too costly to society, but I claim at least some of the surviving religions have provided _net_ benefits to their adherents (and even nonadherents). There have been very many religious scientists, so not all religions prevent rational thinking and its resulting benefits to society.

      Atheism on the other hand, provides little in terms of net benefits to their adherents (many who'd say that's not the point :) ).

      If atheism is not the default for animals, then that makes things even more interesting right? ;).

      --
    37. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no sides. There is only Zool.

    38. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aliens can do whatever the fuck they want.

      Of course they can!! They've got phasers, prhackers and much other cool stuff!!!

    39. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Fuck kidneys, they are out for our spleen!

    40. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I think you're a bit confused about what evolution is, but generally you're right. It's games theory: if you're part of a system where few people cheat and cheating is never punished, it's beneficial for you to cheat all the time. Likewise, if you're part of a relatively secular, open, free society, it can be beneficial for you to form an oppressive introverted group which cares only about the welfare of it's own members. Of course, whether such a thing is desirable from a moral standpoint ... or whether it causes incalculable harm to those who are not part of your group those things are irrelevant as far as evolution or propagation of memes goes.

      As for atheism not providing any net benefit ... that's technically correct, but stupid at the same time. Strictly speaking, not believing that the Earth is the center of the universe doesn't provide any net benefit either, on it's own. It's the rejection of unproven assertions, and the mindset behind it, which provides a net benefit - not the rejection of any particular bit of superstition.

    41. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Where are you from?

      I have been asked by a prospective employer in Alabama what church I went to.

    42. Re:I guess the trick is you have to ask? by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      We have a vendor that "behind closed doors" uses "does he belong to the right variety of Christianity" as a reason to put someone on the "short list" for termination. It's not the "reason" they terminate someone, but if you are the right variety of Christian you're quietly given far more leeway.

  15. Let's take this out of context by Kitsune+Inari · · Score: 0, Troll

    the traditional definition of a soul was to have [...] freedom to love and freedom to make decisions

    Thus, gay people have no soul.

    'Any entity — no matter how many tentacles it has — has a soul.'

    Fhtagn! Iaeeh! XD

    Would he baptize an alien? 'Only if they asked.'

    O rly? That means he agrees with me that to indoctrinate and baptize children should be illegal and prosecuted. Yay!

    1. Re:Let's take this out of context by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Thus, gay people have no soul.

      Love is not the same as sex or marriage. Love is presumably part of this but one who remains unmarried is still free to love.

      Please note that I am not against gay marriage. Just pointing out your logic error.

      O rly? That means he agrees with me that to indoctrinate and baptize children should be illegal and prosecuted. Yay!

      Huh? What? Are you suggesting parents DON'T have the right to request this? I didn't realize that sprinkling water on a child's head was assault....

      Now circumcision is another matter.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Let's take this out of context by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Love and sexual attraction are two different things. Otherwise loving your kids would make one a pedophile.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    3. Re:Let's take this out of context by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      You mean it doesn't? AHH, I has been teh lied to!

    4. Re:Let's take this out of context by compro01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Catholics (at least the local bunch of them, not sure if this is a global opinion) have no problem with homosexual people, only homosexual sex. Just remain celibate with your partner and you're golden.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    5. Re:Let's take this out of context by Kitsune+Inari · · Score: 1

      Christians have problems with sex, period. All sex is bad and evil, and it should only be condoned (pun intended) when it will result in more christians being born.

  16. There is more to it than a "soul." by flogger · · Score: 0

    You know, there are a lot of ways to describe "creatures. THere is a simple checklist. Does somethings possess 1). a Body. 2). free will 3). Soul.

    Humans have4 all three,
    Animals have 2 (or one), a body (maybe a soul?) but no free will.
    An Angel/Demon have two of these as well. Free Will, a Soul, but no Body.

    Will an alien have all three?

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:There is more to it than a "soul." by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Animals have 2 (or one), a body (maybe a soul?) but no free will.

      Anyone who has ever had closer contact to an animal knows that animals have very clearly a free will.

      How do you test if something/someone has a soul?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:There is more to it than a "soul." by KendyForTheState · · Score: 1

      How do you figure "no free will"? I have 5 litter boxes in my house and it is up to the cats to decide which one to use at any instant. So they pee on the carpet! No free will indeed!

      --
      ...I just came for the free beer.
    3. Re:There is more to it than a "soul." by smchris · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Where does he think the term "herding cats" comes from? I'd argue they have a lot more intelligence than Terri Shiavo too.

    4. Re:There is more to it than a "soul." by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      How does an animal not have at least a glimmer of Free Will? They can certainly at least feign it pretty well.

    5. Re:There is more to it than a "soul." by Kitsune+Inari · · Score: 1

      And a lawyer has Free will and a body, but no Soul :P

    6. Re:There is more to it than a "soul." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a lawyer has Free will and a body, but no Soul :P

      Nothing is ever free where lawyers are involved.

  17. freedom to love by doconnor · · Score: 1

    While the other attributes he lists are inherent in intelligent life, an alien intelligence may not necessarily anything resembling love. Most animals don't mate for life, or are even together more then a few hours. Many animals don't care for their children either.

    1. Re:freedom to love by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While the other attributes he lists are inherent in intelligent life, an alien intelligence may not necessarily anything resembling love.

      Now, not getting too far into this topic as we are discussing his comments in the third person and therefore can't really ask him to expand upon them. I don't think he is referring to the basic emotions assigned to monogamous couples.

      The biblical 'love' has the same definition problems as the biblical 'know'. The words are similar but the meanings are much different. And even then, the term 'love' from a biblical sense has much more philosophical implications than are easily understood in a quote from an interview.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  18. Probability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you add them up it's probably not a practical question

    Seeing as how they are probabilities, shouldn't we be multiplying?

    1. Re:Probability by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      when you add them up it's probably not a practical question

      Seeing as how they are probabilities, shouldn't we be multiplying?

      It depends on the problem.

      If it's about events which cannot happen at the same time, but any of the event suffices, you have to add the probabilities up (e.g. the probability of a car being a Ford is the sum of the probability of it being a Model T, the probability of it being a Fiesta, etc. (you have to add up all the different Ford models' probabilities)).

      If it's about independent events which both have to happen, you have to multiply (e.g. the probability of a meteorite hitting you is the probability of there being a meteorite coming down to earth, and the probability of you being at that place).

      In all other cases, neither is correct.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  19. In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh Fail by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I realize that it's trendy to be anti-religion and all, but please... if you're going to jump on the bandwagon try to understand the teensiest background and minimum number of tenets of what it is you are trying to mock, lest you make all the hard-working, educated, clever and industrious atheists look bad.

  20. Would he baptise an ape? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    After all, apes seem to be more human than we've given them credit for, and certainly more self-aware than a human infant.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  21. All events have lessons to be learned by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    Pre-Fallen: Helpless, scared beings who scuttle around on their little island on a planet theeming with life, but they've yet to explore anything more than the few vegetables on their little island / "garden".

    "Fallen":
    Predators: Enslaving planet after planet, in order to expand its own agendas and territories. Pretty much stuck on the level of humanity the last 500 years.
    Enlightened: Actively monitoring Earth, awaiting the moment humanity is ready for first contact on a global scale. Only allowed to help with short-lived abductions and contact with crazy people, who won't be believed ever. Yes, yes, I jest ;-)

    In order to become enlightened, ironically, you have to "fall". If humanity never "fell", the bible, Jesus, everything would become meaningless. Wisdom cannot exist without failure, indeed, it totally depends on it.

    Not that Christianity is my cup of tea, however, all religions have contributed alot to earth's spiritual development. Even when they fail tremendously, we can learn alot from that as well as when they "do good".

    1. Re:All events have lessons to be learned by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      In order to become enlightened, ironically, you have to "fall". If humanity never "fell", the bible, Jesus, everything would become meaningless. Wisdom cannot exist without failure, indeed, it totally depends on it.

      This also highlights the philosophical problem of trying to ban temptation.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:All events have lessons to be learned by tepples · · Score: 1

      Pre-Fallen: Helpless, scared beings who scuttle around on their little island on a planet theeming with life, but they've yet to explore anything more than the few vegetables on their little island / "garden".

      What do the Eloi of H. G. Wells's The Time Machine have to do with all this?

  22. Obligatory... by bmo · · Score: 1

    Firesign Theatre:

    "Domini, Domini, Domini. You are all Catholics now"

    --
    BMO

  23. What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? by melted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? And who's to say which "Jesus" is really the "son of good" and which one is the impostor. Aliens might come here to baptize. And pray to god (if you believe) that they don't use the methods employed by crusaders and the Inquisition. ;-)

    Then there's also the issue that the "god created Man in his own image". What if the aliens aren't anthropomorphic?

    1. Re:What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? And who's to say which "Jesus" is really the "son of good" and which one is the impostor.

      Why, the answer is obvious. Our Jesus is really the "son of god" - you don't need aliens to show you that: despite the number of choices people have (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) everyone believes that their god is the true god. So why would adding alien gods make any difference?
      However, if they are a much more technologically advanced society (they would have to be, compared to our present level of tech.), they very well could have their "god" perform miracles. There will still be people who still remain "faithful" to their original religion, some who swap over, and some who reconcile the two gods (ours and theirs) as the same via imaginative interpretation of the holy books.

    2. Re:What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there's also the issue that the "god created Man in his own image". What if the aliens aren't anthropomorphic?

      I'd always taken this to mean within his own image, which (for me) explained omnipotence and why galaxy clusters and neural pathways look so similar.

    3. Re:What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? And who's to say which "Jesus" is really the "son of good" and which one is the impostor.

      Why, the answer is obvious. Our Jesus is really the "son of god" - you don't need aliens to show you that: despite the number of choices people have (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) everyone believes that their god is the true god. So why would adding alien gods make any difference? However, if they are a much more technologically advanced society (they would have to be, compared to our present level of tech.), they very well could have their "god" perform miracles. There will still be people who still remain "faithful" to their original religion, some who swap over, and some who reconcile the two gods (ours and theirs) as the same via imaginative interpretation of the holy books.

      And some people like myself would just say "Fuck it".

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    4. Re:What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares.

      Anyone with a brain.

      None of them are / all of them are within the context of the associated literature. i.e. Q. Who is Zeus' wife? A. Hera. Q. Is Zeus real? A. No. Q. Which god, commonly depicted as a shepherd, died conquers death and rises again? A. easy, Osiris.

      The distances are so vast that we won't have to worry about it.

    5. Re:What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? by h4rdc0d3 · · Score: 1

      Hallowed are the Ori!

  24. Wrong cross by Bucaro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting read, but something is conflicting. Behind Consolmagno is an orthodox cross, and not the papal cross. Anyone else notice this?

    1. Re:Wrong cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but it hardly signifies anything unusual. There is no current moratorium on Orthodox religious art in Catholicism that I am aware of.
      The whole emphasis has been to play up the similarities. Maybe he just liked it.

  25. An octopus has tentacles ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does the church think an octopus would have a soul? Would a squid?

  26. Reasonable atheists don't care by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we care about are the constant invasions of the religious into our non-religious lives. Why can't I buy beer on Sunday? Why can't Linda and Gwen get married? For that matter, why can't Linda, Gwen, Melissa and Steve get married? Why is it expected that I put my hand on a bible in a courtroom? Why does my money say things I cannot possibly agree with (I don't trust in God, you see)? Why has my patriotism, as expressed by the pledge of allegiance, been hijacked into a totally false declaration of subservience "under god"? Why do my kids encounter religious dogma in public schools? Why am I forced to carry the tax load for the religious, when I in no way support their existence, outlook, dogma, or teachings?

    If they want to dunk each other in the water, so what? That's not the problem. That's never been the problem. The problem is they don't limit their religion(s) to themselves. And in turn, that converts my general attitude from "don't care" to "religion is an obstacle to reasonable life."

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Reasonable atheists don't care by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      What we care about are the constant invasions of the religious into our non-religious lives. Why can't I buy beer on Sunday? Why can't Linda and Gwen get married? For that matter, why can't Linda, Gwen, Melissa and Steve get married? Why is it expected that I put my hand on a bible in a courtroom? Why does my money say things I cannot possibly agree with (I don't trust in God, you see)? Why has my patriotism, as expressed by the pledge of allegiance, been hijacked into a totally false declaration of subservience "under god"? Why do my kids encounter religious dogma in public schools? Why am I forced to carry the tax load for the religious, when I in no way support their existence, outlook, dogma, or teachings?

      All good questions, but if I may, I'd like to address two in particular. As for the "swearing on the Bible" thing, the assumption is that you will be so frightened of the eternal fiery torment that awaits you, should you fail to tell the truth after touching a book and promising otherwise, that you will, trembling in fear, tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or..., the book itself is imbued with magical powers that compel the swearer to speak only truth. Judges, trial lawyers, and others who hang out in court rooms will readily tell you that both assumptions are demonstrably false.
      As for the tax load question, consider the alternative. They pay their own taxes and are no longer enjoined from, as in institution, being a part of the political process. Yeah, I know that the IRS has a depressing habit of late, of looking the other way when John Hagee et al regularly cross the line, but even still, I'd rather not let them out of the deal that has been struck. It's bad enough that the SCOTUS has decided that corporations can enjoy the privileges of citizenship. I sure as hell don't want churches to gain the same status and be able to buy elections.

    2. Re:Reasonable atheists don't care by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Judges, trial lawyers, and others who hang out in court rooms will readily tell you that both assumptions are demonstrably false.

      Those of the religious persuasion --judges, juries -- having the religious test preceding anything else you say, will then apply their dogma to what you say. So either you lie, in order not to awaken the idiocy, and thereby compromise your integrity, or you tell the truth, and thereby risk compromising your case.

      As for the tax load question, consider the alternative. They pay their own taxes and are no longer enjoined from, as in institution, being a part of the political process.

      They're a huge part of the political process right now. So clearly carrying their tax load is ineffective as a tool to keep government free of religious influence. As far as I'm concerned, the constitution's prohibition against makings laws that respect religions should stand strong with regard to making laws that exclude religion from carrying the same burdens everything else does. Further, the free exercise of religion should allow them to participate in the political process. While I object to the ideas they push, I don't say they shouldn't be able to push them. What I was trying to get across is why, as an atheist, I am concerned with my being compelled to support and endorse religion.

      The government isn't allowed to do things like put "in god we trust" on the money; the fact that it does so simply demonstrates that the legislators are willing to violate their oaths. But that doesn't mean that the religious shouldn't be able to walk up to a legislator and say anything they like, including expressing their dissatisfaction with the godless way the government is constructed. It just means that the legislators are forbidden to act on those inputs. The constitution enjoins the feds, and indirectly, via the 14th, the states, to not create law that respects religion. It does not enjoin the religious from speaking, and I think it was a massive error to erect such an idea. I can think of no reason whatsoever that is sufficient to stop a preacher or a supplicant from speaking in any general public venue they please, about any subject they please. Including from their pulpits.

      Furthermore... if the religious can get a big enough head of steam going, there's a mechanism in the constitution (article five) that will allow them to change the government into a purely religious one, or make any other changes, large or small, that they like. As it stands now, however, the constitution says no law that respects a particular religion may be made. In the language of the time, that means supporting any religion or religious outlook over any other. It doesn't say religious organizations can't be taxed; in fact, it says they can't be taxed differently. And it doesn't say the religious can't speak to their ideas, no matter what I, or anyone else, thinks of them.

      It's bad enough that the SCOTUS has decided that corporations can enjoy the privileges of citizenship.

      I'm with you there.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Reasonable atheists don't care by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > Why can't I buy beer on Sunday?

      What the fuck? Where do you live? Serious question.

    4. Re:Reasonable atheists don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't I buy beer on Sunday?

      Careful there - you don't want to screw one of the few good things christians did. I'm not religious at all (agnostic) but I LIKE the idea of an off-day for everyone.

      If you can buy beer on sunday, YOU might also need to work on sunday.

    5. Re:Reasonable atheists don't care by flink · · Score: 1

      It's not true anymore, but up until 2004 or so, you couldn't buy on Sunday in MA. R.I.P. Sunday morning NH packy run -- you will not be missed.

    6. Re:Reasonable atheists don't care by RichiH · · Score: 1

      The fact that you shorten "couldn't buy alcohol" to "couldn't buy" so casually says more about where you live than the Sunday prohibition.

  27. Equally likely... by macraig · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... is that the alien would like to know how the Pope's astronomer tastes with a little alfredo sauce.

    1. Re:Equally likely... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      ... at which time the Pope's astronomer takes the chance to become a martyr: "You only can eat me if I may baptize you first!"

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Equally likely... by macraig · · Score: 1

      ... at which time the alien ignores the odd tweetings emanating from an orifice of the creature and takes a large bite, abruptly ending the annoying distraction.

  28. Re:So, that's what they call it these days. by xaxa · · Score: 1, Troll

    The Catholic rape jokes got a lot less funny for me this weekend. I met a group of women who'd been raped by priests as children.

    A more accurate headline might be "Pope's astronomer tries to divert attention from the paedophilia/homophobic/anti-woman/anti-contraception/nazi-atheist/third-world-Britain scandal during visit to UK".

  29. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    Transubstantiation is the (largely Catholic; most Protestants don't believe this) that the communion wafer and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ upon consumption. This is why Catholics aren't really allowed to eat before mass if they intend to take communion. However, the heart of the matter is that the belief is one of literal transformation (although clearly unsubstantiated (no pun intended)). Eating human flesh, when one is oneself a human, is pretty much the definition of cannibalism. Drinking human blood falls in line with that, too, and wanders off in the direction of vampirism.

    Rising from the dead is also a fairly zombie-like behavior. The reason that Christians traditionally can't be cremated and must be burred intact, a practice originally derived from Judaism for similar spiritual reasons, is the belief that after the second coming when God establishes a literal kingdom on earth, the souls collected in heaven will be put back in their bodies, and thus they, too, will literally rise from the dead.

    Sure, the majority of people seem to have moved on from more medieval beliefs, but they are in fact "real" beliefs with theological underpinnings and thus mocking them is totally OK, since we're not making fun of Islam which is bad and naughty.

  30. Definition of a Soul by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He lists the requirements for having a soul as:

    - have intelligence
    - free will
    - freedom to love
    - freedom to make decisions

    Putting aliens to one side for the moment, as I don't think Lrrr is going to drop in on us tomorrow, I wonder how he feels about some intelligent animals.

    Chimps, gorillas and other primates have been shown to fulfill these requirements to varying degrees. Dolphins have also. Would they baptize a dolphin? (How would you do that? Raise it out of water?)

    I wondered if anyone ever asked Koko what gorillas think about a creator. Thanks to a Google search, I turned up this exchange:

    Francine Patterson: "Who is God?"
    Koko: "Me."
    Patterson: "Who created the world?"
    Koko: "Another woman."
    (Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_12_131/ai_n8569017/?tag=content;col1 )

    Somehow, I don't think Koko's religious outlook would gel with the Vatican's. ;-)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Definition of a Soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He lists the requirements for having a soul as:

      - have intelligence
      - free will
      - freedom to love
      - freedom to make decisions

      Putting aliens to one side for the moment, as I don't think Lrrr is going to drop in on us tomorrow, I wonder how he feels about some intelligent animals.

      I'm betting he'll get in trouble once his consumers look at the requirements and then begin to ask questions about the retarded and less intelligent humans.
      A Glen Beck fan seems to fail all 4 of those.

    2. Re:Definition of a Soul by dcollins · · Score: 1

      My take would be that the three "free X" questions are really just rhetorical/philosophical word-games, and that a religious authority can always declare any class of entity to "not really be free" (i.e., instead be compelled by instinct or programming) and it's impossible to prove otherwise. This would serve for aliens, non-human animals, particular ethnic races or genders, Turing-complete machines, etc.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    3. Re:Definition of a Soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      once they are sufficiently capable of interpreting religion and all of it's nuances, i would say the church would have no problem with the baptism of such

    4. Re:Definition of a Soul by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Neat article. Thanks for that.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    5. Re:Definition of a Soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free will is not a scientific concept, it's a philosophical or religious one. There are no unmoved movers in science, and while we might be somewhat unpredictable as individuals, (not so much statistically) and have a degree of control over our actions, our will is not "free".

      This is why it's so ridiculous that scientific evidence like genetics or psychology is sometimes used in trials to plead for leniency or acquital. Free will in that context is a legal fiction, and more judges should recognise that it can't be undermined by the evidence of the defendant's makeup. It's what people are expected to exert over their actions. If anything, if you have a tendency to break the law, then you need to be encouraged to try harder and as a consequence be punished more severely, not shown leniency.

    6. Re:Definition of a Soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2443/are-gorillas-using-sign-language-really-communicating-with-humans

      Well. There's a hell of a lot of hullabaloo in the scientific community over whether or not Koko really was talking and cogitating or whether she was just, forgive the pun, aping what she'd seen and knew would get her something good.

      Personally? I think she had language skills and understood what her hand signs meant. But the other side does make a good argument, so I can't completely deny them their voice.

  31. Simak wrote this over and over by JohnQPublic · · Score: 1

    This sounds like almost every Clifford D. Simak story, plus a few other writers. I wish I could remember which one of them ran into the problem of trans-substantiation being mistaken for cannibalism :-)

  32. And the aliens think ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Insha' Allah.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  33. It's wonderful by Walter+Wart · · Score: 1

    Who would have thought the Vatican's pet astronomer was such a fanboy?

    --
    The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
  34. article didn't define "entity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An octopus has tentacles; does it have a soul? Perhaps "An entity has a soul if it is intelligent enough, and of course if we can see that it is intelligent enough, it must therefore have a soul." Circular logic. Not to mention, such a definition would exclude unborn humans from having souls, and therefore abortion shouldn't be the issue that religions like Catholicism makes of it.

    The most interesting thing about the idea that a soul starts to exist at conception is the logical conclusion that this can only be true if God personally makes one. That's because the process of egg-fertilization is purely a physical/biochemical reaction; anything that can be created by purely physical means can also be destroyed by purely physical means. So, if a soul is to exist immortally, then it cannot begin to exist as a result of a purely physical event such as egg-fertilization; an Act of God would be required, for the NON-physical soul to begin to exist.

    Now, God is not an idiot. Will God create a soul for a fertilized egg that contains badly defective DNA and will never grow to term? Is God vindictive instead of Loving, that God will create a soul for a fetus that God knows (because knows everything) will be aborted, JUST so that the woman can then be condemned? And what of twins? Twins do not begin to exist until the fertilized egg "hatches" enough for a blastocyst to emerge; if the blastocyst breaks into two organisms while emerging, then twins (sometimes breaks into three, yielding triplets) are the result. WHEN does God create those extra souls??? Religion claims that souls begin to exist at egg-fertilization; Religions are stupidly ignorant about the actual facts. Then there are organisms called "chimeras", in which two separately-fertilized eggs sometimes merge and the result is just one human body. See the Discovery Health Channel show, "I am my own twin" for more information. Why would God create two souls at fertilization if God knows that a chimera will form?

    1. Re:article didn't define "entity" by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      An octopus has tentacles; does it have a soul?

      Depends on the Religion; Hinduism for example would say yes (as do all living beings in that belief system), from TFA it appears Catholics would disagree and place humans (and now intelligent aliens) as special.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:article didn't define "entity" by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that Catholicism is actually agnostic on the question of whether an early term fetuses possess souls. Their position is that such are a form of life that should be honored and cherished, as per the will of God.

    3. Re:article didn't define "entity" by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 1

      If there is a god, then many of your questions would be relevent. However, since there is no god the only important question remains... Aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?

      --
      Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
    4. Re:article didn't define "entity" by Golddess · · Score: 1

      If my mother aborted me, I wouldn't be around to care. So I can safely say that I have no opinion on the matter and you are likely simply a creationist trying to thinly disguise themself as an atheist in order to make your anti-abortion argument appear more valid than it is.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    5. Re:article didn't define "entity" by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

      While I can't speak for Catholicism, or for that matter, the vast majority of 'Christians,' I can tell you that their guidebook says that humans and animals and anything with blood are souls. The things that swim in the oceans and 'breathe' through gills or lungs are souls. Oh, and souls die. Even human souls die. The Greek idea of an immortal ethereal soul is not in the Bible. And neither is eternal torment in Hellfire. As to when an embryo/fetus becomes a soul, see here

    6. Re:article didn't define "entity" by fj3k · · Score: 1

      Your logic is flawed; you can only state that you would have no opinion had you been aborted. Otherwise you would not only have no opinion on abortion, but should not be able to form the opinion that the GP is likely a creationist.

      --
      Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
    7. Re:article didn't define "entity" by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      exactly, they take the "harder" line that because you know a fetus will become a human that you shouldn't interfere, kind of the backwards of Schrodinger's Cat in that it's not a human yet... we know that under normal circumstances it WILL be, so people shouldn't try to kill it.

    8. Re:article didn't define "entity" by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 1

      Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this but thank you for your observation. To be clear, there is no God or gods or deity like anything. We (mankind) may never know for certain from whence we came. We could be the ancestors of ooze or the surviving victims of a crashed colony ship. The universe is expanding but the expansion is slowing. Someday, the expansion may reverse. Someday it may all condense to nothingness. There is no entity in charge of this process. It may have happened before. All of these things would be difficult if not impossible for a true believer to say simply to fool you. You are not important enough for me to risk eternal damnation, were I a true believer. But all of that aside, you failed to answer the question. And by avoiding the real question, you have exposed yourself as not having the courage of your convictions. You exist. Therefore your mother chose to not abort you. Had she chosen to abort you, you would have no opinion. By saying you now have no opinion; one could surmise you do not wish to exist. I have no moral objection based on theistic beliefs to the act of abortion. However, as a member of society, I lament the potential loss of the person that could have cured cancer, or the developer of room temperature cold fusion. It is ironic to me in fact that most people that profess to be in support of abortion will go to great lengths to decry the loss of life incurred by war, famine, disease, hunger etc. Ah well, I'm glad you exist because you provide diversity and your gene's will make us stronger, should your progeny survive long enough to matter.

      --
      Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
  35. I think I saw that on southpark... by tbischel · · Score: 1

    I suspect that it might start something more like this

  36. Reminds me of a great spec-fic novel by halcyon22 · · Score: 1
  37. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by Atriqus · · Score: 1

    Instead of just posting a nonconstructive character attack and then running away, why not show him where his mockery was lacking? Come on man, you got me psyched up for some Hitchens-quality stinging ridicule; what are you bringing to the table on this one?

    --
    Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
  38. We'd be forced to adopt their religion. by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Look at history. Whenever a "new world" was discovered within our own planet, missionaries came across the oceans to teach "the heathens" about their god, whether those godless barbarians wanted it or not.

    People take a vast journey usually for one reason: Money. The church comes along because it's politically fortuitous to do so.

    Chances are, any beings from outer space are going to be similarly motivated. They are going to come here to take our natural resources, make slaves of our people, and of course, convert us to their one true religion, whether we like it or not.

    And unless we've got some hideous super-virus (like the common cold), but we don't get wiped out ourselves by their version of The Flu, their technology will be far more advanced, and therefore, they will rule this planet, and for the next 20 generations we'll all talk about how the green man is keeping us down.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  39. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly.

    The problem with the OP is that he doesn't understand Catholicism. The biggest part of the religion that many fail to take into account is the Mystery behind these acts that humans cannot understand, but choose to have faith in instead.

    Regarding the Transubstantiation... do Catholics believe is it literally the body and blood of Christ? They're supposed to, yes. Does that mean they think if put to scientific tests the results would yield anything other than bread and wine? Probably not. Part of faith is realizing that there are things one cannot understand and that they will remain a mystery, but that a person believes in them anyway.

    Post like the OPs really undermine legitimate arguments on both sides of the topic. It's a choice to believe whether or not Mary was a virgin or born without Original Sin. It's a choice to believe in God period. Why everyone has to attack everyone else, I'll never understand other than the fact that it seems to make some people feel better about themselves. :-\

  40. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion and aliens, what a perfect combination of hillarity.

    How anyone still puts faith in religion is beyond me. It was created in a time when there was no law everywhere and everyone was superstitious, so how do you control those people? You tell them a invisible man will send them to a bad place for not being good. Whats the best way to do that? In storybook form of course because especially back then thats all they had was stories and stories were passed around as entertainment. And for all those that have felt religion or felt jesus then I point you in the direction of 1940's drug stores that sold placebos. Basically someone would have a illness or something and nothing be wrong with them at all so the dr would prescribe a placebo, which was basically just a sugar pill and magically that ill person would feel better physically and mentally because they believed the pill was working and actually had physical results from something that did nothing. Hell 400 years ago everyone knew for a fact the earth was flat, 500 years ago everyone knew for a fact illness was caused by frogs living in your stomach, 200 years ago in this very country christians would burn and drown their christian neighbors because they knew for a fact they were witches. Hell look at every christian based holiday, its a stolen pagan holiday that predates christinanity. I could go on and on for hours and write a book about how damn stupid religion is but I dont feel like it.

  41. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by Kitsune+Inari · · Score: 1

    [...] we're not making fun of Islam which is bad and naughty.

    Agreed: Islam is bad and naughty, but it's not them who we're making fun of today.

  42. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    damned subordinate clauses... #commafail

  43. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by rjstanford · · Score: 1

    Regarding the Transubstantiation... do Catholics believe is it literally the body and blood of Christ? They're supposed to, yes. Does that mean they think if put to scientific tests the results would yield anything other than bread and wine? Probably not. Part of faith is realizing that there are things one cannot understand and that they will remain a mystery, but that a person believes in them anyway.

    Part of the confusion may be in that most people follow normal definitions for the words "literally," and "figuratively." If you say that something literally becomes something else, then its behavior should match the new item. If not, then not. Not a big deal.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  44. I didn't realize they gave you a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would he baptize an alien? 'Only if they asked.'

    So we ask the aliens for permission, which means we care more about aliens than our children who we do not actually give a choice.

  45. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    >>do Catholics believe is it literally the body and blood of Christ?

    Yes.

    >>Does that mean they think if put to scientific tests the results would yield anything other than bread and wine?

    No. Obviously. What's science got to do with faith? If a Catholic *needs* the former, he doesn't have the latter.

    To mock Catholicism as believing in zombies and cannibalism is funny, perhaps, albeit at the snarky-guy-at-the-high-school-cafeteria-table level, but it's no more than word play. It's meant to make the Catholic feel weird and uneasy; the Monty-Python-reciter's equivalent of a medieval numerologist showing someone how the letters in their name add up to 666.

    Catholics do believe they consume the Body and Blood of Christ; no, they are not, nor do they believe they are, cannibals. But, gosh durn it if that ain't a real knee-slapper. H'yuk Yuk.

    The original dickheads to promote the notion that Christians were cannibals were the Roman pagan propagandists who were trying to stir up public dissent against the new religion and its practitioners. History has recorded how well that worked out for them. I'm confident that the Church, having outlasted the Roman Empire, will survive the juvenile puns of some Internet Tough Guys.

  46. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realize that it's trendy to be anti-religion and all, but please... if you're going to jump on the bandwagon try to understand the teensiest background and minimum number of tenets of what it is you are trying to mock, lest you make all the hard-working, educated, clever and industrious atheists look bad.

    I think you're missing the point... he's saying that understanding the background and tenets is largely a waste of time, because ultimately they're ridiculous. He presents that caricature to show what it all sounds like to those of us who do not subscribe to them.

  47. Humanity not first creation nor first to fall by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Is he assuming that any alien's that we meet had a similar fall, and need to be redeemed?

    I'm no theological scholar but angels are reported to be an intelligent creation that predated humanity and they reportedly had their own fall as well. So there is precedent. Perhaps free will is likely to result in a fall given enough time?

    Apparently with enough time anything can happen, even a fun philosophical discussion involving religion on slashdot. :-)

  48. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Transubstantiation is the (largely Catholic; most Protestants don't believe this) that the communion wafer and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ upon consumption.

    I would suggest starting by reading about why Catholics specifically call it "transubstantiation", and not e.g. "transfiguration", and what the difference is.

  49. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by the_womble · · Score: 1

    He presents that caricature to show what it all sounds like to those of us who do not understand to them

    .

    Corrected that for you. Of course a caricature that is designed to sound ridiculous, sounds ridiculous. What does that prove? Creationists come up with equally good caricatures of evolution.

    If you want to attack it, state it in accurate, neutral terms, and then argue rationally against it.

  50. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by aaandre · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Understand? If you are talking of the details of a specific religion... Too many imaginary friends, too little time.

    If you are talking of the essence of "religion," it's easy: Evil old men drunk on power burning everyone and everything in their way, getting off on raping children, corrupting as many innocent souls as possible.

    Where would the devil hide if not in church. What would the devil have you believe about god if not that it's separate from you?? What would the devil have you believe about yourself if not that there's something wrong with you?

    Anyone who tries to stand between you and your divinity is selling you shit.

  51. Intelligent Design by Chibi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Haven't read the article yet, but I'm curious why there isn't more discussion on his comment about intelligent design:

    Consolmagno dismisses the ideas of intelligent design as a pseudo-scientific version of creationism. 'The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn't originally mean at all. It's another form of the God of the gaps. It's bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning.'"

    I know the general Slashdot community looks down on religion, but it'd be nice to see greater distinction between fundamentalists and Christians who are probably generally more in the moderate realm. Unfortunately, when most people hear "Christian," the automatic response is to think that the person is a fundamentalist.

    --
    If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
  52. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    >>Anyone who tries to stand between you and your divinity is selling you shit.

    Ah. So you're a Buddhist. To each his own.

  53. Say Hebbo! to our alien friends by llamafirst · · Score: 1

    I can see it now... the ships land at the UN and... Alien: Greetings. We come in peace. UN: Where do you come from? Alien: A distant galaxy nearly 10 billion light years away. Our world has no crime, no disease, no wars; we value learning as the pinnacle of achievement. We have been waiting 2,000 of your years for the moment when Humanity is ready for contact. We feel the time is right. UN: Why are you here? Alien: We came to be baptized. Praise Jesus! or not...

    I can see it now... the ships land at the UN and...

    Alien: Greetings. We come in peace.

    UN: Where do you come from?

    Alien: A distant galaxy nearly 10 billion light years away.

    UN: Why are you here?

    Alien: To escape religious persecution! Most of our galaxy are ZYZYZYYZ-ists and we dont' feel safe to practice the Tarvu religion. We came to be baptized on the planet of our many-tentacled prophet. Praise Tarvu!

    http://www.tarvu.com/

    It's so easy to join!

  54. Extending special favor to the aliens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Only if they asked.'

    Too bad they don't extend the same favor to the terrestrial earthlings of the non-Catholic mindset.

    Step A: Check if non-believing subject is an alien. If yes proceed to step B else C.
    Step B: Ask if willing to be converted. If yes go to Step C else Step D.
    Step C: Convert.
    Step D: Proceed to next non-believer.

  55. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but I won't. All I need to know is that the faithful will take any evidence or hypothetical situation they can, to take credit for more and more things that have nothing to do with religion, or do not come from a 'god'. The church already believes and takes credit for every innate good emotion capable by humans. Whatever these aliens are, they will try and co-opt it and make it part of their lexicon, as if they thought of it all along, and will take any good these aliens do as a gift from god rather than a gift from aliens.

  56. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

    And yet none of that explained why Catholics aren't cannibals then. They are eating the body of a person, and yet you say, without reason or evidence, that they are not cannibals.

  57. Guy Consolmagno by jschen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dr. Consolmagno spoke at our decidedly non-religious institute (The Scripps Research Institute) back in February. He often represents Europe in international astronomy meetings, including when they were deciding whether to demote Pluto. In his seminar, he gave us a preview of his book, The Heavens Proclaim: Astronomy and the Vatican. It was mostly showing us pretty pictures in the book and telling us all sorts of interesting anecdotes from his experiences. He also covered a multitude of other topics, ranging from those of purely scientific concern (e.g. figuring out a way to determine the density of a meteorite) to historical controversies (e.g. the church and Galileo). It was one of the most interesting seminars I've attended this year. If given another chance to attend a seminar of his, I would gladly do so. In fact, if I were to know about it in advance, I might even buy a copy of his book for him to sign.

  58. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by mikael_j · · Score: 1

    In my experience most caricatures of atheists and evolution created by creationists seem to revolve around satanic influence, "lulz they think they're monkeymen!1" comments and that those who think evolution or atheism make more sense than creationism are simply raging nutjobs who hate everyone and everything. Oh, and the "I'm atheist because it's cool to hate on Jeebuz" caricature which is followed by a rant about how when He(tm) returns he will send all that pesky atheist straight to a very literal lake of fire for not believing in a god (or the right god for that matter).

    "Believe or die! Thank you, forgiving lord, for all those options." -- Bill Hicks

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  59. What about the bible? by AlfaMike · · Score: 1

    I haven't read it entirely but does it mention anything about alien forms of life? I'm guessing not. Did God just leave it to us to decide how to deal with aliens? And how could He have forgotten to tell us about such a hugely important part of His creation? That all considering that there are forms of life outside of Earth, which I firmly belive there is because mathematically it sounds feasible.

  60. So slaves don't have free will ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Consolmagno adds that the traditional definition of a soul was to have intelligence, free will, freedom to love and freedom to make decisions.

    Two dogs humping in the park have souls, but a slave doesn't. I think you need to work on that definition a bit.

  61. Good guess care to try again by Xerolooper · · Score: 1

    I haven't read it entirely but does it mention anything about alien forms of life? I'm guessing not

    Good guess care to try again? Perhaps the parts you and others don't read because they are difficult to understand have information on said life outside earth. But no one reads that part because we can't understand it's significance. I don't know either just a thought.
    From what I have read it speaks in general enough terms to make this line of thought pointless.

    --
    "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
  62. Even these tentacles? by mrmeval · · Score: 1
    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  63. If you want to hear his side... by samael · · Score: 1

    Then he has an online journal, where he wrote about this:
    http://brotherguy.livejournal.com/31731.html

  64. playing to an audience by yyxx · · Score: 1

    The only reason the Vatican is more conciliatory now is because of public opinion and secular governments. You can bet that if they were still in power like they used to, they'd still try to burn Darwinists adn Heliocentrists at the stake, and exterminate any alien life as demons. But the primary goal of the Vatican is to stay in power as much as possible, and to do that, they'll say whatever it takes in the current political climate. Even when they are seemingly against popular opinion (marriage, priests, gay rights, etc.), it's a calculated political strategy. Don't believe a word these people say; instead, look at their history.

  65. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'know, yours is the kind of argument that still gets nerds shoved into lockers.

    Catholics aren't cannibals because it is fuck-all stupid to say that they are. The word "cannibals" conjures up images, means something different, than what Catholics are. To say that, because they believe in transubstantiation, Catholics are cannibals is to be snarky and disingenuous and an asshole. If you feel peculiar, do you say that you feel "Queer"? No, not for the last thirty years you haven't, because "Queer" has a connotation that is not intended. You no longer "feel queer" if you are uneasy, even though the definition (to nerds and pedants) may be the same as it always was.

    Same with "cannibals." Idiot.

  66. Kinda like Islam right now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Islam is in power in most of Araby, with Muhammad as their undead leader. Don't believe me? Try building a church in Saudi Arabia, try visiting Mecca, heck try being a tolerant ATHEIST there. You'll sooner be slaughtered than viewed as "open minded".

    1. Re:Kinda like Islam right now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you're right that Islam is even worse; they haven't even gone through the Reformation yet. But I don't live in a Muslim country, I live in the West, and here, Catholicism and similarly obsolete branches of Christianity threaten my liberties.

  67. Brother Guy Consolmagno by Hartree · · Score: 4, Informative

    Absolutely. Several years ago, I heard him talk on the prospects for finding more exoplanets in the future. He's a serious and highly competent scientist.

    He also is a Jesuit monk. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

    (And, he seemed like a heck of a nice Guy. Forgive the pun. :)

    See:

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

    1. Re:Brother Guy Consolmagno by jschen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (And, he seemed like a heck of a nice Guy. Forgive the pun. :)

      Yes. He was quite popular with the chemistry and biology crowd at my institute. People always go to post-seminar receptions for the free food and beer. But in this case, much of the audience also chose to go so that they could continue to talk with him after the question-and-answer time had already run out. Nobel laureates excepted, I can't remember another time when so many people spent so much time with the speaker at the reception. It seemed as if it could be interesting talking with him for the whole afternoon, if only he didn't have to leave for the airport so early.

  68. Baptizing by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2, Informative

    He is a Catholic so he can baptize in an emergency. And he is a priest so he can baptize in all cases.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
    1. Re:Baptizing by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      Actually even non-Christians can baptize, IIRC.

    2. Re:Baptizing by timlyg · · Score: 0

      True, however, the question is not who can baptize, but what right is one to baptize?

      Alien: I want to be baptized so I can be one of you...even though I don't need salvation.

  69. Soul food by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    if they have souls is it correct to eat them?

    Catholics eat the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ every Sunday!

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  70. Oblig. by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our baptized Alien overlords

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  71. Re:In The Name of The Father, The Son, & Teh F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regarding the Transubstantiation... do Catholics believe is it literally the body and blood of Christ? They're supposed to, yes. Does that mean they think if put to scientific tests the results would yield anything other than bread and wine? Probably not.

    I'm a Catholic, and yes, you're mostly correct. The tenets of the religion state that the bread and wine "become" the body and blood of Christ. However, this doesn't mean they're no longer bread and wine. It also doesn't mean that it's *symbolic* for the body and blood either. The bread and wine prior to the Eucharistic prayer is used to symbolize the body and blood, and following the prayer *is* the body and blood despite being bread and wine.

    It's a...difficulty concept to grasp I'll admit. It's along the same lines as the fact that Jesus was human and divine at the same time. And by this it's not meant he was 50% human and 50% divine or some other mix like that. The idea of the Christ being 100% human and at the same time 100% divine at the same time is equivalent to saying that the bread and wine is both bread and wine and also the body and blood of Christ (not symbolically, remember!).

    It's like light being a wave and a particle!

    *Note that I'm not a Catholic theologian so some of my above understanding and explanation may be a bit faulty. However, it's how my understanding of it works.

  72. 100% agreed by RichiH · · Score: 1

    It was nice and refreshing to see that some religious people are just trying to live their lifes like they see fit without making everyone else miserable.

    If all the extremists, no matter what kind, were to be totally ignored, the world might be a better place.

  73. Mormans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatta you bet the Mormons would too?