"Democracy is basically 51% of the citizens deciding together to give up certain personal rights and powers to an elected official."
Only those "certain personal rights and powers" that 2/3 of the representatives of the people, 2/3 of the representatives of the states, and 3/4 of the states outright have consented to give to anybody. For such a big fan of the United States Constitution, you seem to have little understanding of what it means.
"The elected official in a democracy holds office for a certain period of time and has no reason to follow through with what the voters initially wanted, and the voters can not remember what they wanted so many years ago."
That's why states like California have things like recalls. It's something the populist movement gave us oer a century ago.
But what about the House of Representatives? When did 24 months become "so many years ago?"
"In a free market you can change your mind constantly,"
Not if you bind yourself to a contract, which could have a term far longer than a two-year Representative term.
"A free market bank takes deposits in gold and issues bank notes for the depositor."
There is absolutely no human control over the value of gold. Neither you nor I nor anybody else could possibly prevent someone from finding a new vein of gold, or consuming massive quantities of it to make into jewelry and the like. All it would take is one ambitious asteroid miner to make that gold you have in your vaults worth 1/10 of what it was yesterday.
"The depositor can use these notes to make purchases."
Only for shopowners who accept notes from your particular bank. In your Beloved Free Market, in order to change businesses to find a better deal, you very well may have to change banks (perhaps even to your detriment), if not forego storing your money in a bank altogether. And then who would issue loans?
"If a bank decides to print fake notes, runs on the banks causes the bank to go bankrupt."
And if a bank decides to print fake notes for another bank?
At any rate, if the gold standard is so great, why has not a single state in the Union opted to go back to it?
"And how would you regulate trade?"
"Why would you need to?"
To keep someone from flooding the domestic gold market, devaluing your gold reserves.
"My old subdivision (gated)"
That gate was a protectionist measure that prevented door-to-door salesmen from making their way to your door to sell you a better product than you may be using now. It destroyed trade!
"I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite."
"Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression."
These two statements are mutually exclusive. Any effort to restrict "the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite" is by your definition "unconstitutionally lmiting your freedom of expression."
"What democracy needs is Real Campaign Finance Reform (group is gone) that gives everyone back their ability to express their beliefs politically."
So this "real campaign finance reform," or any flavor of campaign finance reform, will fix gerrymandering?
"The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government."
Source?
I've dealt with the FEC. Beyond placing limits on campaign donations, their main purpose in existence is to ensure that campaign contributions are publicly disclosed (Where do you think opensecrets.org gets their information?). All they do is provide hard numbers and let people come to their own conclusions.
"Russian could give every Congressman a billion dollars a piece, but the Constitutional would not allow any Congressman to give Russia (or any group or individual) preferential treatment."
So even Ye Olde Stricte Constructionsists in Congress couldn't give Russia preferential treatment as they exercise their power to collect duties, as explicitly granted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1? And this ignores little things like Cogress' power to declare war (say, joining Russia in a war on Germany, for example).
"The school system is unbalanced in teach the Constitution, leaving the majority of the population unsure of the real power of the Constitution -- leaving people free to use the rights they are born with, and preventing any government from walking over those rights."
And how does Congress set school curriculums? If they did that, there wouldn't be any debate over ID vs. evolution in public schools.
"Voters are given completely biased ballots."
They are "biased" in favor of those candidates who are prestigious enough (for better or for worse) to get so many thousands of open signatures on their qualifying petitions. By your own standards, anybody who could win an election with a write-in ballot should be capable of getting enough signatures on their qualifying petition to get their name printed on the ballot in the first place.
"Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties."
So you would impose yourself on another person's desire to vote strictly along party lines? How magnanimous.
"Voters are only allowed to see commercials from major parties as they are offered (illegal) campaign matching funds in addition to virtually unlimited campaign budgets."
What matching funds? What states? Source? Last I heard, every state in the Union is very much against public campaign funding, and the only office that sees any is the presidency.
"Third parties can not raise the necessary funds as they are limited by finance reform guidelnies."
If they were capable of raising the necessary funds, they'd be capable of getting enough signatures on their petitions to get on the ballot. If they can't raise the money, why do you believe they'd be able to win on a write-in ballot?
"Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers."
Surely a rabid anarcho-capitalist such as yourself should be cheering the private media outlets rights to show or not show what they wish on their privately-owned broadcasting equipment!
"Voters are confused by the colluding media that wants them to vote in order to give the authoritarian candidates the mandates needed to expand t
"But Buddhism claims that those things are, in fact, part of the natural world, the way things work. Modern science, according to a Buddhist, just hasn't caught up."
The same can be said of Christianity.
"That would be mostly because of the stigma associated with the term. Theists have done a wonderful PR job of equating ``atheist'' with ``ultimate evil.'"
No, he took his stance because he claims that atheists are making claims that are as unjustified as the theists'. In his view there is as much rigorous evidence for a lack of divinity as there is for its existence.
And as for the persecuting stigma you seem to believe is heaped upon atheism, atheism is downright trendy among those who describe themselves as educated. Aside from some +5 derogatoryremarks, in a submission about creationism vs. science proper, you'll find many other +5 posts mentioning the vast majority of scientists who describe themselves as atheists as well as the usual quote from Sagan stating that a scientist must necessarily be an atheist. One simply cannot be considered intelligent or enlightened around here unless you adhere to and defend the dogma of atheism.
"Assuming you're a Christian, would you wholeheartedly participate in an animistic ritual that sacrificed an animal in order to drive away the evil spirits causing, say, your son's delinquency?"
Contextualizing and accepting doesn't mean the same thing as joining in and participating.
"It's designed to point out that when, for example, a Christian rejects the Hindu pantheon as silly superstition (as well as the Greek, Egyptian, Norse...pantheons), it's no different from what an atheist does when rejecting the Christian pantheon in exactly the same way."
However, it's based on the assumption that a Christian would reject the Hindu pantheon.
"First, many (most?) Buddhists are atheists. They have no gods."
But in a broader sense they still hold a belief in a supernatural (if not striclty "divine") order that, at best, doesn't sit comfortably with mainstream atheist philosophy. The "Buddhists are atheists too!" argument feels strained to me, an attempt to appear more inclusive, the old "bandwagon" approach.
"Second, it's perfectly possible to have no gods and yet not accept the scientific method. Science leads many to atheism, sure, but the two are hardly inextricable."
That's pushing it. What if I changed my phrasing to "An atheist belives in only that which is tangible?"
"That said, your statements are only applicable to a (vocal) minority of atheists, those commonly called ``strong'' atheists. I know a number of atheists who would accuse you of libeling them with those words.
An atheist may or may not have come to a conclusion on the matter of gods."
And where do you draw the line between atheism and agnosticism? An agnostic friend of mine would be very unhappy that you've essentially called him an atheist.
"As it's said, everybody is an atheist when it comes to the vast majority of gods people worship."
Not necessarily. It is often possible to contextualize one set of religious beliefs in terms of another. While there are doubtlessly, for example, Christians to believe that animists are hopeless sinners who are doomed to damnation (hence missionaries), there are others who consider animists to be worshipping the Christian god in their own way, a separate communion with the same supernatural (i. e. "God revealed Himself differently to these people").
"Everybody is mostly atheist" sounds like another bandwagon spiel to me.
Additionally there are atheists who are religious or spiritual, though many of these would not describe themselves as atheists.
Trying to coopt Buddhism into atheist philosophy is right on up there with trying to coopt the Framers into Deism.
"Buddhists believe in rebirth, not in reincarnation."
Another hair to split? Anything beyond wormfood and oblivion (manifest through a lack of brain activity) is an improvable matter of faith. Trying to embrace Buddhism while denouncing Creationism is disingenuous at best.
You'd think that ¢, if nothing else, would have work. It's as if/. has to specifically whitelist such expressions (a list that apparently includes € and £) before it shows up in posts.
And what really makes one look like an idiot is cut-and-pasting a lengthy journal entry on postage and not realizing the cent signs weren't carrying over.:)
"Futher you are wrong in saying atheists believe Buddhists are wrong. If you want to extrapolate from a single belief to a set of beliefs, at least do it correctly, and it doesn't change the fact that a single belief ("there are no gods") isn't a system."
You missed my final line, the one right after the Buddhist comment:
An atheist believes only in that which can be proven scientifically
Which means that any sort of "divine" or "supernatural" order is out the window, whether or not there is thought to be a conscious entity behind it all. An atheist will disbelieve the Buddhist cycle of reincarnation (one of the basic tenets of the religion) because there is no scientific basis for it.
Buddhists may be "atheistic" in the litteral sense of the word, but they by no means adhere to the atheistic philosophy, the one that dictates that there is nothing beyond the tangible.
"and it doesn't change the fact that a single belief ("there are no gods") isn't a system."
If it allows you to reject numerous proposals out-of-hand without individual consideration, it's a system. Have you actually considered Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
"Other than the massive power brick which ends up probably taking up more tatami mattage."
Yeah, but that can be hidden behind stuff, unlike the console itself. Having a separate external power brick seems to be little more than continuation of a trend started by the GameCube and followed up by the slimline PS2. I don't recall IGN showing the transformer for either of those consoles, either.
"I believe you don't know the meaning of the word system. A single belief is not a system of beliefs."
An atheist believes Christians are wrong An atheist believes Jews are wrong An atheist believes Muslims are wrong An atheist believes Hindus are wrong An atheist believes Buddhists are wrong An atheist believes only in that which can be proven scientifically
Sounds like a system for what to believe and to disbelieve to me.
Everybody is entitled to be a moron and a person's right to be wrong is still entitled to be respect, at least until they prove themselves to be an asshole (the only ones who deserve no respect).
There is a difference between "lack of belief" and "belief of lack." If you're uninterested (etc.) in the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster enough that you hold neither a belief in the existence nor a belief in the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you lack belief.
But if you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, you believe lack, which is a belief.
"It would get quite tedious if one were to come up with a new belief system for everything they believe doesn't exist."
The whole point of a "belief system" is that you don't have to come up with a whole new belief or set of beliefs when something new in a particular field crops up. A belief system is essentially a set of prejudices you carry with you. And if you systematically believe that invisible beings don't exist or that the government isn't out to get you, then you don't come up with new beliefs about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Illuminati; they're already covered by your system.
I'd put you into the category of "non-believer" (I'd comfortably put you into #3 in the grandparent post). However, I've already been involved in several flamewars with people I would describe as "disbelievers," ones who vigorously believes to the contrary as opposed to having no belief either way. One self described atheist I've seen refused to accept the possibility of someone actually being agnostic; everybody was either a theist or an atheist (which sounds like divine order, but I digress).
If you look at some of the posts in this article, there are a few believers (some of which are probably trolls), a healthy majority of disbelievers deriding believers and/or their beliefs, and few if any non-believers. When it comes to matters of religion, most people here on Slashdot. hold one particular opinion very strongly and have little patience for anybody who doesn't share that opinion. There's more tolerence here of Microsoft than of religion.
"You can teach Greek Mythology without always speaking the name of "Zeus" with reverential awe.
You can even poke fun at your subject matter, depending on the focus of the course"
The subject of the course, or the makeup of the class? If nobody in the class takes it seriously, then fine, but if even one student takes it seriously then their opinion deserves respect.
The class wasn't "Why emacs Rules," it was "Why vi Sucks."
"I fondly remember my 1st semester physics professor ended practically every topic with something along the lines of "and of course in the days since Newton, we've discovered that most of this counts as complete rubbish, but I still expect you to know it for the test"."
There's a reason why he was only teaching first semester, then. Newton is essentially just as correct as he was in the Seventeenth Century, discrepancies were only found in limiting cases. He wasn't Aristotle, he was a scientist, and the fact that F=dp/dt and F=Gmm/(r^2) are as useful and meaningful today as they were when they were first written is a testament to the man and his methods.
Lorentz transforms don't make the Three Laws "complete rubbish" any more than Newton invalidated the work of Galileo. And your first semester physics teacher claiming something like that is exemplary of the bad science teaching that goes on in this country, propogating the idea that "scientific theories are thrown out all the time," that allows stuff like Intelligent Design to slip through the cracks.
"A beating should not be the price to pay for expressing one's views in a free country."
A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki apologized for those comments.
Later, other e-mails written by Mirecki that surfaced were deemed "repugnant and vile" by Chancellor Robert Hemenway for their views toward Catholics and other Christians.
Yeah... um, it seems the only thing this guy was "martyred" for was "expressing one's view" that so-and-so's mother wears combat boots. There's freedom of speech, but there is also a need for responsibility.
"Sorry, but if you're the one saying there's an invisible man in the sky judging everyone, the burden of proof is on you."
Just because someone believes that doens't mean they feel the need to require you to believe the same thing. If they're not asking you to share their beliefs, then you're not entitled to demand proof from them.
He's not a biology teacher, he was teaching a class entitled "ID, Creationism, and other myths" or something like that. His aim was more specifically "anti-creationist" than "pro-evolutionist."
Was he beaten in the name of religion, or beaten in the name of being actively antagonistic to his assailants? Yeah, the former group is large, but the latter is far larger and not noteworthy.
"Big fat faces?" He had a high school outlook on the whole matter and he got a high school response.
Slashdot Mirror
"Mei-Ching Lien, an assistant professor of psychology at Oregon State University."
Is she hot?
"Democracy is basically 51% of the citizens deciding together to give up certain personal rights and powers to an elected official."
Only those "certain personal rights and powers" that 2/3 of the representatives of the people, 2/3 of the representatives of the states, and 3/4 of the states outright have consented to give to anybody. For such a big fan of the United States Constitution, you seem to have little understanding of what it means.
"The elected official in a democracy holds office for a certain period of time and has no reason to follow through with what the voters initially wanted, and the voters can not remember what they wanted so many years ago."
That's why states like California have things like recalls. It's something the populist movement gave us oer a century ago.
But what about the House of Representatives? When did 24 months become "so many years ago?"
"In a free market you can change your mind constantly,"
Not if you bind yourself to a contract, which could have a term far longer than a two-year Representative term.
There is absolutely no human control over the value of gold. Neither you nor I nor anybody else could possibly prevent someone from finding a new vein of gold, or consuming massive quantities of it to make into jewelry and the like. All it would take is one ambitious asteroid miner to make that gold you have in your vaults worth 1/10 of what it was yesterday.
"The depositor can use these notes to make purchases."
Only for shopowners who accept notes from your particular bank. In your Beloved Free Market, in order to change businesses to find a better deal, you very well may have to change banks (perhaps even to your detriment), if not forego storing your money in a bank altogether. And then who would issue loans?
"If a bank decides to print fake notes, runs on the banks causes the bank to go bankrupt."
And if a bank decides to print fake notes for another bank?
At any rate, if the gold standard is so great, why has not a single state in the Union opted to go back to it? "Why would you need to?"
To keep someone from flooding the domestic gold market, devaluing your gold reserves.
"My old subdivision (gated)"
That gate was a protectionist measure that prevented door-to-door salesmen from making their way to your door to sell you a better product than you may be using now. It destroyed trade!
"I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite."
"Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression."
These two statements are mutually exclusive. Any effort to restrict "the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite" is by your definition "unconstitutionally lmiting your freedom of expression."
"What democracy needs is Real Campaign Finance Reform (group is gone) that gives everyone back their ability to express their beliefs politically."
So this "real campaign finance reform," or any flavor of campaign finance reform, will fix gerrymandering?
"The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government."
Source?
I've dealt with the FEC. Beyond placing limits on campaign donations, their main purpose in existence is to ensure that campaign contributions are publicly disclosed (Where do you think opensecrets.org gets their information?). All they do is provide hard numbers and let people come to their own conclusions.
"Russian could give every Congressman a billion dollars a piece, but the Constitutional would not allow any Congressman to give Russia (or any group or individual) preferential treatment."
So even Ye Olde Stricte Constructionsists in Congress couldn't give Russia preferential treatment as they exercise their power to collect duties, as explicitly granted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1? And this ignores little things like Cogress' power to declare war (say, joining Russia in a war on Germany, for example).
"The school system is unbalanced in teach the Constitution, leaving the majority of the population unsure of the real power of the Constitution -- leaving people free to use the rights they are born with, and preventing any government from walking over those rights."
And how does Congress set school curriculums? If they did that, there wouldn't be any debate over ID vs. evolution in public schools.
"Voters are given completely biased ballots."
They are "biased" in favor of those candidates who are prestigious enough (for better or for worse) to get so many thousands of open signatures on their qualifying petitions. By your own standards, anybody who could win an election with a write-in ballot should be capable of getting enough signatures on their qualifying petition to get their name printed on the ballot in the first place.
"Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties."
So you would impose yourself on another person's desire to vote strictly along party lines? How magnanimous.
"Voters are only allowed to see commercials from major parties as they are offered (illegal) campaign matching funds in addition to virtually unlimited campaign budgets."
What matching funds? What states? Source? Last I heard, every state in the Union is very much against public campaign funding, and the only office that sees any is the presidency.
"Third parties can not raise the necessary funds as they are limited by finance reform guidelnies."
If they were capable of raising the necessary funds, they'd be capable of getting enough signatures on their petitions to get on the ballot. If they can't raise the money, why do you believe they'd be able to win on a write-in ballot?
"Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers."
Surely a rabid anarcho-capitalist such as yourself should be cheering the private media outlets rights to show or not show what they wish on their privately-owned broadcasting equipment!
"Voters are confused by the colluding media that wants them to vote in order to give the authoritarian candidates the mandates needed to expand t
So it doens't matter how much merit an idea has if nobody believes it?
Then "show me" the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
"But Buddhism claims that those things are, in fact, part of the natural world, the way things work. Modern science, according to a Buddhist, just hasn't caught up."
The same can be said of Christianity.
"That would be mostly because of the stigma associated with the term. Theists have done a wonderful PR job of equating ``atheist'' with ``ultimate evil.'"
No, he took his stance because he claims that atheists are making claims that are as unjustified as the theists'. In his view there is as much rigorous evidence for a lack of divinity as there is for its existence.
And as for the persecuting stigma you seem to believe is heaped upon atheism, atheism is downright trendy among those who describe themselves as educated. Aside from some +5 derogatory remarks, in a submission about creationism vs. science proper, you'll find many other +5 posts mentioning the vast majority of scientists who describe themselves as atheists as well as the usual quote from Sagan stating that a scientist must necessarily be an atheist. One simply cannot be considered intelligent or enlightened around here unless you adhere to and defend the dogma of atheism.
"Assuming you're a Christian, would you wholeheartedly participate in an animistic ritual that sacrificed an animal in order to drive away the evil spirits causing, say, your son's delinquency?"
Contextualizing and accepting doesn't mean the same thing as joining in and participating.
"It's designed to point out that when, for example, a Christian rejects the Hindu pantheon as silly superstition (as well as the Greek, Egyptian, Norse...pantheons), it's no different from what an atheist does when rejecting the Christian pantheon in exactly the same way."
However, it's based on the assumption that a Christian would reject the Hindu pantheon.
"Then you would be using a definition of "atheist" that is entirely different from the commonly accepted one."
Being?
"First, many (most?) Buddhists are atheists. They have no gods."
But in a broader sense they still hold a belief in a supernatural (if not striclty "divine") order that, at best, doesn't sit comfortably with mainstream atheist philosophy. The "Buddhists are atheists too!" argument feels strained to me, an attempt to appear more inclusive, the old "bandwagon" approach.
"Second, it's perfectly possible to have no gods and yet not accept the scientific method. Science leads many to atheism, sure, but the two are hardly inextricable."
That's pushing it. What if I changed my phrasing to "An atheist belives in only that which is tangible?"
"That said, your statements are only applicable to a (vocal) minority of atheists, those commonly called ``strong'' atheists. I know a number of atheists who would accuse you of libeling them with those words.
An atheist may or may not have come to a conclusion on the matter of gods."
And where do you draw the line between atheism and agnosticism? An agnostic friend of mine would be very unhappy that you've essentially called him an atheist.
"As it's said, everybody is an atheist when it comes to the vast majority of gods people worship."
Not necessarily. It is often possible to contextualize one set of religious beliefs in terms of another. While there are doubtlessly, for example, Christians to believe that animists are hopeless sinners who are doomed to damnation (hence missionaries), there are others who consider animists to be worshipping the Christian god in their own way, a separate communion with the same supernatural (i. e. "God revealed Himself differently to these people").
"Everybody is mostly atheist" sounds like another bandwagon spiel to me.
Try an encyclopedia next time. From Wikipedia: Trying to coopt Buddhism into atheist philosophy is right on up there with trying to coopt the Framers into Deism.
"Buddhists believe in rebirth, not in reincarnation."
Another hair to split? Anything beyond wormfood and oblivion (manifest through a lack of brain activity) is an improvable matter of faith. Trying to embrace Buddhism while denouncing Creationism is disingenuous at best.
I've tried it all, no dice.
/. has to specifically whitelist such expressions (a list that apparently includes € and £) before it shows up in posts.
:)
You'd think that ¢, if nothing else, would have work. It's as if
And what really makes one look like an idiot is cut-and-pasting a lengthy journal entry on postage and not realizing the cent signs weren't carrying over.
You missed my final line, the one right after the Buddhist comment:Which means that any sort of "divine" or "supernatural" order is out the window, whether or not there is thought to be a conscious entity behind it all. An atheist will disbelieve the Buddhist cycle of reincarnation (one of the basic tenets of the religion) because there is no scientific basis for it.
Buddhists may be "atheistic" in the litteral sense of the word, but they by no means adhere to the atheistic philosophy, the one that dictates that there is nothing beyond the tangible.
"and it doesn't change the fact that a single belief ("there are no gods") isn't a system."
If it allows you to reject numerous proposals out-of-hand without individual consideration, it's a system. Have you actually considered Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
"Other than the massive power brick which ends up probably taking up more tatami mattage."
Yeah, but that can be hidden behind stuff, unlike the console itself. Having a separate external power brick seems to be little more than continuation of a trend started by the GameCube and followed up by the slimline PS2. I don't recall IGN showing the transformer for either of those consoles, either.
"I believe you don't know the meaning of the word system. A single belief is not a system of beliefs."
An atheist believes Christians are wrong
An atheist believes Jews are wrong
An atheist believes Muslims are wrong
An atheist believes Hindus are wrong
An atheist believes Buddhists are wrong
An atheist believes only in that which can be proven scientifically
Sounds like a system for what to believe and to disbelieve to me.
Everybody is entitled to be a moron and a person's right to be wrong is still entitled to be respect, at least until they prove themselves to be an asshole (the only ones who deserve no respect).
"I don't belive in The Flying Spaghetti Monster."
There is a difference between "lack of belief" and "belief of lack." If you're uninterested (etc.) in the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster enough that you hold neither a belief in the existence nor a belief in the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you lack belief.
But if you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, you believe lack, which is a belief.
"It would get quite tedious if one were to come up with a new belief system for everything they believe doesn't exist."
The whole point of a "belief system" is that you don't have to come up with a whole new belief or set of beliefs when something new in a particular field crops up. A belief system is essentially a set of prejudices you carry with you. And if you systematically believe that invisible beings don't exist or that the government isn't out to get you, then you don't come up with new beliefs about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Illuminati; they're already covered by your system.
I'd put you into the category of "non-believer" (I'd comfortably put you into #3 in the grandparent post). However, I've already been involved in several flamewars with people I would describe as "disbelievers," ones who vigorously believes to the contrary as opposed to having no belief either way. One self described atheist I've seen refused to accept the possibility of someone actually being agnostic; everybody was either a theist or an atheist (which sounds like divine order, but I digress).
If you look at some of the posts in this article, there are a few believers (some of which are probably trolls), a healthy majority of disbelievers deriding believers and/or their beliefs, and few if any non-believers. When it comes to matters of religion, most people here on Slashdot. hold one particular opinion very strongly and have little patience for anybody who doesn't share that opinion. There's more tolerence here of Microsoft than of religion.
"Lesson: Unless you're willing to become a martyr, never tell an angry mob they're WRONG."
Is it that, or is it "Never insult the angry mob?"
"You can teach Greek Mythology without always speaking the name of "Zeus" with reverential awe.
You can even poke fun at your subject matter, depending on the focus of the course"
The subject of the course, or the makeup of the class? If nobody in the class takes it seriously, then fine, but if even one student takes it seriously then their opinion deserves respect.
The class wasn't "Why emacs Rules," it was "Why vi Sucks."
"I fondly remember my 1st semester physics professor ended practically every topic with something along the lines of "and of course in the days since Newton, we've discovered that most of this counts as complete rubbish, but I still expect you to know it for the test"."
There's a reason why he was only teaching first semester, then. Newton is essentially just as correct as he was in the Seventeenth Century, discrepancies were only found in limiting cases. He wasn't Aristotle, he was a scientist, and the fact that F=dp/dt and F=Gmm/(r^2) are as useful and meaningful today as they were when they were first written is a testament to the man and his methods.
Lorentz transforms don't make the Three Laws "complete rubbish" any more than Newton invalidated the work of Galileo. And your first semester physics teacher claiming something like that is exemplary of the bad science teaching that goes on in this country, propogating the idea that "scientific theories are thrown out all the time," that allows stuff like Intelligent Design to slip through the cracks.
"Sorry, but if you're the one saying there's an invisible man in the sky judging everyone, the burden of proof is on you."
Just because someone believes that doens't mean they feel the need to require you to believe the same thing. If they're not asking you to share their beliefs, then you're not entitled to demand proof from them.
If you believe that theists are wrong, then it is, by definition, a belief system.
He's not a biology teacher, he was teaching a class entitled "ID, Creationism, and other myths" or something like that. His aim was more specifically "anti-creationist" than "pro-evolutionist."
Was he beaten in the name of religion, or beaten in the name of being actively antagonistic to his assailants? Yeah, the former group is large, but the latter is far larger and not noteworthy.
"Big fat faces?" He had a high school outlook on the whole matter and he got a high school response.
Actually, most Slashdotters fall into category #2. Take a look at some of the responses you got for some examples.