Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Advent of Religious Search Engines

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the finding-god-with-seo dept.

The Internet 583

Beetle B. writes "Do Google search results contradict your religious views? Tired of getting pornographic results and worried you'll burn in Hell for it? Are you Christian? Try SeekFind — 'a Colorado Springs-based Christian search engine that only returns results from websites that are consistent with the Bible.' Muslim? Look no further: I'm Halal. Jewish? Jewogle is for you. NPR ran a story on the general trend of search engines cropping up to cater to certain religious communities. I wonder how many other 'filtered' search engines exist out there to cater to various groups (religious or otherwise) — not counting specialized searches (torrents, etc)."

cancel ×

583 comments

Atheist (5, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33570944)

http://www.atheistsearch.net/ [atheistsearch.net]

Search: creationism

[Click "I'm Feeling Lucky"]

Error: there's no such thing as luck!

Re:Atheist (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33570966)

There's no "Post Humously" option, you liar.

Re:Atheist (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33570990)

There's no "Post Humously" option, you liar.

Go die in a fire, then I might listen to you.

Re:Atheist (1)

TDyl (862130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571110)

Is that supposed to be 'post humourously' or the Lebanese version 'post hummusly'?

Re:Atheist (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571256)

Is that supposed to be 'post humourously' or the Lebanese version 'post hummusly'?

I guess it's more related to this word. [wiktionary.org]

Re:Atheist (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33570982)

Must be a conspiracy because I can't load that site... (Can't find the server, etc.)

Lies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571004)

It's a born-again site! Don't follow that link, it's loaded with trojans^V^V^V^V^V^V^Vjesuses!

Re:Atheist (0, Troll)

Tronks (892783) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571146)

Actually, atheists are usually much more superstitious than believers.

Re:Atheist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571164)

[citation needed]

Re:Atheist (5, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571186)

Atheists believe in the power of citations. :-)

Re:Atheist (0, Troll)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571216)

Well, at least we don't just place blind faith in what someone tells us and consider it the truth without further investigation. ;)

Re:Atheist (0, Flamebait)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571276)

Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation. Not that such a belief is any more or less reasonable than your run-of-the-mill "invisible man in the sky" myth, but it is a similarly unsupported belief just the same. Granted, atheism is often far less harmful than some religious notions, but it is no more rational. Yes, really. Stating "I know..." about a thing that is, by definition, unknowable, is irrational. "I don't know...", on the other hand, not so much.

Re:Atheist (-1, Redundant)

jpate (1356395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571316)

Every a-unicornist accepts that there are no unicorns on blind faith and without further investigation. Not that such a belief is any more or less reasonable than your run-of-the-mill "invisible man in the sky" mith, but it is a similarly unsupported belief just the same. Granted, a-unicornism is often far less harmful than some religious notions, but it is no more rational. Yes, really. Stating "I know..." about a thing that is, by definition, unknowable, is irrational. "I don't know...", on the other hand, not so much.

Re:Atheist (5, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571328)

Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation.

Nope, absolutely false. Many atheists are simply skeptics who refuse to accept the existence of the Gods unless you provide irrefutable proof. No blind faith required, any more than blind faith is required to not believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy. Furthermore, many atheists have investigated various religions in great depth--quite a few became atheists only with great reluctance, when their search for a plausible faith turned up empty. I say this as an agnostic, not an atheist, but one who knows many atheists. There are probably some atheists who are as you describe, but in my experience, they are a rare minority.

Re:Atheist (2, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571386)

You know I'm fed up of this every atheist has blind faith thing...
So if I state that I don't believe in any god then am I an atheist? This being different from saying I believe there is no god. The second statement requires faith, the first does not. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that I see no evidence for one therefore it doesn't make a point of my world view.
Is lack of belief a belief? (except the belief in logical conjecture based upon repeatable experiment and evidence)

I don't claim to be agnostic because that has connotations of god potentially being allowed in my current world view, which isn't the case. Can't an atheist be someone who just doesn't believe in god, as opposed to believes that there is no god.

I think historically - say middle ages - then someone would have to say they believed there wasn't a god because there wasn't a good explanation for many natural phenomenon. These days so many phenomenon are explained then it is more applicable to be able to say I don't believe in any god (because there is no evidence/need for one).
So there is, for me, no faith needed that there is no god, just like there is no faith needed that there is no invisible pink unicorn that makes sure that gravity happens. Be careful what you ascribe to faith, faith is a concept held in lack of evidence. There is sufficient evidence for me that no god is needed and that my world view can be almost completely described as a lack of faith in pretty much anything, but a marvel and wonder at everything.

Re:Atheist (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571408)

I "know" there is no God in the same way I "know" that there is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny and no Tooth Fairy.

Just because millions upon millions of people have been spoonfed similar fairy tales does not make them more valid.

Re:Atheist (5, Insightful)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571412)

Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation.

Nonsense! Rejecting superstition on the grounds that there is no scientific evidence is not blind faith, it is purely logical. Would religious people accept being labeled as blind faith atheists of other deities such as Thor or Zeus? As an example, Christians reject belief in countless deities, is it really so unreasonable to merely subtract one more deity from that list without being labelled a blind faith fanatic of atheism?

Re:Atheist (5, Insightful)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571414)

---"atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation"

not true at all. allow me to present myself as someone who has studied the synoptic gospels in far more detail than (and I'm guessing now) 98% of people who call themselves christian.

Re stating 'I Know', Richard Dawkins has a great thought experiment on this.

-Statement: There is a perfect Victorian china tea set orbiting the sun in an orbit about half way between the sun and the earth.

My position: I'm willing to say that I know this statement is false.

Nope, I haven't been to look and I don't think any rockets have gone to check. However from my understanding of the field, I am willing to take a position.

I could say 'I don't know'. It's possible that the Russians set this up as an elaborate joke. However at some point, saying 'I don't know' just becomes fetishism. It is useful to take a position when the opposing one is vanishingly unlikely.

The same applies to god. If you show me some evidence, then I'll change my mind. But from an examination of current evidence, I say that the existence of some involved creator is vanishingly unlikely.

Therefore I say that god does not exist and declare myself an atheist.

Re:Atheist (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571430)

The problem, speaking as an atheist (and also the light version of how I became an atheist), is not whether or not an invisible man exists, its whether or not the invisible man that you believe in (as described by whatever religious works you have) exists. Indeed, if you actually examine your faith, you will quickly discover that you don't believe in most of what your faith prescribes, that you have only accepted the parts of your religion that agree with your sense of self and culture and rejected the parts that don't. In doing so, you have created your own god that doesn't exist. You are no longer a Christian, Muslin or Jew, you are a religion of "I made up my own god that I'm okay with" religion. When you realize that, you will realize YOU made up god. Therefore, god doesn't exist.

Also, for anyone that might reply with atheism is a religion: If atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color.

Re:Atheist (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571442)

Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation.

My perspective is that the simplest interpretation is likely to be correct. Maybe there is a god. Maybe god will send me an email one day or turn up on /. and say "you must do this". Until I will act as if god doesn't exist. A bunch of people who tell me that I should believe what they believe don't convince me of anything.

Re:Atheist (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571358)

yes, yes you do. The sun will come up tomorrow, right?

Re:Atheist (0, Flamebait)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571178)

The name "believer" doesn't tip you off that you're believing in something that has no provable basis in fact, ie a superstition?

Re:Atheist (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571294)

The name "believer" doesn't tip you off that you're believing in something that has no provable basis in fact, ie a superstition?

A lot of atheists believe they are not alone in the world, and whatever they see is not just a figment of their imagination (i.e. they are not solipsists). This has no provable basis in fact (you cannot disprove solipsism).

Re:Atheist (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571390)

I didn't say anything about atheists. Most people believe that "whatever they see is not just a figment of their imagination", that's just common sense. Superstition is where you start drawing correlations where there is none, then reinforcing them with confirmation bias. If someone is having a bad day they'll just see it as a bad day. But if they have a bad day on Friday the 13th then OMG FRIDAY THE 13th IS SO UNLUCKEH!1!! etc

Re:Atheist (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571418)

If you cannot disprove solipsism, then you cannot disprove anything. Such a world-view is entirely useless, and trying to live by it would lead you straight to the nuthouse.

Re:Atheist (1)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571274)

If an atheist search engine redirected you to lego.com on searching creationism, I'd use it!

Re:Atheist (0)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571488)

Sadly its always the way that religions get special privileges, their own schools, shops, restaurants, laws and now even search engines. If you run a search on Google for the Truth about Evolution you are presented with religious propaganda sites, it sure would be nice to be able to filter out all that crap. I would happily bet a lot of money that if an atheist search engine was set up, religious sites such as these truth about evolution sites would all be registering themselves as scientific sites.

Re:Atheist (1)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571312)

404: Evidence not found.

Creationist Wolfram Alpha? (2, Funny)

vk2sky (1463797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571322)

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

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

Re:Creationist Wolfram Alpha? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571406)

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

        Q: [anything, really]

        A: God did it.

And then someone enters "Who did the most evil thing ever?" :-)

Re:Atheist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571376)

Since you aren't lucky you'll be all by yourself ... try a porn search engine: http://www.hotsex.com/

Jedi search engine. (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#33570962)

"that are not the droids you are looking for."

Bad luck Junior (0, Troll)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33570970)

"Sorry Junior, you'll have to go to that blasphemous town library to research your report on dinosaurs, because in this household the Internet remains pure and as God intended!"

Just realised that this is a silly example anyway, as fanatical Christians wouldn't allow their kid to go to a school that was unholy enough to teach them about dinosaurs, the fossil record or how the we all evolved from a common ancestor with those damn dirty apes.

Re:Bad luck Junior (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571066)

Fanatics on the net? Sounds just like Conservapedia.

And look how well that worked out. Try to build something like that and the end result is inevitable: troll magnet.

So my prediction is simple. These search engines will remain "pure" right up until the moment 4chan and the like take an interest. Expect something akin to googlebombing to swiftly follow. Religious nuts on the net are like catnip to these guys...

Re:Bad luck Junior (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571468)

A kid writes from camp that they had gone primative.

Religious search engine? (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33570986)

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

Re:Religious search engine? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571038)

I think baptizing the server would short it out.

Re:Religious search engine? (2, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571068)

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

How Modern Tech Narrows Minds ... (3, Insightful)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#33570988)

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

CC.

Re:How Modern Tech Narrows Minds ... (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571194)

More like how narrow minds abuse modern tech.

Fixed (2, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#33570992)

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

SeekFind (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571006)

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7).

Due to extremely high traffic, the search index is intermittantly unavailable. We are working to have the problem fixed as soon as possible. Please accept our apologies.

The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide God-honoring, biblically-based, and theologically-sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format.

There's a joke in there somewhere. Heck, there's such a plethora of jokes in there that I don't even know where to begin...

Oh, and for the record...Matthew would have used Google ;-)

Re:SeekFind (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571484)

The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide God-honoring, biblically-based, and theologically-sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format.

There's a joke in there somewhere.

Technically, it said the "format" would be highly accurate and well-organized, not the search results...

And for those that think this sort of site is a good thing, remember that horses wearing blinders only see what their riders want them to see.

Jewgle would have founded better (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571024)

Jewogle just sounds weird. Jewgle sounds like google only with a soft g.

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (1)

trash eighty (457611) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571092)

Jewogle sounds like a porn site

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (2, Funny)

Mike Kristopeit (1900306) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571102)

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

what do you think a jew would do?

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571142)

Use the domain name which is different enough from Google to be sure they'll not be sued for trademark infringement?

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (1)

Mike Kristopeit (1900306) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571252)

which one is more different? are either different enough?

considering jewogle.com utilizes google's services to make the site work, and completely ripped off 80% of the google logo unchanged, it's pretty obvious what you are suggesting did not happen.

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571330)

Didn't stop all the *tube porn sides did it?

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571104)

Indeed. Maybe it's just me, but "jewogle" sounds like a porn site featuring jewish models to me.

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571304)

Indeed. Maybe it's just me, but "jewogle" sounds like a porn site featuring jewish models to me.

Yes please! [google.com]

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571340)

Yes... I love my country! Our best export.

Re:Jewgle would have founded better (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571452)

What it isn't, is a "religious search engine" as the article infers.

It's a jokey website which is little more than a custom Google search. It isn't some kind of Jewish approved alternative to Google, probably because Jews aren't really that easy to offend. Want to draw a cartoon of Moses? Go for it!

How customizable is it? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571026)

It's a funny idea, but I suspect it's pretty hard to customize the search for every kind of believer. Some Christians have far more extreme standards than others in what they consider appropriate, for example. And they have very different ideas on what's "consistent with the bible". I notice that this search engine only returns results from icr.org, cristiananswers.net, gotquestions.org and apologeticspress.org. Might be useful in some circumstances, I guess, but I think most Christians will just use Google for their regular search needs.

Re:How customizable is it? (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571212)

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

Same old story (1)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571044)

Like it happens with paper media, each consumer buying the paper that tunes with his ideas.

Re:Same old story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571116)

It's true that this really isn't anything new. But it does serve as yet another excuse for slashdotters, who stick to only the filtered news media (basically all mainstream outlets except Fox), to bash on religious people for wanting to do similar.

Fear not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571054)

Provided we can maintain the option of Internet freedom (free form censorship and surveillance) for everyone, most people, even those who maintain a front to the contrary, will preferably use an uncensored search.

Re:Fear not (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571094)

Well, just wait until all ISPs in your area block all uncensored search engines.

Vertical search is fairly old (5, Insightful)

williamhb (758070) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571074)

There have been "vertical search engines" that only search within particular fields for a very long time now -- everything from cars to plumbing. Not sure how newsworthy it is that there are also ones for Christian and Muslim theology. Rather useful if you're looking up material to help you write a sermon, bible study, or for use in your own bible reading. There are also religious bookshops, selling religious books. So what a surprise that if there's a lot of written material around, someone's made a search engine for it. In other shocking news, there is a search engine exclusively for knitting [google.com] . Clearly its users must only believe in woollen dinosaurs!

Re:Vertical search is fairly old (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571464)

Mmmm..... Knitting Erotica [creationrobot.com] ...

So one might say... (5, Funny)

pi8you (710993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571090)

they're using Church Engines?

Re:So one might say... (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571124)

they're using Church Engines?

Do those use Church numerals for calculating the page rank?

Rather, Church encoding (2, Informative)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571150)

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

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

Re:Rather, Church encoding (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571280)

Alan Turing was also gay. Can't have his "type" of people and math polluting the minds of our young folks!

stupid people (4, Insightful)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571106)

there. i said it.
millions of people around the world are suffering because they don't have access to information that is freely available on the internet, and still there are idiots out there who want to have their search results filtered.

ok, you don't wanna see a naked lady by accident. I get it. there's tons of things on the internet that I personally don't want to ever see (and I would do my best to keep children from seeing them). but if you don't want to hear what people with other convictions have to say in reasonable scenarios, then I say you're an idiot.

go ahead. sick your gdodg on me.

Re:stupid people (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571262)

In all my searching, I very rarely get naked pictures from searches (unless I'm searching for them) and when I do, it's because I have the Google safe search off.

I think what they're saying is all marketing BS to drive traffic to their sites. I WISH naked pictures popped up that often!

Oh noes! (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571120)

too much information on the internets! my fragile, horribly narrow world view is being damaged! quick, shelter me, opportunists!
i'm pretty depressed after reading this story. i'll have to go have a smoke before i can get back to work....

To much? Sure it is NOT to little? (0, Flamebait)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571156)

After all, were can a god fearing Muslim get a live feed from a mass rape for the sake of honor of an honorless people go? Youtube just doesn't cater.

And just where is a hindoe supposed to go to see women burned alive because it is cheaper then divorce?

Where is a Christian supposed to get info on bomb building to destroy that abortion clinic they disapprove off because having high teenage pregnancy is all the rage?

Mainstream media just doesn't cater.

I'm a pervert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571128)

is there a search engine that returns JUST porn?

Re:I'm a pervert (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571472)

Find a web filtering appliance and reverse the polarity.

Seekfind is down (3, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571132)

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

Re:Seekfind is down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571362)

Dubya found it at the bottom of a booze bottle, you could try that, it's better than finding him in prison.

MilitantAgnosticDancers.org (2, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571140)

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

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

Search engine for true believer (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571152)

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

Re:Search engine for true believer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571182)

I take my life guidance from 194.109.9.99. Or, if it's down, 194.109.6.66.

Re:Search engine for true believer (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571214)

Or maybe the search engine would just have an "I feel lucky" button. And no input area.
No wait, it's not "I feel lucky" but "I feel confident."

Re:Search engine for true believer (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571270)

No, it's the "I have faith! Praise Jesus!" button.

Or, "Allah's will!" button.

Or give me the "Wholesale - never retail! search" button.

Walled garden? (1)

waperboy (1852772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571168)

It's important that we accommodate those who do not wish to have their walled-garden world view tarnished. Seeing the world unfiltered is not for everyone... Imagine if geocentrists find that the earth is not the center of the universe - most uncomfortable indeed.

Re:Walled garden? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571266)

I don't know what you are talking about, but the Earth rotates when I walk and at no other time for I am the center of the Universe and you will walk around me.

imstupid.com (5, Funny)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571174)

First link for "atheism" points to Conservapedia [conservapedia.com] , which says:

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

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

Re:imstupid.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571278)

Yes.

Re:imstupid.com (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571348)

Well, there is no evidence for atheism, so they're half right. Proof of the non-existence of God would be logically impossible.

But for the same reason, there's no evidence for Christianity either, so they're still wrong.

Re:imstupid.com (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571360)

They're absolutely right, there's no proof that god doesn't exist.

Of course, there's also no proof that unicorns, pixies or demonic badgers from Neptune don't exist either - it's amazing how many things you can't prove don't exist.

Re:imstupid.com (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571434)

To me this is one of the common fallacies that is purported by religious folk: the idea that a God cannot be argued against since it is impossible to prove that he does not exist.

This is true only in a certain limited instance. This instance is only for a god that does not interfere with the world around us and, for all intents and purposes, does not affect it. The Christian god (and the Abrahamic god in general) does not follow this routine. The holy texts of these religions (and the followers themselves) all agree on one thing: God interferes with the day to day lives of his people.

Therefore - the absence of proof that this is the case is proof that the Abrahamic god does not exist. While obviously this cannot be taken as absolute proof against the existence of the god, to say that there is no proof is just as wrong.

This fundamental argument seems to be lost on many that hide behind the lack of "proof" against a god. While one can argue that the god is trying to hide, I find this unlikely. Why would the Abrahamic god try to hide after all of the interference done in the Bible? It is contradictory to the core beliefs of the Abrahamic religions. Ergo, there is strong proof against the existence of the Abrahamic god

Re:imstupid.com (2, Funny)

Gofyerself (1709970) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571480)

I love their main page

Is Fox News too liberal for you?

Thank you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571190)

Congrats for posting this. Thanks to being slashdotted, most sites stopped functioning properly. Not that they ever did anyway.

What should we take down next?

Re:Thank you! (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571338)

The sites are not down. They are just self-protecting against the infidels. The true believers still can access them. :-)

the ongoing onslaught of glorified fiction (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571192)

in the end (that's where we get it all the time anyway), we'll continue to be informed that we came from monkeys, & they (corepirate nazi illuminarians) didn't (they arrived on chariots of fire, blah blah blah). guess whois supposed to survive/escape the escalating holycost? talk about a fixed (?human?) race. don't forget to look up; deception, coercion misrepresentation (?false ?gods??) etc... on the 'new' search engine.

meanwhile (time gets more important when one has less to spend); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red (see also; organized religion/southern baptist, tony blair etc...) on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

thou shalt not (on & on it goes)......, unless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571462)

you happen to be one of the (self appointed) ?chosen?. then all form of murder mayhem & debauchery are ok because it's done by ?god's? direction. what a deal, no?

What about buddhism? And hinduism? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571222)

No search engines for buddhism? Or hinduism? Or pastafarianism?

Re:What about buddhism? And hinduism? (2, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571394)

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

Re:What about buddhism? And hinduism? (2, Insightful)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571470)

Boo, predictable.

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

Only results consistent with the bible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571326)

I can do that. As the bible isn't consistent even with itself there are no results consistent with the bible.

smart (2, Insightful)

X10 (186866) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571344)

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

Recovering Christian (2, Funny)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571354)

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

Omphalos - The Pagan Search Engine (2, Informative)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571402)

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

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

Ooh! Ooh! I found another! (2, Funny)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#33571424)

http://search.slashdot.org/search [slashdot.org]

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

Jewish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33571474)

My neonazi friend always complains about "Jewgle", "Jewtube", "Jewkepedia"... Seems that "by Jews" "for Jews" :-}

Oh yeah, unPC as hell*, so posting AC.

(* = depening on your religious views, the value of "hell" may differ)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...