Perhaps this explains why Pudge is resisiting OS X :-)
However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.
(my favourite "wha?!" moment is This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. to which I could only respond "um, yes, it is quite a stretch to go from 'x-like" to 'is x' for any value of x!")
--Nat
Re:Real?
jdavidb on 2002-04-22T03:16:05
Interesting site (landover). It's interesting how in my readings of the Bible I've never noticed any of the bizarre inaccuracies they try to parody. It probably has something to do with seeing things in context.
Sorry, Pudge; I'm throwing gasoline on a fire. Hopefully I won't burn the site down. At least we're all here in journals where it's safe and maybe nobody will see us.
Re:Real?
TorgoX on 2002-04-23T13:47:32
Of course, fundamentalist Christianity and political correctness are two things that are hard to parody, since anything outrageous you come up with is probably taken seriously by somebody somewhere.That just makes it audience participation time!
Thanks for that one Nat, it's reassuring to see that some places are still worse than France at this point...
Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism.
As a free software advocate and a laissez-faire capitalism advocate, I'm incensed!
That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism!
You know, I remember using my old Black and White Mac Plus for a Junior High project on evolution. When our biology class started our unit on evolution, our teacher commented that while our book taught evolution as a fact, in our class it would be treated as a theory. For better or for worse, though, that was the six weeks the teacher decided to take it easy^W^W^Whave students make presentations on the material from the book, I guess so we could learn a little bit about public speaking and cramming to prepare at the last minute after idly watching deadlines approach for two weeks. So, everyone pretty much just echoed the book, which meant all that stuff about evolution being taught as a theory was just so much hot air.
My group was the set of computer guys, so of course we chose to make our presentation with HyperCard. (Remember HyperCard?) And, since I didn't (and still don't) accept evolution, and since I've always been an overly-legal minded guy (I was typing copyright statements and license agreements into assignments I turned in in eighth grade computer programming class!), our presentation began with a legal disclaimer to the effect that the opinions expressed where not necessarily those of the presenters. Along the way, I managed to produce a spinning image of Charles Darwin which I thought was uproariously funny. So Darwin was on my Macintosh way back there!
Of course, when I grew up, I learned to express myself without mocking people who disagreed with me. It's a shame so many people on both sides of this issue never got that.
Our assigned portion of the chapter was how the discovery of the age of the earth supported evolution, since evolution requires a much larger timescale than previously accepted. We had a nice artist's conception in our book of a prehistoric earth with lava flows and a volcanic eruption. I scanned the picture and doctored several versions of it until I had an incredible black and white animation of the ground cracking and then erupting with lava. Pretty good for a little m68k chip.
being an atheist is a bad thing when 1 in 6 people on the planet are atheist/nontheist.
Re:they say that like
TorgoX on 2002-04-23T14:02:36
[they say that like] being an atheist is a bad thing when 1 in 6 people on the planet are atheist/nontheist.
I'm wary of numbers either way; it's always a matter of swinging the "undecideds" anyway -- i.e., getting people who couldn't explain an idea to save their lives, to claim to support it when they're polled.
And speaking of polls:
But then, polls always show that people be dumbs.«In an entertaining article last year in the New York Times magazine, Natalie Angier recorded how lonely it was to admit to being an atheist in the US, where 86% of the population say they believe in heaven and 76% in hell. What was telling about her research was how few people would consider electing an atheist president. While 92% would be happy to vote for a woman (up from 76% in 1978) and 95% would elect a black leader (up from 73%), only 49% could countenance a non-believer (up from 40%).»I think that the polls also show that the ideal presidential candidate would be Della Reese (you know, the soulful black lady from That Angels Show (which is at once a source of debate over whether it's too Jeebus or not Jeebus enough)
Re:they say that like
hfb on 2002-04-23T15:06:21
I don't think there's any rule that says you can't be both an Atheist and a card carryin' christian at the same time why, look at Billy Graham or the Catholic Church. The church is like a country club honey, you don't actually have to believe anything but you do have to go and 'be seen' on holy days and at weekly mass.
And I'd like to know who did that poll as 92% happy to vote for a woman? Remember Ferraro? Jarkko asked me during the 2000 elections which would be more likely, a) a black man or b) white woman getting elected....not in this lifetime and possibly not before antarctica refreezes over will a woman get elected president in the US....Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
But, 1 in 6 being atheists was a number the US census from 1990 produced actually.....for a ballpark figure, it ain't bad. I figure if the world starts getting more fucked up from all these religions trying to tell the others how to live and such we can mobilise an Atheist militia and maybe make our own country or something, a sanctuary somewhere.
Re:Heh
gnat on 2002-04-22T19:11:56
Do I have to choose, or can I just say "(d) All of the above"?:-) --Nat
