Slashdot Mirror

"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction." -- Judith Hayese

Does anyone have evidence from Bill Gates that he actually is an atheist? I've just done a bunch of searching and the only words of his I can find online regarding his religious views seem to peg him as an agnostic: http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Bill_ Gates Even though the URL of that site is celebathiests.com, they even seem to file him under "agnostic". I believe that Bill showed up a few times at a church I used to attend in San Diego, but who knows what his reason were for doing that. I never saw him there, but that's just what the pastor said. A couple times, from the pulpit.

Anyway, if the US DOES need an atheist president (which I would argue against), Bill Gates wouldn't seem to be a qualified choice, given what I can find of his views on the subject. If anyone can see where Bill Gates has claimed to be an atheist, I'd like to see that.

I'd say that what the US needs is a president who is honest about his or her personal and religious views, or who at least doesn't make an issue of politicizing them. There's so much spin and character assassination that goes on in that arena though that it's impossible for the rest of us to know what someone really thinks.

He's an atheist.

Odd how different paths inetersect...

From: "Stanislaw Lem" page on "Celebrity Atheists" website, last modified 19 Jun 2005 (http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index.php?title =Stanislaw_Lem; viewed 24 August 2005):

Trained to be a physician, and "brought up with the scientific outlook" by his father who was also a physician, he subsequently "spent many hours over coffee arguing about God" with his friend Karol Wojtyla who taught theology in Cracow and who is now better known as Pope John-Paul II. In an interview, Lem indicated his thinking on religion: "for moral reasons I am an atheist -- for moral reasons. I am of the opinion that you would recognize a creator by his creation, and the world appears to me to be put together in such a painful way that I prefer to believe that it was not created by anyone than to think that somebody created this intentionally" (L. W. Michaelson, "A Conversation with Stanislaw Lem": Amazing (Jan. 1981): 116-19. Peter Engel, "An Interview With Stanislaw Lem": The Missouri Review, 7, 2 (1984): 218-37. Also see Raymond Federman, "An Interview with Stanislaw Lem," Science-Fiction Studies, 10 (1983): 2-14).

Before you mod me down for that, I'd like to mention that this isn't Microsoft bashing since I am an atheist too and so are Linus and RMS.

Before you mod me down for that, I'd like to mention that this isn't Microsoft bashing since I am an atheist too and so are Linus and RMS.

Before you mod me down for that, I'd like to mention that this isn't Microsoft bashing since I am an atheist too and so are Linus and RMS.

I KNEW that Linux was an evil, godless OS. Just look at the people that
are behind Linux and the Open Software movement!

Linus Torvalds

Richard Stallman

Steve Wozniak (hacker, when the term "hacker" ment a good guy)

Bill Gates (everyone knows he uses Linux at home)

Asia Carrera (Adult star and computer geek (yes, for real...she kicked
my ass in UT2003 many times))

John Malkovich (he saw someone using Linux once)

I found them all on Celebatheists.
And by the way, I use Linux (Gentoo) and I'm an atheist.

Linus is on the Celebrity atheist list. I had a hunch when I heard the tooth fairy and Santa Claus being mentioned together. They are often examples given of non-existent beings (that grant wishes).

Bill Gates entry in the Celebrity Atheist List.

http://www.celebatheists.com/

As a kid, I thought he made a kickass Superman, but ever since I saw him on the Celebrity Atheists List, Christopher Reeve has been a hero and inspiration.

Reeve has every reason to chicken out and go the religious route, as do many people who have their lives so disrupted. What courage to put his faith in things that really matter: the continuing advance of science, the companionship of loved ones, and the power of personal force of will.

Thanks to that, he has started to recover some movement and sesnsation over much of his body. No miracles involved.

Same thing applies to Alan Cox, Richard Stallman and Bill Gates. See here

Same thing applies to Alan Cox, Richard Stallman and Bill Gates. See here

You always fall back to simple disagreement, or an offensive presentation of disagreement, as if hate speech would not exist.

I suppose I have in examples. And I agree words have power. The pen truly is often mightier than the sword. And I agree hate speech is not a good thing. But I think we give too much credit to blatant hate speech by banning it.

Come on! Of course we can go to extremes both ways. There is no simple answer.

But the US Supreme Court found my extreme compelling enough to rule for the plaintiff in ACLU v Reno and strike down the COPA, which theoretically banned all such works.

Does a civilised justice system work the same way? Yes. It is not about mechanical rules. They do not apply either to people or to speech. Example: We know what terrorism is (killing civilians) and we know what collateral damage is (killing civilians), but there is a world of a difference between the two, and we do see it.

Agreed. Laws have to consider certain non-mechanical standards all the time. Due dilligence, reasonable person, probable cause, you name it. It's not a crime to throw away an incriminating document because you don't need it anymore, but it is a crime to do so to conceal a crime - tricky ground. Sometimes, as is the case with objectionable speech, the ground is too tricky and a civillized justice system also rejects laws which are vague, arbitray, capricious, or overbroad. Consider this piece by George Carlin. Is it hate speech? I think it's insightful and witty, and it makes a compelling argument against religion IMHO, while being incredibly blunt. A friend thought it should be banned as promoting anti-Catholic bigotry. The "reasonable person" test falls apart pretty fast when we start talking about speech.

We should be mature enough and we should regard ourselves mature enough to at least try to judge what we do (and that includes speech) and what it leads to.

Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors who must come up with sensational cases to gain reelection. (I infer from your spelling you are not an American). Consider this example of a man prosecuted for writing stories which involved sexual acts with children. While actual child pornography is a horrible thing, the child pornography boogeyman is used to justify the prohibition of anything distateful to the majority.