Slashdot Mirror
Scott Adams Suggests Bill Gates For President
gerrysteele writes to point out a recent post to the Dilbert blog, in which Scott Adams discusses the atheist ascendancy in America and rationalizes the need for an atheist leader. From the article: "Ask a deeply religious Christian if he'd rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don't seem so bad lately. I think that in an election cycle or two you will see an atheist business leader emerge as a legitimate candidate for president. And his name will be Bill Gates."
So, will we see an http://atheistbuntu.com site shortly, where the Ubuntu is actually a Windows variant?
I for one welcome our new borg overlords
help us.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Something tells me that government wouldn't switch over to free software too soon.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I fail to see how this is news. I also fail to see how Scott Adams' opinion on who should be president matters.
Think about it guys. If you vote for Gates, your country will stop working with the rest of us.
And what are the odds that the neighbor atheist is a child molester or else ? If we're talking odds, we'd better consider everything, not just atheist vs Muslim. Prejudice may win, but I'd bet numbers show otherwise. And about "On the scale of prejudice" ... yes, I know prejudice is a very strong force, still, saying that atheists are more likely to be president since you prefer them over Muslims is just so stupid I can't place it on a scale.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
"No running in the hall"
"PUT THAT CHAIR DOWN!"
liqbase
This way, America doesn't have to do any more work. You can just wait for someone else to lead and then copy them and bully them out from their own idea... Hey, wait, you guys do that anyway. What do you need Bill for?
Carlin/Black '08
They'd turn this place around... and smack the shit out of it.
We're a country who has had one Catholic President and one Quaker. Arguably we've had pagans, if you count the deists. But their particular brand of deism was not too far from standard Christianity.
I predict that we'll have a Jewish president before an athiest.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I believe him.
;-)
But as to timing, I think it will happen a short while after Microsoft wins the nationwide bid on supplying software for the next generation election machines...
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
"Your country has performed an illegal operation."
Oh, wait............ it already has. Nevermind.
Terror alert level: blue screen
Means death and/or reboot is imminent.
Monstar L
this country is already in bad enough shape........
Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model? The current administration has blown away all hope of a balanced budget, would it be so bad if the government actually made a profit?
Put aside the perceived greed that drives M$ and you see that Bill Gates is actually quite a philanthropist.Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model? The current administration has blown away all hope of a balanced budget, would it be so bad if the government actually made a profit?
Put aside the perceived greed that drives M$ and you see that Bill Gates is actually quite a philanthropist. I can see some good things coming from his presidency.
On the flip side though, it may spell doom for small businesses trying to find a fair playing field against the giant almost monopolistic corporations out there.
[Mr. Burns:] Excellent. [/Mr. Burns]
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
As if US politics hadn't enough *Gates in history.
But a Iraq SP2 might be useful anyway.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
It could be George W Bush
The question presupposes too many things. Namely that muslims are either praying or plotting terror 24/7 and that no athiest ever plans to hurt anyone else.
Muslims, especially arabs, have become what black people were in the time period between reconstruction and the 1960s. The scapegoat for every one of society's ills and a panic button that people with an agenda know that they can push.
Today we have sneak and peek warrants because idiots are afraid that "Da Moose-lims" are going to blow things up. Do you know how people succeeded in getting cocaine criminalized? By scaring the white masses by crafting the idea of big black bucks who were out of their mind on the drug rampaging and raping white women.
Maybe a muslim president would succeed in severing our ubmilical relationship with Israel.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Thanks God I'm not American!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
It shouldn't matter who the hell is elected president in the US if congress and the courts start fixing the damage that has been done by the current administration to civil liberties and the restoration of the checks and balances that use to exist between the three branches of government.
If things are working properly in the US form of government, the president should not be the main focus of political activity. Whoever is president in the US should act more like a governor of a state where they are mostly focused on keeping order and efficiently executing the operation of the state(or country in this case).
Things have gotten fucked up for the most part of people sitting on their asses over the past decade and not voting and instead sitting around making smart ass comments/suggestions like Mr. Adams is.
we've been assimilated?
The more I think Bill Gate is the ultimate PHB. Yes, he knows some tech, but does he get it? I read his book years back (his first book) and have found nothing insightful.
The Zune and the Xbox and the Microsoft school in Philadelphia lead me to believe that he will throw money at problems and bring minimum vision - I would also cite he derogatory statements about the $100 laptop, but then I don't know how much of that opinion was intertwined with business interests.
In any case, if you have watched South Park lately, with episode of Cartman waiting for a Wii, one of the points it made, with its atheist skeptic future was that atheists/skeptics can be just as intolerant as religious fanatics - these people are just directing their zeal in other beliefs.
I don't know if Gates is religious, but it's my opinion he does have a zealous and rigid belief system shaped around Microsoft/Software_Patents, and other things that I find it incredibly disturbing that he could wield presidential power. I'd almost rather give Bush a 3rd term.
I know that it's intended to be humorous, it's more than a little imbalanced to state 'may or may not be plotting a terror attack' against 'may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network'.
It is also unfair to make the neighbour contrast -- yes, I make an effort to live in an area where people share my values. This includes the ability to drink beer and appreciate the neighbour's wife in a bikini.
At any rate, Bill Gates is not an atheist - he's agnostic. The atheist religion (sic) has a bizarre tendency to justify itself through accusing various prolific hand-picked figures over history of being atheist. Most of these charges are inaccurately levelled by taking a quote out of context to further their own agenda (does this sound familiar...?).
There are extremely bright people with (Beethoven) and without (Mark Twain) convictions.
Personally, Mark Twain gives me laughter and insight, while Beethoven gives me inspiration.
Seriously, it's OK if Bill stands for President. But he needs to be in a position to represent all Americans; and I think that means he would need to sell all his Microsoft stock during the days between 'winning an election' and 'taking power'.
Scott Adams refers to Professor Dawkins' splendid new book. The following comes from the preface:
The status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago. Now, after the Gay Pride movement, it is possible, though still not very easy, for a homosexual to be elected to public office. A Gallup poll taken in 1999 asked Americans whether they would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was a woman (95 per cent would), Roman Catholic (94 per cent would), Jew (92 per cent), black (92 per cent), Mormon (79 per cent), homosexual (79 per cent), or atheist (49 per cent). Clearly we have a long way to go.
Now, admittedly, the date on the study is 1999, and Scott Adams suggests that times have changed because of 9/11; but seriously, do you imagine that an atheist is going to win in Utah any time in the next fifty years? Dare to dream.
Resistance is futile.
It still advocates a religious decision to your voting choices. I know I know, "atheism isn't a religion", but the idea is that someone's religion, or lack thereof would sway your choice, rather than the actual political agenda. Religion is a bad yardstick for a leader, regardless of what it is (or if it is at all). Also, making the assumption that an Atheist is less likely to be bigoted than a non-Atheist is at best quaintly ironic, and at worst purely ignorant.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Amen. Same in New Zealand. Nobody gives a crap about religion in politics.
Most of the time political parties distance themselves from religious groups.
The Prime Minster is agnostic and fundamentalist groups are laughed at.
There is one dickhead who shows up on Friday mornings (sometimes) at a local hospital to protest about abortion.
He gets ignored.
Ferris Bueller for president!
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
My Oval Office
My Little Puppy British Prime Minister
My Electronic Voting Machine - press the button, the screen changes, but nothing else does.
UN.dll has caused a fatal error.
Foreign Country Explorer - where do you want to invade today?
Why would Gates want to give up so much power to become president? Wouldn't that be a step down?
We've already got a government that needs frequent rebooting.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Yeaaah! An american "Berlusconi" to dominate the world!!! (but after...)
Oh, sorry Bill. My mistake. We already hired someone for that postion.
Seriously, he would have to be an idiot. Considering he would have to divest himself of most (if not all) of his shares of Microsoft (which is worth billions), just to take a salary of 200,000 per year would be lunacy. Of course there are other kickbacks, but nothing compared to what he is worth or earns now.
Regards,
MBC1977,
Yes, he knows some tech, but does he get it?
This is the great misunderstanding about Bill Gates. Many people think of him as a brilliant technologist, but he is actually a brilliant businessman with a good understanding of computer technology. Unfortunately I expect he will go into the history books as a brilliant technologist.
that totally soured my stomach first thing Monday morning.
Similis sum folio de quo ludunt venti.
I'm still standing by the campaign for Cthulhu for 2012.
09:F9:11:02 - 9D:74:E3:5B - D8:41:56:C5 - 63:56:88:C0
Anyone interested in the possibilities of a world without faith could so worse than read the book "End of Faith" by Sam Harris. This book puts forward a powerful argument against all religions whilst putting forward insightful ideas for an alternative way to add value to our lives. It also has interesting views on radicalism within religion, primarily that the only true believers of any religion are the fanatics as they take the entire bible/koran/whatever at face value and live it whereas more moderates cherry pick the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't (stoning the neighbour for eating fish on a tuesday, nah, ignore that one. Hate gays? yup, tick) resulting in the vast majority of any given religions followers as basically failing that religons requirements.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I can see this happening.
- Finland added to list of rogue states.
- Bin laden looses first place to Torvalds
- US army invades China in the War Against Piracy.
- European parliament get accidentaly carpet bombed. Suriving senator drops MS fines.
- Microsoft tax becomes official and mandatory for everyone.
- Making MS jokes becomes capital crime. Death sentence reintroduced in all states.
- Gate-ology becomes state religion. Defines witches as people who use different OS.
- enviromentalists complain on enviromental effects of witch burnings.
- Enviromentalists proven to be very flameble.
Lack of competent politicians in the US. Its popular to poke fun at Bush but the only reason he is president is because he is an excellent fundraiser and extremely well connected flesh presser, not because he is actually capable of doing the job. Decision making is for his cabal of neo-con buddies.
Bill Gates on the other hand after his years at MS is used to having his instructions carried out as if they were the word of God, thats just not going to wash with either party in the US, not to mention that publically he comes across with all the personality of a fish. I applaud his charitable efforts but watching his response at a refugee camp in Africa recently was quite interesting. Bill seemed hugely uncomfortable with the fact that what he was seeing reality, that such desperation actually existed. Hes better off running his charity and the US might try developing some competent politicians who understand that politics are global these days and that the reality based community are correct more often than not.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The creation of a United Athiest Alliance, and the immediate execution of all sea otters!
*ducks*
PAT
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
2. I'm a Jew.
3. Being an atheist Jew doesn't make me stupid or immune to reality. I surely do not want to live next door to a Muslim.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
It's no secret that the one demographic you can count on to be child molesters is catholic priests.
Atheists also tend to be exteremely under-represented in prison... bleevers are bigger criminals than us. See these statistics.
Software patents delenda est.
Wouldn't that mean Revolution instead? Or maybe L. L. Bean has a discount on boots?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I find it remarkable how you back up your scathing opinion of Bill Gates with episodes of South Park. "I've read his book, I've found nothing insightful" is weak enough to begin with.
I'd fear for the security and stabilitiy of the country.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
..founded on the belief that no god exist. How do you know there is no god? Just because she hasn't revealed herself to you?
accept no limits but time
There is a god
The colour of god's beard is blue
There are fairy cakes in orbit around jupiter
I can't disprove any of these, but I am quite sure that they are all bullshit
If the governement system he deploys will ba anything close to the operating system he deploys, it will be a free for all for all the vile elements to spy on you. And it will make you used to substandard availability of basic services. And how a major crash every few days? And the famous tax you gotta pay wether you use it or not?
A lot of this si implemented already of course. But I'm sure embrace and extend will work better on the middle east than bomb to shreds and see what happens.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
I suppose some will come to his defense and say that he was just defending or promoting his company, and that's the way business works. Well, I don't buy that. Does a person's integrity have a price? This is also why over time I am becoming more and more cynical and distrustful about almost any information provided by corporations - it is almost always one-side, biased in their favor, with any relevant negative aspects suppressed. This unethical behavior is defended, even encouraged, in the name of capitalism, business promotion, salesmanship, and so on as a good, positive thing.
To be forthcoming, in the past I too have twisted the truth to my employer's customers to please those who signed my paycheck, and I feel terrible about it. But it is unethical and very wrong, and it is wrong for society to encourage it as a positive virture. I have decided that I simply won't do it anymore. Thankfully my life situation permits that the moment. I realize others aren't so fortunate. But that isn't an excuse for Bill Gates.
As much as I'd like to see an atheist (or an agnostic) in the oval office, I'd prefer it wasn't the poster boy for corporatism. Cheney is bad enough where he is.
Anyway, with the rise of the "religious right", this is highly unlikely. Factor in the increasing polarization of politics, 75 or more years of inertia of the current issues, and the fact that politicians foster their own kind, and the chance becomes almost nil.
The only way an atheist could even have a hope of prevailing in a dirty election process is if the candidate was so well known, respected, and liked by the populace that their religious views became a non-issue.
Kind of like Schwarzenegger, but with talent. For anything. Norman Lear suggested Richard Dreyfuss for president while the both of them were on Real Time with Bill Maher the other night. After listening to Dreyfuss' comments throughout the show, he seems a better choice than any of the clowns either party could drudge up.
Dunno, they could build a giant, 50km tall wall all around the US... which in turns would help a lot reducing global warming (in the rest of the world that is). :-)
Wouldn't a 50km tall giant firewall melt the internet tubes? And it would also aggrivate that warming problem, not solve it, but thankfully that is not an issue since global warming is only a theory. On the plus side we could throw all those damn Atheists and Muse-leeems into the fire along with all those pesky books on evolution.
I keep coming back to one thing: Who expects an atheist to have a preternatural knack with networking equipment? How is this type of prejudice classed, nevermind rationalised?
Does Allah (or other deity for that matter) proscribe the infidel 802.11 menace? Is this in The Book of WPA Supplicants? Which chapter -- A, B, G, or N(draft)?
Based on my experience with call-centre 'experts' in the West Midlands area, I'd bet on the Muslim at least having a script handy to get him started.
>Maybe a muslim president would succeed in severing our ubmilical relationship with Israel.
THE JOOOOOOOOOOOS!
Oh, yeah, bashing THEM always works. You fucking moron.
... bill gates no. i'm so sick of head-up-ass right wing religous nuts calling the shots. it's time for the pure hard light of logic to scare away the shadows of ignorance that religion lurks in.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
And its various sects. And so do Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism, anything-you-can-thinkaboutism. Religion is not a means to direct spiritual affairs. It has evolved as a set of guidelines about how to lead your life by reducing disharmony with your environment (to varying degrees, o constant cynic). It has also evolved from mankind's need to understand its environment, when the concept of scientific thought was in its infancy.
So tell us something new. Going by the doctrine of Islam, is Bill Gates qualified to lead a large, powerful nation?
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
The question presupposes too many things. Namely that muslims are either praying or plotting terror 24/7 and that no athiest ever plans to hurt anyone else.
Uh...yeah. That was kind of the point, fella. Atheists have moved down one slot in world of ignorant, bigoted stereotypes. Which is why Adams followed the sentence that you quoted with this one:
"On the scale of prejudice, atheists don't seem so bad lately."
Sarcasm is fun. When you get done feeling indignant, please feel free join in.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
I dunno...Justin Long returning to a (slightly different) ad campaign?
He worships himself. He also owns the patent on the method for creating the universe in seven days.
We don't need an atheist leader...
We need an INTELLIGENT leader.
I propose a community service requirement, simple speech writing, debate, basic geography and IQ tests for potential presidents.
If we have tests for becoming a lawyer or doctor why isn't there a fricking test to become president.
Why do applicants to med school need 100 hours of community service and impeccable marks while Bush don't need shit.
We can't continue having senile or stupid people running America.
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html
== With enough Will Power, one could move mountains. With enough Brains, one would just leave them where they are ==
... said President Gates in a press conference yesterday.
Read radical news here
There's no afterlife or later judgement so they're far more likely to think about the soldiers they're sending off to die.
Anyway if they claimed to be humanist most christians would be completely unaware that it isn't a christian sect.
Deleted
Once people start realising that "religion" means "set of beliefs" you'll see that everyone is an athiest. In 2,000 years wait and see what the "hip-new-generation" will say about our physics, chemistry and biology "beliefs" right now. Assuming that a theory is a belief.
Either that or I'm wrong: we have reached the pinnacle of human achievement and reason. Our science is perfect, because unlike earlier scientists, we have "verifiable proof". [/sarcasm]
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
we need a leader who believes in consequences, however he or she arrives at that.
640 Billion should be enough for anyone
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
That'd be a good first start with the 'surplus' in any given tax year.
This article deserves the tag flamebait. It is CLEARLY intended to start a massive argument; it is the verbatim definition of flamebait.
You are an anti-theist. I am an atheist (i don't believe that a god exists), but i join my friends in church when they invite me. The rites that they perform may be meaningless to us both, but my presence there means something to my friends. It is simply arrogant to hang out in a bar during the wedding.
!Nooooo!
the future is but past forgotten
I don't know what Bill's views are really but let's say he's on the democratic ticket. Wouldn't that be funny if he ended up running against Arnold Schwarzenegger (assuming if the law were to be changed). Now that would be an interesting election.
World's richest man vs. World's strongest man. Begin!
copy billga~1.for presid~1.usa
-- Rastignac was here.
That was one of the arguments for George W. Bush in 2000, that he would run the country like a company. Unfortunately, he was true to his promise: long vacations, a bad mix of micromanaging and hands-off attitude, and a golden parachute prepped for when it all went south.
The USA nowadays is being managed as well as Commodore was in the 1990's.
Wear an Atheist t-shirt.
http://www.atheists-online.com/
The WMD slogan is rather apt.
Deleted
Heh.
I would like to see BillG Embrace and Extend Islam.
Maybe a new Windows XP Infidel Edition??
May metamoderation get you!
We have to prepare for a massive increase in immigration of Linux geeks.
Atheism Today: great magazine. I love their Christmas issue....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
hehe, we have to prepare for a massive increase in immigration of Linux geeks.
... disturbing. Which is what I think the Dark Lord of the Sith might retort.
I'll agree with you readily that the world has many many many hypocrites who claim to be Christians. As a Christian, I believe that God's standard for sexual purity applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
In a letter blistering Christians for their hypocrisy, the apostle Paul wrote
"Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Cor 6:9)
There's a long list of things that are offensive to God. In fact, it covers both heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin, and adds a bunch of other items to the list as well. God's standard for holiness and purity applies to all people and in far deeper ways than most people appreciate.
Also, I want to clear something up here right now!
It's not about "hating gays." I DON'T hate gays. In fact, if the teaching of Christianity is
1) that people who engage in sexual activity with people of the same gender, and
2) as a result are doing something which distances them from God,
Then wouldn't people who "hate" gays want to make them far from God? If so, wouldn't the hateful thing be to let them, or perhaps encourage them to do what makes God mad? Instead, I submit to you that the loving thing is to tell people what God's standard for purity is, and what it takes to have a real, personal relationship with the God who created them - including how to live a life that is free from shame and filled with hope. As a follower of Christ, that is what I want to do.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I could never expect anyone to know how it pains me to say this, but... it would be an improvement.
It occurs to me that an obvious point to make is that as the world's richest man, Bill Gates is an aspirational figure for much of the US culture, especially with Warren Buffet also giving him most of his fortune to distribute. Calling money America's true religion is a cheap shot. Really it is just a common denominator in everyone's life to a greater or lesser extent (assuming you buy food, get sick and need health care on occassion, etc).
Perhaps being utterly successful and embodying the American dream is a suitable substitute for being of the faith.
Maybe that will be incentive enough for those lazy-ass /. editors to change the Bill Gates icon.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Think back to 2004. Suppose we had
John Kerry
George Bush
Ralph Nader
Bill Gates
etc.
=============
The Republicans and Democrats have been pursuing one disastrous policy after another for the past 60 years! Korean war, Viet-Nam war, Iraq warx2 , trillions in debt, GATT, NAFTA, 20M illegal immigrants, loss of personal freedoms, etc. etc.
I refuse to vote for any candidate from either party, and there haven't been more than a handful of competitive alternatives for national office. How could Gates POSSIBLY be any worse than the politicians we have today? I'd vote for Sylvester Stallone before I'd vote Republican or Democrat.
They mentioned he would be a good candidate and whatnot but failed to note whether or not he would ever even run. I'm fairly sure he has no intentions for running for president. He has his charities and his company, and the moment he becomes president...well...those are kind of fucked aren't they? There's no way in hell he'd have time to look over all of that and be president at the same time. I could be wrong...but I don't think he would. :p
Its a fun notion to toy with I suppose, and I guess that deep down he's a nice guy and all, but there are a fair number of reasons that wouldn't happen. Then again, I know nothing of his political ideologies anyhow, so I'm pretty much just talking out my ass. Seriously though, all that aside, I don't think he would ever even run anyway.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Regarding the "My Electronic Voting Machine" - you mean, business as usual, by patenting what's already being done? :)
Sam Harris puts it well in The End of Faith when he points out that the only thing you must be to get elected in the United States is religious. You need no education in political science, economics, resource management, social studies, or any other field that is typically involved in serving as President or most public offices. Instead, you must profess a belief in Christianity. Failing to do this and you stand no chance of becoming elected no matter how well informed or qualified you are otherwise. Now, while a cut-throat business man who heads (or headed) a criminal organization is the last person I would choose for the job, I do agree that it would be nice if we eliminated faith as the basis for electing leaders.
Why bother.
I think that, because of the history of the United States, it has always been necessary to work with people who held other beliefs to actually get anything done in government. The "George-W-Bush-ish" attitude that U.S. Social Security, the U.S. military, IAEA-regulated nuclear power and a Southern Baptist minister praying at political conventions are what every country needs will probably die after the next election; but the younger generations have a high number or religious believers who also express political opinions. Contrary to the (joking) OP's opinion, I think those politically- and religiously-active younger people would rather see a devout Muslim in public office than an atheist, or even than a Sunday-only "Christian" politician.
What does religion have anything to do with setting up a wireless network?!
I am a Christian. I work with a Muslim and a Hindu. Any of the three of us will help you set up your wireless network. None of us are planning on blowing anything up, save maybe lightbulbs in our microwave ovens.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Although Scott Adams may be the best political and business parodist/cartoonist since Dave Barry, he hit upon a serious deficiency in American Politics: Most voters don't know what the job qualifications for President are. The President is supposed to be a leader and executive, guide the country in resolving problems (if possible), but his main job is to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (It's in his oath of office.) This has nothing to do with his religion, gender, party affiliation or appearance, but those are the qualifications upon which the voters seem to select our politicians these days.
A dler/dp/0020641303
Which brings up problem number two: Most Americans don't know the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, and are probably not qualified to vote. The Declaration of Independence defines the principles upon which this country was founded and the Constitution defines the process by which we govern ourselves. It is embarrassing that I meet so many foreigners who know all about the Constitution and the Declaration, but I seldom find an American college student who can even tell me what's in the Bill of Rights.
I hope some of you are feeling guilty... http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html http://www.amazon.com/Hold-These-Truths-Mortimer-
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Sexuality of any kind isn't really related to software (despite what the Ubuntu backgrounds may suggest). Bringing stuff like that into the movement does nothing but politicize something that already was inherently political enough. Like it or not, homosexuality is an issue where as many people will disagree with you as agree with you and you can't prove that your right nomatter what your position is. Stuff like that causes flamewars in useful communication channels just like when Iran or Palestine is mentioned on planet.gnome.org. I don't have a problem with either side as long as they don't use violence but I just wish they would keep their politics somewhere that doesn't affect Ubuntu.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
We could do worse. You know, like we almost always have.
It just hasn't had an openly atheist president yet.
Next Presidential Race: Bill Gates with Steve Ballmer (Republican) Steve Jobs with Steve Wozniak (Democrat) Linus Torvalds with Eric Schmidt (Independent) Who would you vote for?
While what Adams says may be true for who you live with, his assumption doesn't hold when electing a President:
i on/viewItem/itemID/11666 If a presidential candidate belongs to a political party you like and has many views which you like, would you be willing to vote for such a person if the person is...
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseact
An Evangelical - 64%
A Muslim - 63%
An atheist and does not believe in God* - 52%
*(not sure what an atheist who does believe in god would be)
How do I mod the article -1 Troll?
...Welcome our new Microsoft Overlords...
I did a Google search for the material claiming that Gates is an athiest and it mostly came back to the following:
Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.
Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact.
Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you don't know?
Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.
Now, last I heard an athiest was someone who denies the existance of any god while an agnostic questions God's existance. Unless we plan to redefine these words or there is some more significant quote floating around out there, Gates is an agnostic, not an atheist.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
As an european, I am always shocked to discover how religion and politics are entangled in the US.
In Europe, religion is considered as a private domain with little public display.
In certain country (like France), mixing politics and religion is sometimes perceived as offensing!
Moreover, I really don't see the interest God might have in oil reserve or world economy...
Atheism is believing God does not exists.
It is a matter of faith : "I believe God does not exists"
Agnosticism is not knowing if there is a God or not.
To be a non believer is to be an agnosticist not an atheist.
a U.S. President should have. I'd like to change the Constitution to make it just a little harder for so many of the nations dumbest and dimmest from entering office. I'll list them here, for your approval.
Must NOT have entered politics as a profession - try working in an industry that demands results like steel, coal, or cattle.
Must NOT have graduated from an Ivy league school - you are either spoiled, an intellectual effete, or gay.
Must NOT have any recorded drug related offenses - if you're stupid enough to get caught, you're too stupid to be President.
Must have at least one child - no child to have ever been convicted of any criminal activity.
Must have net assets between $2Million and $200Million. Any more and you have obviously commited a crime, any less and you haven't worked hard enough to deserve the job.
Must have been or currently be married for a continuous period of at least 5 years.
Most have demonstrated some form of selflessness, either through charity work, military service, or other.
Let's weed out the dead wood, and hangers on, and elect some dynamic Americans that know right from wrong, and the meaning of hard work and responsibility.
I do not take on any kind of label, not atheist, not agnostic, not any kind of religion. If someone takes on a label and proclaims themselves to be accurately described by it, then they have not really thought about their position very well.
If I was going to elect someone to lead this country in alignment with "separation of church and state" then I would not elect someone based on what their label is, but on how well they can set aside their own biases and look at situations with a fair and wise mind. Separation between church and state is not saying that the people running the government need to be secular or atheist, it says that the people running the government need to take off their religious (or anti-religious) glasses and look at the world through practical/pragmatic eyes. Atheism is still looking at the world through colored glasses.
I'm not sure why people are going on such an anti-Gates rampage, at least in certain respects. People are complaining about him being greedy? He's one of the biggest philanthropists out there! I even saw a comment marked 5 for funny in which a comment was made about burning environmentalists. Microsoft is one of the greenest companies out there, and there was even a /. article a couple days ago showing how Microsoft could potentially be THE greenest company out there.
Don't blind yourself with MS-Hate.
There was a study done earlier this year by the American Sociological Society. They found that Atheists are America's most distrusted minority.
From the article: Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society." Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
So I can't see an Atheist being elected anytime soon. But there is the first Muslim elected to Congress this year. Maybe there is hope.
If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.
..."Microsoft Office" would take on a while new meaning. [ducks]
/me ducks)
(Or for the humor challenged:
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I've been saying for years that Bill Gates could solve his problems by running for office. Not President - VICE President. Why? He doesn't really want to get bogged down in all the politics, so he could just stay at home. When you can put a billion dollars of your own money into a campaign, you can hand-pick your Presidential candidate to act as your puppet. By the way, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution does not impose any term limits on Vice Presidents.
Bill Gates - Vice President for life.
So let me get this straight, it's not okay to say that atheists, as a group, are immoral, but it is okay to say that religious people, as a group, are less intelligent.
Nice double standard you have going there.
As opposed to your script, where you dismiss him (and anyone like him) as the "whiny cult of victimhood"? It's so much easier to ignore what a fellow is saying when he's just some irrational brain-damaged cultist, I'm sure. Then you can claim the moral high ground and automatically win. Hooray for arguments!
In the meantime, while Scott is going on about some sort of point about how he's "been told by more than one Christian ... that atheists do not have the capacity for morality", I'll point out that I've been told by more than one atheist that religion is more or less intrinsically evil (organized religion doubly so) and the cause of most of the problems the world has ever faced, and ought to be banned.
Now, if you are capable of getting off your self-congratulatory high horse, you might see a point which the grandparent poster is trying to make. Slashdot has an anti-religious slant. Anti-Christian articles are posted here so that people like you can go "Ha-ha!" and laugh at people, make fun of them, call them various sorts of names, and otherwise dehumanize them - for being Christian. (Mostly for being Christian, anyway; I've not seen articles mocking, say, Buddhism, for example). Why? I guess because it feels good to insult thine enemy.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I agree. The point of the article is more about gaining some of the acceptance for atheists that other minorities enjoy. References to Bill Gates are more tangential.
I think this links with a study a while back that had atheist as the most distrusted minority in America. I doubt there is an out of closet atheist anywhere in US politics.
I think I have finally getting a handle on the fear/distrust of atheist after watching a few 30 days documentaries (atheist/christians, Pro-choice/pro-life) and the "Root of all evil" documentary with Richard Dawkins, and Jesus Camp. You eventually get the strong sense that it is drummed in from day one that there is nothing worse than being without the word of god. So an atheist is unfathomable.
If you are taught from day one that the only "righteous" people are those that are steeped in the word of god. How do you understand someone that thinks about each issue independently? How can you know what they will think? Of course the old chestnut of atheist not having morality crops up. Having no authoritative source, how could they?
Though it is largely inaccurate,I guess I can understand where it comes from. So maybe Scott is correct and we are at least seeing the baby steps of having a very tiny minority of those in the public eye come out on atheism and one or two TV shows with atheists. We may be in the position of starting some very basic education so religious people can eventually get to have some tiny understanding of atheists.
This deeply religious Christian would not mind living next to a bearded Muslim.
When I saw this topic, the last thing I expected was a pseudo-debate on the validity of religion.
I have a really hard time understanding why atheists care if I choose to believe in something they consider to be a fairy-tale. Or why religious folks get upset that someone chooses not to revere their chosen deity.
There are a lot of ignorant people in this world, both atheist and religious. There are lots of smart people that believe in God, just as there are plenty of smart people that don't.
Similarly, there are plenty of rich folks that are religious, and plenty that are atheist.
My point is that despite the statistics quoted in the religiosity & intelligence article on wikipedia, there are enough problems with most of the surveys (sampling issues, for instance) that that should ALL be taken with a grain of salt. (Another major point that the wikipedia article fails to address is the severity of the debate about intelligence--most people that are informed know that it is a bad idea to simply accept IQ test scores at face value.)
Frankly, as a religious person, I have no objection to an atheist president--provided he keeps his bias against religion out of his politics, and that his atheism is a considered and rational decision. In fact, I feel the same way about religious presidents as well. That said, it doesn't mean that either needs to hide their viewpoints. I would rather a known position than an unknown. Bush's use of his religion is unsurprising, but I would rather he had simply said something like, "Yes, I believe in God, and spend time in personal and public worship. Yes I pray about decisions, and that's what I do".
Now, I don't care about Bill Gates' views about religion. I would, however, strenuously object to him as a presidential candidate. He would be far too pro-business, and pro-monopoly. Frankly, the idea frightens me, since the way that microsoft tries to control actions is very invasive. I don't think he would abandon that philosophy as president.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
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.
www.clarke.ca
He lists his religion as Unitarian.
...for US president is that he is a sawed-off runt of a little pussy, and would be incapable of leading the nation in a time of war or warlike crisis (like right now). The entire US military would have even less respect for him than they do of our current prez.
Why am I having a recurring mental image of The Simpsons episode in which Burns runs for Governor?
Presumably before that it was Citizen Kane. But the implications are just scary.
"To a new a better life"
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
I suggest Scott Adams for president
Jeez, who are all these racist americans? I don't know any of them. I know the French are - but who doesn't? Racist Americans, or republicans as they're sometimes called, should be forced to wear an emblem so we could all identify them and prevent their evil.
...
Or, you could give every scapegoat an emblem, from my fancy list. It's alphabetized, for easy oppression!
Scapegoat A: Atheists
Scapegoat B: Bill Gates (deserves it)
Scapegoat C: Clintons
Scapegoat D: Dah Mooslims
Scapegoat E: Ethnic groups
Scapegoat R: Racist people
I've never read that far into the bible, (Hey god!, couldn't YOU make it less boring?) but I think that apocolypse goes something like this:
"When Bill Gates and Hillary run for president, at the same time, the earth tears open and demons come pouring forth. The demon's votes perpetually tie the elections, making it never end. Thus is hell."
You can try, but Canada sure as hell an't taking the blame on this one.
"Ask a deeply religious Christian if he'd rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house."
As a deeply religious Christan let me explain to all the brilliant enlightened atheists out there just how bigoted this is.
1. The vast majority of Muslims are not plotting a terror attack. There are a lot of good Muslims in the world. They are more the welcome to live next door to me.
2. Not all Muslims have beards or are terrorists.
3. I don't need an Atheist to help me set up my wireless network, or help me set up my Linux server. However they are also welcome to live next door to me. I will even help them set up their wireless network for them.
Well here is proof that a lack of faith will not cure bigotry.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
""As a political candidate, I would advocate some sort of tax rebate to subsidize Internet porn and Kleenex for single men between the ages of 18 and 35. That way all the potential rapists can more easily afford to exhaust themselves at home. I'd have graphs and charts to make my argument that no other policy would be as effective. My slogan would be "Deal with the root cause." I would call it my Yankee Doodle plan."
He should change that to his Yankee Noodle plan.
Pre-Bill Gates: The economy crashes.
President Bill Gates: The economy crashes and gets a Blue Screen of Death
I always believe it works :)
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Bill has presided over a company that is one of the 10 best for gays to work for and who has domestic partner benefits.
If Mr. Gates does get to occupy 1600 Pennesylvania; perhaps gays can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel in the U.s.
Cleara
OK. This is really stupid. Why does slashdot champion a religion as if it's co-equal with open-source, copyright and patent reform, etc. (i.e. issues that we actually care about.) It may come as a shock to some people but bundling religion (atheism) with our slashdot experience, is the same as Microsoft forcing manufacturers to bundle their obscene products with otherwise useful computers. We should all start to submit posts on issues of science and our religions. Only the atheists should get through, because they're more scientific? Nonsense and bloody nonsense. I've seen this before in the ridicule that is heaped on any variation of "God created the world." I don't blame slashdot for that even though it's unfair. You obviously aren't privy to some data that I am. You haven't experienced God. I have. I have to believe in creation. I don't know how he did it but I know he did. So I can understand the evolution equals science thing even though I disagree. But atheism? Let's turn this into a religions blog, shall we? Everybody post their religions and lets have a crusade, holy war, any other negative term you want and trash this once useful and informative blog. On the other hand, let's not and please don't feature atheism as a "nerd" issue. It's just not. Nerds are a religiously plural group, so either treat all religious issues with sensitivity or avoid religion altogether and that includes atheism.
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
I've thought about it, and I doubt we could get him to run.
I think democratically elected office would cramp Bill's style. There isn't much room in the presidency for embrace and extend. So even though his skills in the manipulation of vaporware would be a perfect fit for elected office, I just can't see him being interested.
However I would like to see him get more involved in politics. I think if he started a new software company with the express purpose of embracing and extending Diebold's work, we'd see some interesting times.
>On the scale of prejudice, atheists don't seem so bad lately.
The "religious" people are far worse than "atheists" for the mere fact that the religious people have judged the athiests as being "bad" for rejecting their point of view. At least the athiests are looking at it rationally; why should we worship and hold high this unseen, supposedly pwerful being, who is not there to help you in time of need and seem to have no control or sympathy towards natural dissasters. The religious person's cop out has always been the "higher divine plan" which we mere mortals simply cannot understand, yet they have passed judgment that any one who chalenges thir point of view is bad. Unfortunately, there are too many of these irrational people following an ideology blindly, without using their mind.
From reading most of the comments... was I the only who laughed hard after reading this?
Open Source and Computer-aided Design (http://ossandcad.blogspot.com)
To "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." I'm guessing that you were thinking of #2: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Cf. Matthew 22:36-40)
As for the whole "choice" question, doesn't that presume the existence of free will?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Just as all the people who lived in the USSR and who live in Communist China right now.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Bill Gates an atheist? Hardly. If you believe you're a god how can you be an atheist?
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Just wow.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
to sum-up the obvious replies to this article:
- Micrsoft Sux!
- Bill Gates Sux!
And for good measure:
- America sux!
- America is evil!
- Amerians are stupid!
- Capitalism sux!
- Linux is da bomb!
- George Bush sux!
That was easy...
President of Microsoft?
You don't need religion to be a moral and just person. As a matter of fact, these days it seems as if you need to NOT have religion to be moral and just. Vote Atheist! IMAGINE.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
You know; I'm that guy that Billy G has nightmares about. I have a Mac, iPod and a Playstation. I spent the last few years at work building web applications on Redhat servers, etc.
But I think there might be something to this. Forget for a moment that BG is the founder of MS. Hell, he's barely involved. I don't agree with a lot of the things he's done in the past, and I'm no great windows fan. But neither of these mean that he wouldn't be good as president any more than I'd argue that Warren Buffet shouldn't be president because I prefer Pepsi (which I actually don't).
Bill Gates has shown himself for better or worse to be a remarkably effective leader, and a brilliant financial thinker. He has also demonstrated a lot of good social ideas and compassion.
So you know what, as much as I myself has jeered and chanted "Down with Borg" in the past, I think I'd actually vote for him.
After Commander Cuckoo-Bananas reelection, I expect anyone to be president of USA...
Atheism increases your likelihood of not going to church. I'm sure that if you checked other correlations, you'd find that there are indeed many other traits atheists share.
Personally, I'm in favor of the death penalty for murderers or rapists when there is conclusive DNA evidence pointing at the suspect. I suspect that this kind of wording would even get left-wing people who think, rather than seeing death penalty and saying no right off the bat.
Personally, I'm in favor of taking a bunch of the money we send to the military, and earmarking it for R&D. Think Manhattan Project. Gather the best minds in the world who are willing to work for the US government, give them all the toys they ask for, and see what shows up. I'm betting most of it will find a civilian use anyway.
After this, we take more of the money we send the military, and we send it to the CIA and the NSA. We want to know what's going on everywhere else, so let's find out. That thinktank I mentioned before can figure out some fun toys for them too.
The big problem here deals with privacy and security of the people. So we open source all of the new toys. Anyone in the world gets to know what we're capable of. And that should be enough to end any conflicts with the U.S. You do not try to mug a guy who has a 9mm in his hand. You do not try to fight off a lion with a stick. And you do not strike at a country that is willing and able to surgically strike at the guy giving the orders.
Religion is not something you flaunt in Europe (not counting the south).
I don't know anything about the religious beliefs of any of the politicians in power in my country or any of the other EU countries for that matter, nor do I care.
I don't care about what they believe as long as their beliefs don't influence anything they do in the real world.
Around here people think you are an idiot if you do things because of religion (see the mohammed cartoon story a while back), while in the US it seems as though you need FSM-power to do anything at all.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
The writers at South Park are as good as any political critics out there... better in many ways as they do not declare conclusions so much as point to the evidence and laughingly roast it by making obvious conclusions that the rest of us should already have come to on our own, which is why we all laugh back... we know it's true enough to be really funny.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I wonder how USians feel about agnostics. After all, we don't reject God outright, we merely say that blind faith in him is not justified and that there is no non-faith-based proof of his existence.
However, I think that in the end agnostics probably end up being seen as palette-swapped atheists by most bible (t)humpers.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
"... but he is actually a brilliant businessman with a good understanding of computer technology."
*Chuckle*
Bill Gates is a common theif with a really big marketing team.
Lets hear it for tomorrow's new anthem for Old Glory: The Red, White and Bluescreen of Death
As a fervent anti-sensitivitist, I object, you sensitive clod!
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Ask a deeply religious Christian if he'd rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house.
Now ask him if he'd rather live next to a bearded muslim who may or may not help him set up his wireless, or an atheist conspiracy theorist who might or might not be working on a plan to blow up the entire neighbourhood with his self-made nuclear reactor.
Setting up a wireless and planning a terror strike has very little, if anything, to do with religion. One massively overblown terror group is based on religion. There are a whole lot of other terror groups based on race or political opinion. And last I checked, wireless routers have no prejudice for your belief. A link between religion and technological know-how is a hypothesis at best.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yeah, Well, I think Bill Gates will be the master of the universe.
This is the "post something ludicrous to get people listening" game, isn't it?
God Be Gone
Although Gates is a big supporter of Bush and vice-versa..
Ross Perot, I'd welcome as a president because he was a nationalist, a patriot, and strongly believed that given the opportunty America can compete in the global markets, plus he believed we should not butt our noses in other nations' problems.
Bill Gates is a globalist and is one of many responsible for selling out our manufacturing and R&D bases. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd vote for Osama Bin Laden before I vote for the likes of Bill Gates.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I'm still not sure why I come to this site and read it. I see absolutely nothing to offer here.
Just a bunch of self-righteous arrogance and objective opinionation biased against anything that is not the open source community.
I think the open source community spends more time flaming than being productive.
>there is constitutional protection to practice whatever relgion you choose - but that's as far as it goes.
The very same sentence of the First Amendment prohibits setting up an official government church.
Article VI goes further yet: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Nah, it wont Bill Gates and atheism, it'll be Tom Cruise and scientology.
Toodle Pip
Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality
I've heard that one too. Always really creeped me out.
Why? Because you can infer from that statement that the only reason they are moral is because they believe there is an invisible man watching their every move who will drop them in a boiling lake of sulfur if they misbehave. So the other side of that coin is that they would be completely amoral if The Big Guy wasn't watching them. If religion suddenly went away today, first thing these people would do is go berserk and give in to their every urge - since there would be no reason not to.
Maybe religion isn't such a bad idea after all.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I find your lack of humor disturbing...
There is no such thing as a reporter who is unbiased. But the focus of journalism training is to learn to report news objectively and as free from bias as possible. The best reporters are in fact the ones who are best at hiding their bias--by reporting factual news, not opinion. Note that most "journalists" you've heard of do not fit this bill. The opinion shouters are always way more famous than actual reporters.
Anyone can tell me what they think of something. The hard part is finding out and reporting the facts of what happened in the first place. But consumers of news also have a responsibility, to consume critically. This does not mean assuming that everything I read is as biased as I am. It means using my critical reading and thinking skills to distinguish fact from opinion.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
>the "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and, IIRC, is not in any official government document.
No, that exact character string is not in the Constitution, and it doesn't need to be given the multiple clauses disentangling religion and government.
"Separation of church and state" isn't in the Bible either, but Jesus drew the distinction repeatedly: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" in Matthew 22:21, and "My kingdom is not of this world" is John 18:36.
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
George H. W. Bush, August 27, 1987.
Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality
If you are rational and moral, you don't need the threat of a wrathful god--you only need that if you lack the capacity for morality. So, when Christians are behaving morally, there's a good chance it's not because they believe it but because they are utilitarian. When atheists behave morally, they do it because they consider it the right thing to do.
So, I'm glad that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the other religions keep the latent thieves, murderers, rapists, and frauds that are members of those religions at bay through fear. It makes my life safer and more pleasant, up to the point where those religious nuts go crusading or are trying to impose irrational and unfounded extensions of their religions on others.
If you've been told that by more than one Christian, it must be what all Christians believe.
I'm a Christian and I never told you that and I don't believe that. I do believe you're an "rtard" but that's not related to your morality.
Oh My God! Don't tell me that democratic politicians would be so fool to candidate the richest man of the world,
and people so fool to vote him......
He already could get the complete control over almost all the computers in the world (how? just a malicious
windowsupdate) this would be like "Bill Gates Emperor of the USA"
I'd vote for him over Hillary or McCain, and I think Bill Gates is evil.
What a sad state of affairs. Maybe Obama will run...
Game... blouses.
Niccolo nailed it when he said piety was the most important trait of a leader. People take comfort (rightly or wrongly) believing their leaders answer to SOMEBODY, and as someone who's been in front of a voter or two, it's much too difficult to explain one's ethics without a religious label (aka Christianity).
I predict America will elect a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, AND a Scientologist
(and possibly a Norse mythologist) before an atheist.
This of a case of either the person telling you it, was not understanding what he said, or you don't understand what he said. You have to be carefully, when dealing with theologians their words don't mean what you think they do. According to their definition of morality ( You can't correctly determine what is or is not a sin if you don't believe in sin!) they are correct. There is a large implication to the statement beyond the linguistics, but it doesn t go as far as meaning that you are an inherently evil person or are incapable of kind, or even benevolent acts.
Why would you want a president that is so mired in Big Business. Sure he has enough money that he need to take money from big tobacco/cars/riaa/mpaa/etc but what would this do to open source initiatives and open standards? And what about anti-trust cases? I highly doubt that Bill Gates could act inpartially when it comes to such issues...
No, I am not joking...
Concerning the religion in the US, I hope _you_ are joking.
What is the motto of the US ? In god we trust
Have you heard George W. Bush recently ?
Ask google : US politics religion
You will find 113 000 000 results... Quite a lot for a coutry which "enforces a seperation between Church and State"
And concerning state religion in europe, take a look at the wikipedia, it is very informative : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
and you will see, for example, that France separated state and religion in 1905 (and not 1988)
This way, America doesn't have to do any more work. You can just wait for someone else to lead and then copy them and bully them out from their own idea... Hey, wait, you guys do that anyway. What do you need Bill for?
Bill did what he usually does, and it was all sneaky. He sent a few tools to fish and dine a few influential people and poof, the president was replaced with a M$ shell script.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
He was misquoted. Read what he said precisely. Bill Gates I believe is considered agnostic.
Why would Gates want to give up so much power to become president? Wouldn't that be a step down?
Yes, he replaced the President with a small shell script long ago. It's clunky, garbles the English language, performs illegal operations and often freezes instead of making a decision, but it does just what His Gateness wants.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
In Bill's first act as President, he promises to release US Government 2.0, which is already reported to be about 200 years late. Rumor has it that 3.0 codenamed "Galloway" is also in the works.
;)
Ok, probably one person at best is gonna get that one unless I spill the beans... Galloway is a hornless breed and also hornless dominant, as crossing them with longhorns produces only hornless cattle. Yes, that was far too nerdy of a joke, even for here
Let's pass a Constitutional Amendment that repeals term limits (the 22nd Amendment) as well as removing the "Natural Born Citizen" rule.
Which would let Bill Clinton run against Ahnold. And from basically every opinion poll I've seen since 1998, Bill Clinton would be the President until he dies, or his penis falls off, which I suppose is redundant.
In all seriousness, though, I think both of those things SHOULD be repealed.
The 22nd Amendment was only passed because Democrats and Republicans were pissed off at FDR for running for a fourth term when he knew his health was so poor. Even JFK supported it at the time. Looking back, though, it's a bad idea. While I do like the fact that W can't be elected again, if the rule wasn't in place, he'd never have been elected to begin with.
Besides, we have a word for term limits. It's spelled E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N-S.
And as for the Natural Born Citizen thing, well, that should go too. As long as it's replaced with a "Must be a US Citizen, residing in US territory, for at least 15 years" or something like that. We're a country of immigrants, and a lot of them have a lot to offer. Look at Jennifer Granholm in Michigan, Madeline Albright, and, yes, The Ahnold.
Storm the Gates programming competition
I find your view on politicians who support civilian ownership of firearms a bit odd. You point out how significant the constitutional separation between church and state, where the 1st amendment disallows a federal establishment of religion. It's the very next one which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!
That you have to be a Christian to become president is hogwash, or troll bait. Carter was, but didn't campaign on it, Johnson wasn't, Kennedy never said a thing about it except to say the pope wouldn't be making decisions in the White House. Eisenhower wasn't.
/. terms, to prove it's 100% true.
To be fair, 2 out of 10 presidents over the last 50 years is enough, in
McCain, Hillary and Biden haven't said a thing about their personal religious beliefs. Mitt Romney is a Mormon.
I am an atheist, and am indeed amoral, but I am a utilitarian: I do not steal and murder because doing so makes it harder to live within a societal organism. A mosquito may fly free, but when it bites, it is swatted. When society finds you defective, you are rejected by it (shunned, put in prison, stoned to death, and put on a "watch list" in various different societies). Living with in society can either be easy—a symbiotic relationship, where you and your society benefit each other, and your society leaves you to your business—or difficult—a parasitic relationship, where you take from your society without return, and your society seeks to rid itself of you. We, as humans, are intelligent enough to recognise our positive and negative reinforcements for what they are, and extrapolate them into patterns of useful and non-useful behaviour for the future ("morals" and "ethics"). Anything past that level is just a justification for this action.
Yah, this only works until one of them turns their eye or gun or tank or God's word or faith-based community or government or _fill_in_the_blank_ on you. Then what?
We have LAWS to enforce order, are you proposing a return to the dark-ages? Take away religion and the laws kick in. Plus, laws can be modified in the case of new knowledge. Jeebus is Jeebus is Jeebus, which is why most religious people are also 'conservative'...they dislike change which exposes the flaws in their belief system.
Blar.
I prefer the label: "Scientist", meaning someone who thinks that science is much better logic than superstition.
Friends don't let friends set up wireless networks!
I am a lawyer and this constitutes legal advice and I shall indemnify you against any losses arising from taking it.
Sorry, but that the fact that he was a fast programmer doesn't prove he is brilliant technically. They are different things.
You're paying for the repositories of ignorance whether you believe or not: tax exemptions for religious organizations. The rest of us pick up the slack when a church doesn't pay property tax, or income tax.
Blar.
The Balloters! The Balloters! The Balloters! The Balloters!
If you read his book, you may remember that he ported a BASIC interpreter to the Tandy (Z80 processor) in a weekend. He is a brilliant computer scientist, but an even more driven businessman. That's what I got from the book.
seg fault
Scott Adams'blog post and all the comments here make me think... why doesn't someone start an open-source religion ? Seriously.
:-P
As a buddhist I could fully embrace it, as there would be nothing to embrace
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Hmm...What if the person being voted for was a Black, Gay, Jewish woman who happened to be Mormon by birth, atheist by conviction and Roman Catholic by..er..night? That's all bases covered right there.
Why? Considering some folks at Oral Roberts University (using the term "university" very loosely here) are hiding their involvement with "Christian Ubuntu" (christianubuntu.com) it's quite clearly not flamebait.
BTW, there's been some talk about how a few base packages have different hash sums than what they should have. Don't know if that was done by accident, by design, what was added or what was removed. Also "Christian Ubuntu" has no bug or security flaw tracking service, updates or information.
Flamebait? No.
Atheists do not believe in gods. They can still believe in man. There is no contradiction.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
All linux users are communists and they deserve the electric chair!! ALL BUY WINDOWS!!
ghostbar page.
Yah, this only works until one of them turns their eye or gun or tank or God's word or faith-based community or government or _fill_in_the_blank_ on you. Then what?
We have a large population of irrational, dangerous, and immoral people in the world--that's just reality. Religion and the fear of god keeps them in check at least some of the time. Imagine what these nuts would do if they weren't even constrained by Christianity and the fear of the almighty.
Until we figure out some better way of instilling morality in people who don't have it naturally, religion seems like a reasonable compromise. What we can do right now is to encourage people to move more towards the peaceful, tolerant, and socially responsible variants of Christianity.
This I Believe: There is no God by Penn Jillette
He says it better than I've ever heard it before. And he's right.
That was an awful lot of typing for a circular argument. Abraham did not invent ethics or morality, and believe it or not, before the Jews and Christians existed societies still had concepts of right and wrong. There are, in fact, large land masses right now on this planet where none of the monotheistic religions are widely accepted, yet the people are not amoral.
or you have developed a framework that provides for moral behavior but is essentially amoral, because there is no right and wrong, just a social contract enforced with arms.
And when God threatens you with an eternity of suffering, is he not enforcing his social contract with arms? Are Christians moral because they chose to be, or because they are threatened with infinite torture? Isn't it amoral (by your definition) to choose actions not because you believe them to be truly right, but because you believe them to be favored by an external force, whether it is called society or God?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
> As an Atheist, do you not kill your neighbor and take his stuff because,
> A) fear of retribution by family members and/or the state, or B) it is
> wrong to take things from others.
>
> If your answer is A, then you are in fact an amoral person that requires
> laws to govern behavior. If your answer is B), then you have borrowed a
> state of morality from the Christians that you appear to at least
> disagree with and in all likelihood despise given
Wow... The ignorance is deafening. I suppose you think that a colony of ants, pride of lions, etc. work cooperatively because of Christian norms too? One has to wonder how it is man survived until the birth of Christ and how cultures without Christianity continue to thrive. If morality doesn't exist seperate from God, then God is not moral either, but simply the guy making up the rules.
I would argue that you --the guy who does the right thing only because Jesus will kick your ass in the afterlife if you don't-- are the amoral one, acting in pure self-interest.
However, most of moral dillemas we face day to day has been with us since the dawn of man, before the rise of the current major religions. And by accounts of archaeologist, we had cities before the rise of any of today's religions - so we must have had rules.
Religions codified pre-existing morality (though not always as strict as you make it seem - eye for an eye - contradictions abound enough so that one can go multiple paths without being wrong), just like Christianity adopted Pagan rituals in Europe and gave them a Christian Wrapping (Winter Solstice -> Christmas).
To me, it seems natural that much of what we consider right and wrong arose from being a social species and having to live in groups. When man progress to tribes->villages->cities, the call of the wild (doing whatever one pleases) became less and less acceptable to the group dynamic.
So just because one is a pure atheist, does not preclude them from believing in inherent right or wrong - as in our view morality was built from the bottom-up (how we evolved and function in a society), not a top-down way (God declaring a set of rules).
Indeed, I heard one pastor say that almost all the rules of the bible, even the ten commandments, could be summed up and extracted from "Love thy neighbor as you do yourself." That sounds to me like an awful lot to me like what any group/social species has to practice on some level to remain a cohesive unit.
As an Atheist, do you not kill your neighbor and take his stuff because, A) fear of retribution by family members and/or the state, or B) it is wrong to take things from others.
If your answer is A, then you are in fact an amoral person that requires laws to govern behavior. If your answer is B), then you have borrowed a state of morality from the Christians that you appear to at least disagree with and in all likelihood despise given the tone of your most. Look to the animal kingdom, they will kill others and take their territory, mates, etc. There is no inherent morality in nature. If you are an atheist and a moral person, ask yourself why you are moral, and find a justification for that code of morality that doesn't depend on religious notions like faith, and you'll be disturbed by what you find. You will find that either you have borrowed a code of ethics from the followers of Abraham that is inherently divine, or you have developed a framework that provides for moral behavior but is essentially amoral, because there is no right and wrong, just a social contract enforced with arms.
I'm an atheist and a moral person, and when I ask myself why I'm moral (absent a faith-based origin), I'm not at all disturbed by what I find. The moral system I was raised on simply makes sense, and does indeed look like the last 6 Judeo-Christian Commandments. It doesn't need faith to back it up; it's got logic. Hell, the golden rule is practically the guiding algorithm behind civilized society. Were my parents, or their parents who taught them, simply borrowing a system of morality from Judeo-Christianism? I don't know. If so, that's fine. But I think the fundamental Western moral systems we live by function just fine when divorced from spiritual faith.
In essence, I would argue that the morals came first, and were then adopted by religion. Do you really think there was no version of the golden rule before Jesus? Do you really think the core set of the 10 Commandments never occurred to anyone before they were handed down? I simply don't think any religion can lay claim to our common moral system. The Code of Hammurabi, a legal system written in 1780 BC, has an awful lot in common with the 10 Commandments.
Now, I'm not a militant atheist. Part of the moral system I was raised on demands tolerance of others as long as they don't violate other elements of that system. (That, after all, is me treating others as I'd want to be treated.) However, I find myself aggravated by the (not uncommon) suggestion by those of faith that morality can not exist without faith. Bad people do bad things all the time. Many of those are people of faith. I don't need to remind you that more than a few wars have been waged in the name of religion.
However, I'm not going to go saying that those wars are a result of religion. Religion may have been the rationale, but they're a result of selfish, tribal human nature. And that's the same nature that our common moral system attempts to overcome.
I have read article theorizing that Bill is so anti-social he is borderline Autistic. That really wouldn't make him a very effective president.
A condition that's easily excused in the tech community obviously.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Gates certainly has the money to be a president...
Does anyone else recall that Gates has been knighted by the British Empire and should ineligible for U.S. public office because of it?
Morality can be rationally defined; it is not arbitrary. Religious "morality" is by definition irrational; it is based upon falacies such as argument from authority or argumentum ad baculum. If you're being "good" because "the Bible told my so" or "the preacher told me so", that's not morality, that's forsaking moral responsibility for someone else's word. If you're being "good" because you're being threatened to behave that way, that's not morality, it's cowardice. If you're being "good" because "God told me so", that's not morality, that's insanity.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Seriously, atheists are the most distrusted minority in the USA. Some decades after our first black, lesbian, muslim president we might see an atheist president, but I seriously doubt it.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686
More likely there won't be an atheist president. We don't even have an atheist member of congress.
BTW I saw an interview with Gates, he is clearly an atheist, who was resorting to a political song and dance to avoid the A-word, much like almost any US figure in the public eye who might be an atheist. Who has the stones to be outed as an atheist? clearly not Bill G.
The purpose of future wars would be to force our conquered subjects to install Windows, instead of plundering their country of oil.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
And what if the Microsoft Tax replaces Income Tax? Using figures Close Enough For Slashdot Work (ie. pulled out of my ass)...
;)
Income tax is about 15% of poor to middleclass income, and about 28% of upper class income.
The Microsoft tax now comprises about 1/2 the cost of a po'folks PC, but only about 1/10 of the cost of a high-end PC.
Looks to me like Bill would tax the poor and subsidise the rich.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Why should ANYTHING be kept away from software? Software effects and supports EVERYTHING.
There's no reason to put up an artificial firewall between software and anything else, including sexuality, politics or religion. The only reason I can possibly think of that you have such a problem with mixing software and sexuality, is that you have some kind of problem with your sexuality that you're fighting to keep in the closet. So stop trying to get other people to fight your battles. It's something you've got to deal with by yourself, Reverend Haggard.
Methinks the Reverend Donscarletti doth protest too much.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
As a moral atheist i have to say that i agree with your sentiment that my morality is based upon that of Christianity and Judaism. However I don't see where your problem is with that. I don't need to take your "it's a code of ethics that is inherently divine" to heart. Just because you believe that these ethics which make sense are divine does not mean that I need to.
Take a look at the ten commandments for instance. If you remove the religious ones, idolatry and name in vein etc. the rest of them make sense in order to live in polite society.
I don't need divinity to make me behave in a way that makes society run better, common sense does that for me.
Most people want to live as pleasantly as possible. It is pleasant to be part of a civilized society, unpleasant to live in chaos. Behaving in a civilized manner contributes to civilization and helps a person gain its benefits; acting to promote chaos makes your surroundings and your life in particular worse. This means that moral behavior is rational behavior.
By acting very well one gains the virtue and reward called "pride". It is a particular black mark against Christianity that pride is considered a sin.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Wired recently wrote a story related to this and I posted my reaction (as to why I believe the entire world cannot become atheist at this point in human history). The Wired article can be found here. Also, if anybody is interested, I have an semi-atheist stage play online (currently under copyright, although I may put it under Creative Commons later) here. And my reaction is reposted here (originally posted on MikeOren.com):
The other day, I read an interesting piece in Wired about New Atheism. Like many scientifically minded individuals, I realize how various religious beliefs can get in the way of scientific study, objectivity, and in general hold back the advance of civilization. I have also had my periods of doubt as to whether or not there is a God (after all, there is no way of proving that God exists, and by scientific reasoning you normally don't trust something exists simply because you can't disprove it--the fact that it can't be disproven simply means that there is a possibility). Still, I have not fallen in with atheism in general and still hold my belief in God and that Jesus is the savior. This article about the New Atheists though claims that such a belief is detrimental and even seems to be inclined to declare that the very notion of belief in God(s) is a great evil. It declares that we must throw away our beliefs in anything that is rooted in superstition and ancient beliefs in favor of reason. The logic behind this argument is, of course, very reasonable. Important points that are brought up are things like the Pope speaking for millions/billions of Catholics and that having weight, even though millions/billions of Catholics don't necessarily agree with the statement--so he is being given more influence/power by those on the outskirts who aren't fundamentalist Catholics. The negative effects of this are, of course, dire. Especially in the spread of AIDS/HIV throughout Africa because the Pope says that using contraception is a sin (something millions of Catholics don't agree with), but the majority of the Catholic population of Africa (and most of Africa is Catholic) take that as the word of God and refrain from the use of condoms--leading to the spread of AIDS.
Then of course we have the United States, where fundamentalist Christians have continually tried to put an end to stem cell research, which is incidentally making our nation fall behind in medical and biological science research. It should be noted that proposals to only use stem cells from fertility clinics (that are just going to be destroyed any way) have also been rejected (although the last attempt to pass it was vetoed by President Bush, since enough Congressional members had a change in thought from the original passage of the stem cell research laws). Furthermore, homosexual individuals have had their rights taken away from them due to religious beliefs. While I do not agree with that lifestyle, I do think that every person should have the right to live their life the way they choose to do so and as such I feel our nation has broken from our charter of separating church and State (although if you look at the history of the United States, we have always been a Christian nation and have always failed miserably at separating church and state--but that doesn't mean it's right to do that). Then, of course, you have the Muslims in the middle east who die in a holy war for the promised after life with virgins and all of that. Religion is clearly a problem for the advance of society. A problem for peace.
BUT religion IS necessary. The New Atheists, the majority of which are in the top 5% of the population (whether that be by social, economic, or education status--or a little bit from all three) seem to forget some basic tenants of humanity, as often happens when you're at the top and loo
Read my blog posts on usability.
Come on, people... -1 Flamebait? If you disagree with him (which I do), don't mod him down; post a well-argued reply (which I did). Modding down reasonable posts that you simply disagree with is intellectually lazy.
Fixed with the last of my mod points. I don't agree with what he has to say (in fact, I'd say that some of it is verging on the absurd, but that has already been covered by others) but I'm all for him saying it. Modding down real conversation-starters is never cool.
-Darlantan
Science damn it, why him?
I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
I'd like someone to show me exactly where this "separation clause" is in the Constitution, because I guarantee you won't find it. I can however give a thorough explanation on where this "separation clause" idea came from if anyone is interested...
I'm not certain atheist would be an accurate term for either nation (I would suspect that the leaders think/thought that they are/were gods), but the lack of an afterlife prevented neither nation from killing large numbers of its own people.
There are lots of ways to regard your people as not human or at least not to merit treatment as such. Religions give access to some but not all of the options for doing so.
I'm a human being. Like everybody else, I was not born religous. Some people are immersed in religion from the day they are born, but nobody is intrinsically religous: it's always just an option.
I am not an athiest. I'm a person. People who elect to pray to deities can call themselves "religous" if they feel like it, but that's their problem, not mine.
People who choose to be religous may revel in a label, but stop labelling non-religous people. We haven't chosen to be non-religous, any more than we've chosen not to be cannibals or house painters.
If religous people choose to be religous and believe in idols, well fine, whatever floats their boat. But they shouldn't be labelling others who haven't made bizarre philosophical and lifestyle choices.
You've made a good argument. Where I (as an agnostic) disagree, however, is in the idea that morality must have a supernatural basis.
If there is nothing beyond the natural world, the essential purpose of an organism is to propagate its genes. On an individual basis, then, a simplistic conclusion would be that each us will take an interest only in ourselves, so as to ensure our own genes survive. Where this breaks down is in its assumptions that (a) the only objective is to pass on 100% of our genes, and (b) that immoral behaviour necessarily increases the likelihood of passing on our genes.
The first assumption fails to consider that, even if we as individuals die, there are many others (from close family members at one extreme, all the way to every human being at the other) who share much of our genes. It is therefore in our interests to ensure that others, especially those most genetically similar to us, will be able to pass on their genes, in case something prevents us doing the same.
As to the second point, it can be argued that moral behaviour will make it easier for everyone to pass on their genes, hence it is rational to support those who are moral and punish those who are not. This will increase the likelihood that we'll be able to pass on our genes, that our family members will, that others in our society will, etc. Moreover, a moral society is more likely to be united in the face of external threats, and thus to survive them.
I don't think it's a clear-cut issue, but at the end of the day, I think it can be argued that morality is beneficial from an evolutionary point of view (eg for the reasons above amongst others), and thus for many of us is a natural part of our being. As such, if we behave immorally (in the sense of harming others, not in the sense of violating some arbitrary rules), conscience will kick in, and we'll find it difficult or impossible to live with ourselves. Behaving morally is thus as essential a part of our being as eating or breathing -- not necessarily rational, but nevertheless part of what we are.
Needless to say, there are individuals whose genetic makeup means they do not feel remorse for immoral behaviour, which leads them to become psychopaths. They are dangerous to society, and should either be imprisoned or executed. I favour the former myself, as you never know what someone may eventually contribute to society, and medical technology is continually improving.
will bow down to Satan when he comes to this evil generation in his supernatural power pretending that he is Jesus.
/. are all greased for this. Why? Because Satan has most of you brainwashed into thinking that being a Christian is not cool.
t nG=Google+Search&as_epq=three+world+ages&as_oq=&as _eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&a s_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_right s=&safe=images/
It WILL HAPPEN in this generation. All of those that do not have their names written in the Book of Life will worship Satan thinking that he is Jesus. Why? Because they loved not the Truth.
Those that think Christians are wimps are going to be in for a real shock. Too late.
God is real. Jesus is real. Satan is real. You are real - at least for the time being.
Those Christians that rely on a false rapture doctrine to save them will be the first ones to worship Satan. Satan does his best work in churches. He wants you to worship him instead of God. Most people on
Being with God is a lot cooler than being with Satan. Pull your heads out of the sand before it's too late. That new motherboard/game console/router/compiler/or whatever else you put before your maker in importance is just window dressing for this current age of testing. We are now in the second age. Will you be in the third?
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&b
Scott Adams unwittingly works for Satan. Do you?
Actually, the basis of our morality comes from how apes acts as social beings. So the fear of chaos is just uneducated. Start being an arse, and you will very quickly find yourself w/o any friends or allies. It doens't take god, it just takes a society of apes to enforce this.
Don't take my word for it ? Then try:
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
by Frans B. M. de Waal
The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne
A geek, a nerd, and a programmer walk into a bar
when the entire roof collapses on all 3 of them.
As the dust begans to clear they begin to see what
looks like a Scottish golfer holding a nine-iron.
The Geek stands up and says, "I think we're dead."
The nerd exclaims, "Oh my God, that's Bill Gates!"
The programmer mutters, "We've ended up in Hell."
Mr. Gates just chuckles and explains to the boys
that he retired from Microsoft and bought Heaven.
I call it, "Bill Gates meets the Pearly Gates."
The dorks snort approvingly at the King of Dorks.
"You see" he continues, "I heard it is harder for
a rich man to get into Heaven than a camel to get
through the eye of needle, so I bought the place."
Gates lines up a 90 foot chip, takes aim, and it
goes right into the cup. "And if you want to join
me here in Heaven you each must correctly answer
one technical question. But they will be easy.
The geek gets asked "What is under assembly code?"
and he quickly replies, "Machine Language"
The nerd is then asked "What's under Windows 95?"
to which he quickly sneers "DOS 6.0"
The programmer then hears, "What is under my kilt?"
and he blurts out "Oh, I get the hard one"
And Bill Gates says, "Welcome everyone, to Heaven!"
So my gas will be $9.99 a gallon if I buy a minimum of 10 gallons?
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
You can take this with grains of salt, but...
Religion exists for one of two reasons. One, supernatural forces/powers exist and have power in the world. If this is true, then getting rid of religion (at least the correct one) would be ignoring something that is real. Usually the truth comes out eventually, and usually in the manner that is worst for those trying to hide it - so while trying to stop religion would mitigate current suffering it might lead to greater suffering in the future. Two, religion doesn't have any independent reality but exists because of needs within people. The question would then be finding something that would fulfill those needs as well without the consequent violence and ignorance, soemthing we have not really done. People have found nonreligious reasons to kill one another as well as religious (heck, most of the religious reasons for killing one another are pretenses for nonreligious reasons - the religious reasons help to recruit people to their side, which is bad, but the lack of thought is probably the root cause). In recent times, when humanity actually has gained the ability to delete itself as a species, nationalism rather than religion has led the way to destruction.
I don't believe that getting rid of religious belief would prevent humanity from hurting itself - it is our nature, not what we believe in, that leads us to continue hurting ourselves.
by Daniel Dennett. Really reading all three books is a good idea. The reason I like Dennett's book above Harris or Dawkins is he lays out a plausible theory for how religion came to be and why it is still around. He does a very good job framing religion in a modern context where the other two books seem a bit dismissive about it.
Certainly there were worse choices that lost. A few even won.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Why not just pull out the wheat-rules and discard the chaff? The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. The Bible says to kill those who would attempt to convert you. I disagree with both these assertations, which is part of why I reject Christianity. I agree with you that most religions are simply old old old social rules codified. I just feel that one can extract the good ideas and leave the bad ones. There is too much bad baggage mixed in with the religions.
Blar.
Unfortunately this seems very well thought out. I'd add that he doesn't have to be pious, just appear to be so.
I'll have to take a good look at The Prince I guess...
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Damned by ignorance. That's the atheist's lot. The faithful redefine both atheism and morality to suit their purposes and argue from that.
"Morality requires that there be things that are inherently good and things that are inherently bad. True atheism rejects these concepts, as they deny that there is a higher power than the natural state of the world."
No, and No.
Let's look to Wikipedia for a more reasonable definition of morality:
"Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong."
Nothing about inherent good and evil there. Atheists have values which are no less valid just because we didn't get those values from the authorized representative of God (even indirectly.) You complain that atheists don't explain their beliefs to you. It's no wonder, but I will try. Since atheists aren't a homogenous group, I can only explain my own beliefs, but I'm a pretty standard-issue humanist in these. Allow me to proceed from first principles.
My values originate in my experiences. My experiences include empathy, pleasure (inherently good) and pain (inherently bad.) Empathy allows me to realize that those around me have similar experiences of the world. My experience demonstrates that suffering pain may produce benefit in the future, and that pursuit of pleasure may produce pain, so in addition to considering the effect of my behavior upon those for whom I feel empathy, I need to consider the future effects of my immedeate behavior. You can pretty much derive all my morality from this. Golden rule, altruism, truthfulness, honor, etcetera.
Was my morality influenced by religion? Sure, and I can see Orion in the stars, but my ideas about those stars are more than the product of ancient religion. If our values often overlap, it only flatters those religious laws that actually are good ideas. Still, we don't correspond exactly. I'll never be OK with slavery or killing infidels, unlike most of the Gods in the world.
It's always odd when someone argues morality with me, claiming that it's impossible to be moral unless you accept your morality as received wisdom without question. To me, there is a moral imperative to take responsibility for your own behavior and beliefs. To call something bad, one should then be able to say why it is so, or else you're just calling names.
This is all stuff you would have gotten in an entry-level philosophy class, but you haven't bothered, since your absolute beliefs protect you from thought. Still, perhaps someone reading this will be inspired to take a philosophy class. I don't mean to change anyone's beliefs, but perhaps you might not treat us atheists so badly out of sheer ignorance.
Read some philosophy. Look into the difference between external and internal motivation.
Unfortunately, these are exactly the reasons people are prejudiced against atheists. Those absolute rules make religious people paint atheists as nihilists or worse. This is why I rarely argue religion. When the folks come to the door in their Sunday best, I wish them good weather and thank them for their kindness. Arguing will do neither of us any good. That's my morality. Treat people well, even if they are different from me.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
He's arguing that the morality we atheists enjoy and subscribe to was invented by monotheism and monotheism alone. That's not reasonable; that's flamebait. I'm pretty damn sure monotheism didn't invent morality. I'm pretty damn sure that some of the most moral people who've ever lived were deists or Hindus or Buddhists. I'm pretty damn sure that they have some pretty strict moral codes over in the Far East, and last time I checked they were polytheistic. Hell, last time I checked many far eastern countries like Japan and China are mostly atheistic, yet their crime rates are much lower than the USA or the UK. The USA in particular is pretty much the most religious first world western nation in the world, and yet our crime rate is the highest--we currently have the highest percentage of our population imprisoned out of any nation that's ever existed in the past 100 years (with the exception of those arrested after the Rwanda genocide), including Soviet Russia. I'm sorry, but saying that modern morality is solely a Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation shows an extreme arrogance and ignorance that belies the pseudo-intellectual tone he uses. There is also this straw man:
True atheism rejects these concepts, as they deny that there is a higher power than the natural state of the world.
Atheism is a rejection of such power taking an objective form. Atheism does not preclude the possibility of morality and "higher purpose" built by the hearts and minds of men. If animals can be born from organic goo and men be born of animals, why can't men give birth to ideals greater than humanity? Indeed, I would argue that they already have in the form of religion--atheism merely argues that we should recognize these things as our creations, not the other way around. That our moral beliefs can change doesn't make them wishy-washy and useless; on the contrary, morality that is mutable allows us to focus on the morals that really matter while letting go of the stupid ideas. So you see, that's why most of us atheists agree that murder is wrong, yet we think that the whole OMFG, LIKE, LOBSTERS DONT HAVE SCALES AND WE THINK LOBSTERS ARE FISH AND THAT INVISIBLE DUDE YHWH SAID WE SHOULDNT EAT FISH THAT DONT HAVE SCALES EVEN IF THEYRE THOROUGHLY COOKED!!!11 thing is asinine.
IIf you were to start out saying, "African-Americans all like...", or "Oh, you know those Jews, always...", what would you be? That's right, a bigot. Writing, "Christians are stupid, immoral, hypocritical..." That's right, you are a bigot. Saying that "some Christians" believe something is closer to the truth, but then it becomes a propaganda use of language, in the same manner that Faux News reporters hide their bias behind claims of, "Some people say that liberals...(eat babies, love abortion, love taxes...). Be honest, if you hate people of faith, just come out and say you are a bigot. Or you can repeat the same boring claims that the entire world's evil is caused by religious people, that there would be no war without religious people, and other non-scientific claims. Read a little history and then talk about those atheists that brought the world's greatest and most systematic death machines to our history. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler (please, leave his alleged occult beliefs to Hellboy and Raiders of the Lost Ark). Use the scientific method, don't look at what they said that they believed, rather, observe what they did. Or keep being a bigot. You can keep pointing out all those stupid believers, and then cozy up to your cognitive dissonance when you think about those moron slashdotter heroes like Isaac Newton or Tolkien. Or that moron Stephen Colbert. Or the moral cowards that were involved in the American Civil Right movement (Medgar Evers, Fannie Lou Hamer, MLK, Malcolm X). For a group that says they worship at the throne of rationality, the rest of us will be observing your behavior.
You may all go to Hell and I will go to Texas - Davy Crockett
Funniest thing I've read in days! Wish I'd saved a mod. point for this.
A true politician knows that taking a position on anything is political suicide.
That's why it should be an agnostic, not an atheist.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
As an Atheist, do you not kill your neighbor and take his stuff because, A) fear of retribution by family members and/or the state, or B) it is wrong to take things from others.
As a Christian, do you not kill your neighbor and take his stuff because, A) fear of retribution by God and/or punishment in the afterlife, or B) it is wrong to take things from others.
It is the same thing...
Albeit, religion sometimes lets you kill your neighbors for the sake of your God without fear of retribution. You know... Crusaders, abortion doctor bombers, Kamikaze Pilots, Palestinian suicide bombers... The list goes on and on.
In the end killing is killing whether for duty, for profit, for god, or for fun.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Robson,
Thank you for a well argued response. Please note, I don't think that Atheists are immoral people, and the militant Christians that argue that are at a minimum rude, and more likely violating the divine rules that they have taken upon themselves to follow (Noachide Covenant doesn't require them to be nice to others, be respectful, or follow the "golden rule" of the great Hillel that Christianity took upon themselves). As a religious Jew I don't believe that Christians have to uphold the rules of their gospels, but if they take vows upon themselves to do so, they should make the effort, even if they aren't binding the way a Jewish vow is binding upon a Jew.
As a educated, moral, atheistic person, you might actually enjoy picking up a good translation of the Torah or Tanakh. The Stone Edition Chumash is very popular among modern Orthodox Jews because it has an excellent translation and the commentary and notes really gives some great insights. Without adopting a believe in the divine nature of it, you might learn a lot of the building blocks of Western civilization, as pre-Romanization, the early Church were followers of the same branch of Judaism that modern Rabbinic Judaism follows (although they don't follow the Jewish Oral law codified in the Talmud, the underlying assumptions of the Christian off-shoot was similar). Similarly, I love reading about Christian theology and mysticism, because I think it helps me understand history, without believing in their messiah or dgospels.
For example, you point out that 6 of the 10 commandments are good ideas and should be followed by everyone. You might be shocked to learn that Hashem, G-d of the Israelites agrees, and they are documented in the first book in the Covenant of Noach. Hashem's covenant with Noach is considered binding upon the Gentile descendants of Noah (under Jewish law of course), while the expanded Torah obligations are only binding upon Jews.
I would agree with you that religious wars are tribal in nature. In fact, I think part of where Christianity's militant tendencies comes from taking laws governing the 12 tribes of Israel and adopting them for the non-Israelite world. In addition, Judaism had approximately 1500 years between the receiving of Torah and the writing down of the Oral Law for our sages to explain and adopt the implementation of these rules, and Christianity left without much of the Oral Law and struggled to figure out how to apply very strict laws to others. On the other hand, Christianity takes a huge hit for religious wars launched by Christian Europe which I believe is unfair. Before Christianization, Europe was dominated by the Romans with their pagan faith. Pre-Christianity, the Romans engaged in perpetual warfare, raping and pillaging to spend the wealth on the excesses of their elites that engaged in relentless sodomy with young boys and gluttony. Post-Christianity, Europeans certainly engaged in warfare, but nothing on the scope of what they did under Roman religion. Whatever theological differences I have with Christianity, I can appreciate that it was a calming influence on Europeans, and they became FAR LESS barbaric than their Roman ancestors, which is a good thing.
European tribes fight wars... lots of them... they are currently on hiatus and trying to coerce with trade instead of arms, but they are still a militant people. I don't believe that Christianity made Europeans more warlike.
OTOH, Islam had a militarizing affect on the Arabian people that took its message. Without even looking at modern times, look at how Islam was adopted by the Arab people, a bunch of Nomadic Arabian tribes and spread to massive regions militarily. Before Islam, the Arab people were tribal nomads. After adopting Islam, they created a massive Caliphate that rivaled the Romans for militaristic activity. Look at this
Da Vinci
Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Pascal
Newton
Leeuwenhoek
Herschel
Morse
Faraday
Babbage
Joule
Lord Kelvin
Maxwell
Napier
Euler
Riemann
Mendel
Pasteur
Washington Carver
Orville & Wilbur Wright
von Braun
Donald Knuth
All of the above devoutly believed (believes, in the case of Knuth, who is still alive) in God and the Bible!
Dig a little in history if you don't know their contributions and/or their beliefs.
First hit on Google for scientists Christian, which is very different than the reverse...
http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
Incredibly, in a poll over on ZDNet, 70% of those who responded (currently around 750 individuals) would vote for BillG! I thought that ZDNet was pretty anti Gates - hidden admiration perhaps?
If a Bill becomes president anytime soon, it'll definitely be Clinton... not Gates.
If so, then yes, unpatriotic non-citizens who should have been hung.
I'm not American, so I have no idea what party affiliation those guys may have had. But then I doubt whether most Americans would know either.
You need money and political connections to become president more than anything. Fame doesn't hurt, either (e.g. think of Arnold). To be electable, you also need to avoid pissing off too many people (*everyone* will piss off some people no matter what they believe, religious or otherwise).
Atheists, by and large (especially those like Dawkins, who go out of their way to be dickheads--see that Southpark episode on him if you want to know what I mean) manage to piss off a lot of people. Thus, those atheist politicians that don't want to offend anyone simply lie about their "religion" to blend in.
It's not difficult to understand, really.
> [+] flamebait, billgates, no, dilbert, itsatrap (tagging beta)
Hehehe
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
When I was deployed to the desert, I had a Bible-thumper there tell me that I couldn't be a moral person if I (a pagan) didn't have a holy book to base my morality on. I replied to him that "If you require a book to tell you right from wrong, and can't figure that out for yourself, you have more moral problems then a book with solve."
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
"...then a book *will solve."
I'm at work and in a hurry, my bad. Should have preview'd.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
Seems rather applicable.
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
www.subgenius.com If you're an 'abnormal', 'mutie' or just sick of all the pinkboys and mediocretins running the show here on the Planet of the Clocks, you'd better send your $30 if'n you know what's good for you? It's gonna be hilarious when all the Christians get vaporized from orbit by the X-ists for believing they were going to be 'first to post' in heaven... hahahahahahahaha
If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
Don't forget self-defense. Sometimes it is necessary to kill someone who desperately wants to kill you, if only to protect yourself. We call this justifiable homocide.
Why run for president when you can buy congress for a whole lot less.
Support SETI@home
This is the same pathetic argument that's been used to discriminate against Universalists since the 1700s. Nowadays it's used on Unitarian Universalists as well (Unitarians and Universalists having merged in the 1960s).
Oddly enough, it's the "god fearing" religions that have a 2000 year history of paedophilia, sadism, and abuse of religious authority.
First off, Microsoft doesn't try anything until someopne else has a 'proof of concept' developed first. Iraq would never have been invaded until, well, maybe the French had proven it could have been successfully done. Great way to keep a president from charging off with half baked ideas.
Also, we have too many lawyers and people with MBA's in the gov't. Let's send in a person without a degree. Bush is our first MBA president and boy does it show.
Hats off to Adams for 'ou-of-the-box' thinking.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
You are an ignorant bigot with a juvenile vocabulary and the philosophical sophistication of cabbage. Your sophomoric rambling is not even worthy of being read in its entirety. We'll just kill it with a simple counterexample. Altruism (what you call "morality") can be found not only in people of polytheistic and animistic religions, but also in people with no religion. It can even be found in non-human animals, which OBVIOUSLY are not religions.
Your easily disproven supposition that monotheism implies altruism demonstrates how little knowledge you have of the universe you inhabit.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Unfortunately I expect he will go into the history books as a brilliant technologist.
He will go into the history books as a great philanthropist; in a hundred years he'll occupy the same cultural niche as Rockefeller does today. His early business career is likely to be a mere footnote.
(The parallels are actually quite notable -- Rockefeller was attacked for his questionable business practices, convicted of being a monopolist, and then spend the last 40 years of his life in charitable works.)
- "I'll probably get modded down for this."
Technically, they're right. Dictionary.com defines morality as "conformity to the rules of right conduct" For the atheist, the concepts of "right" and "wrong" can't exist as they are defined circularly. Thus, morality can only exist when compared against an assumed "truth" as provided by God/Allah/Budda/Vishnu/the great spaghetti monster. So atheists might not be "moral" but the ones I know are sure more ethical than many of the religious types I know.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Silly site and its broken hostname redirection. The correct address is http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/152215 78.htm.
Why bother.
I think there needs to be a line between real aethists that really think there is no higher being, that there can be no higher being, and that life is essentially meaningless and the rest of us that think that popular religion is insane, emotional, unrealistic, and stupid. I don't consider myself an aethist although most religious people would. I don't believe in any specific god or doctrine but I do believe that a god is likely and is probably the end result of evolution. In my mind, the evolution of god is a meaning of life, if not the meaning of life, and the beauty of a Universe that runs by such wonderful precise and complex mechanism (science and math) is amazing. I'm not a true aethist because science and math is my religion.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
And, please, please, please, make him the Republican candidate.
Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists!
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
As a educated, moral, atheistic person, you might actually enjoy picking up a good translation of the Torah or Tanakh.
...despite the fact that Jewish writings are the most militant of the major faiths.
I think I'll do that.
Wow, I had no idea. That's interesting given the absence of offensive wars launched by the Jewish people. Though again, religion probably has far less to do with the impulse toward war than ingrained cultural influences.
OTOH, Islam had a militarizing affect on the Arabian people that took its message. Without even looking at modern times, look at how Islam was adopted by the Arab people, a bunch of Nomadic Arabian tribes and spread to massive regions militarily. Before Islam, the Arab people were tribal nomads. After adopting Islam, they created a massive Caliphate that rivaled the Romans for militaristic activity.
I've got to do some more reading on this transition -- I hadn't known until recently that most Arab peoples subscribed to good old-fashioned Arabian mythology (genies, etc) before the rise of Islam. Though I have to wonder if the transformation of nomadic Arab societies into more organized ones (the Caliphate) might have simply been the result of natural population growth and the inevitable consolidation that occurs when populations are forced to merge.
A true system of morality, with abstract concepts of good and evil require that mankind be unique (not a slightly differently evolved Ape), and that there is a universal concept of right and wrong. Even if you don't attribute that to a specific deity and his instructions, the very nature of an abstract concept of right and wrong requires a universal concept of morality. That universal concept of morality is beyond science and reason, and that defies pure atheism.
I guess that, no, I don't believe there's any "universal" concept of morality, but that doesn't make a shared morality any less important. In fact, it's even more important, in that it needs to normalize certain standards across many different peoples and world views.
My feeling is this: We're on our own. Nature is fundamentally brutal, yet we've evolved to a point where we know that. We, humans, are walking contradictions -- we still have that entire brutal history encoded into us, but we also have a thread of cooperation that's enabled us to get as far as we have. So we struggle internally. We have moments of strength and of weakness. We need a shared moral system to guide us, and a society built upon that system to codify and enforce it. The shared moral system is pretty similar across most societies; we tend to get hung up and upset over the differences, and I suppose that's natural.
So maybe the only argument is about whether that system is arbitrary (and therefore subject to some chaos and gray area) or whether it's defined by some non-human entity and therefore universal. But then, I'm immediately tripped up by this: Whose universal is the right one? Hindus? Christians? Jews? Muslims? As an atheist, I simply see a list of slightly differing standards. They all think they're right. Unfortunately, it's not possible for them all to be right, so I'm impelled to see them as a set of variations on a theme. As such, I find myself reassured that civilized humans mostly agree on what's right and wrong. Again, the differences can cause major friction, and we'd be better off as a species if we could find some way to see past those differences more reliably.
You missed the point. Your original comment suggested that a politician must be Christian because 88% of population is Christian. (“...[T]ell me again why being Christian shouldn't be a pre-requisite...”) Are you trying to say that black people should not be allowed to hold office because 75% of the population is white?
Surely you are joking.
We have (attempted) abortion bans, the FDA blocking over-the-counter distribution of Plan B, bans on homosexual marriage, an unbalanced policy on Israel, and both tax breaks for and government hand-outs to churches.
And the present Administration strongly professes religion. Bush (used to) conference with Ted Haggard weekly and says he asks God for guidance when making decisions.
I am the first to state, in this discussion, this country is not a theocracy.
And I honestly have no idea how you draw these conclusions. Black people, as you point out, are the minority and yet black people are often elected in spite of a majoriy of white voters. Meanwhile, going back to the original comment, atheists are immediately disqualified and therein lies the dissonance. One minority remains eligable for public office but the other does not.
Stop equating calls for fairness with whining.
It most certainly does. If our President started telling us that he asks The Flying Spaghetti for guidance in morning prayer, we would rightly think he was insane. Or if not FSM, Zeus or Thor or Baal. Why does belief in a relatively modern deity somehow deserve respect where belief in Ra or the Tooth Fairy does not?
I never made that assertion. Quit putting “words in my mouth” (this is twice now). Even atheists can be stupid (and I will gladly line up the crack-pots in my camp), but theism is a clear indicator that the person is rejecting reality to some degree. Not a condition I want in people who have the power to start wars.
Why bother.
rms is an atheist. If we have to have an atheist why not rms? RMS has never raped and piliaged the software world. RMS is not a horse thief. RMS would be greatly superior to Bill Gates.
Theist: I believe that MagicBob created the universe. No proof is needed.
Atheist: I don't believe that MagicBob created the universe. There is no proof. And the assertion is silly.
Agnostic: I don't know if MagicBob created the universe. There is no proof. (Off the record, the assertion is silly).
Scientist: I do not concern myself with such superstitious things.
I prefer "Scientist", as "Atheist" and "Agnostic" still imply that belief/disbelief in MagicBob is worthy of some thought.
See subject line.
Indeed, the labeling of non-believers by the majority of believers has always been a means to segregate against them.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
I am alive.
I enjoy being alive.
I do not want to be killed.
Other people are alive.
I assume they also enjoy being alive.
I assume they do not wish to be killed.
If I kill other people, more people are likely to kill other people, I am more likely to be killed. (how "Karma" really works, the more shit you put in, the more likely you are going to get shit on you, simply because there's more shit.)
Therefore, do not kill other people.
Replace kill w/ harm, or stealing, etc.
Pretty elementary. I'm surprised religious folks can't figure that out.
I don't actually think of him as a brilliant businessman, but someone who is good at taking business advice. The thing is why was he advised to stand down from running Microsoft at this juncture ?
Hell, the golden rule is practically the guiding algorithm behind civilized society. Were my parents, or their parents who taught them, simply borrowing a system of morality from Judeo-Christianism? I don't know. If so, that's fine. But I think the fundamental Western moral systems we live by function just fine when divorced from spiritual faith.
FWIW. Confucious formulated a corrolary to the golden rule ~500 years before JC: "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." Score +1 for the godless atheists.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
There already were MBASIC interpreters for Z80 at the time...once the firmware had been finalised it would be a weekend's work to port the interpreter over.
For instance I have to live with the term Religious Right because I am a Christian, did I elect to be a religious right? Does it describe my belief? No but nonetheless that is the group I am termed. Live with it.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
a) Anything run amok is bad.
b) Atheists running the Government are just as capable of creating personality cults as Fundies or Muzzies or (put your designated target religion here).
c) Atheists have the same level of arrogance and bigotry as everyone else. Enlightenment inevitably leads to self righteousness and arrogance. Atheist rants about how evil (put your designated target religion here) is, makes them no better than anyone else; like everyone else, they're only tolerable in a country where they're countered by a lot of opposing opinions and, of course, by an active democracy. There's no way in hell I want to be locked in a room with all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or Atheists. You're all crazy when running in packs. Except maybe Pagans, they just sex ya to death. (And boy howdy, I can imagine far worse ways to go.)
d) Atheism is as much a denial of human nature as any other religion, and atheism is certainly a faith (faith that there is no God), and in many cases also a religion (organized or semi-organized, such as Secular Humanism).
Whenever you hear someone saying "we need an Atheist leader" or "we need a Christian leader", etc., think of this phrase: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Seeing as atheism is just more of the same, frankly speaking I think I'll remain a nondenominational Christian with lots of pagan friends and a strong distrust for Christian "leadership", and stick to my old rule: never trust a person who says there is no God, nor one who claims to speak for one.
We don't need any of the above. We need a stronger and more participative democracy.
Democracy frees people, not capitalism, not religion, and not atheism (since they're so bent upon calling themselves a non-religion).
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Why can nobody spell 'lose' correctly anymore? For fucks sake..
Okay, as much as I would like to see an atheist leader in the U.S., I doubt Bill Gates as President would be a good thing.
Heck, I don't even care if the President is atheist. As long as he has the good sense to recognize the importance of good government, the usefulness of science, and the value of separation between church and state---and act accordingly---the fact that he does or does not go to church on his days off is really not something I care about.
http://outcampaign.org/
I'm a recently born again Christain man and I'm so supprised at how much I didn't know. I was loosely raised in a Christian family, my mother took us to church as kids. My understanding was very shallow though. Mom never talked to us about God, nore did the church services ever seem to get too far from basic/shallow teachings. As a result, I was very conflicted about God and faith up until roughly my mid-twenties. At the time, I couldn't see any difference between Christianity and other religions, so how could I objectively pick one and dedicate my life and soul to it? Well, after some pretty amazing events over the years, I now realize that there are differences. Being a Christian has strightened out my life in ways I never thought possible. I'm sorry someone told you that because your an athiest, your incapable of morallity, that was mean and insensative. I do understand the Christian's point, but he/she shouldn't have said that. My advice to anyone on Slashdot who feels angst towards Christians and their points of view is to seek them out. Call them out on their hippocracy to their face. Some will get very mad and an argument will probably result. Some however will probably feel inclined to rationally discuss their points of view. You know you've got a real winner Christian when he/she isn't so interested in telling his story, but more interested in yours. On the flip side of that, ask them why they love God and Jesus, it might be a better story then "My parents raised me that way".
I can't see the United States electing Bill Gates to president, but if he does run, and wins, where will tux hide.
On a more serious note, I never imagined US intellectual property laws could get worse until I considered Bill Gates as president.
Problem is you can't start a church without being classified a cult for a while, so the Church of Smurfs will have to wait on the back burner until My regime is actually elected. You all can do your parts (First 500 supporters get high level positions in My regime and the second 500 supporters get ambassadorships. Act now while the good countries are up for grabs!)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Vote for Bill Gates. He's atheist (actually i think he's agnostic), that's not as bad as Muslims.
No Sigs!
Atheists disrupt my life and peace more than a Muslim ever has.
Still, it's not like they force people to come to their site. It's doubtful that Christians will happen upon Gaybuntu and suddenly decide that Linux is simulataneously satanic, communist, Iranian, atheist, humanist, and Buddhist, and therefore needs to be banned by the government. The existence of gaybuntu wont taint ubuntu and make straight people avoid it. They do zero harm to anyone, other than maybe themselves by wasting their time. So it's definitely not worth getting upset about it.
Besides, sexuality and software go together like pie and iced cream. Or have you never received a good old fashioned pole-polishing while laying down some LoCs?
I hope you were joking. If not, forget reading the Torah, read a newspaper!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I just lost so much respect for that man (the dilbert guy, not gates, gates already roughly equates to satan). The sad part is that people would vote for Gates.
However this rational decision says nothing about their belief. Belief is not a choice. You can't say "rationally I know that the question of existence of gods is unknowable, therefore I choose to not make a decision about my belief". Your belief is something that you have, not something that you decide.
I beg to differ. This fails to distinguish between belief and psychosis.
On the contrary, a belief is the one thing you have a choice about. Knowledge leaves you no choice; if you know something is, it is, at least for you. A belief, on the other hand, is like an axiom; pick one without fear of contradiction as long as you stay consistent with it.
The "Road to Damascus" effect is not unidirectional. I was a devout Catholic on the path to a Jesuit seminary before I demolished the last so-called proof of the existence of God. At that moment I realized that I could choose to believe in God, or not. I chose not.
It took a few years to adjust my systems to be consistent with this, but it did happen. The fact is, I choose one belief over another several times a day. I don't have the time to chase down the evidence on every little thing, so on those that don't matter, I make a choice from among the possibilities and believe that. It's something we all do without much thought.
You have to be awfully dim not to be able to experiment with your basic assumptions from time to time.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
But what about Fox News? They're not biased, they said so themselves.
Wow. You'll believe anything wont you? 99% of the world's scientists say that the US is the single biggest polluter on the planet. Then some ignorant jackass tells you the opposite, and you believe them? That's wishful thinking at its most pathetic. Canada pollutes far less than the US and has far more trees. South America, even taken as a whole, pollutes far less than the US and has vastly more photosynthetic biomass than Canada and the US combined. The Amazon rainforests -- you may have heard of them? You are SERIOUSLY deluded on this one. You need to crack a book and get the stupid out of your head fast, before it reaches terminal levels.
"Atheists are good for nothing."
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:sentient
According to those definitions, a baby is definitely sentient before it is even born. Animals would be considered sentient. Perhaps you mean "sapient"?
Wow, that explains a lot. I never knew Bill Gates is an atheist.
No wonder the Lunix community hates him so.
According to his response here, he describes himself as as scientist: "I take a fairly scientific approach".
Realize that if you use the terms Atheist or Agnostic, you are defining yourself relative to your beliefs in superpowers/magic, thereby lending some credibility to superpowers/magic.
It's easier and more useful to define yourself according to how you see the world, not how you do not see it.
The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.
I recommend you read "The Lucifer Principle," a book on evolutionary sociobiology. If you're coming from a non-religious background, then you'll probably have less of a morally queasy feeling when reading it than I did. One of the core arguments in the book is that humans innately wish to form groups, downplay the flaws of their own members, demonize the flaws of their rivals, and unite around a shared mythology of the inherent superiority of their chosen peer group. It's instinctual pack behavior inherited from our pre-human ancestors.
None of us are immune to it, and removing all religion will simply result in the use of other no less potent methods of justification -- nationalism, racism, class warfare, etc. The Communist Revolution in Russia is a good example of an atheist movement that demonized its enemies on non-religious grounds. Religion isn't the problem. It's operating on an instinctual xenophobia instead of rational tolerance that is, and you know very well that people can be rational and religious and can be irrational and irreligious at the same time.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You fucking prejudice basterd. I am Christian, and it dosn't matter the relegios beliefs of my neighbours. Everyone can have what faith they have, and it dosn't matter.
I'm not generally one to reply to my own posts, but honestly, who thought this was flamebait? And why? The only actually inflammatory thing I said (the very beginning) I immediately turned around and mitigated. Everything beyond that was just nice and easy logic. I hope this gets meta-moderated. Or is someone just so anti-Christian that they feel they must moderate down anything which might remotely be construed as supporting a Christian position?
If the moderator happens to read this (unlikely in the extreme, I know), would you please reply to me (in another article if you don't want to screw up your mod... Although I wish you would screw up your mod, since I obviously disagree with you) and explain?
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
That's because you haven't figured it out. If the human "right" not to be murdered is predicated upon the inclinations of humans, there will be no absolutes, and therefore no inherent right at all. Moral relativists deny absolutes. Does society give you the right not to be murdered? Society can take that right away. Do you give yourself the right not to be murdered? Another person's inclination to believe you don't have that right, negates yours. No "inherent" rights at all, then. When genocide happens, it's because a whole group of people decide that another group doesn't have the right not to be murdered. And it would be those who believe in absolutes, by their nature inherent and dependent on something greater, who would defend people's absolute, inherent right not to be murdered. This "golden rule" you describe only works when you follow it through to its source.
Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion : Yes
I'd vote for Kodos.
Mr. Adams, I have two questions regarding your hypothesized athiest-business-leader presidential candidate:
1. Is your hypothesis based on an assumption that there is a positive correlation between being a business leader and being an athiest?
2. What color is the sky on the planet you live on?
Well, we may hate the technology, we may hate his business legacy, but that does not make him a bad person. Business is business.
If he were to become a political figure, it would be in his best interests to cut direct ties with MS and be seen to have a distance from it.
Though i don't think he will become a political figure.
In Maine, you can't hunt deer on Sundays.
I guess they just figured that sniping the deer while they were all on their way to church on Sunday morning would just be unsporting or something.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Some more probably than others. For some presidents the evidence is almost overwhelming that they were atheists.
``but could never say so because only churchgoers can be elected President.''
Or, for the ones in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century believed that churchgoing was a virtue even if they themselves didn't believe in God. One prevalent idea in the early Englightenment was that religion was necessary to keep the ingnorant in line. The idea was that many (or even most) people were unable to think clearly enough to do the right thing without divine promises and threats for the hereafter. In the Cartesian synthesis, religion was looked as a ``provisional morality'' meant to keep civil order until humanity became Enlightened enough to no longer need it. In fact, this philosophy underlies much of the early Masonic movement and it is one reason that many large Christian movements hold that Masonry is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
Bill Gates is an atheist? Weird, his products are the only thing that regularly makes me pray.
To me the very phrasing of the suggested "alternatives" is discrimination against people who are not religious.
I hear about people being discriminated against for some aspect of their life-style or their actual bodily shape/colour/type all the time.
I've never heard anyone acknowledge that to someone who does not follow a religion, being called an atheist or agnostic, is a slight on their choice to follow principles of ethics and morality on purely logical or legal grounds.
What they believe or how they choose to believe is being defined simply as "not believing in God" or "not accepting the form of God accepted in most religions".
So why has Scott Adams put forward Bill Gates as an "atheist" candidate for the US presidency, and not a word of protest on those grounds in any post I've read?
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
Wrong to kill what or who? People? Christians? Muslims? Atheists? Hindus? Criminals? Mormons? People with guns? Cops? Soldiers? Terrorists? People you disagree with? Animals? Plants? Earth?
You know, I'm not a bigot. I'm no Christophobe. Some of my best friends are Christians. I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home. But I don't want to have to look at it! What's worse, they do their disgusting thing right in front of children.
I respect their lifestyle choice, but when they start rubbing my nose in it, and when they start to try to convert my friends and family to their perverse ways, I have a real problem. They'll try to tell you it's not a choice. That they hear "God" and he tells them to repent. To prepare for the end times. Let me tell you something. If they get their way, within a couple generations the human race would no longer exist. The real lost causes won't even procreate! It's an affront to all humanity.
Some ways of running societies work better than others. People are what they are. The neurons are arranged as they are arranged. There will exist a system for coordinating among people that is better than the others, or at least equal to the best. We call this system a society, and it has rules.
Many rules have come to us from the various religions of the world, which themselves are based on philosophies of sorts. They are welcome additions. It is not necessary, however, to believe in gods in order to obey rules, and it is not necessary to believe in a god to believe in mankind, and that mankind's betterment is best served when society works well.
What you don't seem to understand, my friend, is that atheism is not a rejection of faith, merely a rejection of gods. We can still have faith in principles, such as the idea of mankind, which gives our rules, society's rules, weight and reason.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
While I love this idea, I think it's some wishful thinking. With ~80% of the US being Christian, I think a significant percentage of them will refuse to vote for any candidate that isn't openly Christian.
No, I will not work for your startup
Do we really want the person responsible for one of the biggest "screw the customer" style companies known to man leading a nation?
Remember to vote for me!
-John Fenley
Two observations:
1) he is too smart to want to be President of a Democracy (Socialist Republic)
2) America is too dumb to elect him
He might opt for King in the Hans Hermann Hoppe context
Either way he's preferable to all the other "viable" candidates.
Since you are prejudiced against gays, and publically call them sinners and condemn their so-called "gay lifestyle", you certainly have a lot in common with the religious right. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
"Those who are too ethical or intelligent to engage in political
endeavors ironically are doomed to suffer a self inflicted curse of rule
and domination by those who are not similarly restrained by conscience
or enlightened by gnosis." Socrates*
*This is a paraphrase of my rendering of something that I understand he had spoken,
possibly repeated/recorded by his student Plato in a similar form.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
"And his hands would plait the priest's entrails, For want of a rope, to strangle kings."
Denis Diderot
Shouldn't Obama be supporting Ubuntu?
Think about it this way, if Bill was the PUSA, we WOULD have sharks with fricken laser beams. but think about it on another aspect - whats the worst that could happen? i mean seriously, its not as if anything bad would happen - everything would be written on paper - last time i checked, you cant BSOD a sheet of A4 paper!
Bill Gates is a very good candidate. He took a nothing and turn it into a multi-billion dollar corporation. He basically prints his own money... He can probably pay the deficit... Imagine the world's currency running on windows... It used to be a gold standard... If he becomes president, the world will be a better place... My second candidate would be Angelina Jolie... She should be the first female president... She has the qualities...
It's more tangible than the War on Terror.
And you know, Steve Balmer even looks like Dick Chenney. Haemmeroid in a Suit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes. You elected to be religious. You elected to be more of a conservative than a moderate. Therefore you elected to be part of the "religious right".
The whole point of this thread was to emphasise the fact that people are not born religious. They choose to be so, therefore the labels must always be their's, and their's alone.
It doesn't matter if you were baptised as a baby, and attended Sunday school from the age of three, and have been immersed in a deeply religious family and community ever since. You were not born religious, you chose to be so. By the time you came "of age" you could have discarded religion, but chose not to. Therefore you are religious by choice.
Those of us who have never elected to be religious should not be labeled by those who have: religious people chose to be - and remain - religious, so can be labeled as such. Logic dictates that the rest of us (who have not elected to be, or remain, religious) cannot be labeled as "athiests", but we can be called what we are - people.
Or do you think people who decline to worship the Dallas Cowboys (for instance) should be labeled as 'Non Worshippers' by those who do?
Bill Gates for President? No Thanks.
"Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams recently blogged that America needs an atheist and rational thinker for president, and he's picked Bill Gates. The idea has become a popular subject in technical circles, which are commonly irreligious and tend to be more socially liberal. But as they say: be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
[...]
"not only is Gates an unproven leader, anti-consumer rights, anti-open software, and anti-competition, but he's also swept up in dirty politics already, a right-wing leaning pal of the existing establishment and a client to the ultra conservative religious right wing machine that his supposed atheism is intended to counter."
I'd Vote For Bill, and I'd definitely vote for an atheist.
religion is for people who can't think for themselves - they who need to controlled/manipulated by some/one/thing greater than themselves - sad fact and dozy! - bit (sic) like windoze users in general - as for the atheist bill gates for president 'god help us all' - that is a joke, you born again loonies - as much a joke as the suggestion for bill gates as president - the man is a successful charlatan - i know you lot in the US kiss his 'but' and worship his every move but check the awful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_Silicon_Va lley
Gates who has held back computing - is a bottleneck on new idea's unless he can get a patent on them - is buying into open source (that's a misnomer)in order to fcuk it up.
if you want to swear at Bill Gates say 'Linux'
But Doug Barney wrote about this six weeks before Dilbert, what a rip!!! Doug Barney: "Bill for President"05Dec06 Every four years pundits, radio talk show hosts and U.S. citizens beg for a presidential candidate who's not a career politician. And every four years the two major parties nominate -- you guessed it -- career politicians! No true, non-political alternatives have the party backing, or, it seems, the ability to connect and gain our trust. I guess voters don't mind career politicians after all. Donald Trump is too full of himself (but Letterman would have great material), Ross Perot was too preachy and weird, and Arnold is too foreign (meaning he legally can't run; not that I'm against Austrians). Here's a name that could overcome all these obstacles: Bill Gates. Not the old Bill Gates spouting technology, wearing ill-fitting clothes and crushing competitors for sport (though his company is doing this with relish and third parties are paying the price). No. I'm talking about the new Gates of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. As far as I can tell, Gates has not pledged allegiance to either party (probably the only thing he and I have in common). In 2004 Gates gave only $22,500 to candidates with a slight edge to Democrats. For someone with Gates' pockets, this is as close to giving nothing as you can get! I mentioned this idea to my mother and her eyes opened wide (the way they did every time my high school assistant principal called) and she exclaimed "Wow!" After a few seconds of thought she said "Wow" again. Bill has no major skeletons (I'm guessing) and has taken non-political, purely rational stances on today's major issues. Who would you trust to develop a policy on global warming? Who is today's best ambassador to the third world, to India, to China? But Bill has no experience in foreign policy! True, but neither did the governor of Georgia, California, Arkansas or Texas. Imagine if our fundamental approach to the world was based on logical approaches to curing disease, spreading opportunity, saving the environment and teaching children. A foreign policy flowing from this river would be rich indeed. Imagine offering our enemies all of these benefits. Would Iran rather have nukes or freedom from disease? Maybe they'll go for the A-bombs, but will all regimes react the same? I doubt it. And remember, Bill promised to retire in two years, just in time for his new job in 2008. We'll just have to live with a total gutting of U.S. anti-trust laws! Who are you going to vote for? Let me know at dbarney@redmondmag.com. Doug Barney is editor in chief of Redmond magazine and the editorial director of Redmond Channel Partner magazine. You can contact Doug about "Bill for President" at dbarney@redmondmag.com. The source of this article (first published on 1-oct-2006) is redmondmag.com. Article re-published with full permission of the author.