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."
Good luck with oil then. You'll get a couple of years by trashing Alaska, then you're back to horse and buggies. Besides, the US is in massive debt to the rest of the world now. The world may choose not to trade for your worthless currency.
I resent the You, as if I was American. I'm not, I'm European, so please stop insulting me. I'm just trying to be realistic here.
(Hihi, and if Cedric is reading this and is offended that I consider Usanian/American to be an insult: tit for tats!)
Unfortunately, that's why Bush has weapons of mass destructions. He'll just take by force what he can't get through trade...
Sorry, I should have realised that not all ignorant, arrogant dicks are American. As for "realistic", please; I pointed out a couple of things that would be problematic. And as for using nukes to secure oil, that's insane. Even if you (you not being "you", of course) could cower a government with nukes, oil pipelines and tankers are extremely vulnerable to sabotage. It would only take a small number of fanatical guerrillas to destroy the supply chain. You'd end up in a Mad Max world rather quickly.
It's Pakistanis and not Pakastanis. Use Firefox 2.
Well, yes, because by definition, if you believe in fairy stories, you ARE unenlightened.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
If I had mod points I'd mod you up, simply because I know how true this statement is. I'd bet money that >80% of the people in the Christian faith could care less about God and Jesus, but only keep faith because they're scared of going to Hell. Christians don't bother me, it's the ones that try to get me on their bandwagon out of fear. I find that the people who believe out of their own will and actually care about the teaching of the Bible are very rational and open minded people. Nothing like the people who torment atheists and tell gays that God hates them.
Isn't it funny that God is supposed to love every man, woman, and child, yet Bubba spray paints a graffiti saying otherwise? You want to find a real terrorist? He won't wear a turban or follow Islam. No, the real terrorist is the man that uses religion itself as a weapon and fuel for hatred. Some of these people obviously have never read "Love thy neighbor." Either that or they just don't care, considering the fact that they think they make judgment for God, even though the only person supposed to be able to judge is God himself. So we have a lot of people running around preaching one thing and practicing another. They're pretending to be God himself with all their judgments. Perhaps we read Revelations wrong, and there are millions of antichrists?
PS: Don't misinterpret this post. I am an atheist. I'm just a frustrated atheist, since I know more about the Bible than the majority of Christians. The same Christians that try to convert me with false information (not saying the Bible is false, but that their understanding of the Bible is false). I think that many of these hateful Christian terrorists (again, not saying that Christians as a whole are hateful people, only that some few decide to be that way) would change their ways if they actually sat down and read the Bible for themself. Like I said before, the people who truly care about their religion and the Bible are the most rational people you'll meet in the Christian faith. The selfish majority that are only concerned with not burning in damnation are the most intolerant, irrational people you'll ever meet. They do more damage than terrorists and have been doing it for centuries.
Why Be "Moral"
.... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Oh, and whose "morals" do you want to apply? Mine? I doubt you'd like it. Yours? I doubt I'd like it.
An atheist by definition ought to be amoral at least for everyone else.
Define Theft (include RIAA/MPAA ) Who's definition of "theft" and "stealing" do you want to ascribe to?
Define Murder. Does it include 9mo near term abortions? How about 3mo old babies. How about 6 month pregnancy? Where does an atheist draw the mythical line in the sand, and can they give a "logical" reason that is any better than any other mythical line in the sand.
How about Euthenasia? Who desides? What about killing off all the people who are a drain on society, the Mentally Challenged? Physically Challenged?
Perhaps we should offer up Christians and Jews to the lions because they are "less enlightened" than the "moral atheists". Or perhaps just Tibetans and Falun Gong?
The biggest problem atheist have, is that atheism by definition has no moral compass, no absolute, even theoretical, to base anything on. And one thing I do know, is that man can justify just about anything in his own mind given time enough to think on it.
Really, we've had "atheist" governments, and contrary to popular mythology they were (are) among the worst in regards to "human rights". The US of A, in spite of all our problems has at least one thing going for it
Take away the Creator, and you have no "unalienable rights", only "rights" that man grants to himself. I can assure you that when man can grant rights, he will take them away when its convenient or worse, for convenience sake.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The common definition IS the definition. That a few people lobby for some other definition is part of a common political phenomenon known as "spin doctoring."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.