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."
I fail to see how this is news. I also fail to see how Scott Adams' opinion on who should be president matters.
It's hard to see how the US could cooperate less with the world community than it does at the moment.
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
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). :-)
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
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.
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
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.
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.
Why would Gates want to give up so much power to become president? Wouldn't that be a step down?
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.
On the child molestor odds:
Have you heard the stories about some Catholic priests? Or the activities of some cults? Or Michael Jackson? Hardly a scientific study, but arguably in the public mind child abuse is more likely with those who have a strong belief (however bizarre in Jackson's case...).
Irrespective of whether Adams is right or not:
Suggesting that the US electorate is more willing to vote for an atheist than a member of a religion that is (however unfairly) associated with the current war in Iraq, 9/11, etc, seems to me an entirely reasonable thing to suggest.
Why is suggesting an atheist president so stupid? Have I missed something? It seems to me Adams is simply hopeful that there might be a president who bases his decisions on facts and thinking, rather than an unaccountable belief system within a framework no one can quite agree on anyway. And again, it seems a reasonable proposition for a debate that the electorate might go for a well respected (outside of the tech community!), successful, famously philanthropic atheist before a Muslim, even if it is only for all the wrong reasons.
Wrong:
People become atheists generally through an intellectual choice. Religious people are so because that is the way their personal influences have made them. They therefore inherit the prejudices that go along with that. They are therefore unlikely to objectively consider many other real life issues outside the context of their religious prejudice. Ergo, an atheist will not refer to religious preconception upon appraisal of any options presented in a given situation. A vote for an atheist is therefore a vote for someone who can make a choice and justify it rationally. For example, Tony Blair and G. W. Bush both justified the Iraq invasion by deferring to the judgment they shall receive from their god.
I have to agree with l3v1. We will not have an atheist president anytime soon. The superstitions of Americans are just too strong. In fact, we couldn't even have an agnostic. I'm praying we won't have a Mormon in 2008.
The funny thing, is that I don't believe will have a Jewish president either. I argued with my wife (who was not born in America) the other night about if Americans will elect a person of color, a woman or a Jew as president first. Forget about Hillary for a moment (and despite our mutual distaste for the thought of her as President). I think a woman will be president first. Then a person of color, and perhaps never a Jew. I've spent enough time in Red State America to know how deeply antisemitism and racism run in this country.
As an American of Italian ancestry, I also think it will be a good long time before a Southern European president will be elected. Just wait and see how the media chews up Giuliani.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Sam Harris is as much a demagogue as the people he opposes. Dissenters are no safer in his idealized world than they were in Calvin's Geneva. I see no improvement here.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I wouldn't disagree although I suspect his intolerence stems from logical rather than theistic reasons which I feel slightly safer with. On balance, I like his reasoning but not his lack of compassion for those 'blighted' with the God Gene.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
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.
So let me get this straight: athiests have free will and self-determinism, but people who hold religious beliefs, by their very nature, do not? Is this your way of saying athiests are superior intellectually, and possibly biologically as well?
Most self-acclaimed athiests I know are not, in the least bit, analytical. They have grown up being taught that the facts are in, and they are conclusive: we evolved. Regardless of the fact that it's a theory, it's taught as doctrine. I'm not saying anything else has any more validity, mind you, but when a single doctrine is taught for an hour a day, 5 days a week, for several years of a child's upbringing, the principles are ingrained to a certain degree - whether it's Sunday school or science/Biology class.
There are a great deal of people who were raised as an athiest, or as nothing at all, and have acclimated towards faith in religion after hopping around on ideology for years. The reverse is also true. And there are those who have tried both sides, and couldn't decide, resulting in agnosticism.
There is no such thing as a person void of prejudices or personal influences. To so much as say that there are demonstrates an extremely unquestioning mind, and what's more, one which isn't even aware of it.
You sir, are a biggot and a fool - to put it kindly!
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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 bit about eating fish was just a 'top of my head' thought to save me looking up a real one. One could get in to a discussion about OT versus NT but a quick look at e.g. Leviticus will reveal a whole bunch of 'laws' which most modern Christians choose to ignore yet others which they hold to be absolute truths to live their lives by. ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
As for the bible's comment on homosexuality:
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
In other places the bible notes death as a good solution for abominations..
How about stoning to death for non-virgin wives?
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her
Christians like to ignore all this stuff yet claim the good stuff. It doesn't wash.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
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
This article deserves the tag flamebait. It is CLEARLY intended to start a massive argument; it is the verbatim definition of flamebait.
I really have to agree with you. I mean, if you think about it, a lot of geeks may have some grudges against Gates, but are they REALLY that big a deal? Sure, we joke about the Borg and all that, but let's compare Microsoft's business to Halliburton's or *Insert Oil Company Here*.
Outside the BSoD and Open Source jokes, Bill Gates is a respectable person, I'm sure most of us will (if grudgingly) admit. And I like the idea that logic and fact (Or at least SOME kind of observable data) could be used to make decisions, rather than gut instinct, faith, or however else you want to call making decisions via a dart board.
Filling kids' heads with absurd notions of god, the devil, hell &c. is just another form of child abuse -- and I really can't see that it's any less damaging than sexual molestation. At least if you've been subjected to physical violence of some description (including sexual violence), there's something solid that you can get a handle on and eventually learn to deal with. When the abuse has all been in the mind, it's that much harder to deal with.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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.
Forget Bill, the rest of article says something even more beautiful than his possible presidency.
I'm so happy that Atheists might possibly be able to achieve the lofy satus that homosexuals enjoy in our society, and might be even more respected than terrorists. Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality, I absolutely love the idea that I might be able to catch up with gay people on the social pecking order. Now if only I had the chance of being less of an outcast than blacks in the south, but I'm sure unwed mothers and pickpockets will always beat out the both of us.
Read the ariticle. It's hope (sniff).
TW
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!"
I see your point, but really when 90% of a population uses the dominant religion's ceremonies as the way to "do" life's important events, not participating on point of principle is going to make you one very alienated person. e.g. Most people invite you to "the Christening" of their baby, not because they want to show off their Christianity, but because they want to share the joy of their baby with you (because presumably they care about you too), and to celebrate giving a name to this new person. I agree it is not nice that religions co-opt important events in life in this way, but they do so because they know that people want something to mark the event, and by offering that something they have an easy in to people's lives. Make your own ceremonies for the events in your own life, but begrudging others the local standard ones is mean spirited IMHO. (I am an atheist)
I think this says far more about the lack of morality of the person making this statement than it does about the morality of athiests - they are obviously only held in check by their fear of divine retribution and are incredulous that anybody who is not so constrained would act in a moral manner because they themselves wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it.
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
You are joking of course.
The official religion of France was Catholocism until 1988.
The official religion of Italy was Catholocism until 1984.
The official religion of Spain was Catholocism until 1978.
The official religion of the USA was........oh, sorry we never had one.
The USA remains one of the few countries in the entire world which declares and enforces a seperation between Church and State.
False — that's a level of detail you don't see in most WESTERN Christianity TODAY. That ludicrous amount of Islamo-micromanagement you cite was mirrored exactly in the early Catholic (and, later, early Protestant) Church. Pick up Bede's "History of the English Church and People" and find the letter written from the Bishop of England to the Pope asking for guidance on such minutiae. Must women eschew churchgoing during their period? Can a man enter a church if he hasn't washed since his last intercourse? Just like you describe, except with a guy nailed to a tree in the front instead of a cresent moon.
Now, if you want to argue that today's Islam is less enlightened than today's Christianity go right ahead. Me, I think that's like trying to figure out the warmest guy in an igloo.
Bemopolis
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
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.
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.
Actually, China is more capitalistic than most other countries in the world. The really bad form of capitalism, at that. People exploited for less than minimum wager because there are so many that there's always another worker but not another job. The main criteria for communism is simply that the workers control the means of production - which is not really the case.
Interestingly, some American and European capitalistic companies have found giving some control to the workers a god incentive (stocks/options) for better productivity, and thereby, greater shared wealth.
See, that's ironic.
It's always amusing to read stuff from people who've picked a few verses from the Old Testament and ask why Christians aren't doing what they say.
Christians aren't Jews. It's the *Old* Testament. Christians aren't subject to Old Testament law. Try reading Galatians or Hebrews.
For example "The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law" (Galatians 3:24-25).
For Christians, the Mosaic Law no longer applies. It is meaningless to ask why Christians aren't following Leviticus. They aren't required to.
The more interesting question is why Jews aren't following the Old Testament, not Christians.
Great Windows SFTP Server!
The OT isn't to be ignored. The God of Judaism is the God of Christianity. The Old Testament is the history of God's chosen people, Israel, and how he promised them a Messiah.
The NT explains how that Messiah was Jesus Christ (which Jews don't agree with of course - they are still waiting). The OT is the historical backdrop to the NT, and hence is crucial to understanding the NT.
But that doesn't mean Christians are obliged to obey Mosaic Law. The NT clearly points out that for Christians, we are under a different (and new) covenant (agreement).
Great Windows SFTP Server!
Noting more pathetic than when an adult fails to ever self actualize. I think it rather bad-joke-and-groaning-about-it that someone determines North on their moral compass from some imaginary man in the sky, but thinks it impossible for someone to come up with their own rules seemingly from out of thin air.
Someone hates these cans.
That aside, in my opinion, the atheist moral issue is more of a concern because it allows the scope of human stupidity larger reign. Regardless of whether a person thinks there is a God or not, there is a certain amount of respect to be paid to moral laws that are 8-10K years old. Humanity has learned certain lessons in the past and we need to heed those lessons. Example, even my atheist friends agree, If humanity would be more careful with its sexuality, (be more picky with partners, or abstain to a bonding relationship), we would be able to make STDs a very manageable problem. Many major religions have included abstinence in their moral law.
Now from a Theological standpoint, a Christian should not fear breaking the law because God will smite them. The proper fear comes from the human consequences. Eat Pork in 1500BC and you will have issues, weave different kinds of thread, you will have issues, or the bigger laws, Covet and you will pay $5K for a PS3.
The advantage that a Theistic group has, is it can enforce moral law without explaining it all. But if you delve into each Law it usually has a good, nontheistic, reason for it. The whole Wrath of God idea, just makes it easy to enforce. Whereas an atheist has to rely on his/her own discipline to maintain a moral law. Good luck controlling mass stupidity that way :)
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
You should probably explain this to Ted Haggard, Oral Robberts, Jimmy Swaggert, etc - since they're fond of using the old testament as an excuse for one wacko stance or another (hate gays, hate working women, hate other religions, hate witches, etc, etc, etc).
I'm not too familiar with them, not being an American. However since the Bible condemns homosexuality (for example) in the Old Testament, it isn't unreasonable to be cautious about endorsing it. Since the New Testament is also clear about sexual immorality, it is entirely consistent to refuse to endorse homosexuality.
Refusing to endorse homosexual behaviour doesn't imply that one hates homosexuals though - although unfortunately this attitude does seem to come across with some Christians. Christians are supposed to love, not hate.
Note also that this inability to get the story straight is another reason to be very skeptical of an "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god": why would it create such an imperfect message - so prone to misinterpretation and so useful as an excuse to kill one another?
Sadly I don't think it would matter what was written. If people want to hurt or kill one another, they'll justify it any way they like.Great Windows SFTP Server!
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.
If you want to advance the idea that radicals of any religion are terrorists I'm right behind you there, but to espouse the idea that people who try and convert you to Christianity by preaching of hellfire and damnation are more terrorist than people who blow up themselves and others in the name of advancing their religion is complete and utter BS
>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.
All truly religious people, being Absolutist Authoritarians, have no capacity for morality by definition. They simply believe and do what they are told by the church authorities without question or conscience.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with crackpots buying airtime rights. Thats protected under the freedom of speech, Bill 1.
And you have a choice whether to send that crackpot your money. Or are you dismissing self-choice?
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.
Excellent point. And I'd rather have religious events than marketing-created events (say, Father's Day), although most religious events have been slyly co-opted by now (see Christmas).
Though it would be very annoying for me to go through a church wedding (the local style, which is very formal, and requires going to some religious classes and such), it's very moving and makes for a much better event than a dry state wedding ceremony (I understand in the US you have different choices).
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I think this says far more about the lack of morality of the person making this statement than it does about the morality of athiests - they are obviously only held in check by their fear of divine retribution and are incredulous that anybody who is not so constrained would act in a moral manner because they themselves wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it.
I think that is a pretty reductionist way of looking at things. Most Christians in reality do not think all atheists are immoral by definition (regardless of what a few vocal Christians say). Most Christians are motivated to morality by more than just divine retribution (whether they realize it or not).
Despite how well that anecdote fit your argument, its black/white conclusion is no better than that of the foolish Christian who says such about atheists.
I'm having trouble telling if you're joking.
Religious based rules are the worst at being twisted. How many killed in Jesus name? Allah's? How many poor are ignored in Christian countries? How many Christians commit murder (of various definitions) adultury etc ad nauseum? We have bible-thumping retards supporting vicious wars, and you're saying that athiests have flexible morals?
Man, you really need that seminar!
Maybe so, but I think the common definitions are inadequate since they don't accurately describe non-theists. I agree that dictionaries should be descriptive and not prescriptive, but by those common definitions I'm not a theist, atheist, or agnostic. I guess it's like the word "theory". There's the definition used by the public at large (and creationists) and there's the definition used by scientists. If you're going to get into a philosophical discussion on the meaning and existence of god(s) it's important to define all the terms accurately.
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
I once lived next door to a Muslim for years before I found out he was a Muslim. He had seemed like such a nice, normal guy, too.
Maybe they should have to wear some kind of badge so we can identify them more easily.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
No, we need an educated ELECTORATE, and an end to the social more against talking politics if you're not on TV.
Can't I be both? A fertilized egg and an 11-month-old baby have two things in common: neither of them is a sentient being but both have the potential to become one. I don't see how a rational person can defend the killing of a fertilized egg and the euthanization of an animal but not of a pre-sentient baby.
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.
A person who followed Biblical laws to the letter (i.e. kill your disobedient children, kill homosexuals, kill nonbelievers, etc) would be headed straight for prison in a modern, secular society.
Funny. Even when Israel was an independant state, the Talmudic death penalty was rarely enforced. And as soon as Jesus of Nazareth started saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", well, the modern sense of compassion and mercy became law.
(And I'd be interested to hear your quotes for any one of those things, btw -- I'm pretty sure that you had be worse than "abomination" to merit the death penalty, and that's all that homosexuality was classified as. No worse than a menstrating woman going to temple.)
How many of the Ten Commandments are actually laws in any modern society? Two, maybe three? God is only 25% correct?
Taking the Roman Catholic Version:
1: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Democratic socieites prohibit the enforcement of a state religion, meaning that Christians are not forced to have any other gods. Plus, there are still several American communities where not going to church will get you ostracised.
2: "Do not take the name of the Lord in vain." Nope, no legal effect.
3: "Observe the sabbath and keep it holy": I just had a weekend, as did some 80% of my countrymen. Those of us who worked on that day chose to work it, and their employers have a legally-mandated fiscal incentive to give them at least one day in seven off.
4: "Honor thy father and thy mother": Elder law requires us to take care of our parents, either directly or through paying taxes. And parents have standing to file an array of cases relating to their children and grandchildren that ordinary folk have to fight tooth and nail for.
5: Murder. (Yep, all kinds of laws against that.)
6: No Adultury (It's a crime in NY, and either a crime or a cause for divorce elsewhere.)
7: Do not steal (Yep.)
8: Do not bear false witness (ever hear of perjury? Libel?)
9: "Do not covet your neighbor's wife" -- actually, more than a few states still have laws against interfering with someone's marriage.
10: Don't covet anything else (nope, no legal effect.)
So, on a modest view, 8/10 commandments are still legally enforced at least somewhere in America. If you want to be more strict, 6/10 are core principles of a modern democratic society. And either way you splice it, the other 2 or 4 are seen as "very good ideas."
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.
Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were unpatriotic?
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.
I guess I'm just not seeing it.
Slavery has been good according to these unchanging moral absolutes. So has subjugation of women and other races. Beatings and killings for various reasons were also condoned by religious moral absolutes. Moral absolutes based on religion are far more fluid than you claim. Some religions, to this day, consider all remarried sex to be adulturous.
It seems more rational to devise a moral and ethical framework based on logic, human compassion and understanding, and mankind's experience.
The news is full of religious people committing atrocities, so I don't think "unchanging moral absolutes" are very effective at controlling human behaviour. If we spent a bit of effort educating people to treat others like people I think things would be better.
Our problems aren't because evil athiests decide crimes are morally acceptable. They're usually because religious people aren't used to thinking critically and passing responsibility for their actions to some made-up framework.
Man, you really need that seminar!
but thinks it impossible for someone to come up with their own rules seemingly from out of thin air.
Luckily for us, morals, even for an atheist, do not come out of thin air. Presumably, even an atheist participates in a society, and there are certain guidelines for meaningful conduct in said society. The distinction between those guidelines and some academic definition of "morals" proper, is what is actually rather thin.
"There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, and only I have managed to erase that line." - Dr. Science
Most rational people - atheists and theists alike - are agnostic. They admit that the answer to the existence of gods is unknowable. This stems from the way in which gods are typically defined: supernatural beings outside our sphere of observation and understanding.
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.
If you don't believe in the existence of gods - either strongly (belief in non-existence) or weakly (lack of belief) - then you're an atheist. If you agree with the "don't know" argument of agnosticism then you are also an agnostic. They are completely orthogonal so you can be both an atheist and an agnostic.
Most agnostics are actually atheists as well. However they're under the mistaken impression that agnosticism is a rational form of atheism. That's a misunderstanding perpetuated mostly within the USA. In Europe where philosophy was a mandatory subject in middle school, the difference between agnosticism and atheism is better understood.