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."
Atheism does not make you predisposed to any particular behavior, or increase your likelihood of doing or not doing something. The same cannot be said of Islam.
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
It is interesting to me that the USA is one of the worlds most influential christian nations, and one of the few countries on earth with a constitutional separation between church and state.
By comparison my own country (Australia) is almost athiestic, yet our constitution bars anybody who is not a member of the church of england becoming head of state.
Is it possible that this is a passing phase for the USA? Is the religious right being supported by people who will be dead in 10 years? Or does this run right down through the younger generations?
I get the impression that religion, like support for guns, is just one of the symbolic markers which politicians use to stake their territory. Perhaps because the language of economics is too complex for most people so they have to base their campaigns on simple things.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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
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!
I realize that I will most likely be modded down for this post, but oh well...
I can think of two reasons why it might be on Slashdot. The first being that Reddit.com cover it yesterday. And as of right now it is holding as 2nd place for the hottest topic.
The second reason is probably related to online sources from MSNBC, Slashdot, Reddit and other forums, as well as the New York Times best selling list that have included elements of anti-religion and anti-god media. Reading Slashdot's tone on some articles, those who defend faith and faith-based beliefs are modded down, while those that advocate atheism or include anti-faith commentary are treated somehow as the insightful ones in the forum. At least, two books, #7, Richard Dawkins book, and #17, A Letter to a Christian Nation, have atheist overtones. Right now, generally speaking those with faith are thought of as uneducated and unenlightened.
To answer your question, I believe that the editors included it because, the general tone of Slashdot is anti-religion.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intel ligence#Religiosity_and_education_in_the_United_St ates
pandnotpian.org. The untruth will set you free!
As well as the Dawkins book ("The God Delusion", for those of you on the other side of the Atlantic -- I guess it's been supressed as "unAmerican" over there) this is a good, interesting, authoritative and rather depressing read: American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Some of this is no doubt due to the separation clause in our Constitution, but probably not in the way you're envisioning. The separation clause, I think, gives both sides enough latitude to swing too far - when the religious frenzy gets to be too much for sensible folk, the pendulum gets pushed back hard the other way. When secular excess seems to go too far (big changes in sexual mores and capitalism run amok), people start streaming back into churches. An establishment church, where everyone is required to give at least lip service to the church, appears to have a societal calming, but enervating to faith, effect. No one gets too worked up about the church (it's at some level compulsory, after all), but its widespread reach allows its hierarchy to speak with some authority long before the "pendulum" starts moving too fast. You end up with societies formed of irreligious believers - which is a nice, cozy place to be.
Personal opinions ahead
Danger of collision with popular beliefs
A strange notion seems to have gained popularity about a human being that is always completely self-sufficient, rational, and objective - or at least most of the time. I've yet to meet such a person. I certainly know myself well enough to tell you I'm not one. This notion is bubbling under theories of alternative economic theories that are based on individuals buying everything they need on a perfectly-functioning private market, with money they somehow always have available, and theories about large portions of the population being able to function without their spiritual side. (I remember reading that there's a specific area in the brain for spiritual experiences. Make of it what you wish, but try disabling one function of your brain - not fun.)
We have this thing called science specifically because people are frequently not objective and rational, and we need a process to ensure that research, which is done by people, is. Science is a good thing; so is religion, and I don't see any need for them to collide, since they answer two different problems.
It's a function of the human mind to find excuses (sometimes very convoluted ones) for anything it wants to do, i.e. rationalize. I've done this myself (and hated myself for it), and seen others do it (and hated them for it). It has nothing to do with religion; atheists are fully capable of it, just as are religious people. Both can be open about it, or try to hide it. Rationalization is very often just a way to do what one wants and get away with it; it can be almost or completely unconscious and mostly harmless, or carefully planned to maximize advantage and profit at others' expense. It takes a considerable amount of self-discipline to look at one's actions from an outsider's point-of-view instead of just rationalizing from a selfish perspective. (The name Kant springs into mind. See also Categorical Imperative.) This, in turn, is one way to get along with other people, which is one of the problems most major religions are trying to solve (with varying defitions of "other people"). (Another problem is keeping a community together.)
Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
"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.