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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Thank God I'm an atheist!
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?
Or
Colbert/Stewart
Hell, I've met several right-wingers that don't get Colbert's character and would probably even vote for him.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
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.
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
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 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.
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.
PAT
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
The atheist religion (sic) has a bizarre tendency to justify itself through accusing various prolific hand-picked figures over history of being atheist.
Wrong. Actually the nice thing about being an atheist is that you don't have to justify yourself to anyone at all!
-An atheist.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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 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
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
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 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 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.
If "religion" means "set of beliefs" then actually everyone is not athiest, in fact everyone is "religious" including athiests (in this case their belief is that they don't believe in God). For an interesting read on the state of our "perfect science" that can not be questioned I found this on the internet a while back: The Case Against The Nuclear Atom
We have to prepare for a massive increase in immigration of Linux geeks.
hehe, we have to prepare for a massive increase in immigration of Linux geeks.
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.
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 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.
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).
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.
..."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
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.
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.
>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.
Such a site is an attempt (amongst others) to bring such people together.
...Right, thought not.
I call bullshit. I would equally call bullshit upon Whitebuntu, Blackbuntu, Straightbuntu, Transsexualbuntu, and whatever else someone wants to come up with. Not that I'm exactly a fan of the Ubuntu project itself (I like my Kubuntu, but not enough to use it on a daily basis anymore, and the people in the project piss me off), but last I checked, Ubuntu's thing is bringing people together, not such people. So why are you taking off on their name and project?
Also, it may help with technical issues unique to gay people and sites. For example, if you run a gay matchmaking site, you may face unique confidentiality issues due to the need of protecting identities of those wanting to take part in the site, but "still in the closet".
Bullshit again. It's no different from me keeping privacy records on customers, or the identity protection on those billion-and-one camsites on the Internet.
Or you may be particularly annoyed at KDE's tendency to yank you to the desktop where a popup just happened (imagine what happens while gayromeo just pops up its "you've been disconnected from the site due to inactivity" window while you showed a coworker some java code in another window...
Bullshit just reached waist level. Here's a novel solution. Don't surf pornographic sites when at work. Le fucking gasp.
These aren't "gay-specific" technical issues, and you know it. I don't really care one way or the other what you do, but I really hate bullshitters.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
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.
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.
So instead of basing your morality on a fear of divine retribution, you base yours on a fear of societal retribution?
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
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.
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.
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.
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.