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."
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
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.
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.
In Soviet Redmond, your new borg overlords...ah, to hell with...oh, wait, they're aethist...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.
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!
We have to prepare for a massive increase in immigration of Linux geeks.
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.
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).
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.
"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.
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.