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."

21 of 1,224 comments (clear)

  1. God by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 5, Funny

    help us.

    --
    Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
    1. Re:God by sjwest · · Score: 5, Funny

      If i was american i'd not vote for him, but im sure quite a few americians would vote for catbert.

    2. Re:God by GNious · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think Balmer would run...

      /G

    3. Re:God by markh1967 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality

      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.
    4. Re:God by COMON$ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Interesting indeed. I would assume the Christian in question was referring to some kind of consistent morality. Although most of my fellow Christian are woefully ignorant about their own faith and could not distinguish the difference between Christianity and any other mainstream religion. Chances are someone they respect said the same thing "Atheists have no moral capacity" and thought, hey this person is saying something bad about Atheists, it must be true!

      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?
    5. Re:God by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

  2. I can see it now.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Your country has performed an illegal operation."

    Oh, wait............ it already has. Nevermind.

    1. Re:I can see it now.... by Geminii · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry, we're gonna have to shut your country down temporarily and replace the political drivers. In the meantime, try running in Safe mode - no invasions, no corporations running in Ring 0, and no personal incomes over 640K. (That should be enough for anyone.)

  3. A whole new range of political terms and language. by salparadyse · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  4. End of faith by clickclickdrone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:neighbors by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:WTF is this intolerant bullshit? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Bill in charge? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. Re:How is this news? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 5, Informative

    You don't read Scott Adam's blog a lot, do you? Scott Adams is all about parodies and is always laughing about something, specially about the people who takes seriously what he says. His proposal of Bill Gates as president is just yet another funny post of crazy ways to be president of the united states. Just a small example:

    "As a political candidate, I would advocate some sort of tax rebate to subsidize Internet porn and Kleenex for single men between the ages of 18 and 35. That way all the potential rapists can more easily afford to exhaust themselves at home. I'd have graphs and charts to make my argument that no other policy would be as effective. My slogan would be "Deal with the root cause." I would call it my Yankee Doodle plan.

  9. Re:Not compatible by mustafap · · Score: 5, Funny

    >the US has enough land to sustain only about 1/10 of it's population

    Maybe they should eat less.

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  10. Re:How is this news? by Beige · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Right now, generally speaking those with faith are thought of as uneducated and unenlightened.
    Prejudiced as it may sound, there might be something in this idea:

    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!
  11. what?! by oyenstikker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:How is this news? by HairyCanary · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good luck with that. There is no such thing as news that is not biased. If you think you know of any, then it just proves that they are either good at hiding their bias, or they happen to have precisely the same bias you already have.

  13. Re:This article deserves the tag flamebait. by mattcasters · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, don't you just love it!

    --
    News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
  14. That always creeped me out by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:Athiest or Agnostic? by Domomojo · · Score: 5, Informative

    The definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" are hotly debated. The common definition of atheism being the denial of the existence of gods is inadequate for most people who call themselves atheists. Basically "atheist" should mean the person is a non-theist. In that sense there is no middle ground. Since Gates doesn't have a belief in a particular deity, by that definition he is an atheist. (It's like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't). "Agnosticism" is about knowledge, not belief, so Gates could be both an agnostic and an atheist, just like you could be an agnostic and a theist. What most people think "atheist" means is actually the definition of "strong atheism." I think most people who call themselves "agnostics" by the common definition, are actually "weak atheists". Wikipedia has plenty of information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

    And PZ Myers had a good discussion on the issue in a recent blog post: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/freetho ught_tagteam_wrestling.php