Scott Adams Suggests Bill Gates For President 1224
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."
God (Score:5, Funny)
Re:God (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:God (Score:5, Funny)
Re:God (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How very, very droll.
Re:God (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God (Score:5, Insightful)
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 :)
Re:God (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]:
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."
Has the Bush Sr. quote been posted yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
George H. W. Bush, August 27, 1987.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 def
Re:Atheists and Morality (Score:5, Insightful)
Atheists do not believe in gods. They can still believe in man. There is no contradiction.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I draw the line at one year after birth because up to this point, there is very little distinction between a baby and an animal and it's legal to kill animals so long as it is done humanely.
Re:God (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Yes, where is the atheist member of congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes, where is the atheist member of congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny tho, the whole 'morals from God ' thing. Any Christian I talk to (including relatives) all believe not only in words written on pages thousands of years ago (written by dudes named John and Paul, which are very Jewish names, and also hand-picked by the Catholic church in later years) but also usually support whatever bloodhsed in any part of the world as long as it's in God's name (the 'extremist' and uneducated Muslims love this too). Whether it's the (re-)invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever their morality points them, they all belive in and break the concepts 'written' down thousands of years ago. How hypocritical, yet, it's God's morals they're following. And they know it .
I was indoctrinated into Christianity from a young age. Was told all the scary stories of judgement and this and that and in my late teens/early twenties realized that it was all bullshit. All about control, judgement - all negative. I've never met anyone who is Christ-like in the western world. And I've come to realize that Judeo-based/Christian morals are the last thing I'd ever impart on my kids (if I ever have any). They're, in my opinion, totally backwards and have nothing to do with modern living and have nothing to do with living a decent, educated, fair, and compassionate life.
The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.
While I say each to his own, it's clear to me that the Judeo-based religions are fundamentally flawed and have little place in the future of humanity. Some day, they will be realized (hopefully) as the primitive thinking they are just like the Greek and Roman and even Sumerian or Egyptian gods (which we dismiss as ridiculous nowadays). Of course, I won't live to see it, but it will probably happen. It has to, otherwise humanity will destroy itself. You have only to glimpse any religious leader/figure around the world to be sure of that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting theory. Apparently the "Christians" you spoke to didn't take any philosophy and morality classes. Most "sinful" activities have logical, non-religious arguments against them, especially when taken in context of the times a religious constraint was enacted by a religion's leadership.
I suggest the atheist in such cases is actually more moral than the religious faithful. They're consciously thinking about what they're doing, the ramifications and
That always creeped me out (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.
Re:God (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Oh, the humanity! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh, the humanity! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As well as the Dawkins book (" The God Delusion [amazon.com]", 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 Politic [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intel ligence#Religiosity_and_education_in_the_United_St ates [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot "CULTURE WARRIOR" at #3 by noted atheist Bill O'Reilly, and "THE MYSTICAL LIFE OF JESUS" at #13 by Sylvia Browne. Oh, right - the world is so "anti-religion" nowadays. It's actually news that atheists have books that are selling now, but "Godless" by Ann Coulter and "Deliver Us From Evil" by Sean Hannity are, of course, not any cause for special note.
Let me just quote Jon Stewart on this one: "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe - dare I dream it - maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
To answer your question, I believe that the editors included it because, the general tone of Slashdot is anti-relig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not compatible (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not compatible (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they should eat less.
Re:Not compatible (Score:4, Funny)
Scott Adams is smoking crack (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict that we'll have a Jewish president before an athiest.
LK
Of course! (Score:5, Funny)
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 can see it now.... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait............ it already has. Nevermind.
Re:I can see it now.... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait............ it already has. Nevermind.
Cannot find file "WMD.IRAQ", System Halted.
Re:I can see it now.... (Score:5, Funny)
M$ jokes aside... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:M$ jokes aside... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model?
Are you kidding me? Fuck yes it would!
What is the one, single thing any business is intent on doing? Making profit. When you have a government operating like a business, what does it do? It tries to make a profit. And governments can only reasonably make a profit in three different ways: 1) tax the bejesus out of the population, 2) actually print money, and 3) take wealth out of other nations without their consent.
You can not truly 'create wealth'. You can do more with fuel and machines, but commerce and taxation is only shifting wealth around, when you come down to it.
Gates (Score:4, Funny)
But a Iraq SP2 might be useful anyway.
WTF is this intolerant bullshit? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:WTF is this intolerant bullshit? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:WTF is this intolerant bullshit? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
""In God We Trust" is the national motto of the United States of America. It was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) according to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302. President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.[1]"
It seems to me that tacking on the motto about 180 years after the declaration of independence is a sign of a religious right phase that started in the 1950s with Mc
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 i
A whole new range of political terms and language. (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
End of faith (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 solu
Re:End of faith (Score:5, Informative)
Now many evangelicals like to pick and choose from the specific list according to their own tastes/prejudices, but you're right, to be consistent, one should go the whole hog, as Christianity doesn't actually have a concept of big sins/little sins - a sin is a sin is a sin (pace Catholicism). But they don't like it when you point this out, as much of it is clearly absurd to western society. As are the bits they like to pick out. One good exposition of this is the one from the The West Wing [bewarne.com]:
But just because some people like to pick specifics from a menu doesn't mean that this is at all an accurate, authentic description of Christianity.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think if you make a comparison, it would soon become obvious that the NT kernel has several advantages, mainly its support for Win32 applications but also environment subsystems compatibility with Posix and OS/2. Also, the way the drivers are handled are rather advantageous, since they're divided into three levels, the middle one also supporting WDM for compatibility with the previous generation of kernel.
You don't get that
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Christians signed a contract for Salvationix 2.0 (built on the Jesus kernel) but God Inc is obligated to continue providing technical support to the Jews as long as they are using Salvationix 1.0 (Jaweh kernel) and trying to get the damned thing to run on Israel-generation hardware, which they are crazily overclocking. The Muslims have a cont
Bill in charge? (Score:5, Funny)
- 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.
An honest person for president (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The need for an _intelligent_ leader (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Religiosity is the only criterion. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So tell me again why being Christian shouldn't be a pre-requisite to being the top political and commander in chief of this nation? 88% is a pretty convincing argument IMHO.
what?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Atheist? Serious? Humor-impaired? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [loc.gov] http://www.amazon.com/Hold-These-Truths-Mortimer-
Athiest or Agnostic? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Athiest or Agnostic? (Score:5, Informative)
And PZ Myers had a good discussion on the issue in a recent blog post: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/freeth
If Bill Gates Were President... (Score:3, Funny)
(Or for the humor challenged:
Re:neighbors (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:neighbors (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
An atheist president would be good for America (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway if they claimed to be humanist most christians would be completely unaware that it isn't a christian sect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 mutua
Re:No, we need a philosopher-king... (Score:4, Funny)
Colbert/Stewart
Hell, I've met several right-wingers that don't get Colbert's character and would probably even vote for him.
Re:The more I see Microsoft Products like Zune pop (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
andlinux (Score:3, Informative)
PAT
This article deserves the tag flamebait. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This article deserves the tag flamebait. (Score:5, Funny)
Canada (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong. Actually the nice thing about being an atheist is that you don't have to justify yourself to anyone at all!
-An atheist.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly, some American and European capitalistic companies have found giving some control to the workers a god incentive (stocks/options
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You may be missing my point: the actual examples seen in history are the actual examples of communism. I offer the unwillingness of communist adherents to accept the reality as proof that communism is more or less a religion. The system is novel in the abstract, but goes feudal (or fascist) when combined with Real Live People: it models the human spirit poorly on a good da
Opponents (Score:4, Interesting)
World's richest man vs. World's strongest man. Begin!
Let's Pass an Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you have a choice whether to send that crackpot your money. Or are you dismissing self-choice?
Re:Scot t Adams Disses Atheists' Common-Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
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.