Alternative =/= renewable =/= clean
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
I believe Germany decided to go zero nuclear by 2022 after the quake in Japan.
J
JCM
Didn't DOS get bought from some idiot who sold it to Gates for less than 2% of what he resold it to IBM?
Although I wish not to complain about him, in his old age Bill Gates is repaying his debt by eradicating polio in India and hopefully if all goes to plan, reducing by half the number of new HIV infections by the end of next year.
When Gates sold DOS to IBM, he didn't actually own it yet. He sold it to IBM to use on their new home computer line (which they didn't think would be a big market) and then went to finalize the deal with the creator of DOS, buying it for only a few thousand dollars.
The real genius was that Gates didn't sell DOS for a flat rate. He negotiated that he would earn a small profit for each computer sold, which again IBM didn't think would ever turn out to be much.
Really? From my short time here, you seem to be the only one that does it.
[DOUBLEPOST=1353197090][/DOUBLEPOST]
No no, I made a general statement. It wasn't specific towards you. It just seems to me a lot of far righties are all for killing the environment as cost efficiently as possible.
In his defense, it was an extremely common thing at one point. I've done tons of FTFY post edits, just not as a snarky response.Really? From my short time here, you seem to be the only one that does it.
Not even just that.
Gates sold IBM a pirated copy of CP/M that he purchased from a company in seattle
J
JCM
Wrong. He was born one, but does not practice the religion, nor cares for it. Unless being born in a religion automatically makes you join up for it, but then if we take that logic, half of us are or will be probably Mormons, as they can convert any people into Mormonism post-death.
According to Warren Buffet he is an atheist philanthropist like himself. Heck, Google up atheist philanthropists, you'll have his name as number 1.
Even he himself says so-
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.
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.
Gates was profiled in a January 13, 1996 TIME magazine cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:
"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates "His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."
"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't have any evidence of that."
He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates "His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."
"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't have any evidence of that."
He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
He is saving millions of lives for doing good itself, not being a selfish motherfucker trying to buy a piece of heaven.
Faith organizations are like any organizations. Some do a lot of good for the community. Unfortunately, they often have to carry the stigma of the horrid things which are done in their name. Sadly, a lot of the stigma comes from the top.
Mr. Fry makes some good points on one specific religion.
Until the very top leadership of religions stop their bigotry, all the good religion does will be undermined by those actions.
Mr. Fry makes some good points on one specific religion.
Until the very top leadership of religions stop their bigotry, all the good religion does will be undermined by those actions.
J
JCM
Amen. There was a time the church ruled Europe, we call it the Dark Ages, or also "the only time a people evolved so little over such a long time"
If Baptism = forever Catholic even when the person publicly denies follwoing that religion, then the Jews are Mormons, for they were post-posthumously Baptized in the Mormon way through a proxy. ;-)
Now, on the good?
If I were to threaten my children to throw them in a pit of fire, unless they'd give some money to the poor, could their giving to the poor be considered as noble as the act of another person who gave it just for the act of goodness?
Here is a story that I was told back when I was young, that explains the comparison better-
On theology, shoving the Catholic tag on someone who not once in his life practiced it, nor has anything to do with it, is simply illogical, or a desperate grasp to say that a man who has done as much good the past 5 years as the entire Catholic church, without any of the evil that the church inflicts, is somehow Catholic just because he was baptized. (I myself was baptized, then converted into three other religions that I also no longer practice, and now simply believe in karma).
If Baptism = forever Catholic even when the person publicly denies follwoing that religion, then the Jews are Mormons, for they were post-posthumously Baptized in the Mormon way through a proxy. ;-)
Now, on the good?
If I were to threaten my children to throw them in a pit of fire, unless they'd give some money to the poor, could their giving to the poor be considered as noble as the act of another person who gave it just for the act of goodness?
Here is a story that I was told back when I was young, that explains the comparison better-
Pity the church is too busy threatening priests with excommunication if they reveal child abuse to authorities and promising crusades against gay marriage to remember that.
First of all, your definition of Dark Ages is absolutely incorrect. Dark Ages was referenced as thus only because of the scarcity of historical records from the time and the term Dark Ages itself is rarely used in academia because of the common perception that it carries a negative connotation and has nothing to do with the church or religion. Because of many recent discoveries, that particular time period has become more known to us, which why is now widely know as the "early middle-ages".
Oh absolutely. Giving out of fear would seem rather ignoble. Fortunately, the Bible happens to agree with you in this aspect of giving:
I don't see any "give or burn in hell" in any of this. It's because it's false. Your idea that religious people giving because they're some sort of wind-up machines that apparently can't think for themselves because they're afraid to burn in hell is a wonderful strawman to build, but it doesn't jive with reality.
I will however agree with you that if Bill Gates was being branded Catholic without actually being Catholic then sure, that's not cool.
I will say one more thing: I'm not here to defend the Catholic church. In fact, that's probably one of the last thing you'd see me do. I'm more reacting to the generalities I'm seeing in the Religious vs Atheist intentions debate. What individual priests, the pope or whoever does is one thing, but I take issue with the rather broad paintbrush being used on certain ideas.
That's people's fault.
Never said it wasn't.
J
JCM
Its not named because of religion, but ironically, it was the crusades that actually showed poor backwards Europe that there was such a thing called science, real medicine and philosophy, Europe started to rise again (helped also by what they saw in China.
Ironically, once the Catholic church started embracing science and governments stopped letting the church control them (heck, it was a priest that was one the fathers of evolution) the West became first in science, and the Arab countries, after the Mongol invasion, entered their own dark ages and regressed to the pre-Islamic barbarism.
No problem with that. My wife's Catholic and my mother's a Muslim.
But Bill Gates is not a Catholic, thus his mission is nobler, than one that has religion behind it.
Even in the absence of religion you've discovered a way to judge people's character by assuming their motivation for any given action. Cool story bro.
What would you determine of bill gates character once you found out that he does this because he had to do something to offset his tax liability in the eyes of the US government, and he benefits more personally by forming his own "charity" and appointing himself and his family and friends to paid positions with various benefits and conference trips in exotic locations so they can benefit from his giving?
J
JCM
Sources needed. Funny how everything has sources, but for the only part that agrees with your arguement, I'm actually registering in wikipedia to add this much needed -
Gates began to appreciate the expectations others had of him when public opinion mounted suggesting that he could give more of his wealth to charity. [sources needed]
Probably BS from the Linux/Unix fanboys, who after years of spouting how "evil" he was, now see him curing polio, saving 5.8 million lives and doing more good for millions in Africa than all of them would ever do, tried to justify it.
The William H. Gates foundation was filed and planned from the late 80s, and created in 1994, according to the press release-
- Bill and Melinda consolidate their giving to address two main issues—global health and community needs in the Pacific Northwest
- Gates established a foundation for the charitable disbursement of much of his wealth in 1994, shortly after his marriage to Melinda French. This was known as the William H. Gates Foundation, and it was run by Gates's father, a Seattle lawyer, initially from the basement of his home. Apparently, Gates's marriage to Melinda French spurred the billionaire to find a way to give back some of his money. French grew up in Texas and studied computer science, engineering, and business at Duke University before joining Microsoft in 1987. While working as project manager at Microsoft, she also volunteered her time at a Seattle high school. On the eve of French and Gates's marriage, Gates's mother read the couple a letter that seemed to prod them to consider what to do with their plenty. As paraphrased in an article in the New York Times Magazine (April 16, 2000), it read, "From those who are given great resources, great things are expected." The magazine also went on to claim that French was the instigator in the move toward building the Gates Foundation.
Why would "public opinion" mount on the kid who had just launched Windows 3.1 and still made the most popular Mac programs?
So here's the real Gates, a nerd who married a woman who was charitable who told him about some problems she had seen, and so he went and created a foundation to solve them.
On "presuming" intentions, if you've gone to church once, you've been told you have to be good to go to heaven. I still would take the actions of someone who has not been told that some higher divinity would judge him every day.
It's like judging the same actions, but of a politician one year after being voted vs a politician who is in election year. ;-)
And do you really want to bring tax liability into a religious conversation, when we are dealing with an organization that for centuries would physically receive money, gold and riches for a spot in heaven and threaten excommunication to those that did not pay, and yet now pay no tax?
J
JCM
Sorry, I am still dealing with the new forums... anyway, I've put this subject off-topic enough, cheers and good night.
J
JCM
Damn wikipedia.... need to be an editor or something to correct a protected article. Oh well.
The motivation of married men everywhere.So he didn't do it to make up for being bad, he did it because he likes having sex with his wife... ok, definitely not catholic...
Necronic
Staff member
Whelp. Looks like JCM is back in true form.
Look, the entire argument that you need religion to create an oppressive dictatorial regime is ridiculous and has been debunked by history itself:
Stalin - Arguably one of the worst tyrants in human history. Avowwed atheist.
Napoleon - In case you weren't sure if Stalin was the worst, here's a close second. Started and maintained arguably the worst war in human history.
Mussolini - Well, sadly we couldn't fit Hitler in here, but here's the second best
Pol Pot - You know, the more I think about it the harder I am finding it to find religious dictators in the 20th century that come close to these guys (ignoring the middle east #yolo)
These were all atheists. They did nothing in the name of a higher power or god. They did this because they were sick monsters. And if there's one thing we can learn from this its that you don't need the church for evil. People do it all on their own.
Look, the entire argument that you need religion to create an oppressive dictatorial regime is ridiculous and has been debunked by history itself:
Stalin - Arguably one of the worst tyrants in human history. Avowwed atheist.
Napoleon - In case you weren't sure if Stalin was the worst, here's a close second. Started and maintained arguably the worst war in human history.
Mussolini - Well, sadly we couldn't fit Hitler in here, but here's the second best
Pol Pot - You know, the more I think about it the harder I am finding it to find religious dictators in the 20th century that come close to these guys (ignoring the middle east #yolo)
These were all atheists. They did nothing in the name of a higher power or god. They did this because they were sick monsters. And if there's one thing we can learn from this its that you don't need the church for evil. People do it all on their own.
J
JCM
Loos like Necronic's reading skills are back to kindergarten level, I see (Hey, its fun to start a rant with an insult, aint it?).
Stalin, bla bla, one could also mention Hitler, the Serbian massacre of Bosnian Muslims by a fanatical Catholic, IRA, Christian terrorism in , or any massacre from the Bible. Or like I mentioned in the Gaza thread, Israeli Hawks and all Arab governments. Argue something that has been said in this thread, or stop drinking before preaching to the choir.
Assholes are assholes, no matter what they believe in.
Dark Ages suffered technologically because of catholic rule
is not equal to
you need religion to create an oppressive dictatorial regimeStalin, bla bla, one could also mention Hitler, the Serbian massacre of Bosnian Muslims by a fanatical Catholic, IRA, Christian terrorism in , or any massacre from the Bible. Or like I mentioned in the Gaza thread, Israeli Hawks and all Arab governments. Argue something that has been said in this thread, or stop drinking before preaching to the choir.
Assholes are assholes, no matter what they believe in.
P*ssy, the world's greatest motivation, even before money and religion existed.So he didn't do it to make up for being bad, he did it because he likes having sex with his wife... ok, definitely not catholic...
- Status