Bill Gates...

[MickZagger]

He's smart enough to be a Democrat.

I fixed it for you.

 

[MickZagger]

LOL at the original poster for needing to know if Bill Gates if R or D before he can decide if he should respect the man.

Yeah, thats it.

 

[julius]

good lord we need something else to obsess over.

 

[maxiep]

I fixed it for you.

Democrats seem to be good at changing the talking points to fit their story.

 

[Denny Crane]

Democrats seem to be good at changing the talking points to fit their story.

+1

...

 

[julius]

Democrats seem to be good at changing the talking points to fit their story.

Both parties/ideologies do that.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

If Bill Gates were a country, he would be the 37th richest country on Earth.

This might be more for the random stats thread but it also fits here.

 

[magnifier661]

Democrats seem to be good at changing the talking points to fit their story.

Oh that was good!

 

[MickZagger]

Democrats seem to be good at changing the talking points to fit their story.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[mobes23]

Bill Gates' biggest salary was $1M/year and that was late in his career at Microsoft. I'm sure he really didn't mind having that $1M taxed at a higher rate.

I'm not the one spending my $billions in a competing way to the government. He is. He will make sure his $60B (or whatever he's amassed) won't be spent by the government. It is what it is.

It's also possible that he's spending his money in an attempt to solve problems that he and his wife think are important. Compare that possibility with your theory and your theory rings pretty hollow.

 

[Further]

Actually, merriam-webster and many other dictionary sources also agree. That's unfortunate that you think that is "rude". They probably think it is "rude" that you decided to try to redefine an already defined word.

Definitions from Merriam Webster
Atheist

: one who believes that there is no deity

Agnostic

. 1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

The first one is belief, having the belief in god or not having the belief in god. The second definition is for agnostic, a person who is holds "the view" that knowing the answer is unknowable. Exactly, they do not contridict. I do not know and do not believe knowing if god exists is knowable. I am agnostic. I don't believe in god, I am atheist, I am both terms. Many, perhaps most athiests are also agnostic. They do not answer the same question.

I'll take it away from religion for a second as that tends to cloud issues because religious people tend to think everyone who is not religious still thinks about the world the same way a a religious person does. Lets think about the number Pi, 3.14159....... Do you know there is eventually an end or final didgit of Pi? I don't think anyone or any computer has solved Pi. I think we are up to more than five trillion digits. Now, different question, do you believe Pi ha an end. For me, I believe it does have an end, or at least sometimes has an end. This is because mathematically it seems logical to me that once the number gets small enough, it starts dealing in the quantum world which has its own laws dictating size.

I can believe but not know, or I can not believe and not know. But, when it comes to religion people think that believing means knowing, which it does not. But more importantly they think not believing is the same as not knowing when they are totally different.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Definitions from Merriam Webster
Atheist


Agnostic


The first one is belief, having the belief in god or not having the belief in god. The second definition is for agnostic, a person who is holds "the view" that knowing the answer is unknowable. Exactly, they do not contridict. I do not know and do not believe knowing if god exists is knowable. I am agnostic. I don't believe in god, I am atheist, I am both terms. Many, perhaps most athiests are also agnostic. They do not answer the same question.

I'll take it away from religion for a second as that tends to cloud issues because religious people tend to think everyone who is not religious still thinks about the world the same way a a religious person does. Lets think about the number Pi, 3.14159....... Do you know there is eventually an end or final didgit of Pi? I don't think anyone or any computer has solved Pi. I think we are up to more than five trillion digits. Now, different question, do you believe Pi ha an end. For me, I believe it does have an end, or at least sometimes has an end. This is because mathematically it seems logical to me that once the number gets small enough, it starts dealing in the quantum world which has its own laws dictating size.

I can believe but not know, or I can not believe and not know. But, when it comes to religion people think that believing means knowing, which it does not. But more importantly they think not believing is the same as not knowing when they are totally different.

Repped, I definitely couldn't have put it better.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's also possible that he's spending his money in an attempt to solve problems that he and his wife think are important. Compare that possibility with your theory and your theory rings pretty hollow.

So government doesn't solve problems that people think are important? OK. Perfect reason to assure government doesn't touch any of Gates' money.

The government spends enough money to buy Microsoft outright 16 times over EACH YEAR. That's the federal government. I would think the state of Washington would gladly put his fortune to use doing pretty much whatever he asked.

In fact, these guys are capitalists and have very different views of how to get things done. Government isn't at all a choice they want to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_philanthropy (the word "government" does not appear in the document, period)

Imagine if government ran our education system according to the first three bullet points on that page.


Another good read:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13556127/#.UZI5D5Urr4Q

 

[Denny Crane]

Definitions from Merriam Webster
Atheist


Agnostic


The first one is belief, having the belief in god or not having the belief in god. The second definition is for agnostic, a person who is holds "the view" that knowing the answer is unknowable. Exactly, they do not contridict. I do not know and do not believe knowing if god exists is knowable. I am agnostic. I don't believe in god, I am atheist, I am both terms. Many, perhaps most athiests are also agnostic. They do not answer the same question.

I'll take it away from religion for a second as that tends to cloud issues because religious people tend to think everyone who is not religious still thinks about the world the same way a a religious person does. Lets think about the number Pi, 3.14159....... Do you know there is eventually an end or final didgit of Pi? I don't think anyone or any computer has solved Pi. I think we are up to more than five trillion digits. Now, different question, do you believe Pi ha an end. For me, I believe it does have an end, or at least sometimes has an end. This is because mathematically it seems logical to me that once the number gets small enough, it starts dealing in the quantum world which has its own laws dictating size.

I can believe but not know, or I can not believe and not know. But, when it comes to religion people think that believing means knowing, which it does not. But more importantly they think not believing is the same as not knowing when they are totally different.

The difference between

: one who believes that there is no deity

and

one who does not believe there is a deity

is subtle.

Think it over

 

[ABM]

Judaism is built on action and not belief......

Something Jesus said about "white-washed tombs"?

 

[Further]

Something Jesus said about "white-washed tombs"?

Edit - I was rude so I erased it

But what I was basically getting at, I don't put any faith, trust or time into the bible, especially the New Testament.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The "believing" in god of Abraham is not the same for us as for you. A Jew should know, should think about, should consider the implications, but belief is neither here nor there.

This is an interesting, and seemingly contradictory, concept to me. For instance, does not observant Judaism require recitation of the Shema? How can one recite the Shema ("Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one...") twice daily and not believe in God, without consciously and intentionally lying?

 

[Denny Crane]

This is an interesting, and seemingly contradictory, concept to me. For instance, does not observant Judaism require recitation of the Shema? How can one recite the Shema ("Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one...") twice daily and not believe in God, without consciously and intentionally lying?

Judaism is both a religion and a race. You can be a member of the race and not practice the religion, eh?

 

[blazerboy30]

Definitions from Merriam Webster
Atheist


Agnostic


The first one is belief, having the belief in god or not having the belief in god. The second definition is for agnostic, a person who is holds "the view" that knowing the answer is unknowable. Exactly, they do not contridict. I do not know and do not believe knowing if god exists is knowable. I am agnostic. I don't believe in god, I am atheist, I am both terms. Many, perhaps most athiests are also agnostic. They do not answer the same question.

WTF? The definitions you posted absolutely DO contradict each other. The definition of athiest is a set of beliefs that THERE IS NO GOD. You seem unable to see the difference between a) "not believing in God" and b)"believing that there is no God". If you can't see the difference between those two statements, then you shouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[blazerboy30]

Repped, I definitely couldn't have put it better.

Of course you couldn't. You even included, again, the blatant contradiction and that you always have on this discussion.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Judaism is both a religion and a race. You can be a member of the race and not practice the religion, eh?

I understand that notion (one with which I disagree, BTW--I've always viewed the ethnicity as "Hebrew" rather than "Jewish", the latter being faith-based); but the post to which I was responding was regarding what is necessary to be a "good Jew". Allow me to quote another portion of his post:

You don't even need to believe to be considered a "good Jew", you simply need to follow mitzvots, meaning the 613 rules or laws. Judaism is built on action and not belief....Judaism is not a religion of faith, even though a good portion have faith.

This is the part that doesn't quite make sense to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

A lot of Jewish practice is designed to keep Jewish culture consistent where you have the race scattered across the world.

That is, the culture is pretty much the same in New York as in Israel.

Edit: an example might be keeping kosher. I don't think it's a religious practice, but rather a health one. People who ate improperly cooked pork would get trichinosis...

 

[magnifier661]

I understand that notion (one with which I disagree, BTW--I've always viewed the ethnicity as "Hebrew" rather than "Jewish", the latter being faith-based); but the post to which I was responding was regarding what is necessary to be a "good Jew". Allow me to quote another portion of his post:



This is the part that doesn't quite make sense to me.

That's what I'm saying. I mean its like an African-American that says they are Rasta. I think of Judaism as a religion, while hebrew is the race.

 

[magnifier661]

A lot of Jewish practice is designed to keep Jewish culture consistent where you have the race scattered across the world.

That is, the culture is pretty much the same in New York as in Israel.

Edit: an example might be keeping kosher. I don't think it's a religious practice, but rather a health one. People who ate improperly cooked pork would get trichinosis...

But the French, Korean or Japanese came to this country and brang their culture with them. It wasn't their religion, but their culture mostly. So should we label all French "Catholics", Japanese "Shintonese" and Korean "Buddhist"?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

A lot of Jewish practice is designed to keep Jewish culture consistent where you have the race scattered across the world.

That is, the culture is pretty much the same in New York as in Israel.

Edit: an example might be keeping kosher. I don't think it's a religious practice, but rather a health one. People who ate improperly cooked pork would get trichinosis...

This is true--the differentiation between civil, ceremonial, and moral law is something many don't understand (which is why many ignorant people bring up eating grapes and shellfish as a criticism of Christian denouncement of homosexuality).

However, that is completely unrelated to my question.

 

[Denny Crane]

But the French, Korean or Japanese came to this country and brang their culture with them. It wasn't their religion, but their culture mostly. So should we label all French "Catholics", Japanese "Shintonese" and Korean "Buddhist"?

The Hebrews have millennia of history of being a race scattered across the earth. There were very few years they had a country, such as France or Korea or Japan.

Where the recent migration of people from their home countries may result in some of the culture being maintained, it is not by design in those nations' oldest and most studied documents, rules, and laws.

I'd also point out assimilation. A Chinese restaurant here doesn't exactly serve food like they actually eat in China.

 

[magnifier661]

The Hebrews have millennia of history of being a race scattered across the earth. There were very few years they had a country, such as France or Korea or Japan.

Where the recent migration of people from their home countries may result in some of the culture being maintained, it is not by design in those nations' oldest and most studied documents, rules, and laws.

I'd also point out assimilation. A Chinese restaurant here doesn't exactly serve food like they actually eat in China.

SO should we call Korean's "Mongolians"? Should the Koreans practice the Mongolian "Nomad" rules? Mongolians were around for millennia too.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is true--the differentiation between civil, ceremonial, and moral law is something many don't understand (which is why many ignorant people bring up eating grapes and shellfish as a criticism of Christian denouncement of homosexuality).

However, that is completely unrelated to my question.

A good Jew would be one that observes enough of the cultural tradition that you would certainly identify the person as being Jewish.

I think that's a direct answer to your question.

 

[Denny Crane]

SO should we call Korean's "Mongolians"? Should the Koreans practice the Mongolian "Nomad" rules? Mongolians were around for millennia too.

No, they're Koreans because they come from the nation of Korea. Just as we would call a citizen of, or immigrant from, Israel an Israeli.

 

[magnifier661]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha <--- Jewish Law

Classical Rabbinic Judaism has two basic categories of laws:
• Laws believed revealed by God to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai (e.g. the written Pentateuch and elucidations therefrom, Halacha l'Moshe miSinai);
• Laws of human origin including Rabbinic decrees, interpretations, customs, etc.

Then there is this....

A further division is made between chukim ("decrees" — laws without obvious explanation, such as shatnez, the law prohibiting wearing clothing made of mixtures of linen and wool), mishpatim ("judgments" — laws with obvious social implications) and eduyot ("testimonies" or "commemorations", such as the Shabbat and holidays). Through the ages, various rabbinical authorities have classified the commandments in various other ways.

A different approach divides the laws into a different set of categories:
• Laws in relation to God (bein adam la-Makom), and
• Laws about relations with other people (bein adam la-chavero).

There is a notion in halakha that violations of the latter are more severe, in certain ways, because of the requirement that one must obtain forgiveness both from the offended person and from God.

And finally, this is one of the most important laws in Judaism.

Judaism has always held that people who are not Jews are obliged only to follow the seven Noahide Laws; these are laws that the Oral Law derives from the covenant God made with Noah after the flood, which apply to all descendants of Noah, i.e., all living people. The Noahide laws are derived in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 57a), and are listed here:
• Murder is forbidden.
• Theft is forbidden.
• Sexual immorality is forbidden.
• Eating flesh cut from a still-living animal is forbidden.
• Belief in and worship of, or prayer to, "idols" is forbidden.
• Blaspheming against God is forbidden.
• Society must establish a fair system of legal justice to administer law honestly.

So if you are "Atheist", then wouldn't believing that God doesn't exist is "blaspheming against God"?