1. Comment #280433 by firstelder_d on November 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm

What a bunch of crap. Dawkins has already explained this, lots of times. You don't get your conscience from a book.

Where there is [God], all is permitted.

Lawyered.

Other Comments by firstelder_d

2. Comment #280434 by tieInterceptor on November 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm

this bothers me, so they "ask" religious people how they feel about their life, and they answer that they are "happy happy..."

after the article mentions that if they give more to charity could be because they believe that they are being watched...

maybe they answer that they are happy too, due to the fact that the creator of the universe is over their shoulder watching them tick the box... don't want to look ungrateful to the creator, now would you?

seriously, the fact that the top 10 world democracies is overwhelmingly full of atheist countries, and that prisons have less atheists than the average is enough for me.

maybe atheist answer that they are not that happy because they are educated and informed and know better than give black and white answers.

yeah, drunks are well happy too. Sheesh

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

3. Comment #280438 by root2squared on November 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Many Americans doubt the morality of atheists.

Well, fuck those people.

Does atheism make you mean?

No, stupid statements like the above make me mean.

Other Comments by root2squared

4. Comment #280443 by Border Collie on November 7, 2008 at 2:17 pm

"Nice"? How does one acquire funding for this sort of BS? I'm going to do a study ... "Does being a religious pedophile make you nicer than a non-religious pedophile?" If people behave one way with the God pistol to their heads and another way without the God pistol, are we not talking about something else ... maybe fear of punishment or hell or something? It certainly wouldn't be innate "niceness". Barf.

My two bits is that religion makes one arrogant and sanctimonious, but not nice.

Other Comments by Border Collie

5. Comment #280451 by Jenny Taylier on November 7, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Now I come to think about it, people I know that are outwardly religious, are, on balance, either about the same or less nice than the others.

Other Comments by Jenny Taylier

6. Comment #280454 by Caudimordax on November 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Did anybody go to Slate and read the whole article? The conclusion seemed to be that in America atheists are less generous than believers, but this is because they are excluded from the hyper-religious community around them, but in Sweden and Denmark, where people don't believe in god but have church rituals (i.e. community) they're even nicer and have lower murder and rape rates.

So there.

It's unfortunate that this website only put up the first two "teaser" paragraphs.

Last paragraph:

The sorry state of American atheists, then, may have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. It may instead be the result of their outsider status within a highly religious country where many of their fellow citizens, including very vocal ones like Schlessinger, find them immoral and unpatriotic. Religion may not poison everything, but it deserves part of the blame for this one.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

7. Comment #280457 by PeterMcKellar on November 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm

I would suggest posters read the full article and follow the link to the author's own work and findings. He thoroughly demolishes the whole fiction of "mean atheists" and puts the blame squarely on those theist in xtian dominated societies (eg USA) that marginalise and vilify atheists.

Where this doesn't happen, the diff between theists and atheists evaporates (eg Sweden & Denmark).

What isn't mentioned is the whole "outrider clipping" issue practiced by all groups but turned into a science by organised religions. christians are NOT nice to muslims. They also aren't all that friendly to jews (killed christ), atheists (pick any hate argument you want), hindus (ragheads like muslims). Then you can start on the christian warrior groups, the KKK, the temperance wowsers etc. This loose affiliation of predominantly christ deluded is possibly the most divisive, toxic, hate filled and meanest group in society. Throw in the excesses of the jihadists and the state sanctioned terrorism of the Israeli theocracy and it soon become clear who is "mean".

Piety = Poison

Good article

(Edit spelling. "Ten" changed to "Then", "of" to "on")

Other Comments by PeterMcKellar

8. Comment #280463 by robotaholic on November 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm

thx Caudimordax - that is a better conclusion than the one that I drew

Other Comments by robotaholic

9. Comment #280469 by ksskidude on November 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I think its just ridiculous that in order for you to behave nice or act kind you have to have someone looking over your shoulder.
We don't give money to the homeless, we give them food. I don't give money to the religious because they are a bunch of hypocrites. I gave money to the "Atheist Bus Campaign," I gave money to the Obama campaign, and I am certainly not religious. It makes me laugh when someone says morals comes from the bible or from a belief in god.
People like Luara Schlessinger need to be laughed at, and ridiculed. She is an idiot!!

Just my two cents....

Other Comments by ksskidude

10. Comment #280470 by debaser71 on November 7, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I don't like Paul Bloom. He insists that humans are naturally dualists and universally ... oh what word to use... spiritual. He's wrong.

Other Comments by debaser71

11. Comment #280476 by Nails on November 7, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Maybe atheism is different in the UK because I give blood regularly (for nothing), I give a little to charity and I am as happy as anyone I know, if not happier.

So the question that I need answering from this article is why are American atheists so bloody miserable?

Does it have more to do with the know-it-all religious freaks that dominate the landscape?

Other Comments by Nails

12. Comment #280477 by Caudimordax on November 7, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Nails - only the first two "teaser" paragraphs from the article are posted above. You have to link to Slate and read the whole article where your questios will be answered.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

13. Comment #280478 by j.mills on November 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Speaking of donations, though sort of off-topic: there's a story popping up around the net about Dungeons & Dragons creator, E Gary Gygax. He died recently, so by way of tribute the GenCon gaming convention has just raised $17,000 for his favourite charity - which alas turns out to be the CCF, http://www.christianchildrensfund.org/

Supposedly the CCF turned it down when they realised where it came from. They say that they didn't want to give the appearance of endorsing a convention they had no part in, but that does seem a bit limp. Common view is that they don't want to be associated with D&D (ooh, witches, scary!), although one poster on the site below reckons it's because there was also pornographic material available at GenCon (that again seems a bit of a stretch).

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/11/04/children039s-charity-turns-its-back-gygax-memorial-donation

Other Comments by j.mills

14. Comment #280480 by Caudimordax on November 7, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Can we contact the D&D people and get them to give the money to RD.net?

I don't know much about Gygax's biography, but here's my massively simplistice train of though:

Gamer = geek = smart = atheist (at least the gamers I know are those things).

Other Comments by Caudimordax

15. Comment #280482 by Nairb on November 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Caudimrdax,PeterMcKellar,

In france there is about 30% athiest 30% religous and 30% deist.
We dont do church rituals (<10%).

And I can confirm what any tourist to Paris knows - that we are all equally NOT NICE.

:-)

Other Comments by Nairb

16. Comment #280483 by the great teapot on November 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm

"She approvingly quotes Dostoyevsky"
Why?
It was hardly the most earth shatteringly profound and original thought when he wrote it.
Surely she isn't doing it to appear intellectual.
Clearly she is banking on her audiance not having heard the tired old overexhausted quote before.
Pseudes corner is getting very overpopulated these days.

Other Comments by the great teapot

17. Comment #280484 by Laurie Fraser on November 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Nice, isn't it? Pull a quote from one of the most nuanced, complex authors in history - a writer whose investigation of the human psyche predated almost all of modern psychology, and trumpet it as if it were Dostoyevsy's final analysis; what a fraud.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

18. Comment #280487 by Pope Joan on November 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Under Catholicism one can behave as “un-nice” as one pleases and still obtain salvation by the indulgence granted by a priest in the confessional. Many renowned and ruthless members of the Mafia were and are Catholic, and had their souls cleansed as easily as washing wet cement off of their hands.

Even better, back in 1095, Pope Urban enlisted thousands of the faithful to fight in the first crusade by offering a plenary indulgence (forgive all sins) to anyone who signed up. With no worries about dying in sin, no one had to be nice at all as they pillaged, raped and hacked through the infidel’s sacred land.

Other Comments by Pope Joan

19. Comment #280489 by j.mills on November 7, 2008 at 3:39 pm

As Hitch says, WITH God, all things are permitted.

Other Comments by j.mills

20. Comment #280495 by Steve Zara on November 7, 2008 at 3:56 pm

PZ Myers chimes in on this article here

And suggests something that I think is an extremely bad idea - an "atheist community".

I have no objection to secularist communities, or rationalist communities, or whatever. But I think the idea of an "atheist community" is plain wrong.

I don't want others determining who my "community leaders" are, and telling me who I have to be allies with, and then, if I disagree with them, accuse me of "trying to split the community".

This also seriously damages the idea that atheism isn't a thing in itself, just an absense.

I don't want anyone labelling me by my beliefs about religion in this way. I want beliefs about religious matters to be private, and kept out of public life. Call me a secularist, or a rationalist. Those are positive viewpoints about the world. If we are going to organise, it should be based on what we want to achieve, not about our beliefs (or lack of beliefs) about deities. To assume by default that I am after any political action simply because I am an atheist is wrong.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #280496 by PrimeNumbers on November 7, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Belief in a god is the biggest excuse ever for doing something morally wrong. "It's ok, my god told me to do it", or "It's in this old book written by god, so it must be good" etc.

Of course, the god itself cannot be good, as to be good means you must be able to choose to do bad, but not do that. God has no choice to be good, as what is good is, by definition what god does and says. We now know that god cannot do good, so how can any followers of a god do good by following a no good god? Surely that leaves only atheists who can do good.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

22. Comment #280500 by yogibear on November 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm

"(Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies.)"

I dont believe that and dont know of any other atheist who does.

Other Comments by yogibear

23. Comment #280502 by Caudimordax on November 7, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies.

I dont believe that and dont know of any other atheist who does.

I know quite a few - I think it's an intermediate stage. They invoke hazy quantum theory ideas (a la Deepak Chopra) because they just haven't come to grips with annihilation (yet).

Other Comments by Caudimordax

24. Comment #280503 by Eshto on November 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm

"Where there is no God, all is permitted"

I think that's why we have police and courts. And stuff.

Other Comments by Eshto

25. Comment #280506 by Ex~ on November 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm

>In The Ten Commandments, she
>approvingly quotes Dostoyevsky:
>"Where there is no God, all is permitted."

Dostoyevsky never said that, nor did he ever write that, nor did his fictional character, the extraordinarily stupid and pig-headed Ivan Karamazov, that Dostoyevsky would roll laugh in the face of anyone who ever quoted for moral advice, ever say that.

Please point to me where that so-called "quote" is from. In all the four times I've read The Borthers Karamazov, I have never seen this so-called "quote".

Other Comments by Ex~

26. Comment #280512 by root2squared on November 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm

14. Comment #280480 by Caudimordax on November 7, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I don't know much about Gygax's biography, but here's my massively simplistice train of though:

Gamer = geek = smart = atheist (at least the gamers I know are those things).

Very true indeed :D

Other Comments by root2squared

27. Comment #280516 by kiwibugs on November 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm

"Does Religion Make You Nice?" or "Does atheism make you mean?" are questions asked wrongly I think...

In Christianity, you are saved by faith and grace not by works or morality since everyone is fall short of the glory of God. On the other hand, atheists are not mean, what defines an atheist is as the word itself suggests, without committing himself or herself into a religion.

Christainity has been tainted by a lot of dirty peoples' dirty works. But they were not considered as Christians and would be denied by Jesus. Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Other Comments by kiwibugs

28. Comment #280517 by phil rimmer on November 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm

I loathe charity as much as Christians love it.

Deaf friends of mine made me see the light on this issue. A charitable gift is not a right. It cannot be relied upon or negotiated with. It comes bundled with pity, often condescension, and generally obligations. Contrast that with a society that quietly enables those disabled by chance and then treats them as the equals they are.

It is no surprise that religious and right tend to go together as much as atheism and left of centre thinking.

Should I join Stephen Green and Christian Voice in condemning the UK State for variously destroying so many opportunities for personal charity, or should I feel I have done my duty in voting for the politicians who did so wonderful a job?

A charity's only legitimate job is to shame governments into action.

EDIT I have NO problem with many lesser charities, dealing with one off local needs, animals etc. Nor with charities that spring up quickly in the face of new problems. Governments do move slowly....

Other Comments by phil rimmer

29. Comment #280524 by brianjames on November 7, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Wow Laura Schlessinger, totally misunderstands Dostoyevsky. Im sure he meant that as a positive. I dont beleive she has read much of his liturature or she couldn't make that distinction.

Other Comments by brianjames

30. Comment #280526 by Laurie Fraser on November 7, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Comment #280517 by phil rimmer

Couldn't agree more, Phil. I have always loathed the idea of charity: its condescension, hubris and pretension. A civilised society will take account of those who have special needs, and provide for those needs through progressive taxation instruments. It is not a matter of one's preening "generosity"; it is a matter of human rights.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

31. Comment #280527 by brianjames on November 7, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Sorry that was very naive of me, there is no limit to wish thinking, people can & will read thier own beliefs into anything.

P.S Just a suggestion regarding language, I'm as frustrated & angry as the next person, however it would do our cause much good if we can try to refrain from swearing & abuse. Lets show the believers how civil we are, that would would nullify much of the rhetoric on how bad Atheists are.

Other Comments by brianjames

32. Comment #280531 by Bonzai on November 7, 2008 at 5:35 pm

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted."

The source of that might have been Jean Paul Satre

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi1.html

An interesting interpretation is found here

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-145063.html

Of course everything is permissible: If someone wants to hunt down people who kill others, who molest children, who commit atrocities, and kill them or imprison them, he can do that too.

Of course everything is permissible: If someone wants to enslave his will to that of another, living or dead, and call that self-enslavement loyalty or dedication to God, he can do that as well.

The message, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted," is a message not of comfort, but of freedom: We are free to do as we please. It is also a message of responsibility: If we are to have what we want, it is we ourselves who must make it happen. If we want to have a society free of murder, we cannot count on a god to make it so; we must ourselves choose to hunt down murderers and imprison them. We cannot rely the justice of a god, we must create our own justice. We cannot count on either the fear or support of a god, we must count on the fear and support of each other. And we cannot count on a god to tell us what is right or wrong. We have to create right and wrong ourselves.

Yes, if a god does not exist, then everything is "permitted". But only that which each person permits himself, and what we permit each other.

Other Comments by Bonzai

33. Comment #280532 by Bonzai on November 7, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Comment #280517 by phil rimmer on November 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Well said, sir. I always hate the language that appeals to "compassion" while arguing for what should be rights. It is like begging.

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #280533 by PeterMcKellar on November 7, 2008 at 5:44 pm

nairb - many thanks for that info.

Pope Joan - it must also be mentioned that those indulgences were only granted to crusaders that also donated all their worldly goods to the church in order to pursue the good fight on gods side. This was a reason that the templars grew so strong (note: I may be wrong on that particular 1095 crusade but it certainly applied to at least one).

The Children's Crusade was the "best" in my view - parents were convinced to send their kids off to war (and we are talking 6yrs up, some younger). The priests that organised it all marched them straight to the muslim slave markets and pocketed the profits. Charming.

Like Phil Rimmer, I too deplore *most* charities. The anglican church here in oz announced a couple of weeks ago that they were going to solve the country's problems by giving out 600,000 bibles. wow. that'll help feed and house people. I lived in Kings Cross for about 5 years and the parasites would make drunks and addicts sing (hymns) for their supper. I tried to get into a shelter with my son once to find that of 80 homeless shelters in Sydney not a single one catered for single MALE parents (we could have stayed in the "drunk" dorm run by just one charity, but not if I had my daughter with me, no-one would have taken us then).

I agree however that the main reason for charities is to shame governments and as an INITIAL rapid response to disasters. When governments fail, atheists must sometimes deal with the devil to achieve social progress. Giving career options to clergy that are closet atheists so they can continue community service may have some promise.

Other Comments by PeterMcKellar

35. Comment #280541 by Serdan on November 7, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires.

My selfish desires are the basis of my morals. In a nutshell: I want people to be happy because the suffering of others makes me miserable. I.e. I'm not a fucking sociopath, as so many of these "moral" Christians appear to be.

Other Comments by Serdan

36. Comment #280556 by amalthea on November 7, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Others above,
I do take your point about charities. The whole 'charity' movement was basically (in the UK at least) a Victorian method of conscience salving. Mostly middle-class women, some men, and mostly condescending. My point is that some of those people weren't condescending, accomplished great things and their works went on to inspire others. Just grasping here, but maybe the abolition of slavery, womens rights and child poverty.

Yes, it should all be government funded, but this is the real world, and most of us here live in a society governed by monetarism. If there's no tax break, companies won't give.

I'm proud to work for a charity which will be sending 15 children and their families to Lapland to visit father Xmas this year. Yeah, I know it's all make-believe, but most of these kids will be dead by Spring. Govt. funded? Should be. Until then, I'll keep sending the kids to Lapland, swimming with dolphins, visiting Disneyland.

A


Oh, and there's a guy called Carnegie, (no, not that one) a scotsman who went to the US and made a fortune with metal processing. He bequeathed all his money and the interest (a la Nobel) to funding public libraries in the UK. Edit: and some other coutries too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library

Other Comments by amalthea

37. Comment #280560 by j.mills on November 7, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Yeah, Carnegie it was who said: The kept dollar is a stinking fish. Mind you, I heard he was hardly Mr Perfect on his way up.

Likewise, Bill Gates is gradually dispensing most of his money. Well and good, but I still hate the b*stard because he made all that money by monopolising the market and imposing his garbage pseudo-functional software on the whole world, creating endless hours of stress and fury for hundreds of millions of paying customers. Not that I'm bitter...

(Life is so much more peaceful now that I've discovered Ubuntu... http://start.ubuntu.com/8.04/ )

Other Comments by j.mills

38. Comment #280590 by dloubet on November 7, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Ya know, I DO act according to my own selfish desires. I selfishly desire a smoothly functioning society that affords a measure of stability, surrounded by good friends, and to be loved. The only way I know of to achieve these shameless ends is to be friendly, polite, hard working, and loving to those around me. So far my dastardly plan is working!

The trick to self interest is to actually know what's in your best interest, which is a far cry from the Christian idea that raping and killing is what we would all rather be doing*.

*Believe me, when a Christian asked me - an atheist - why I wasn't out raping and killing, I responded by asking him if raping and killing is what he would rather be doing if not for the strictures of his god. Rather than surrender the point, he said yes. This was on a call-in local-access television show.

Other Comments by dloubet

39. Comment #280591 by Steve Zara on November 7, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Comment #280517 by phil rimmer

Comment #280532 by Bonzai

I am glad to read these views. I thought I was pretty much alone in feeling uncomfortable about many charities.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #280592 by Gordonmac on November 7, 2008 at 11:53 pm

... a nonbeliever would have a harder time getting elected than a Muslim, a homosexual, or a Jew.

Homosexuality is a religion?

Other Comments by Gordonmac

41. Comment #280596 by dloubet on November 8, 2008 at 12:10 am

I can't complain about Bill Gate's monopolization of the market. That monopolization allowed for all sorts of accelerated development of products like 24bit video cards that would not have happened if there wasn't a single platform with 90% market share. Being a computer artist, I really appreciated that.

Also, before the monopolization of the computer market by Microsoft, game developers had to write the same game 4 or 5 times, once for the Commodore 64, once for the Apple IIe, again for the Amiga, and again for the Atari 64, etc. All that extra work in order to gain the same market share that writing it once for the Windows platform provided.

Windows may have stultified the development of competing operating systems, but the standard it created, as crappy as it was, provided an incredible opportunity for everyone else to grab 90% market share with just one version of their hardware or software. A lot of things would not have been tried if that financial carrot had not been present.

Other Comments by dloubet

42. Comment #280598 by Dr Doctor on November 8, 2008 at 12:20 am

Imagine the difficulty you'd have as a homosexual non believing Jew.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

43. Comment #280599 by GarrickW on November 8, 2008 at 12:22 am

I found that to be a very interesting article; they should have posted more than those two first teaser paragraphs, because they give a very misleading impression.

The thesis is basically that it is community, not religion, that makes people more moral - in Sweden and Danemark, where people don't believe in God or anything else, but do participate in Christian rituals and community activities, there is a much lower rate of violence and a high standard of interpersonal decency. That ostracised individuals, rather than atheists, act immorally seems much more intuitive; if atheists have communities, then they will behave, but if the community rejects them by calling them immoral, then they will not feel very warm and fuzzy towards the community.

Makes me think that it might be important for american atheists to organise themselves into communities, though what precisely you could "do" in such a community setting with atheists is a bit unclear, other than play Pretend-Christians like they do in Scandinavia.

Other Comments by GarrickW

44. Comment #280601 by Steve Zara on November 8, 2008 at 12:30 am

Comment #280596 by dloubet

Windows may have stultified the development of competing operating systems, but the standard it created, as crappy as it was, provided an incredible opportunity for everyone else to grab 90% market share with just one version of their hardware or software. A lot of things would not have been tried if that financial carrot had not been present.

That isn't true. The majority of software (and the majority of individual copies of applications) don't run on Windows or use Microsoft standards. There are two standards that have allowed for real portability and use of different hardware in a way that Microsoft has actively tried to stop - Unix and Java. Unix has been allowing software to be written largely indendent of hardware since the 70s, and is now everywhere. It is on desktops (Ubuntu Linux, and MacOS/X), in is on server systems (Sun, HP, IBM), and even on mobile phones (Google Android and Apple iPhone). The other major success has been Java which allows programs not just to be written not caring about hardware (well, mostly), but even sold without that concern - you need only ship a single version of the product, and people can run it on Windows, Linux, MacOS/X...(OK, so I simplify a bit, but this largely works).

Far from attempting to create a standard for 90% of the market, Microsoft has worked to tie people into its own products. On the server side of things, it has dramatically failed to achieve this, and on the mobile market it is in an even worse situation.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #280602 by Dr Doctor on November 8, 2008 at 12:32 am

I had to sit on my hands to avoid posting something similar to Steve. It also isn't true that having Windows accelerated the development and take up of 24 bit graphics cards.

Java - Write Once Test Everywhere.

(Less true these days, but still)

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

46. Comment #280604 by Steve Zara on November 8, 2008 at 12:38 am

Comment #280602 by Dr Doctor

I just can't stand the admiration people have for Bill Gates in terms of his running of microsoft.

Java - Write Once Test Everywhere.

(Less true these days, but still)

This is the case for mobile devices, but I write mainly web applications, and I can honestly say I have not had a single case of cross-platform incompatibility since the last millenium.

I develop and test the applications on Vista and Linux and deploy on Solaris, and my programs simply don't notice the difference in platforms at all.

Having been a very frustrated C developer since the 80s, this is utter bliss.

But I digress...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #280609 by Dr Doctor on November 8, 2008 at 12:56 am

Well on the web site, since the takeup of servlets and EJB -> J2EE and on things have been great, I don't deny. Which shows precisely when my bad memories come from (that is soo last century of me).

But writing graphical user interface based applications still brings you up short from time to time.

MIDP used to be worse than it is in terms of deployment. But I still write and love my C plus plus (the symbol disappeared) , but then I use my own templates, portability layer and smart pointers to make it easy on myself.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

48. Comment #280633 by Thor'Ungal on November 8, 2008 at 1:36 am

Comment #280592 by Gordonmac

Homosexuality is a religion?

No just a hated minority (well by some xians and muslims). Just less hated than Atheists.

Edit Added a 'd', guess where

Other Comments by Thor'Ungal

49. Comment #280641 by Philster61 on November 8, 2008 at 1:56 am

Does religion make you feel nice?
Only if your psycho

Are Atheists mean?
No meaner than the average bank manager.

Other Comments by Philster61

50. Comment #280660 by Enlightenme.. on November 8, 2008 at 2:30 am

#1
"What a bunch of crap. Dawkins has already explained this, lots of times. You don't get your conscience from a book"


Bollocks.
In shorthand;

'Instinct'
Overruled by 'a book'
The problem we mainly deal with is the various assertions that there is 'a' book.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..