I believe that Al’s altruism isn’t extremist at all. He would cross that line if he expected everyone to act as morally as he does. I’ve seen no evidence that he holds to that belief.

The problem with religious morals is that they impose new retraints and taboos which have nothing to do with mutual benefit. they hold us up to unfair and sadistic standards. everything that makes life worth living is one of the seven deadly sins. Now of course I encourage moderation. too much of anything is bad for you, but The occasional nap or prostitute isn’t going to hurt anything. they hold us to impossible standards so that we feel guilty and come back to church, and on top of that they try to take your passion away. if they had their way we would all be thoughtless, dickless, sub-servient worms. when we should stand up and take control of our lives.

My thoughts on the society argument: we cannot have a perfect society, but we can work to our current system functioning with minimal effort. I think the republican form of government that is used in the Western Hemisphere may be the best system we currently have because it allows for error and the errors can be worked out over time. The republican form, for my stunted vantage point, seems to allow for the evolution of human attitudes the easiest. It is not perfect but it works rather well.

My personal belief on the rejection of religion is that it may not happen in our lifetimes. Humans seem to be emotionally unevolved to do as such. They need to be told what to do and they cannot handle the responsibility part of living freely. To be honest, atheism as a concept seems to be only a few thousand years old, which is less than 10% of our total time on this earthen plane. Considering that we are still evolutionary youngsters, we may need a few hundred thousand more years, maybe a million more to fully evolve out of a state where religion is a lynchpin in our lives.

This evolutionary argument (very flawed as it is) also can be applied to my idea on why the perfect society cannot be reached.

“survival of the fittest” was a term coined by Herbert Spencer a sociologist it was called social darwanism how the succesfull people in the past were able to survive rich rockefeller beilived that too they beilived they were rich of thier own accord therefore they called it “survival of the fittest” darwin never said that it was by herbert spencer its a common misconception darwin coined the term “natural selection” oh well there i thought you’d be intelligent.

Anyway- Keep up the good work. As least you live in SF. I am an outspoken anti-mythologist in West Texas (FEEL MY PAIN, please)

I have come to believe that there are at least three types of people.

1. Those who will never change because they have blind faith that things are the way they are and they no control over anything.
2. Those who have been brainwashed since birth to think the same way as those in category one, but who have the personal strength of character to see one too many cracks in the foundation of their logic. All these people need is someone to tell them that there is another way. Then starts the domino effect…
3. Those who either 1) weren’t brainwashed from birth to think like those from category one, or 2) are from category two and have decided the truth for themselves.

Of course this is very over simplified and, in some cases, may be taking it to its extreme, but the basic premise, I think, is accurate. Simplification is necessary for understanding. Similar to the way scientists start with something basic and add proofs on top of proofs in order to understand something, you must start with my three basic categories and add in things like “Just because He knows what’s going to happen, doesn’t mean I have no control over my life.” (whatever that means, I’ve never been able to understand that argument, no matter how you slice it.)

So, Dooltaz’s first message can be taken as the curious brainwashed arguments of someone from category two. However, by his second argument, it is clear that he has no intention of keeping an open mind. He would instead waste his energies on creating (creating is an important key word here) simplistic arguments over selected pieces of a whole. He pretends to follow the scientific method of proof upon proof, while intentionally over simplifying every step along the way in order to force it to conform to his views. What I think he does not understand is that almost every person that comes to this site is open minded enough and has what I like to call “redundant self examination”, so that they can clearly see the light of day through every single hole in his arguments. Just because A = B, and B = C, does not strictly mean that A = C. On paper it may seem so, but life is not black and white like it is on paper. What if B has an evil twin? What if A gets sick, does it still = B? What if C turns out to be an atheist, does A turn and run the other way? Then there’s the whole Kibble Factor…

His most ridiculous example of over simplification is when he says that proving something to others so that they may agree with you is a clear example of mob rule. What!? That one blew me away, honestly. I was not prepared. Redundant self examination involves proof reading and noticing when you are being a retard (no offense to any actual retard that may be reading this). By the time I had finished my first paragraph I had already changed it a few times because I went back and read through it to make sure what I was saying followed the flow of what had already been said, that it stayed on topic, and that it all made sense together.

Simplifying and then expanding once you have understanding is absolutely necessary. Human beings cannot innately grasp complex ideas without prior experience and understanding of those ideas’ basic concepts.

Redundant self examination is necessary in everything you do. When I do a math problem, I do it twice to make sure I get the same answer, then take the answer and see if I can get the question. I’ve made too many small, stupid (some may say retarded), easily avoided mistakes to not naturally develop my redundant self examination as a matter of course in every endeavor I undertake. Whether it be looking in the rear view, looking in the side view, and then turning my head and looking back before I make a lane change, or checking the clock two or three times before I go to bed to make sure it’s set to the right time, it’s not set to 7PM instead of 7AM, and it’s turned on. Again, I’ve had too many close calls and been late too many times not to naturally develop a system of checks and balances.

The whole point of this message is that Dooltaz creates the illusion of truth by pretending to follow scientific method of proofs. Microsoft employs this same tactic in advertising its products and in bashing their competition. As I said earlier, I’d like to think that most people that actually read this web site are smart enough to see these tactics for what they are. However most of the world would rather take on faith that if big brother says it on TV, it must be true. And if he says it with a smile on his face he must really care about you. And if he cracks a joke at Apple by creating such an absurd over simplification of the truth so that it is laughable in its simplicity, then you should laugh too.

I just thought someone should point out that Dooltaz’s arguments needn’t be counter-argued. However, argument leads to better understanding, so it is necessary, nevertheless.

I fail to grasp Dooltaz’s rational that somehow removing “Under God” from the pleadge will inevitably lead us to anarchy. I’m no historian, but as far as I remember, most civilizations through out history with a state-mandated religion are marked by violence and injustice.

and for the record, the snoopy correlation shows:

P = K*G + (1/2)*B

P = Number of puppies in a given contry
G = Religiousness of country
B = Total mass of beggin’ strips in country
K = The Kibble Factor