Reminds me of Avatar. I watch the first trailer and think "Oh, this looks like a good flick!" and the more I think about the story and consider it's predictability and obvious stupidity, the more it turns me off. Still haven't seen Cameron's oh so great masterpiece.
I don't care much for J.J. Abrams McGuffin fetish (red spheres anyone?) or Nolans plot holes (the Joker is apparently psychic) but at least their movies don't start to look stupid when the first trailers are out. They're becoming stupid once you saw them. And you had a good time doing it, too.
I'll always prefer the stupidity in hindsight over using 10% of my brain to roll my eyes really, really hard in advance.

Nice, though my only complaint is their world is a globe (sphere), whereas the world in the GoT intro is actually a concave surface (inside of a sphere).

*beg

Ski jumpers do it too, but with less airspeed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfk8Nh-IBoI

Anything can produce lift (anything that isn't a sphere), some shapes are just more efficient than others. With practice, you kind of turn your body into an airfoil shape and with the perfect angle, enough speed and inflatable baggy pants you can get about a 1.4 glide ratio (1.4 meters forward for every meter downward).

It's an incredible feeling that is completely different from wing suits because your movement isn't restricted at all.

As far as wood lathes go Mordhaus, this one shown here is one you'd find in an enthusiast's home shop or a light industrial shop-Had one in 8th grade wood shop that was a bit more formidable that this one that you could have mounted a larger round of wood upon with a much larger electric motor with way higher RPM's.
Love to try a couple of solid wood or other spheres for some speaker enclosures-Always coveting an industrial lathe.

Check this one for scale:
http://www.woodfast.com.au/index.php?p=1_5

What's real sad is is that those meatball-like spheres in Spaghetti-O's are like little edible crack rocks swimming in nasty tomato sauce. Wish they'd sell cans of only their mystery meatball-like units and place them on the shelf right next to Vienna Sausages

I remember reading a long time ago about just how hot the coffee was and why they kept it that hot So I knew for a long time that it wasn't a case of some unscrupulous woman looking for a quick buck along with some ambulance chaser lawyers.

So even though it was *not* a frivolous lawsuit, even the reduced amount of money she actually got seems excessive. I wish we lived in a world where simply paying the medical bills and maybe a little bit extra for the trouble for recompense was adequate

But then when think about it in the context of a big corporation. How do you induce a large company to change? unless you hit them where it hurts, the pocket book. You have to admit that McDonalds initial offer of a few hundred bucks was essentially them flipping the bird to her. Had they just paid the medical bills and a little bit extra and lowered the temp of the coffee, This would never have entered the public sphere.

Maybe if we lived in a world where people weren't so obsessed about profits and the bottom line, we wouldn't have a situation like this.

Skyclad
Historically, Witches worked Naked, and there are many references to naked Witches standing on their clothes. In a few illustrations, the Witches are clothed in the clothing of their time, but examination of the drawings indicates that the artist rarely knew a real Witch.
Gardner introduced the term Skyclad into the Craft in the 1950's with the reference to "Witches worship naked which is called in the East (Indonesia), 'Skyclad'" and the term stuck as a poetic way to refer to ritual nudity. Witches worshipped Skyclad in 1950's and today, but in the 70s, the Welsh and American Celtic Witches began to wear robes, which became the standard way to worship for years. By the late '70s, the Feminist Witches began to experiment with Skyclad worship, so by the late 80’s about half of the American and European Witches worship Skyclad.
There are a number of reasons for nudity, the first being that in the Charge, which was written by Doreen Valiente from older sources, The Goddess said,
"And as a sign that ye be truly free, ye shall be naked in your rites."

This Charge is so beautiful that many Witches who reject the Gardnerian Traditions, retain the Charge as one of the few declamations that, if not directly from the Goddess, was unquestionably inspired by Her. Thus, the argument follows that we MUST worship naked because it is the will of the Goddess whom we love.

This argument is countered by a later version of the Charge that says,
"as a sign that ye be really free, ye shall be equal in your rites."
However, this is a later American version not as originally written.
A more convincing counter to the Charge is simply to reject the Charge outright.
Reject all Traditional and Gardnerian ideas, so it is then easy reject nudity as well.

A second reason for ritual nudity is the practical one. Witches all over the world often report that naked is safer.
In rites where I have been robed there have been accidents, incidents where a person stepping on the hem of another’s robe, and causes them to trip. In a nine-foot Circle, if one person goes down, usually all follow.  

Naked people are more aware of their surroundings, so you step more carefully and bang into the Altar and others less than clothed Witches.
You feel the heat of candles, as opposed to not detecting the heat until after your robe is in flames, so it is simply safer to be naked.
At Sabbat where we had three Covens worshipping together in Circle, some were from our Outer Court, so wore robes. During the rite, one woman stood too close to the West candle and set her robe on fire. She did manage to extinguish the flames with little disruption, but I did hear about the accident after the rite ended.

The magickal reason for nudity is that anything worn upon the body will interfere with and change the energy given off by the body. This includes clothes, make-up, perfumes, jewelry, glasses, contact lenses and so on.
This argument is quite logically countered by stating, “energy that can pass through a wall, cover miles of distance, and influence another person would not be stopped by a layer of cloth. “ Consider the greater awareness of your surroundings, being closer emotionally and physicality to the others in the circle. Being able to raise energy without the distraction of avoiding stepping on robes or pulling your sleeve up to keep in out of the candle flame.
Think of the Coven body, mind, and spirit that must generate a tremendous amount of power to send that spell over that distance. Once the Cone of Power is sent the spell won’t be deflected, but it can be deflected at the source by a relatively little. In other words, wearing clothing or non-craft jewelry or non-consecrated materials can easily deflect or alter the power that leaves the Circle. The spell, when it reaches its target, may be different or it may even reach a different target.
Nudity is rarely sexual, after ten minutes the naked Witch becomes bored with seeing bare breasts and genitals and is then free to work. A woman wearing a robe that cuts low in the front and is slit up the side to her hips will introduce into the Coven an attitude of sexual desire to the men as they try to see a nipple or thigh that, by being hidden, is desirable but when revealed by nudity is simply another body part. The men, in this situation, may have difficulty concentrating on the work in an effort to see what is barely hidden. Similar things occur in the female mind when the situation is reversed, though women are often trained to deny these thoughts to others and even to themselves.
There are Psychological factors to Nudity are that the people must accept themselves as they are or change themselves. It is difficult to put on a facade when you are denied a girdle, bra, wig, make-up, deodorant, aftershave, codpiece or other enhancements to your image. Once naked, the individual with their sags, and bulges shines and, becomes themselves and not a mask. 
When working magik, it is vital to know yourself and accept your own good and ill, for to attempt the path with false illusions will cause trouble when your subconscious rebels and forces your work to conform to a hidden truth.
To be naked indicates freedom from conventional mundane thought. When clothed in a suit or dress, you conform to societies expectations and become what they wish you to become. Your style of dress and hairstyle are a reflection, not of your own desires, but of what your peers wish you to be.
Equality between class and gender is assured when naked, as the rich no longer have jewels to show their class worth, and Women must face men as equals, both showing their inadequacies and realizing that the other sex is just as physically imperfect as you are. With this barrier down, men and women can accept each other as equals.
Once naked, you are free to place your mind into a sphere of magickal thought. A place between the worlds where the God and Goddess are not symbols hanging on a wall but REAL DIVINITIES, where all is possible.
It is necessary to be clothed at times; in public or when outdoors in winter it may be necessary to be clothed to allow the mind to concentrate on the goal and not to be thinking that the body is slowly freezing to death.
When this is necessary to wear a robe, it should be one that interferes with magik and mind as little as possible. It is best to wear a plain robe that is exactly the same as all others. To make a personal robe will introduce ego and class or sexual differences into the rite.
There are some uses to wearing robes. The simple act of putting on a robe that is reserved only for Ritual use causes the inner mind to awaken and to develop the attitude that "Now the mundane world is behind me, it is time for the magickal world to appear." This can be very effective to your working and will counter some of the physical drawbacks of wearing robes. If all are wearing identical robes, the attitude of equality within, 'the group' is enhanced, for there is nothing different between the people or sexes.
The robe must also be of a natural material such as cotton or wool since synthetics cause a great deal of interference with the power. A simple list of materials which will interfere with magickal power when worn from the least to the greatest effect is as follows: cotton, wool, conductive metals from silver, gold, copper, iron, synthetic materials such as nylon, or rayon, and Silk though a natural material is a strong magickal insulator.
In today’s world, you will find Witches who work Skyclad, robed, in costumes and even in their street clothes. Street clothes however; bring into the Circle all the influences that have become attached to those clothes over the day. These influences will affect your workings as well as your mind because the subconscious will see no difference between the mundane and the magickal, and as we spend most of our time in the mundane world, it is easy to see which will win.


"Nudity establishes a closeness and honesty among conveners and 'is a sign that a witches loyalty is to the truth before any ideology or any comforting illusions.” Starhawk.

@jonny - I'm pretty much with you. These same "dilemmas" were presented to me in a college class (Psych? Philo?) and I objected to the 2nd one on the basis that I can't imagine a bystander fat enough to reliably stop a train, and if they were I wouldn't be able to push them off a ledge.

The TA that was teaching the class said that the idea is to just treat it like a Newtonian Physics problem (ie., everything is a frictionless sphere or make all assumptions to reduce complexity wherever possible). In the scenario, just accept that you KNOW that you are capable of pushing the dude off, that you KNOW he will stop the train, and that you KNOW that you have insufficient mass/strength to jump off yourself and stop the train.

I get how that limits the variables and therefore draws a more concrete difference between various answers to the situation, but to me it also limits the interest I have in the question. My brain doesn't work that way, my problem solving center engages automatically and tries to find pitfalls and assign success rates rather than just "assume this will work".

I think I'd rather see the situations / dilemmas reworked to have a more realistic expectation of success. Maybe something like a rampaging lion on the loose, and you can swing a door currently blocking a room with 1 person inside to instead block a room with 5 people inside (situation 1); or you are above a hallway with a lion running towards 5 people and have an opportunity to push somebody into the lion's path which would give the 5 people enough time to run out of the hall and lock a door (situation 2). I think my "hungry lion" dilemmas have fewer physics pitfalls than the traditional train dilemmas.

1) "The Democratic Party in Europe would be a far-right party".

I don't think it would be. A decade ago, yes. But not today.

Look at what Blair (Labour) and Schröder (SPD) did to the left-of-center parties in their respective countries: they moved to the right, significantly. And by doing so, the entire political sphere was pushed to the right. Tory and CDU, the former right-of-center parties are not that different from the Democratic Party, nowadays at least.

The French are still holding on to the alignment of their political system. However, the austerity enforced by conservative moralists, mainly the troika of IMF/ECB/EU Commision as well as the German establishment, is putting immense pressure on Hollande to "encourage" a political shift to the right.

2) Resistance from within the political system.

We have two of these parties in this country, parties that, to some degree, oppose the establishment in areas of significance. They manage to mitigate some of the damage the establishment tries to inflict upon society, but if we're honest about it, most of it is only postponed by a comparatively short period of time. One might even argue that it's just for show so that the illusion of choice is kept up...

In any case, they cannot create the level of fear neccessary to keep the other parties in check. For that to change, the ownership structure in traditional media would have to be changed, radically. As of now, the marginalisation of anti-establishment forces is working effectively and any attempts at meaningful change are demonised.

3) A recently published document by JP Morgan illustrates just how openly their efforts against democratic societies are being waged these days:

Political systems around the [European] periphery typically display several of the following features: weak executives; weak central states relative to regions; constitutional protection of labour rights; consensus building systems which foster political clientalism; and the right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status quo.

The shortcomings of this political legacy have been revealed by the crisis.

Soon they'll be saying their own names and being transported as beings of light within prison spheres, mark my words!

Traditionally there are separate channels (left right center etc) and if you want to make a sound come from above and slightly left an audio engineer would put a little in the left, a little in the center and maybe a small amount in reverse phase in the rear speaker. This worked but theaters have different sizes and layouts so it was never perfect.

Atmos takes a totally different approach. it can have 30-200 channels (iirc). Each speaker is on its own monitored channel and it is specifically tuned for that room. The ATMOS processor decides the exact amount of sound to each speaker on the fly from the "3d soundtrack." When making the movie the sound field is represented as a half sphere and the audio engineer places sounds around this.

What it means is that the theater shape/size/number of speakers and other factors add/subtract nothing from the experience. Not only that but each speaker is monitored for health so it can compensate and alert staff.

The important part is that with so many speakers being able to be addressed independently sounds can transition around the room completely smooth. If you had your eyes closed a helicopter circling your head and landing will transition around naturally.

There aren't many theaters that have it yet since they have to tear up the ceiling to add so many speakers (its usually every other ceiling tile front to back in two columns!). In the San Francisco Bay Area there are only three specific theater room that have it - One on the top floor of AMC Van Ness SF, One at the AMC Metreon SF and one at the Century theater in Fremont.

So... simulating the motions/interactions of spheres and then just interpolating their highest/lowest points somehow? (IANA3DP)

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

God is clearly not a static foundation on which humanity bases their morals. Any cursory examination of Christian history shows that interpretations of what a Godly foundation for a life advicates have varied wildly at least from era to era, if not person to person.

There has not only overriding agreement of right and wrong between Christians throughout the ages, but also between cultures regardless of religion. Every culture has basically the same laws; don't lie, don't cheat, don't kill, don't steal etc. This is pointing to the fact that God didn't just tell us what is moral and immoral in the bible, He wrote it on our hearts. However, you are right in that actions speak louder than words. If you want to look at Christian history, it's very plain that calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you a moral person. Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruits, and a lot of Christian fruit in history has been rotten. There has also been quite a bit of good fruit as well. However, you can't pin down whether God gave a moral law to the actions of sinful human beings when the bible actually predicts the massive apostasy and moral inconsistency that you are describing. Take a look at Matthew 24, for instance.

Is there a foundation for static morality without a God to give it to you? Of course there isn't. And again I'll ask where or when we were guaranteed any such thing.

Well, it seems you agree with Ravi after all. This is exactly his point, and mine. There is no foundation for morality (or meaning, etc) without God and therefore atheism is incoherent. Atheism leads to nihilism which is inconsistent with your own experience.

But lets say that we do deserve such certainty, it still begs the question of why this foundation for morality of yours seems to have a curiously diverse array of outcomes in terms of moral norms over the millennia.

It has a diverse array of outcomes because human nature is corrupt and we can only imperfectly follow Gods laws. It also has nothing to do with what we deserve, but what is true.

Oh wait, I forgot. Your take on this whole thing is actually the only correct one, because of a personal relevation from God - of course. I guess we can now ignore all those other people who felt they had the same thing, because they just weren't lucky enough to benefit from the secure foundation of morality you have found.

It's not my take, it's what Jesus taught us:

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So your argument is with Jesus and not with me. You ask Him whether this is true or not.

And yes, spending 20 minutes detailing how Hitler and Stalin may have used certain limited aspects of atheistic thought processes to reach conclusions that are clearly not necessary outcomes of such premises, not by a long shot, and then using that to discredit an entire world view - is indeed Reducto ad Hitlerum in every possible sense of the term.

As TheGenk said, that's weak man.

Hitler is debatable but Stalins regime was atheistic at its core and that isn't debatable. Atheism wasn't peripheral to it, it was the foundation. Stalin brutally imposed atheism on the populace, and killed millions of Christians who refused to deny Christ. Don't take my word for it:

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

The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept.[4][5]

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[2][6]