The Fed and the World Bank can only fuck the world because of the illusory stranglehold they have on the cattle-We believe their paper to be of value and that the system works. Hard to rally behind a rout of criminals in their palaces when food and fuel isn't available just like it's hard for a majority of citizens to mount a physical campaign on Washington for a protest.....logistics.

These measures to add incrementally, additional features, capacities, etc. to existing laws??? To avoid accusations of a totalitarian crackdown, you know the routine and those who would that the United States be gun-free zone have plenty of time and money and the fucking media in their pocket.

Get me started on the privilege of driving? I daily see morons who, if the required tests for a driving license sane, would be riding a fucking unicycle to work. This includes you dumb-asses who stay on your fucking cell the bulk of the time you spend in your vehicle. I live in a city with over 6 million people, 150 square miles in the county, and everyone owns a car. Fucking nightmare of imbeciles on the road DAILY, plenty of whom should not be allowed to carry a loaded, 2-3 ton killing machine.

What was it Al Pacino said in "Heat??"....You get killed walking your doggy!"

Real simple for me: Hire police and create soldiers out of unhinged fucks who have control and power issues and give THEM guns?? Until my saliva can be used to melt steel or some unifying event turns the world into an idyllic wonderland of brotherly love, Guns. Explosives. Pointy fucking sticks. To protect ourselves from defective assholes and should the need ever arise, we'll make our decision then.

The world becomes increasingly more chaotic and non-linear by the hour...embrace it. We live in one of the most incredible times in human history and the planet my children inherit will be unrecognizable very soon and all change is quite a good thing.

An issue then may arise as to how "they" take guns that can't be seen or you don't voluntarily hand them-

To accomplish the disarming of a nation whose history can't be told without firearms, further restrictive legislation could simply make ammunition cost-prohibitive or unavailable. That's just what we need to fix a problem otherwise corrected through SANE preventative means -A new criminal class

This would be just what cunts need to energize the good-ole-boy arrangement between the private prison industry and a defective government increasingly motivated to subjugate constitutional rights while pillaging the fruits of our labor. New criminals mean more inmates.

They have to compromise a lot more than just that. A whole host of problems arise when you try to cram billions of years into scripture. There are implications for everything from the sin of Adam to the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. Here is a good list:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions

As I said, I've investigated these issues thoroughly. I was initially willing to compromise the bible because I strongly believed in these ideas. I was prompted though to investigate the evidence and what I found appalled me. As I said, I became a young earth creationist because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

Hmmm...

I don't have an issue with the wage itself. I worked retail for years. Retail doesn't pay high wages. Any of them, it's not a high skill sector. It's not somewhere I'd want to be my entire life and should most likely be considered a "stepping stone" line of work. For some though, they never get out - partly because of the draw and promise of climbing the corporate ladder to success and some because that's just the best they can do. It's retail - not one is asking for an engineer's pay scale. I don't know about the US, but in Canada, WalMart only pays minimum wage for sales associates, tellers and floor staff.

What I do have an issue with is the way Wal-Mart (and some other retail companies) treat their employees. Almost all positions are part-time. They don't hire more than a few full time employees. Full time employees cost more money in benefits and you can't reduce their weekly hours to make the monthly budget.

Store managers are given very small monthly budgets for man hours. They have to stretch those hours, and place the man power only at peak periods. Part time employees are easier to move around the schedule because they aren't respected, they can also be made to work seven days a week if you give them the min hours per day as possible. They are hired for that purpose. The problem is that people's lives don't function that way. These people also need to have second jobs. You are expected to make WalMart your primary job (even if it's only part time). They may schedule only eight hours in a week. If you have a second job with set hours, Walmart will not work with you because they don't care.
There are all kinds of issues that arise but scheduling is a huge issue.

Benefits. WalMart benefits are so meager, I'm not sure why they bother. I've heard first hand how the medical coverage they offer is lousy and most people end up paying out of pocket for additional insurance if they actually expect to be treated.

WalMart is predatory retail. They have employees that are paid to shop the community and undercut every product that can be bought elsewhere - even if it means they sell at a loss. They increase the prices on every item that cannot be bought locally - even if it means inflating it artificially higher than it's worth. They especially target the small businesses. Once they are able to put those businesses out of business, they will raise all the prices they once sold at a loss because now you don't have a choice. From a business point of view, their process is very smart, it takes every opportunity it can to get your dollar. on the flip side, if everyone is out of business, they can't afford to shop anywhere else. Eventually all retail business employees will be WalMart Employees. It's a downward spiral that isn't sustainable.

WalMart are Bullies. They have the biggest and most expensive lawyers in the business. They can afford it. and if they can't win, because they know they are in the wrong, they will just stonewall until the opposition runs out of money and still win by default. If there is something they want, they get it because they have the wealth, money and power to make it happen - fair practices be dammed!

@bareboards2
you totally misunderstood my comment.
my point is that it is the ATTENTION that is the main focus,not the penis.

let me try this another way.

what if the girl was lesbian?
would male attention be her focus?
seewhatimsaying?

this attention seeking behavior usually starts young,when a young girl is unsure,insecure and vulnerable.(just like every other teen).
maybe they were the first girl in class to sprout boobs.
maybe she was a late bloomer and was nerdy and gangly all through high school.

in any scenario you wish to portray there will always be the common denominator that at one point she began to receive attention and that attention validated her as desirable,sexy even.
this may have led to dressing more "sexy" to garner even more attention.

the danger here is that the beauty of youth is transitory....it always results in entropy and if a woman finds validation solely in the form of attention,she will find it harder and harder to get the validation she has become accustomed to receiving.
this may lead to even more dramatic practices i.e:higher degree of provocative dress.bargaining flirtations for sexual promiscuity.actively seeking attention by way of nightclubs,bars and other venues where a source of attention may congregated.

we all wish to be desirable in one way or another and attention can be a powerful validation that we are desirable.the problem arises when the girl/guy is unaware of their own motivations to be validated and in the process allows themselves to become objects rather than human beings.

attention=validation *no penis required

men can be just as vulnerable to this validation seeking but our culture does not impose the same amount of pressure that young women have to endure and ultimately over-come.

what i believe you are saying,and its a point i agree with.is that young women should be more self-aware and be comfortable with who they are rather than what society thinks they should be.

the fact that i am male should not automatically disqualify me from expressing an opinion on female matters.i may fall short due to not owning a uterus but i feel my point is valid

>> ^PlayhousePals:

>> ^ant:
>> ^PlayhousePals:
I was shocked [and chagrined] to discover recently that an old friend I've reconnected with is a big fan of Dr. Phil ... a truly WTF moment =oI

So you guys aren't friends anymore? People call me, Dr. Phil at work.

Where did I say THAT? Of course we are still friends ... I just won't be watching Dr. Phil with her should the situation arise =o)


It's called a sarcasm/joke. What about me as Dr. Phil?

>> ^ant:

>> ^PlayhousePals:
I was shocked [and chagrined] to discover recently that an old friend I've reconnected with is a big fan of Dr. Phil ... a truly WTF moment =oI

So you guys aren't friends anymore? People call me, Dr. Phil at work.


Where did I say THAT? Of course we are still friends ... I just won't be watching Dr. Phil with her should the situation arise =o)

The claim is that there is a special substance that is our consciousness, not that it causes our consciousness.

Those who propose that this is true usually attempt to support this with arguments showing not only do we not yet have any explanation for how consciousness could arise solely from physical matter (which is true), but we cannot in principle show that consciousness could arise from matter (which is debatable). If it is not possible to explain consciousness in terms of matter only, then we have to posit a non-physical substance--or at least non-physical properties. (The philosophers who argue for non-physical properties are called property dualists, like David Chalmers, and should be contrasted with substance dualists like Plantinga.) So, according to dualist philosophers of mind, postulating a non-physical substance is not an unnecessary complication, but an essential element of any complete account of the mind.

The arguments themselves can get very complicated. Philosophy of mind is a sonuvabitch.

>> ^messenger:

If someone's going to propose that there's a special substance that causes our consciousness and is non-physical, it has to be explained how this different substance creates consciousness AND how it interacts with physical objects. To propose an as-yet undetected type of physical matter (similar to how "dark matter" has mass, but remains undetected) only requires explanation of how it creates consciousness. Proposing that it's "non-physical" adds complexity, and doesn't provide any answers. It's a dodge.
@GeeSussFreeK
It's possible that we could know all the physical properties by empirical investigation, eventually. Why not? And if we can create robot intelligence, it might become superior to our own, as in chess. It might then create yet another higher form of intelligence, and so on until one is created that can derive all the physical laws of the universe and communicate them to us with proofs. We do have more than a billion years before the sun dries up all our water. Maybe we've got time.

Evidence for its existence would have to be logically derived, because it is by nature not physically provable. This is similar to how our mathematical models are the new tools of science because we no longer have the proper sense to make since of the world. In that same way, having physical evidence of something non-physical isn't giving dualism its proper shake. At a certain point in epistemology, you run out of ways to "show" things empirically. Investigation can only be in the realm of thought and logical deduction and as a result will provide the range of possibilities instead of the actual details, this is the proper setting for dualism...a logical possibility that would resist any internal investigation.

He swindles us a bit on the thinking computer bit, because it still doesn't address that main problem of thinking not being representing in pure physical interactions. Atoms bouncing around doesn't always cause thinking, so what is thinking if it can't be explained by sets of atoms bouncing around? How do disjointed sets of brain activations result in a single consciousness? This kind of spooky "thinking at a distance" effect is still one of the more baffling parts of the mind and where thinking arises. If this spooky thinking at a distance is happening, why is it limited to just the spooky motion of neurons within your own brain, why not the motion of atoms in the sun? If your brain can be thinking and disjointed, what is thinking...or more importantly...where is thinking happening!?

It also doesn't explain if thinking is a result of brains like we have them. Could a machine ever be made to think? What is thinking? Computers process information in a very similar respect to our own, but they aren't thinking when they are, are they? I don't think so! A study on how humans think isn't a study on thinking itself, just a kind of thinking...if other things than brains can think and there isn't a really good way to probe thinking itself because you are always going to be thinking like a human and not thinking like all the possible types of thinking that could exist. He makes this exact point with robotic technology advancing, we don't understand the limit of physical reality to know the limits of this end. To that end, you can't EVER know ALL the physical properties via empirical investigation so you can never know the ends of robotic technology, and perhaps the same could be said of thinking, you never will know if there isn't another way that thoughts could be formed with a physical understanding any more than you could with a duelist. Logical investigation can give you the range, just not the specificity he demands of dualism, and the same goes for materialism.

Arise, Great Cthulhu!

@rbar np, take your time, I'm quite busy as well.

Did East Germany have a great economy? Like you said, it faired well in some sectors, highly subsidized sectors I might add, at the huge expense of the rest of its economy which was miserable compared to West Germany (or to what it could be if it were capitalistic). Think of all the "luxuries" enjoyed right outside the Berlin Wall that were denied to east germans. Can you see purchasing or providing those products and services as economic activity being denied, and, therefore, less cooperation?

You have to question your assumption that capitalism universally strives for competition, or that it always should, or that it's the philosophy of free markets to make everyone compete. There are forces *for* and *against* competition everywhere in capitalism, from those who benefit and lose from it, respectively. I think that's what you mean by "near perfect competition", the perfection being the balance between competing and not competing as required.

Why are labor unions formed? So workers can compete less with each other and cooperate for better employment terms. Does that favor companies? No, but who cares, it's meant to favor the workers. Why are cartels formed? So companies can compete less with each other and cooperate for better profits. Is that good for the consumers? Usually not, but it's good for the companies in the cartel. Why are consumer groups formed... you get the point. These institutions operate against competition, but that doesn't make them any less capitalistic or contrary to the incentives of free markets, assuming they're formed without the use of force, criminal or lawful. A lawful association between individuals or companies to cooperate instead of compete with each other is capitalism at work too.

When you talk about situations where there is less or no competition, you're not considering the competition that arises on the other side of the demand-supply relation!

If there is large demand and little supply, you correctly point out that there is little competition *among suppliers*, right? However, aren't you overlooking the increased competition among the *demanders*? Like I said, competition is increasing as supply and demand differ. Who is competing with whom is beside the point.

You might argue, "well, how is competition among the demand going to help??", because it sucks to be in the demand for something in low supply, that unmet demand represents an incentive for more supply. Supplying something in high demand is a coveted position. Resources from elsewhere will tend to be allocated towards that coveted position, supplying that demand, and increasing competition in what started out as a less or non-competitive environment.

So, I don't follow your "markets universally tend towards monopolies" argument. As much as companies like monopolies, they like it because it profits from the clients/consumers' desperate demand for it, but these people are not ok with fighting each other for something in low supply. THAT is the incentive towards competition, towards destabilizing any monopoly that abuses its position.

The derivatives market is a complex example, but you're blaming the "free market", when the banking system is far from a free market if there's a central bank. Banks should be allowed to make risky investments and, if these investments don't pan out, they should pay the price with loss and bankruptcy, like it happens with any business that makes bad decisions. That is one of the best incentives to make good decisions! If the whole banking system is to blame for that, then it would collapse, which would be disastrous, but it would expose the disaster that is central banking.

Would the government want society to realize that central banking is terrible? Of course not, they're the ones who profit from it the most, which is why it stepped in with a massive taxpayer-funded bailout. None of what I just described is allowed in a free market.

Just like people realized the Church and State should be separate centuries ago, it will take a while for people to realize the State and Banks should be separate as well. The evidence is unravelling right before us.

My apologies for missing your point, I sometimes tend towards the contentious. I think we have been arguing diagonally; of course religion (and faith) are the result of human traits, as is everything about human society. What I argue is that the unpleasant traits you rightly observe in other social institutions and widespread beliefs find a special form of propagation and protection from scrutiny in the supernatural aspect provided only by religious/supernatural belief. I still believe society would be better without religion, just as it would be without conspiracy theorists (often religious as well), state religion, and more generally the lack of critical thought. The reason religion is a worthy target when trying to effect social reform/progress is that, as I argue above, it ossifies and protects the negative traits you speak of, elevating them out of the sphere of human scrutiny/criticism by means of the supernatural argument.

>> ^jonny:

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.
And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)
I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.
Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.
>> ^hpqp:
You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.

And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)

I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.

Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.

>> ^hpqp:

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

Millionaire. World peace only promises instantaneous world peace. A new conflict could arise the very next day. At least a year...