Your contributions to this discussion have been an overall negative. You don't bother understanding the context of the conversation nor my position. Two of your three posts have started out with unfounded personal attacks on me. Your preference for insults and personal abuse indicate a lack of logical and rational thought.

I'm arguing only for keeping options on the table that haven't been conclusively ruled out. You apparently made up your mind without the need for anything but dislike of people holding alternate beliefs. You haven't presented any scientific backing for there being no supernatural creator. You haven't provided any scientifically supported explanation for what happened before and led up to the Big Bang (or any other alternate theories for the creation and history of the universe).

I haven't argued for any particular creator. In fact, I've said that I give no quarter to any religion that I've encountered, including yours. By the dictionary definition of atheism and the one you used earlier, I am an atheist. However, the lack of rational thought, common courtesy, and respect for others that you have displayed in this thread is unfortunately too common among self-professed atheists, which makes me hesitant to give myself that title. I have no desire to be associated with anyone like what you've displayed in this thread.

Barring a sudden and dramatic shift in your posts, I will not be wasting any further effort responding to your ill-considered personal attacks.

And that's certainly your prerogative. Just understand that you are taking a position based upon belief, faith, or whatever you care to call it.

Personally, I doubt any of the gods created by mankind are correct or legitimate. But just because we haven't gotten it right so far does not necessarily mean there must be none.

And I don't disagree, but what is your testable explanation? If we accept the premise of the Big Bang, how can we speak to time before time existed? I've read papers from theoretical physicists who claim no theory that speaks to anything prior to this time can be testable or known.

Wow. It took you two whole messages to run out of constructive thoughts. Impressive

No, not even close. Could you at least read the thread and think about what I've written before firing off a response?

You are exactly right. You are positively asserting a position that likely never will be proven. If you understand and accept that, then you have no point to make here. My issue is with those who want their belief in no god to be rational and scientific while simultaneously thinking those who believe in a god are irrational lunatics.

In your example, if I ask directly "Was your cup filled", you can easily answer "No, I know my cup was not filled", which is what you meant to say. This an easily discernible situation. Words have multiple meanings and I'm not arguing the appropriateness of specific words, but what you actually mean you say them.

If I ask "Does a supernatural god exist?" and you say "No, I know such an entity does not exist", you have no means to determine the truth of your statement. You do not know this in the same way you know your cup was underfilled. Yet, you are willing to stake out the same position. I don't care what words you use, but that you apparently believe these two examples are similar. That you have the same quality knowledge/belief/whatever about these two situations. Yet that is not true.

I don't care either way about your definition of atheism. Again, the words you choose to use don't matter a lot and don't change my argument one bit. If you take the position that there is no god or supernatural being of any sort, you have staked out the same territory as the religious who believe there are.

I'm okay with you requiring proof before believing something exists. My issue is your assumption that actively not believing in it is the natural alternative. This is logically incorrect. There is a middle area where you are unsure if it exists or not.

Again, see my response above. I'm not arguing this point. It is the next step of assuming this means you can positively disclaim the possibility that I argue.

And this shortcut is the problem. When pressed, you are finally willing to admit you are unsure. But that isn't your default answer nor one you want to give. There remain areas on this earth hardly touched by modern science. We discover new species on a daily basis. If I were betting on it, I'd definitely put money on there being no pink unicorns but I cannot say I know they don't exist. I agree that it is very doubtful that such a creature exists, but neither you nor I know that they don't. Claiming they don't exist is a statement based on faith, not scientific knowledge.

Then I suppose you are willing to grant the same minor semantic difference to someone who knows there is a supernatural god? Of course they can't really know it, but they've decided that the odds are against the entire universe being created from nothing based upon the currently defined laws of physics. Science still has no good answer for how the universe got here and what happened before that. Your lack of extraordinary evidence is sufficient for them to comfortably believe in a Creator, right?

Your post doesn't actually say anything. What am I projecting? What equivocations?

Ahh, I see either you fall into the same camp or you're being intentionally dishonest. I clearly said that claiming there is no god is an act of faith, which is not the same as not believing in a god.

You are correct in your first statement, the difference is not important to many atheists. You are wrong in that is it just an exercise in semantics. There is a huge difference. In your first quoted sentence, you are taking the affirmative position that pink unicorns do not exist. In the second, you are unsure if pink unicorns exist.

Too many atheists are merely disillusioned Christians who cannot grasp the notion of being okay with uncertainty. To claim there is no god or supreme power in the universe requires just as much faith as claiming there is one God who gave you a book of rules. If you want to go insane, try to explain to the average atheist that these two statements are not logically equal: "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe in a god". As long as you espouse the former, you remain firmly in the faith-based realm of religion and myth.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-02-14/home-schools-secular/53095020/1

We homeschool and do not do it for religious reasons. We live in the heart of conservative Christianland and there are secular groups even here. We are a minority but a growing one. The stereotype to which I objected is out of date and only serves to discourage others.

Natural gas is slightly lighter than air. It will rise and it disperses fairly quickly when given an opportunity.

Except they are private, they just operate in a highly regulated market. Government did not create this monopoly, it exists naturally. Are you suggesting that a completely unregulated approach would be more successful?

Government didn't make a monopoly. Government is regulating a natural monopoly in an attempt to protect the citizenry.

I work for the largest gas distribution company in our state and I agree completely. Like any utility (electric, water, sewer, cable, telephone) there is almost never a business case for a second company to invest in duplicate infrastructure. Our state semi-deregulated gas distribution by requiring local distribution companies to provide transportation services to any customer who requests it. This means that you can go find your own source of natural gas and pay us for the use of our pipes. This isn't a consumer-friendly process, but for industrial and larger commercial customers, they can save money and not be stuck with whatever the regulator says our rate is.

Generally gas distribution companies are allowed a baseline "lost and accounted for" amount of gas that is built into their rates. Anything above that either requires serious documentation/explanation or is taken out of the company profit. There is incentive to get to that baseline number but extremely diminishing returns after that. As you say, that could change if other costs were factored into the equation.

Actually, the rates are set to ensure a utility does not exceed an allowable return. The utility tries to get as much investment included in that calculation, so that these costs are included in the rate base. However, the PUC/PSC does not guarantee any minimum rate of return. My employer approached their allowed 9.9% return last year, for the first time in at least 8 years.

While there are exceptions, this generally is not true. The general rule for regulatory accounting in this space is that capitalized costs can be recovered but O&M (expenses) cannot be. There are some allowances for liabilities like bad debt.

In our state, the cost of the gas is a pass through - no mark up and (eventually) no loss, although it isn't uncommon to be over or under by millions from year to year. The return is built into the flat customer charge.