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 The stereotype to which I objected is out of date and only serves to discourage others.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.

Then you should get out some. They certainly are a loud percentage but secular homeschoolers are a rapidly increasing group.

Because all homeschoolers are religious nuts?

I've made perfectly clear that I don't agree and that further discussion of this point is useless. We can't talk about trees when you insist that oaks have teeth and walk around at night. I told you days ago to feel free to believe what you want. You can no longer claim ignorance. But who cares?

And as long as you are free to define capitalism as any system that has been successful, I guess you're right. But in the real world, capitalism sucks at being kind to the poor so it gets tempered with some socialist pieces to help. Or a lot of socialist pieces, like your example of Denmark.

Yet another moving target. Absolutely, an individual living in a capitalist society can follow typical Christian duties. That is not the same as Jesus being a capitalist.

This section is a great example at just what a mammoth waste of time this has been. You are an idiot and I'm done hoping that you have some capability for rational discourse.

If the nits that you wish to pick are that you said he WOULD embrace capitalism rather than he IS a capitalist, then you're arguing semantics that don't exist. This whole discussion has become pointless.

No, I didn't. This is a lie. Or perhaps I'm assuming too much and you are simply failing at logical reasoning. You seem to think that my argument against your position is an explicit advancement of what you see as your negative position. Therefore, if I'm arguing against your claim that Jesus would embrace capitalism, I'm obviously saying that Jesus was a communist or at least made clear his support for some other economic system. This is a fallacy.

Ahh, and here we are again. If I say I don't believe in the Christian God nor their religious dogma, does that automatically make me an atheist? Does it make me a Muslim? Can you use my statement to show I support any particular religion? Of course not. I claimed that Jesus's words, as reflected in the Christian Bible, do not show him as a capitalist. Simple. The first half of your latest post is wasted; you're trying to build a strawman.

Because the only way to know which economic system Jesus would be more likely to support is if he explicitly expounded upon the pros and cons of the various options? And if that is your position, how the hell did you decide that he would embrace capitalism? In your simplistic view, capitalism is good and communism is bad; Jesus was a good guy; therefore, Jesus would embrace capitalism and shun communism. End of story.

So yeah.. What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism.. You're claiming those aren't your words? Or, do you mean that I challenged your comment so that makes me responsible for the conversation? Interesting view either way.

Your responses made obvious that a letter addressed to you, from Jesus, clearly laying out his objections to capitalism, would have been waved away as insufficient. Seriously, I wasted very little time on that part of the conversation because it was clear you had no interest in reasonable discussion.

Again, your simplistic black and white outlook makes discussion impossible. I never said that Denmark is A SOCIALIST NATION. As I've said in previous posts, there are no pure capitalist nor socialist nations - they don't exist. Every real world economy is a mix. You agree that Denmark is as close to the EVIL SOCIALISM end of the scale as any country today, yet hold them up as a capitalist success.

You argue that capitalism is better than socialism. Your example for capitalism is, perhaps, the most socialized nation in the world today. Your position is not supported by your example. In fact, it is directly undermined. Other, more capitalist, nations do a poorer job of providing safety nets. They produce lower standards of living while requiring their citizens to work more hours. Their citizens score lower on surveys of happiness and health. But none of that counts to you because as long as there is a touch of capitalism in the system, it still counts as capitalism. This logical disconnect makes discussion impossible.

Anything that doesn't fit your worldview is either ignored or reinterpreted appropriately. I feel like I'm talking to a cult member.

I get your point, but none of that requires the SCADA system to be connected to the Internet. It does require a dedicated network for SCADA completely separate from your LAN/WAN but you can do all of that with technology and not touch the Internet.