Now you've made me sad. ;-(

I'm happy you appreciate my sense of humor -- people have an easy time taking offense. What's more you even got the point. You make a good case in your reply -- it would be even better if you offered a little evidence -- there's plenty of it around. As Christopher Hitchens has often remarked, "Religion is the original form of tyranny."

I was quite sincere in my reply -- I had to look back 60 years to have thoughts of the same resonance. For a moment, innocence and a sense of wonder were restored -- I felt the warmth of being wrapped in a blanket of security. I recalled Pinocchio singing "When you wish upon a star."

Perhaps it's simply that atheists are open to discussing all delusions, such as God, and computer simulations, on an equal footing. I entertain notions about God almost daily -- I'm fascinated by the breadth and depth of man's imagination.

Religions were invented to motivate fear, to shift the reasons for actions unknown, to a supreme being whom no one can see. Correctly applied, religion does help people construct psychological barriers. The way I see things, it's like in marriage -- if you talk to your spouse, then eventually a wall will develop between you, making the relationship colder and less meaningful. Just by abusing each other, you can feel much relieved. A belief in an abusive supreme being accomplishes the same thing, as He (always a he in most religions) supposedly always loves you. I'm a believer who finds no flaws in religion. But I always deny it's benefits, in some cases. After all, your body is much stronger than your mind. ;-)

I couldn't agree more -- excuse me while I pour another drink.

That's really interesting to know, I'd like to read the research which supports such a conclusion. What does cause mental illness -- Scientology.

Some people turn to God and other non-productive behaviors, but non-believers go help other people with their issues. Reason provides the tools to handle life -- what's done with the tools depends on the person.

Thank you for opening my eyes -- it never occurred to me to hold belief in faith and belief in hypothesis testing (proof), as equivalent. It also never occurred to me, given that faith and proof are given equal weight, fortune telling and magic, are as likely as testable physical reality. I like unicorns, who are magical creatures, so they may exist. In my old age, I can hold the same beliefs I did as a child. Santa Claus, and "The Giving Tree" are real once again. Perhaps I can regress back to my infancy, when I had my nice warm blanket, and all things are possible. Innocence and a sense of wonder is restored.

I find it interesting you know the community is filled with raging atheists, who think the universe is a computer simulation. Did I miss the slashdot poll which tests your thesis? Is this not a gross simplification and generalization? I thought the slashdot community was filled with angry theists. Then again, perhaps you're the only one.

Your definition of free market is literally, "free to do whatever they want." You do not exclude, bribery, fraud, extortion, child labor and slavery, as corporate freedoms, which have been practiced in the recent past, as well as currently. It is interesting to note how you feel free to speculate about what I think or desire, instead of asking. When you have asked, instead of questioning my motives, I've responded, in some detail, in answer. As it happens, to put it simply, I do mean a FREE, well REGULATED market, but not necessasarily unionization. Here is my thinking, in some detail. I agree with the following two quotes. "From Smith to Ricardo and Mill, classical liberalism was a revolutionary doctrine that attacked the privileges of the great landlords and the mercantile interests. Today, we see vulgar libertarians perverting ‘free market’ rhetoric to defend the contemporary institution that most closely resembles, in terms of power and privilege, the landed oligarchies and mercantilists of the Old Regime: the giant corporation." "While its supporters argue that only a free market can create healthy competition and therefore more business and reasonable prices, opponents say that a free market in its purest form may result in the opposite." I agree most with the view of Adam Smith. "Critics of laissez-faire capitolism since Adam Smith variously sees the unregulated market as an impractical ideal or as a rhetorical device that puts the concepts of freedom and anti-protectionism at the service of vested wealthy interests, allowing them to attack labor laws and other protections of the working classes." Unionization is a response to the government allowing vested wealthy interests to attack the working classes. I prefer unions not be necessary.

You made any empty accusation, to which I humbly disagreed. Of course I see not only legitimate, but good purpose in the H-1B program, but what I strongly object to is corporate giants using it, and other methods to surpress wages. As I said in my first response, it's economics 101 that in a free market, where demand exceeds supply, the price will rise until demand is met. This isn't happening, because of the manipulation of the market, with the H-1B program and other methods. I would add, another indication of market manipulation, is productivity has risen as indicated by the following, "Software engineers today are about 200-400% more productive than software engineers were 10 years ago," while salaries remain flat. The share of the wealth created, by the work of the engineer, has decreased proportionately -- that is 200 to 400 perrcent. If there was competition in the marketplace, there would be high levels of movement of engineers, from company to company, but there is not. There is corporate abuse of the H-1B program, in at least three respects, artificially increasing supply, paying lower wages, and overworking the H-1B engineer. When companies stop manipulating the market, letting salaries rise, then revisit the question of increasing the H-1B quota. I've never advocated eliminating it, or even reducing it, just eliminating the manipulation of it by corporations, to keep salaries low.

Methinks you've been brainwashed by the corporate line, and have taken it up, at best, and are disingenuous at worst. As is said in Matthew 25:32-33 "They will train an old goat, appropriately called a "Judas," to lead sheep to the pens for slaughter. A well-trained Judas will lead group after group of sheep to the slaughter all day long."

Taking your response at face value, then why not stop encouraging the abuse of the H1B system, as a first step -- you're not helping.

Congradulations -- you've found a niche for yourself, where you can make a living or even shine. Your example is equivalent to a software engineer, being an expert in the C implementation of bubble sort, who persists in asking everyone who comes in the door, to demonstrate they know it as well. Why not give the community an example complex design you built, where you used your in-depth understanding of the theory of analog design, by describing it's corresponding differential model? Your equations will fit in this space. Bertrand Russell once said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." Socrates is reported to have said, "The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing." These are only two minor observerations, from which we might learn.