Translation: You don't understand atheism, therefore your personal religion gets to claim all credit for any and all positive common-sense-truths.

Christianity incorporated things that were widely accepted as true or good long before Christianity existed, and which are widely accepted as true or good in societies that have never had contact with Christianity.... and you want to claim Christianity somehow "owns" them, and that atheists cannot interdependently agree with them.

I do not need to believe in Native American animal spirit guides to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to avoid violence.
I do not need to believe in Reincarnation to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to avoid violence.
And I sure as heck don't need to believe in your even sillier walking-talking snake stories to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to avoid violence.

There are pure-logic reasons to come to that conclusion.
There are good reasons to come to that conclusion which may range beyond a strict definition of "pure logic", which have absolutely nothing to do with invisible mystical magical beings.

One of the great things about atheism is that we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Christianity that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Judiasm that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Islam that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Native American religion that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Buddhism that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Hinduism that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Confucianism that is true or good.

Atheists don't define "morality" as obedience to some random religion's claims about what some invisible-silent-magical-man wants. We are free to accept the best examples of morality and the best teachings on morality and the best reasoning on morality, from anywhere. Jesus said a lot of very wise things. Buddha said a lot of very wise things. Confucius said a lot of very wise things. I see no shame as an atheist, taking the best that Christianity has to offer. But there's no way in hell you can claim Christianity has some monopoly-ownership on the idea of non-violence.

-

I disagree. I think the problem is that there are women in the workforce serving the needs of rich old bastards instead of taking care of their husband and children.

There are zero women in my workplace. I love it.

You know, it's only flamebait or troll if it's a fake position crafted to instigate. It doesn't matter if you hate what I think, if I genuinely believe what I say, I'm not trolling.

I'm not trolling.

Sure the theory's wrong, but we don't know how yet, and our guesses are just so much better than they were a decade ago.
 
Of course, in the entire history of the human race, we've never once actually confirmed or refuted a single predictions if this nature. This is where "faith" comes in.

Agreed. It's awesome how science is getting a better and better understanding of how much of the universe is hospitable to us-like life. But it's always mentally-painful when stories like this make loudly-screaming-assumptions that we are a typical, or exclusive, model of what life in the universe looks like. The most trivial problem with the current story is that undersea or underground us-like life won't be much bothered of the atmosphere gets nuked with radiation. Stretching things a bit, we have no idea if gas giant planets could support some sort of life in the ocean-like depths of their atmospheres. And to go onto the deep unknown, there's about 6x as much dark matter as regular matter. The little we do know about dark matter does give some cause to doubt it's suitability for life, but our understanding of dark matter and our understanding of unlike-us life is far too thin to make any reasonable assumptions on the subject. Is there life out there? It's looking increasingly inevitable that more us-like life does exist, but we still know far too little to presume that we aren't a wildly a-typical form of life.

-

Yeah, I've moved past the point where people like you can shame me into flip flopping. I don't want you around me, and I don't value your approval.

It doesn't really matter why I hold this position, or how you want to label it. What matters is, I refuse to support companies that woo women away from traditional family life, and I refuse to be sneaky about it in the name of political correctness.

I think professionals should wear suits, and I'm highly competent, as demonstrated by the many world class projects on my CV.

Your view of the world is flawed.

You're so caught up in your desire to defend your ridiculous "free expression" ideology that you won't acknowledge that facts exist, or that lies exist. There's a huge blind spot that you can't see past because you've decided that your ideology is beyond critical examination.

That pedantic crap about "thinking hard" just reinforces that for all your cleverness, you're just another idiot who has been crippled by his preconceptions.

You should probably stick to the contrived world of the chessboard and leave the real world problems to others.

Can you think of a scenario which can be called an emergency where you would benefit from protection from malicious misinformation?

Think hard.

I disagree. I think the problem is that there are women in the workforce serving the needs of rich old bastards instead of taking care of their husband and children.

There are zero women in my workplace. I love it.

No, I just understand that there are plateaus that you can't pass if you refuse to look presentable, and that it's a lot easier to present an image of respectability that people outside your field can see than to try to explain to people who don't understand what you do why they should trust you. People who don't understand your field need a way to judge you, and time spent forming a judgement is a risk; if you turn out to be of no use to them, that time was wasted. So, if you make it harder for them than it needs to be, they may just decide not to bother.

Making your professional life harder for yourself over something so insignificant in the grand scheme of things is really kind of childish. I used to rebel against people who wanted me to cut my hair when I was in high school too, but eventually most people accumulate enough substance as human beings to set aside these childish attempts to assert their individuation.

Wear a MacDonalds outfit instead, if that's what makes you happy.

If your suit isn't comfortable, buy a nicer suit. A good suit is extremely comfortable.

No, I don't mean a tenured position, I mean the temporary position as a program director that she was fired from. It was a temporary position, and while it took a year to get her out, the wheels began to turn in November of 2013, only 3 months after she started. Which is clearly documented in the article.

She was a member of two different organizations (Womenâ(TM)s Committee Against Genocide and New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence) that were associated with the organization that committed the violent acts, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO).

She says she didn't know in advance that the violent acts were going to occur, but when she saw them in the news, she knew they were committed by the M19CO, and that the association between the M19CO organization and her own organizations existed.

She says she was casually acquainted with two of the convicted murderers, Judith Clark and Kuwasi Balagoon, who were members of the M19CO, and she maintained a relationship with Kuwasi Balagoon with letters and an in person visit, until he died.

Knowing these facts, they don't want to trust her with the position of program director. It was a new assignment, she only had a temporary job. They didn't take away the job she'd been doing for years because of what they found. The whole point of a temporary position is that no promises are made that it's going to last, so any expectations of permanence she had were her own mistake.

The more autistic among us will play rules lawyer games and insist that, technically, she didn't tell any lies, and given the benefit of the doubt on every occasion, you can't prove that she's not as pure as the driven snow. But they miss the point. The point is, the woman is a radical. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but you don't put radicals at the helm of the bureaucracy.

So, the Cyborg Unplug is made by Julian Oliver. Because, PRIVACY!

Clicking through to his personal site, we're greeted with another one of his creations... the Transparency Grenade. Because, TRANSPARENCY!

http://julianoliver.com/output...

So, what happens if I throw a Transparency Grenade into a restaurant with a Cyborg Unplug running? Do they destroy each other?

HYPOCRISY!!