Except that we have actual evidence of species-exterminating asteroids. Lots of them.

Right. So we're back to God being a deliberately cruel SOB, since he allows another (less powerful than him) supernatural being to kill children as part of his little laboratory experiment. Pretty cool.

"What written law backs up all this angst?"

That's the point. The written law has become unjust.

Except, the one (believing in magical all-powerful beings that have a history of being cruel and petty) requires the active embrace of completely irrational BS ... whereas taking up as a working theory the concept of something like Hawking Radiation (especially in the context of a proper scientific mindset, in which there is pure delight in being shown a new and better explanation) involves none of that baggage, and none of the word-view-corrupting philosophical compromises that come baked-in with religious mysticism as an explanation for the physical world.

Here's how Communism would make sense in that instance: With replicators- true replicators- the only input to create physical goods of ANY type is energy.

Which means there are only two things any human being would need- time and energy. Everything else can be made on the spot.

Time, well, God is a socialist when it comes to time. We are each allocated exactly 24 hours a day, no more, no less. There is nothing we can do to change the length of a day by a single instant.

Centralized power production on a grid system by the Government, with the Government owning the power plants, is such a natural monopoly that we already do it in one form even in capitalist nations- the government grants the power company a complete monopoly in a given area, usually overseen by some sort of utility board. A thin veneer of billing for energy used pays for it (supposedly), but in reality, balancing the grid is a 24x7x365 job; and you are allocated your connection to the total energy in the system.

The alternative, once replicator technology is available, is distributism and this is also seen occasionally in Star Trek, usually anti-social types who find a nice deserted hunk of rock to settle on for whatever reason (research?) visited only by the occasional passing starship. Of course, one might say that they're a commune of one (one individual, one family) and are their own government; it falls on them to generate their own energy somehow. And that's so OK with the Federation Communists that they only bother such settlements when war approaches or if they're endangering some other native population. If you have an entire universe to expand into and the means to do so, land isn't scarce anymore either.

The only thing I can't figure out is how Jean Luc's brother Robert is able to find customers for more than one bottle of wine a vintage. Seems to me it would be drop dead simple to feed a bottle into a transporter to generate a replicator pattern and have an infinite number of bottles available.

What? That's the classic, repeated here a million times, "If you're willing to "believe" in [string theory/black hole evaporation/dark matter/whatever], that's the same as invoking God" meme. It's a meta-rant, all wrapped up in a succinct little code phrase. THAT was the off-topic bit. Pointing out that it's BS isn't off-topic, it's calling it what it is.

Obviously. Otherwise you'd be trotting out the much more polished responses that trained theologians use to try to explain the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, but unspeakably mean and petty God scenario. Professional theologians and similar shamans have a lot more practice and selling that concept than you do. Clearly:

Are you sticking with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god model? Well, since you're sticking with pure invented fantasy, that's actually a trick question, isn't it? But since that god is involved in every aspect of creation, then: yes. And even if you don't like that answer, there's the fact that despite is apparently boundless mercy and his ability to make otherwise physically impossible things happen (including bringing people back from the dead during publicity stunts), he really doesn't are if pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent infants (and millions of other people) die in agony after months of suffering. Who cares if man is capable of inducing cancer. Are you proposing that ALL such horrible fates, including every way in which a toddler can be made ill and prematurely die in misery is the result of human action? No? I see.

I see. So, things like childhood bone cancer, or being born with a major heart defect, etc., is just people choosing. OK.

You really are new at this, aren't you? Are you actually saying that the only measuring stick for evil is that which a particular bronze-age desert tribe or two jotted down, and had re-hashed by people centuries later for political reasons? That only people who follow that recipe are allowed to objectively weigh someone's actions as evil? Hint: it's possible to objectively define a value system (which then allows you to separate things into good and evil) without even once having to invoke magical invisible all-powerful but part-time and petty gods. In fact, it's a lot EASIER to define a rational code of ethics/morals if you're NOT using made of fairly tales as the basis for them, philosophically. Why? Because that way you don't have to paint over all of the BS mixed premises, loopholes, and please-don't-look-behind-the-curtain nonsense that comes with basing your value system on imaginary magic.

Have you poured your nice strawman a cup of coffee yet this morning? He's probably getting tired.

Nope, just laying down the counter-meme for the toxic "If you believe in Hawking radiation it's just like believing in the Jude-Christian God" meme.

You know, and I know, that people who immediately trot out some scorn for those "believing" in so far unobserved things like Hawking radiation/black hole evaporation will sometimes equate that willingness to (for now) accept such things as plausible working theories... with being the same as having faith in anthropomorphic deities. My point is that it's a crappy analogy, and the GP to which I was responding was basically trolling. But because there seem to be a large number of people who actually don't understand the the difference, it's worth contrasting the two things, as opposed to conflating them, as was trollishly done.

I am not a theologian, but because you can't fathom it, doesn't mean it doesn't have an alternative answer.

But lets take a quick look at possibilities. Man creates fancy cancer causing agent, lets call it ... agent orange. Did God create cancer?

Or put it in another way, "God allows evil, because without a choice, there is no chance to choose"

ON the other hand, you being human and being your own god have to answer for the evil you allow to exist. Oh wait, being an atheist, you cannot even say evil exists. Everything is situational and you have plenty of excuses as to why you allow "evil" in your life. And don't lie to me saying you don't allow evil, even by your own standards, you allow it. Which makes you pretty hypocritical.

To add to what Talderas said, as far as the Civil war, seven states seceded before Lincoln even took office. They seized federal properties before he even had the authority to do anything. Buchanan, a Democrat, was President at the time.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed it on Monday morning.

If the shuttle program included a "gas can with a glider strapped to it", then the Apollo program was a tin can with a stack of gas cans under it. The comparison still doesn't work, because your "glider" had main engines of its own. It just didn't need or use them in the landing. I don't understand why you think a reentry vehicle that had to drop in the ocean on parachutes is somehow better than one that can land on wheels.

I love how Russians brag about how little they value the life of their citizens. Ten million died because they were not well equipped or well led.

You know, the tax laws regarding 401Ks are quite clear. You don't have to go to a tax lawyer; any CPA, H&R Block, or tax prep software will tell you that. The firm that holds your 401K fund will tell you. Heck, Google will tell you. In a world where nothing is free, it should be obvious that something that is tax favorable like 401Ks should have limitations. I have no sympathy for someone who thought a (initially) tax-free retirement fund could be dipped into whenever he wanted without penalty.

If you think a pension fund is somehow easier, look up what it takes to borrow against it. The interest rates are nasty. At least with a 401K, you're actually paying interest back to the fund, so the real loss is in the loss of return due to the remaining principal being lower.