Reply reformatted for readability. Sorry about that

I think you've just defined "religious position" in the second part of the quoted section. It is an opinion, perhaps even a position, on religion? But not a religious position? Not sure you've got your thinking cap on there.
If I were being more accurate above, then I should have written "The one you're thinking of is agnostic atheism". Or apathetic/pragmatic agnosticism, which is also wonderfully called Apatheism. I definitely overstepped in saying atheism can be described as a religion itself, but there are groups of atheists who are behaving very much like organised religions and as it is de-facto a religious position then the stretch doesn't look too far.

Oh, my. From the point of view of the ~7billion theists it looks like faith. Not that that's going to hold much water if you're atheist, I admit!
Atheism has a very weak scientific foundation - in that it's the null hypothesis. And those who claim it is stronger than that are as self serving as that retard who "did calculations", presumably with a crayon up his nose, and gave an age for the earth from the Bible.

I direct you to Thomas H Huxley's words on agnosticism:

Some of the wisest words I've ever read.

As I said in response to another comment
If I were being more accurate above, then I should have written "The one you're thinking of is agnostic atheism". Or apathetic/pragmatic agnosticism, which is also wonderfully called Apatheism. I definitely overstepped in saying atheism can be described as a religion itself, but there are groups of atheists who are behaving very much like organised religions and as it is de-facto a religious position then the stretch doesn't look too far.

I think you've just defined "religious position" in the second part of the quoted section. It is an opinion, perhaps even a position, on religion? But not a religious position? Not sure you've got your thinking cap on there.

If I were being more accurate above, then I should have written "The one you're thinking of is agnostic atheism". Or apathetic/pragmatic agnosticism, which is also wonderfully called Apatheism.

OK, I definitely overstepped in saying atheism can be described as a religion itself, but there are groups of atheists who are behaving very much like organised religions and as it is de-facto a religious position then the stretch doesn't look too far.

Oh, my. From the point of view of the ~7billion theists it looks like faith. Not that that's going to hold much water if you're atheist, I admit!

Atheism has a very weak scientific foundation - in that it's the null hypothesis. And those who claim it is stronger than that are as self serving as that retard who "did calculations", presumably with a crayon up his nose, and gave an age for the earth from the Bible.

I direct you to Thomas H Huxleys discussion on this:

Some of the wisest words I've ever read.

My jaw drops at the sheer nonsense of:

I take it you're a social media consultant, then?

Atheism is a religious position. It's not an organised religion, sure, but it can be described as religion.

The one you're thinking of is agnosticism.

I think that your "huge proportion of the userbase" is actually "loudest proportion of the userbase". Linux is used widely in industry and that dwarfs individual use. Most of the kernel is maintained by people working for commercial companies, furthering that company's agenda.

You are fixing a hard drive that is a device that only exists because of government research on a computing device that was largely invented by people working for governments to do things like break codes, posting on a network that was largely created because of government funding and will drive home on a road paid for by your taxes.

Infrastructure does not just magically appear. There is a reason that government investment in basic infrastructure and basic research happens, it's because it's for the common good. If you can't see that then your ship will never come in because you're patently an idiot.

No, the reason the US became so successful is WW I followed by WW II. The US profited mightily from this - the British bought huge amounts of materiél (albeit with IOUs that have only recently been paid off), the government gave heavy industry massive handouts to build up a military machine that largely didn't exist in 1939, the bulk of the Navy went down in Pearl Harbour so a crash building programme happened

The mainland was never attacked, so no damage was suffered and the average person in the US was unaffected by either of these wars except that they were guaranteed employment.

Pretty much everywhere else was flattened. The previous industral powerhouses were largely rubble, the previously richest countries were still rationing in the 1950's and while the US underwrote a lot of the rebuilding in Japan and Germany, the private sector in the states made a shitton of cash out of it.

I'm not claiming that the US planned any of this (because I'm not mental) but the two world wars competely wrecked their competitors and set the stage for their 60 years of prosperity (80 if you include WW I, where it started. Before that, Britian was the pre-eminent world power. After it, the US could dictate to it as to the size of it's fleet).

Wait, you're dismissing it because it's from Norway? First of all, two of the institutes which are most associated with the theory of anthropogenic global warming are GISS, and UEA CRU. The first is in the US funded by the government, and you cannot tell me that the US administrations are all anti-oil greenies. The other is in the UK, which *gasp* is also an oil producer. Don't tar the Norwegians with your prejudices.

Second, read the damn paper. It doesn't say that there isn't warming. It doesn't claim that there's no anthropogenic effect. It merely attempts to explain something that's bothered the hell out of the CC research community for the last decade - why is it not still warming? Their conclusion is that the forcings in the model overestimated climate sensitivity so we have a bit more time before it's catastrophic (if you believe it will be).

So, this a paper which tries to explain something that is a known problem without actually challenging anything about the underlying theories. And you're attacking it because of your mental problems which see conspiracies everywhere? One of those shadows behind your door or maybe the monster under your bed should whisper the answer to this in your ear - who makes and runs all the green technolgies and generators that will replace the carbon spewing monstrosities we have today? You'd find some familair names and logos in there.

Apple still have huge facilities in Cork. Until Dell left they were the EMEA maufacturing facility. Intel, IBM, Google and Facebook all employ thousands of people around Dublin. If Ireland had any kind of venture capital markets...

Desert is the last word you'd use to describe Limerick. It rains here all the damn time!

Google also employ thousands of people in Dublin.

You do have a choice. Strike out the sections you don't like and return it for approval. Never sign anything because it's "unenforceable". Any reasonable employer will be ok with this, and if they're unreasonable about this, do you really want to work for them?

Nuke them!

Apparently Russia nuked out of control oil and gas wells and suggested the same for the Deepwater Horizon spill (nuking the gulf of mexico couldn't possibly have gone wrong, could it?) and we have all these nuclear weapons that no-one really wants to use lying about...

As a bonus, the lava should mean that the radioactives are less of a problem. Or you'll now have radioactive eruptions of lava which is sure to lead to superheroes, right?

In Galway in Ireland a friend brought his girlfriend home. She was vegetarian, but was served ham. When he pointed out to his mother that the girlfriend didn't eat meat, his mother said "Ah yeah, but sure it's only ham". I think she just could not imagine someone not eating ham.