I think the OP was talking about getting rid of the religion, not the people... Religion is patently bad. The people behind the religion aren't...

Please tell me you were shaking your cane and shouting for the neighbor kids to get off your lawn shortly before posting this. I rarely see something so obviously written by someone with a grudge against testing and "playing" with modern equipment...

Also,, who calls them "birds" anymore?

There is no "in time" That dimension doesn't work the way you think it does. Learn a little more about relativity and you'll understand what we're on about. Til then, please refrain from arguing with those who demonstrably know more than you.

Maybe because our science is capable of greater things than your god? The idea that science is limited by some supernatural force that imagined it into existence confuses me... Science is a logical and coherent approach to solving complex problems regarding data. Your god is simply data which science can process through and make statements about. So far, you believer types are making the data look like your god is some sort of mental illness mixed with abusive, power-hungry personality disorders.

I'm not trying to troll here, but you ask how science can prove/disprove anything about your god, I say this. It is the ONLY way to prove/disprove anything. If your god doesn't play well with the scientific system and worldview, then it is lacking.

Self description WIN!

Oblig XKCD too!

Idiot.
Reject those socialist police and firefighters next time you are robbed or your house is burning. Health care should be synonymous with safety from grievous personal and property harm. Society has an investment to protect.

Most other nations recognize this, but, for some reason, people like you have decided to hold up here in the states.
Plz either change your mind, move away, or at least shut up while the responsible and compassionate hard working professionals among us try to help. kthxbye

THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS!

Sarah Palin?

Yes, because that worked so well for Encarta. "Real Business" models have no way of encompassing the intrinsic motivation to share your knowledge with others. We all want to do it. People here are even bitching that they aren't allowed to (for free). What makes you think that changing a socially motivated author/editor population into workers will make them work more or better? [CITATION NEEDED]

Damn, all I use mine for is backups...

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Your couple hundred dollars of investment can be handled the way you describe. To extend the period of time in which a large donation has effect, there has to be some sort of structure. If that's a lawyer handing out million dollar checks every year for a thousand years, then great. He can just sit on a big ole pile of cash in his storage room and hope there's never a fire...

In reality though, the "gamble" you are griping about is the structure that ensures the longevity of the fund. The objective isn't to improve American as an economic power, though that may be a result, the objective is to provide solutions to the entire world. I'm certain we'd (Americans) love to buy Nike's from Congo rather than China. I'm pretty sure we like Nigerian oil. Africa has a lot to offer, but the process of setting up infrastructure in a place where basic health concerns are so great is not an easy one. Charities have been trying to solve that problem for decades now. The primary issue that most note? Not enough funding... Now Gates/Buffett have tried to make a near-inexhaustible source from which this funding can come. If you are having a hard time with the way they handle the money, make a billion dollars, contribute half, then tell them what you think. 'Til then, shut up with the pedantry and nitpicking.

You, sir, are my hero.

If you can pick between them, it's not an effective monopoly.

What does that even mean? That sounds like you are saying the God you believe in has no measurable influence on the world we live in. If that's the case, how is your god more than imaginary? If god is more than imaginary and has some influence on our world, then said influence MUST be measurable (as defined by the word 'influence'). If we can measure something, then we can generally predict it (According to the determinists).

Your less-than-subtle attempt to insult women and draw a parallel of unpredictability fails on so many levels I don't know where to start.

I also take exception to your claim that your god knows better than we do. That sounds a lot like Thomas Aquinas's plea to the definition of god... That "logic" was even dropped by the Church last century.

The point is that the ability to adapt without outside assistance precludes the need for the original creation event. If an organism can adapt and roll with the changes, who needs God to help? The Creationists seem to forget that point when attempting to hybridize the two points of view. Either it happened with your God, or it didn't. If there is a possibility it didn't, then the God hypothesis is overly complex.