Atheism and Agnosticism therefore cannot be the same thing either.
I never said any such thing; that ought to be a big red flag for how you're thinking about this. Read again. Don't skim. Concentrate. I'll be pleased to respond to any reasoned point you have to make.
The upshot is that "agnostic" does _not_ mean "atheist" in another guise.
I didn't say it did. I said that it typically does. It can just as easily be applied to a theist.
What I was saying, and what I think you missed, was that agnosticism doesn't squeeze out a third answer from between the theist and atheist positions, which are terminally polarized. Either one is an atheist, or one is a thiest. Agnosticism is irrelevant to that specific question. If your lack of knowledge takes you to a place where you do not hold a belief in a god or gods, you're atheist. If it takes you to a place where you do hold some shred of belief, then you're a theist. It's not about knowledge. It never was. It's about belief.
there's certainly room for people who neither believe, nor disbelieve
Yes, certainly. This is a well known subset of the atheist community. Lacking belief makes them atheist; lacking disbelief makes them uncritical of the position of others.
Other subsets include those that lack belief, but also disbelieve, that is, attempt to make a case for the non-existance of god (and) gods. Then there is the crew that lacks belief but is curious, and their opposites, those that lack belief and could care less.
They're all atheists, just as Muslims and Christians and Hindus are all theists. Why some people think all variety must exist on the theist side of the question has always been quite beyond me. But then again, so is religion.
"The atheist" doesn't say anything of the kind. "The atheist" says they don't hold a belief in a god or gods. Existance, or not, is an issue of objective fact. Belief is not. Belief is faith. Athiests do not have any faith that god exists. They are, as the etymology of the word clearly suggests, without belief, without faith in the issue at hand, which is god or gods.
What is so funny about this is that you're up on your high horse about "careful distinctions" and right up front, you can't be bothered to make even simple distinctions.
The key thing about the atheist/theist divide is that it is simple. That's what absolutely prevents agnosticism from carving out a third position. The idea that there is a third position apart from theism/atheism is invalid. Either you hold a belief in a god or gods, or you don't. Which side of that line you land on is what is at issue. Nothing more; certainly not any claim of objective fact. I would make no such claim, no more than I would for the existance of martian prosititutes in 1830. I have no information, and without information, I lack faith because that is how I am inclined to triage beliefs.
And in so doing, will typically find with even the most childish and simplistic bit of introspection, that they are entirely without belief, which makes them atheists.
That's not appreciating the beauty of creation, that's appreciating
being in a comfortable situation.
"Creation" is myth — or at the very least, unencountered objective fact. As such, there's no reason to appreciate it. There is reason to appreciate the portion of the universe one can wrap one's head around, and cats and people both do this.
They are [animals] if they don't ask why they're here.
Either we are, or we aren't. It's a question of biological objective fact, not opinion or subject to any number of philosophical angels, pins and dances.
Well, we use language to discuss concepts and use local experiments to
propose theorems that apply to the fabric of space-time itself.
Parrots use language - ours, in point of fact. Topically and with great humor. Cats and dogs use language as well, though they don't speak ours, they certainly understand some of it. As for what is under discussion betwen them, this is a matter of what the particular brain is specialized to do. Aside from language itself, sound processing is not something we're uniformly best at. Cats can do things like locate a sound to within 8 degrees, reliably and repeatedly. It's been useful to them to specialize this way. You and I really suck at this. We use our brains for other things, and frankly, these things would not benefit cats in the roles they have performed to date. Directivity does. That may change, what with our just beginning to get a handle on the control of DNA. Should be fun.:) In any case, mental and language superiority is not the hands-down win you seem to think it is. Then there is body language and sign language and scent language and gifting. It's almost never as simple as people would like it to be when they're trying to pretend they're really, really special.:) Oh, and I should also point out that cats experiment constantly. With how far their human's patience may be stretched, for one thing, but with many other things as well.
Specifically, though, the difference is that we have a free will and,
as such, we fall under the Law of Karma while living, and, after death,
get judged for what we have done with our tremendous human abilities.
You think a cat doesn't have free will? Don't feed it and then tell me what you think motivated it to take a crap in your headphones one time. Or a piss in the toaster. Cat piss in a toaster is worse than mustard gas — press that level down and you've got what we call a serious situation. Classic free will is what every animal has. This one you don't even get a fraction of a point for.
Well, the Devil has done his work well within the religions, so I agree with
you here, kinda. The fact is that all the atrocities being committed in the
name of religion can in no way be put on their founders who are long dead.
I don't blame the founders for later generations of followers pillaging, raping, flying into buildings and so forth. The founders had the perfectly common motivation to control their fellows, the very same motivation any modern politician, social worker, psychobabbler or cop has; they just had more of it. The thing is, not one of them was smart enough to see that it couldn't work. That's what all religious founders have in common: They were far too optimistic about human nature. I find that pitiful, but not blameworthy. I blame individuals for their own acts. If a Christian plants a bomb, I blame the Christian. If a corporate flunky rips me off because it is company policy, I blame the flunky directly. If a tax agent takes my money for a war I don't support, I blame the tax agent directly. Being a member of an immoral structure in no way magically propogates your own responsibilities elsewhere. It is a common thing to think it does, and that is one of the key reasons society is in such trouble — many people accept this shuffling off of blame by flunkies. Which is not to say that the structure can shuffle blame downhill, either.
We (humans) affect our environment. We can conserve or destroy. We have law. We have technology. We have morals (or lack thereof.) We have religion, and we also have science.
Because I'm sure you're serious, I'll do you the courtesy of taking your assertions at face value, and treat them one by one.
Cats affect their environment. This is obvious and trivial. They exhibit numerous traits that we would consider to be environmentally enlightened, from burying their waste to grooming themselves to rarely killing for sport.
Cats can conserve or destroy. They make choices about this as well. For instance, my couch has been conserved. The doorjamb to the bathroom, however, has not. I think this is amusing, and the cat knows this because I take care to demonstrate it to her. From my point of view, the doorjamb is trivial and inexpensive to replace; consequently, I am delighted with the cat's choice of claw-sharpening targets.
Cats have rules/law. Drag a laser pointer across the floor. The cat will follow and play and pounce. Drag the laser pointer across another cat. The original, playful cat will proceed to ignore the laser, even if it was in the midst of crazed play with the beam. There are rules, and one of them is you don't pounce on things that are on other cats. This, interestingly, is a very good rule. Humans can be distinguished, perhaps, by the number of very bad rules we make, but not by rulemaking itself. Any tribe of monkeys has rules, as do many other types of animals, including, as I have shown, cats.
Cats have technology. They will create nests out of raw materials, they utilize knocking your crap off the dresser in order to get your attention. They understand that burial is good for anything that will reveal their presence, and anything that is dead and rotting. Other animals use sticks to fetch ants from holes, and will fashion tools from rocks and sticks. Beavers build dams. Termites build, arguably, castles.
Cats have morals. Mothers rarely eat their young. Cats rarely eat their owners, unless the owner dies. Even then, some cats cannot overcome that predjudice, though they will eat other animals.
Cats don't have religion, near as I can tell, but that's a point in their favor from where I stand, quite seriously. Cats do, however, exhibit faith. Both at the habituation level (they expect their human to come home to them again, because so far, that's what has happened) and they expect their human to take care of them, again because that's been established; and at the abstract level — once trust has been established, many wary behaviours are discarded. This occurs in cat-cat relationships and cat-human relationships, and more rarely, between cats and other species.
We do have science and science is a very complex product of advanced thinking. I don't expect science from cats for that reason. Doesn't change my point; I specifically said we differ in degree here.
Cats also experience every emotion humans do, as well as numerous behaviours and traits we like to think of as our own. They can be both selfish and generous, loving and hateful, vicious and kind, protective and defensive, careless and careful, clever and witless, and so on for quite a long list.
Equating one's self to a mere animal is effectively relinquishing that which makes us unique and special as beings.
My position is that when we have established a level of hubris that disallows seeing that we are one of the set of animals, we have taken a step back on the very path most of us wish to tread. I recognize it's a handy mental trick when the task at hand is the consumption of a hamburger, but that makes it no more respectable.
If animalistic behaviour becomes the mean, then humanity will very quickly reach its end.
One final point: If most humans behaved as well as my cat does, we'd be a damn sight better off. Your statement, in light of this, is ludicrous.
Agnosticism does not create a stance apart from atheism or theism. If you hold a belief in a god or gods, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. Agnosticism (usually) describes why the proponent doesn't hold a belief, so it's usually simply a description of the atheist stance.
There's a technical reason lying in wait as well; the theism/atheism boundry is defined by belief, or lack thereof. The stance of the self-professed agnostic is one predicated on knowledge, which actually has no bearing on the state of belief. This is why we have believers in UFOs, Phrenology, Homeopathhy, Astrology and so forth — because knowledge is not a required precursor for belief.
Belief is about faith in some degree of the unknown. Knowledge is about collecting, correlating, and developing relationships amongst instances of objective fact. Ther is no requirement whatsoever that they ever cross paths.
To have more consciousness, because we are the only beings who can appreciate this marvelous creation.
That's utter drivel. My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet and miserable and scared and being cuddled up before the fire in a pair of loving arms. My cat will signal her appreciation in a completely unequivocal manner by purring and loving up. Her level of appreciation is different, but it is not lacking.
Humans are simply animals. We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all. Personally, I take religion (and astrology, and crystal gazing, and a bunch of other things) as evidence we're not nearly as smart as we'd like to think we are.
Based on the idea that all humans are created equal
As one glance at either (or both) Einstein and a person with a typical case of Down's syndrome will tell you, equal mental capacities are not uniformly available.
As one glance at either (or both) Arab women and US feminists will tell you, equal rights are not uniformly available.
As one glance at either Jeffery Dalmer (or both) and Martin Luther King will tell you, equal consideration is not uniformly available.
In summary, the very idea that "we are all created equal" is a mindless, pointless statement that speaks only to turning a blind eye to reality.
I have always thought that we should be saying that we would attempt to afford equal opportunity to our fellows at each set of choices in life, and let them make of it both what they may, and what they are capable of.
But as your premise is trivially demonstrated to be false, you should probably reformulate.:)
Surely you must have meant "+1 Curmudgeon", right?
Have you not read any H. L Mencken, possibly the world's most notable English-speaking curmudgeon?
Mencken's Creed:
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
I believe in the reality of progress.
I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
I have a radio face (but my wife is hot, so I guess she could vidcast for me).
Actually, this position is what makes the article's argument completely invalid. Put a truly cute female on camera, dressed (or undressed) to tempt, and a very large cross section of guys will watch her consistantly. They won't read signs that are in the frame, and they won't look away, much. In fact, most guys wouldn't be able to tell you if there was a sign in the frame or not if you stepped in front of the content and asked them cold. They'll watch just in hope for a view a little further than usual up her skirt or down her blouse. Add content they are even mildly interested in, and they'll do it with the sound turned up. Make the content suggestive, funny, and sexually charged and they'll fight to watch it. OTOH, ask for money for it, and they'll stop watching immediately.
The reason most guys don't watch the news now (and by extension, podcasts) is because (a) the majority of guys don't want to watch another guy regardless of how he presents himself (b) those females that aren't on the Spanish channels are dressed like nuns or your mom, (c) the "news" is full of lies and spun to beat the band.
Fix those things, and guys will watch. Ladies, I don't know what they'll watch. They're different.
Me, I understand Spanish, so I'm all set for satellite broadcasting. The Spanish don't do politically correct. And thank goodness for that. On the net, there's the Naked News, that's always fun, but they're not free and they (very ill-advisedly) mess with your browser's window sizes, so it's a hassle or a strain.
It's not politically correct in today's US society to recognize that sexuality is the prime motivator for males; but that doesn't make it not so. If your hormones are working, you're paying attention to sexuality 24/7.
If they're not working... well, I'm very sorry for you.
does it explain why certain colors shift sideways more than others when I watch them out of my peripheral vision?
No. Color shifts that are introduced by encoding will be visible when you look right at them.
One thing that can cause this is a plastic lens in glasses. The light weight plastics that replace glass lenses refract red and blue at significantly different rates, and this is quite noticable as they get thicker. Glasses lenses get thicker towards the edges, so if one turns away, then looks back to the side to see the original target, you're looking through much thicker plastic. If you look to one side, red is prominent, if you look to the other, blue is. So are you a glasses wearing person?
You might see this kind of abberation from a (bad) projector lens, but if you did, it should be constant — it would be visible if you looked right at it.
Ok, the 400 vertical resolution fits into the 200x200 (400) vertical resolution of the full frame. Outside of the 400 lines, evenly distributed above and below the active lines, typically would be blanked lines -- so the 400 line vertical distribution is all on-screen, and you can't paint off the top and bottom (unless you fuss with the vertical size of the monitor or television and distort the displayable area.)
A horizontal scan of 320 is (more or less) naturally derived by cutting a 640 clock in half, where 640 was conveniently available since early days of graphics cards because those engineers knew that the color information came at exactly that rate if video scan frequencies were used, and again when working with video, 320 double-width pixels fits onscreen sans overscan. Again, there are more clocks that don't "have pixels" that extend into the overscan areas at the left and right, and so you can't usually paint past the display edge in a 320 horizontal design.
Now: If you actually meant 300, this can be done as well but would more typically be an RGB resolution, not a video resolution, meaning that it would not be expected to encode quite as easily into a video signal because it can't be presented exactly at the rate that the color information changes. If video is not a consideration, then no resolution is impossible, it more depends on the display having enough phosphor or display elements to reproduce the signal than it depends on the card hardware — it's a lot more difficult to make a display that can show some arbitrary resolution, especially if they're high resolution, than it is to make hardware that emits an appropriately encoded signal.
Another thing that can skew all this is the question of rectangular pixels. Looking back at the Amiga, which was designed from the outset with video in mind, the pixels were not square, and that was done specifically so that the rate that the pixels changed folded perfectly into the rate at which color information can change when those changes are in phase with the color information... you can actually make an illegal NTSC image with a system like that by changing (for instance) from red to blue in one pixel; a video signal can't pull that off when the horizontal rate is 300+, so you get a smeary, nasty result if you actually try to encode it. Good video hardware would wipe the change out (filter it) before trying to encode it, but the net result is the same, it doesn't get to the screen.
One of the things we have in our software is the ability to filter an RGB image or animation into NTSC-compliance by transforming it into video encoding space, filtering it timewise, and transforming it back to the image buffer; this is useful if the video hardware doesn't do the filtering, and also useful if you just want to see what you might get on screen (assuming the video hardware does in fact filter.) This will be less important as we move forward and NTSC video sees less and less use for commercial display. It works on any resolution, such as your 300 example, as long as the presumption that a whole scan line is in the buffer isn't wrong. These are the kind of backflips that are sometimes required to get a good image from production to the viewer; it is particularly a problem when the image is artificial, such as raytrace output, because those images contain ultimately sharp color transitions without any regard for video legality. Video cameras tend to never produce illegal images (though they certainly produce poor ones if fed scenes they can't encode.)
As sort of an addendum to my first post, we sometimes see framebuffers with much higher horizontal resolutions than 700-ish; this is a nod to the idea that since you can only get a rate of change of 700, but if things aren't changing now, you can start to change anywhere. If the horizontal resolution is, for instance, up in the 1400 range, then the precision with which an edge can be placed doubles if no change preceeded the new one by more than 1 pixel. You can go higher, too. The framebuffer can be correctly loaded by software that ensures that the changes aren't illegally encoded.
guess it's gov'ts way of saying they don't mind if you kill yourself straight out, but if end up abusing drugs and then commiting crimes to continue the habit, we should just ban all such drugs in general.
Ah, no. The gov't will hammer you simply for using, having, or selling the drugs, no need to commit any further crime at all... and most people don't.
Just so we're clear. It's a mommy law. It has no reasonable basis in ethics, legitimate protection of the citizen, or the citizen's economy at large (although it certainly keeps a lot of cops, politicians, and other gov't employees in funds and lodging, as well as serving to keep prices high on the street and drug dealers in a very profitiable business.)
Mommy laws:
"Don't use pot." Why? "Because I'll beat you with a strap. It's for your own good." But mommy, I have glaucoma! "You'll have glaucoma with strapmarks on your butt if you step out of line. Now get out of my way, I have to finish explaining to your brother what is going to happen to him if he says certain words on the radio or television."
where I come from PAL has a resolution of 720x576, while our neighbors in NTSC land can see 720x480
If only it were that clean.
Horizontally speaking, NTSC encodes various components as signal brightness and two color information streams of differing bandwidth. The brightness can change at a rate that is approximately equivalant of 700-ish brightness changes per scan line, with the other 20 or so appearing in the overscan area which is typically hidden by the way television tubes are mounted; your milage may vary a little if you have an LCD, but then again, it may not. Color changes are a function of combining the brightness change with the two color components. These components can change at an average rate of 100 color changes per complete line, however, because one component is slower than the other, not all color changes can be reproduced at that rate. Notice that I described this as a rate; that's because television, real television, is a pure analog signal and although the rate that the brightness and the colors colors can change is limited, the position that a brightnes or color change can occur at is only limied by how recently one already did... if colors haven't changed within 1/100th of a line, then you can have a color change fairly precisely located... at the cost of not having another for a 1/100th. Similarly, a brightness change (or a green amplitude change... some of you will see why when I describe the math, for the rest, it's magic, trust me) can occur at a rate of about 700, but they can start anywhere and so the precision with which either a brightness change or a color change can be located on a scan line is in effect infinite with an analog system. When displayed on a typical color television tube, most of this capability is lost because the display beam only has a finite number of RGB phospher triads it can illuminate, and the analog detail is re-sampled by the "jail-bars" of the phosphor dots or slots. However, this is still true of a black and white set, which has a continuous display surface. Again roughly, greens change the fastest, reds the next fastest, and blues the slowest of all. These color change ratios (to one another) were designed to mimic the ratios exhibited by your eye's sensitivity to similar changes. Unfortunately, while the idea is sound as far as it goes, your eye's ability to deal with those changes, ratios aside, is so much higher than the change rate video provides, that I would argue that the designers kind of screwed the pooch in this area, but that's a different discussion.:)
The math is done like this, again more or less, using the R, G and B (red, green and blue) color components: Brightness =.59 times G plus.3 times R plus.11 times B. That gets you luma, a black and white signal that offers compatability with how the older BW television sets worked. This is also called "Y". The first color component is simply (R-Y), although as I mentioned above, it is bandwidth-limited so that the color changes are encoded in a broad, blurry way. The third component is (B-Y) and it is bandwidth-limited even further... slower and blurrier. The color image is re-created at the display this way: R = (R-Y) + Y, B = (B-Y) + Y, and G = Y - (R + B), keeping in mind the RGB.59,.3 and.11 scaling factors.
As far as vertical resolution goes, this is a bit easier to understand. For both systems (PAL and NTSC) the display is created in two passes. One the first pass, half the lines are painted. On the second pass, the other lines are painted in between the originals. Next time, the others again and so forth. These are referred to as the odd and even fields of a frame. A frame is considered to be definitive of how many lines you see, and it adds up to 400+ (odd=200, even=200) for NTSC, PAL a little more, with the remaining scan lines again typically hidden as a consequ
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses modified by Amendment XVI.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
- - - - -
I'd say that pretty well shows that this is, in fact, unconstitutional. Having said that, they'll probably enact it anyway, because as we well know from long experience, they really don't give a damn.
I have a Mac and some WF accounts. WF definitely works in Firefox, Safari, and Omniweb. I presume it works in IE5, but as I've never started the program, nor do I intend to, I can't tell you.:)
You set science and philosophy against each other and make it sound as if they are antithetical.
No. I simply identify religion as one of the many empty ideas that shelter under the very broad umbrella of philosophy. There are many worthy ideas as well; one way to derive a broad hint is if an idea, existing only as a set of philosophical concepts, untestable, identifies itself as speculation. As soon as claims are made for truth, much less absolute truth, then we can be almost certain that we have exhumed some bunkum.
If, on the other hand, it turns out that an idea or idea set can traverse from the abstract realm of philosophy into that of the real world (for example, various areas of mathematics have repeatedly made this journey) then we have created something most valuable. Cheers and congratulations all around.
Religion, however, has never made this transition. Only the mundane effects of belief make themselves known; everything from Protestants blowing up Catholics to Muslims flying into buildings to the pope denegrating homosexuals can be attributed to religion, and every day brings more and more of this.
While philosophy is, in and of itself, a perfectly respectable and complex realm, that is not to say that philosophy as a whole does not contain a significant number of poorly constructed ideas. It certainly does. Religion appears to me to be one of the foremost of these — one of the least credible, the most invidious, the most deceptive. It preys on the innocent and the gullible... detailed examples abound.
No. There isn't. Religion has no base; there is no objective fact underlying it. No amount of speculating upon an idea that "something" exists for which we have no evidence, regardless of how sincere or complex, can equate even slightly to honest inquiry. It is naval-gazing, pure and simple.
Science produces tangible, useful results that improve our lives each and every day; thus we demonstrate that it is a working system based upon useful, reality-based precepts. Religion produces nothing but confusion and self-referential pabulum. It would be delightful if it were otherwise, just as it would be delightful if there were a Santa Claus, if there were brownies, if there were sprites, if there were mermaids. Alas, these things exist only in the mind.
Christians do not run away from philosophical inquiry
Of course they don't. Philosophy, while certainly the home of many interesting systems of thought, is also the sheltered breeding ground for an unlimited variety of utter nonsense. Most of it contradictory, some of it self-contradictory, and all of it indefensible on a level playing field with anything that is reality-based.
It is not in the philosophical realm that religion would have real value. It would have real value if indeed, you could pray and receive correction for those facets of life that are inconvenient or outright destructive; it would have real value if the innocent would not suffer, if heaven actually awaited after a life of strife and service; it would have real value if disease and accident and injustice were outclassed by the forces brought to bear by religion. However, we know that none of this is true. Life, and its various inconveniences, goes on utterly unchanged outside the locus of our own skulls, no matter what antics the preists, shamen, and philosophers indulge in. This, in turn, shows religion has no value outside of self-deception. That is not the same as no value, but compared to the ability of science to actually mediate issues such as a woman's odds of dying in labor and a child's odds of surviving its first few years, prayer and worship have about as much practical value as astrology and phrenology.
I will grant you that the social structures built by organized religion have practical value; for instance, Mormons have very strong support on a tangible level for other members of their group; but this support is comparable to that of any coherent, aligned social group such as a ham radio club or one's family. It is not, in and of itself, a benefit unique to religion.
If religion is dying, then why is church attendance booming in many parts of the world?
Because in the human circumstance fear, ignorance, and wishful thinking are built in, while courage, knowledge and pragmatism are difficult to develop, integrate and build onto.
Religion is the easy antidote to fear; the gentle road away from honest inquiry; the very milk and honey of wishful thinking.
Life continually confronts us with the unpleasant in the form of death, suffering, inequity, inability to overcome forces much larger than we are in both the social and physical senses, that most people simply cannot marshall the intellectual resources required to look these challenges in the eye and march onwards regardless. Instead, they cleave to hope-impregnated stories of an all-powerful entity in the sky watching over them, promises that it'll all work out in the end if they'll just do this, or that, or the other.
Science, in sharp contrast, requires intellectual honesty, and the better at it you are, the more you will have to hew to that line. Religion is the polar opposite. Claims — or presumptions — without a single objective fact to back them up form the very foundation of religious thought.
Science will always take its most effective adherents from those people who have a stronger element of curiosity than they do of fear, while being willing to admit that there are things they will almost certainly never know — and that's acceptable to them.
Religion doesn't describe something "outside" the physical universe. It doesn't describe anything at all. It is not theory. It is not history. It is not anything outside our imaginations.
In light of the above, my prediction is that religion will not recede from society until, or unless, a significant improvement in mental quality can be obtained in the general population. No beneficial technology, no depth of reach into the cosmos, no collation of knowledge seems likely, to me, to stand in for such an improvement. Remember: Religion does not rely upon, or often even give lip service to, objective fact. This implies that no matter what you do in the real world, you will not resolve the problem. Only superior thinking abilities can do that, and that seems to require a significant improvement in mental quality. Barring unanticipated drug discoveries and outright genetic manipulation, I expect religion will be with us for a long, long time.
No, I wasn't joking. I've been observing things getting worse to this point. I presume, if things continue to get worse beyond today as all indicators seem to speak to, that a point will be reached where a sufficiently large number of citizens will no longer tolerate the situation. I wasn't thinking of a political solution. I was contemplating that someone, somewhere, will be irritated into outright revolt and subsequently be able to convince a large number of their peers to do the same. The last time that happened, the trigger was a silly tea tax. We have far worse problems now, so I'm simply observing that the odds have begun to favor someone tipping over.
Voting is not, under the US system, an effective control on government actions. Not only does it fail to reach the issues, it is exercised too seldom to rip an errant politico from their job when they screw up. By the time a full term has been served, they're secure in a pork job somewhere and there is nothing that the citizens can do with or about them or the actions they took in office.
Regarding your means test, I would agree, if only voting meant something. As it is, we only have party-chosen hacks whom we may elect, and I truly don't believe that an educated voter can make any better decision than a coin flipper.
Educated (and qualified in the tested sense of the term) voters that vote directly on matters of substance, coupled with the complete elimination of elected "representatives", that might be able to work. Can we get there from here? Not through any political process that derives from what we have now, IMHO.
I know there is no representation in Washington that stands for what I believe in -- I am literally without representation of any kind.
No, let me explain, assuming a 10% tax rate just for grins:
Joe takes in 5 million new dollars and/or the equivalent: earned income, contributions, interest, gifts, located treasure, value of non-monetary tangibles, awards, insurance payoffs, rewards, whatever. New dollars. Joe pays 500,000.00 -- 10%. We don't care what he does with his other 4.5 million bucks. Not our business. We won't be taxing it again while it is in his hands. Ever. Also, since we don't have to worry at all about what he's doing with his 4.5 million, we can fire 99% of the tax lawyers, accountants, collectors and other parasitic vermin, thus reducing the amount we need to collect by that much more, plus, they can get real jobs with valuable work product and help out the economy that way, too.
George, on the other hand, makes 20 grand in new dollars, same exact conditions. He pays 2,000.00 -- 10%. We don't care what he does with his other 18,000.00 bucks. Not our business. Etc.
In addition, churches pay 10% on income. Save The Children pays 10% on income. Colleges pay 10% on income. George W. Bush pays 10% on income. My business pays 10% on income. Not profit, income. What it does with the rest, as usual, none of anyone's business. Part of what it does is pay some to me, though, and 10% of that, I get to fork over because it is new income to me. My business doesn't concern itself with this at all. If I hire someone to fix my plumbing and pay her, she forks over 10% of that. Which is not my problem, actuarially speaking. If she in turn hires my kid to mow her lawn, he forks over 10% of that.
That's a flat tax. What you are describing isn't a flat tax, it's just a mess not very dissimilar to what we have now, and as you intuit, it's not a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said any such thing; that ought to be a big red flag for how you're thinking about this. Read again. Don't skim. Concentrate. I'll be pleased to respond to any reasoned point you have to make.
I didn't say it did. I said that it typically does. It can just as easily be applied to a theist.
What I was saying, and what I think you missed, was that agnosticism doesn't squeeze out a third answer from between the theist and atheist positions, which are terminally polarized. Either one is an atheist, or one is a thiest. Agnosticism is irrelevant to that specific question. If your lack of knowledge takes you to a place where you do not hold a belief in a god or gods, you're atheist. If it takes you to a place where you do hold some shred of belief, then you're a theist. It's not about knowledge. It never was. It's about belief.
Yes, certainly. This is a well known subset of the atheist community. Lacking belief makes them atheist; lacking disbelief makes them uncritical of the position of others.
Other subsets include those that lack belief, but also disbelieve, that is, attempt to make a case for the non-existance of god (and) gods. Then there is the crew that lacks belief but is curious, and their opposites, those that lack belief and could care less.
They're all atheists, just as Muslims and Christians and Hindus are all theists. Why some people think all variety must exist on the theist side of the question has always been quite beyond me. But then again, so is religion.
"The atheist" doesn't say anything of the kind. "The atheist" says they don't hold a belief in a god or gods. Existance, or not, is an issue of objective fact. Belief is not. Belief is faith. Athiests do not have any faith that god exists. They are, as the etymology of the word clearly suggests, without belief, without faith in the issue at hand, which is god or gods.
What is so funny about this is that you're up on your high horse about "careful distinctions" and right up front, you can't be bothered to make even simple distinctions.
The key thing about the atheist/theist divide is that it is simple. That's what absolutely prevents agnosticism from carving out a third position. The idea that there is a third position apart from theism/atheism is invalid. Either you hold a belief in a god or gods, or you don't. Which side of that line you land on is what is at issue. Nothing more; certainly not any claim of objective fact. I would make no such claim, no more than I would for the existance of martian prosititutes in 1830. I have no information, and without information, I lack faith because that is how I am inclined to triage beliefs.
And in so doing, will typically find with even the most childish and simplistic bit of introspection, that they are entirely without belief, which makes them atheists.
Which is what I said in the first place.
"Creation" is myth — or at the very least, unencountered objective fact. As such, there's no reason to appreciate it. There is reason to appreciate the portion of the universe one can wrap one's head around, and cats and people both do this.
Either we are, or we aren't. It's a question of biological objective fact, not opinion or subject to any number of philosophical angels, pins and dances.
Parrots use language - ours, in point of fact. Topically and with great humor. Cats and dogs use language as well, though they don't speak ours, they certainly understand some of it. As for what is under discussion betwen them, this is a matter of what the particular brain is specialized to do. Aside from language itself, sound processing is not something we're uniformly best at. Cats can do things like locate a sound to within 8 degrees, reliably and repeatedly. It's been useful to them to specialize this way. You and I really suck at this. We use our brains for other things, and frankly, these things would not benefit cats in the roles they have performed to date. Directivity does. That may change, what with our just beginning to get a handle on the control of DNA. Should be fun. :) In any case, mental and language superiority is not the hands-down win you seem to think it is. Then there is body language and sign language and scent language and gifting. It's almost never as simple as people would like it to be when they're trying to pretend they're really, really special. :) Oh, and I should also point out that cats experiment constantly. With how far their human's patience may be stretched, for one thing, but with many other things as well.
You think a cat doesn't have free will? Don't feed it and then tell me what you think motivated it to take a crap in your headphones one time. Or a piss in the toaster. Cat piss in a toaster is worse than mustard gas — press that level down and you've got what we call a serious situation. Classic free will is what every animal has. This one you don't even get a fraction of a point for.
I don't blame the founders for later generations of followers pillaging, raping, flying into buildings and so forth. The founders had the perfectly common motivation to control their fellows, the very same motivation any modern politician, social worker, psychobabbler or cop has; they just had more of it. The thing is, not one of them was smart enough to see that it couldn't work. That's what all religious founders have in common: They were far too optimistic about human nature. I find that pitiful, but not blameworthy. I blame individuals for their own acts. If a Christian plants a bomb, I blame the Christian. If a corporate flunky rips me off because it is company policy, I blame the flunky directly. If a tax agent takes my money for a war I don't support, I blame the tax agent directly. Being a member of an immoral structure in no way magically propogates your own responsibilities elsewhere. It is a common thing to think it does, and that is one of the key reasons society is in such trouble — many people accept this shuffling off of blame by flunkies. Which is not to say that the structure can shuffle blame downhill, either.
Because I'm sure you're serious, I'll do you the courtesy of taking your assertions at face value, and treat them one by one.
Cats affect their environment. This is obvious and trivial. They exhibit numerous traits that we would consider to be environmentally enlightened, from burying their waste to grooming themselves to rarely killing for sport.
Cats can conserve or destroy. They make choices about this as well. For instance, my couch has been conserved. The doorjamb to the bathroom, however, has not. I think this is amusing, and the cat knows this because I take care to demonstrate it to her. From my point of view, the doorjamb is trivial and inexpensive to replace; consequently, I am delighted with the cat's choice of claw-sharpening targets.
Cats have rules/law. Drag a laser pointer across the floor. The cat will follow and play and pounce. Drag the laser pointer across another cat. The original, playful cat will proceed to ignore the laser, even if it was in the midst of crazed play with the beam. There are rules, and one of them is you don't pounce on things that are on other cats. This, interestingly, is a very good rule. Humans can be distinguished, perhaps, by the number of very bad rules we make, but not by rulemaking itself. Any tribe of monkeys has rules, as do many other types of animals, including, as I have shown, cats.
Cats have technology. They will create nests out of raw materials, they utilize knocking your crap off the dresser in order to get your attention. They understand that burial is good for anything that will reveal their presence, and anything that is dead and rotting. Other animals use sticks to fetch ants from holes, and will fashion tools from rocks and sticks. Beavers build dams. Termites build, arguably, castles.
Cats have morals. Mothers rarely eat their young. Cats rarely eat their owners, unless the owner dies. Even then, some cats cannot overcome that predjudice, though they will eat other animals.
Cats don't have religion, near as I can tell, but that's a point in their favor from where I stand, quite seriously. Cats do, however, exhibit faith. Both at the habituation level (they expect their human to come home to them again, because so far, that's what has happened) and they expect their human to take care of them, again because that's been established; and at the abstract level — once trust has been established, many wary behaviours are discarded. This occurs in cat-cat relationships and cat-human relationships, and more rarely, between cats and other species.
We do have science and science is a very complex product of advanced thinking. I don't expect science from cats for that reason. Doesn't change my point; I specifically said we differ in degree here.
Cats also experience every emotion humans do, as well as numerous behaviours and traits we like to think of as our own. They can be both selfish and generous, loving and hateful, vicious and kind, protective and defensive, careless and careful, clever and witless, and so on for quite a long list.
My position is that when we have established a level of hubris that disallows seeing that we are one of the set of animals, we have taken a step back on the very path most of us wish to tread. I recognize it's a handy mental trick when the task at hand is the consumption of a hamburger, but that makes it no more respectable.
One final point: If most humans behaved as well as my cat does, we'd be a damn sight better off. Your statement, in light of this, is ludicrous.
That is incorrect. Atheism is the state of being without a belief in a god or gods.
It is the polar opposite of theism — belief in a god or gods.
Agnosticism does not create a stance apart from atheism or theism. If you hold a belief in a god or gods, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. Agnosticism (usually) describes why the proponent doesn't hold a belief, so it's usually simply a description of the atheist stance.
There's a technical reason lying in wait as well; the theism/atheism boundry is defined by belief, or lack thereof. The stance of the self-professed agnostic is one predicated on knowledge, which actually has no bearing on the state of belief. This is why we have believers in UFOs, Phrenology, Homeopathhy, Astrology and so forth — because knowledge is not a required precursor for belief.
Belief is about faith in some degree of the unknown. Knowledge is about collecting, correlating, and developing relationships amongst instances of objective fact. Ther is no requirement whatsoever that they ever cross paths.
That's utter drivel. My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet and miserable and scared and being cuddled up before the fire in a pair of loving arms. My cat will signal her appreciation in a completely unequivocal manner by purring and loving up. Her level of appreciation is different, but it is not lacking.
Humans are simply animals. We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all. Personally, I take religion (and astrology, and crystal gazing, and a bunch of other things) as evidence we're not nearly as smart as we'd like to think we are.
As one glance at either (or both) Einstein and a person with a typical case of Down's syndrome will tell you, equal mental capacities are not uniformly available.
As one glance at either (or both) Arab women and US feminists will tell you, equal rights are not uniformly available.
As one glance at either Jeffery Dalmer (or both) and Martin Luther King will tell you, equal consideration is not uniformly available.
In summary, the very idea that "we are all created equal" is a mindless, pointless statement that speaks only to turning a blind eye to reality.
I have always thought that we should be saying that we would attempt to afford equal opportunity to our fellows at each set of choices in life, and let them make of it both what they may, and what they are capable of.
But as your premise is trivially demonstrated to be false, you should probably reformulate. :)
Surely you must have meant "+1 Curmudgeon", right?
Have you not read any H. L Mencken, possibly the world's most notable English-speaking curmudgeon?
Mencken's Creed:
Actually, this position is what makes the article's argument completely invalid. Put a truly cute female on camera, dressed (or undressed) to tempt, and a very large cross section of guys will watch her consistantly. They won't read signs that are in the frame, and they won't look away, much. In fact, most guys wouldn't be able to tell you if there was a sign in the frame or not if you stepped in front of the content and asked them cold. They'll watch just in hope for a view a little further than usual up her skirt or down her blouse. Add content they are even mildly interested in, and they'll do it with the sound turned up. Make the content suggestive, funny, and sexually charged and they'll fight to watch it. OTOH, ask for money for it, and they'll stop watching immediately.
The reason most guys don't watch the news now (and by extension, podcasts) is because (a) the majority of guys don't want to watch another guy regardless of how he presents himself (b) those females that aren't on the Spanish channels are dressed like nuns or your mom, (c) the "news" is full of lies and spun to beat the band.
Fix those things, and guys will watch. Ladies, I don't know what they'll watch. They're different.
Me, I understand Spanish, so I'm all set for satellite broadcasting. The Spanish don't do politically correct. And thank goodness for that. On the net, there's the Naked News, that's always fun, but they're not free and they (very ill-advisedly) mess with your browser's window sizes, so it's a hassle or a strain.
It's not politically correct in today's US society to recognize that sexuality is the prime motivator for males; but that doesn't make it not so. If your hormones are working, you're paying attention to sexuality 24/7. If they're not working... well, I'm very sorry for you.
No. Color shifts that are introduced by encoding will be visible when you look right at them.
One thing that can cause this is a plastic lens in glasses. The light weight plastics that replace glass lenses refract red and blue at significantly different rates, and this is quite noticable as they get thicker. Glasses lenses get thicker towards the edges, so if one turns away, then looks back to the side to see the original target, you're looking through much thicker plastic. If you look to one side, red is prominent, if you look to the other, blue is. So are you a glasses wearing person?
You might see this kind of abberation from a (bad) projector lens, but if you did, it should be constant — it would be visible if you looked right at it.
A horizontal scan of 320 is (more or less) naturally derived by cutting a 640 clock in half, where 640 was conveniently available since early days of graphics cards because those engineers knew that the color information came at exactly that rate if video scan frequencies were used, and again when working with video, 320 double-width pixels fits onscreen sans overscan. Again, there are more clocks that don't "have pixels" that extend into the overscan areas at the left and right, and so you can't usually paint past the display edge in a 320 horizontal design.
Now: If you actually meant 300, this can be done as well but would more typically be an RGB resolution, not a video resolution, meaning that it would not be expected to encode quite as easily into a video signal because it can't be presented exactly at the rate that the color information changes. If video is not a consideration, then no resolution is impossible, it more depends on the display having enough phosphor or display elements to reproduce the signal than it depends on the card hardware — it's a lot more difficult to make a display that can show some arbitrary resolution, especially if they're high resolution, than it is to make hardware that emits an appropriately encoded signal.
Another thing that can skew all this is the question of rectangular pixels. Looking back at the Amiga, which was designed from the outset with video in mind, the pixels were not square, and that was done specifically so that the rate that the pixels changed folded perfectly into the rate at which color information can change when those changes are in phase with the color information... you can actually make an illegal NTSC image with a system like that by changing (for instance) from red to blue in one pixel; a video signal can't pull that off when the horizontal rate is 300+, so you get a smeary, nasty result if you actually try to encode it. Good video hardware would wipe the change out (filter it) before trying to encode it, but the net result is the same, it doesn't get to the screen.
One of the things we have in our software is the ability to filter an RGB image or animation into NTSC-compliance by transforming it into video encoding space, filtering it timewise, and transforming it back to the image buffer; this is useful if the video hardware doesn't do the filtering, and also useful if you just want to see what you might get on screen (assuming the video hardware does in fact filter.) This will be less important as we move forward and NTSC video sees less and less use for commercial display. It works on any resolution, such as your 300 example, as long as the presumption that a whole scan line is in the buffer isn't wrong. These are the kind of backflips that are sometimes required to get a good image from production to the viewer; it is particularly a problem when the image is artificial, such as raytrace output, because those images contain ultimately sharp color transitions without any regard for video legality. Video cameras tend to never produce illegal images (though they certainly produce poor ones if fed scenes they can't encode.)
As sort of an addendum to my first post, we sometimes see framebuffers with much higher horizontal resolutions than 700-ish; this is a nod to the idea that since you can only get a rate of change of 700, but if things aren't changing now, you can start to change anywhere. If the horizontal resolution is, for instance, up in the 1400 range, then the precision with which an edge can be placed doubles if no change preceeded the new one by more than 1 pixel. You can go higher, too. The framebuffer can be correctly loaded by software that ensures that the changes aren't illegally encoded.
Ah, no. The gov't will hammer you simply for using, having, or selling the drugs, no need to commit any further crime at all... and most people don't.
Just so we're clear. It's a mommy law. It has no reasonable basis in ethics, legitimate protection of the citizen, or the citizen's economy at large (although it certainly keeps a lot of cops, politicians, and other gov't employees in funds and lodging, as well as serving to keep prices high on the street and drug dealers in a very profitiable business.)
Mommy laws:
"Don't use pot." Why? "Because I'll beat you with a strap. It's for your own good." But mommy, I have glaucoma! "You'll have glaucoma with strapmarks on your butt if you step out of line. Now get out of my way, I have to finish explaining to your brother what is going to happen to him if he says certain words on the radio or television."
If only it were that clean.
Horizontally speaking, NTSC encodes various components as signal brightness and two color information streams of differing bandwidth. The brightness can change at a rate that is approximately equivalant of 700-ish brightness changes per scan line, with the other 20 or so appearing in the overscan area which is typically hidden by the way television tubes are mounted; your milage may vary a little if you have an LCD, but then again, it may not. Color changes are a function of combining the brightness change with the two color components. These components can change at an average rate of 100 color changes per complete line, however, because one component is slower than the other, not all color changes can be reproduced at that rate. Notice that I described this as a rate; that's because television, real television, is a pure analog signal and although the rate that the brightness and the colors colors can change is limited, the position that a brightnes or color change can occur at is only limied by how recently one already did... if colors haven't changed within 1/100th of a line, then you can have a color change fairly precisely located... at the cost of not having another for a 1/100th. Similarly, a brightness change (or a green amplitude change... some of you will see why when I describe the math, for the rest, it's magic, trust me) can occur at a rate of about 700, but they can start anywhere and so the precision with which either a brightness change or a color change can be located on a scan line is in effect infinite with an analog system. When displayed on a typical color television tube, most of this capability is lost because the display beam only has a finite number of RGB phospher triads it can illuminate, and the analog detail is re-sampled by the "jail-bars" of the phosphor dots or slots. However, this is still true of a black and white set, which has a continuous display surface. Again roughly, greens change the fastest, reds the next fastest, and blues the slowest of all. These color change ratios (to one another) were designed to mimic the ratios exhibited by your eye's sensitivity to similar changes. Unfortunately, while the idea is sound as far as it goes, your eye's ability to deal with those changes, ratios aside, is so much higher than the change rate video provides, that I would argue that the designers kind of screwed the pooch in this area, but that's a different discussion. :)
The math is done like this, again more or less, using the R, G and B (red, green and blue) color components: Brightness = .59 times G plus .3 times R plus .11 times B. That gets you luma, a black and white signal that offers compatability with how the older BW television sets worked. This is also called "Y". The first color component is simply (R-Y), although as I mentioned above, it is bandwidth-limited so that the color changes are encoded in a broad, blurry way. The third component is (B-Y) and it is bandwidth-limited even further... slower and blurrier. The color image is re-created at the display this way: R = (R-Y) + Y, B = (B-Y) + Y, and G = Y - (R + B), keeping in mind the RGB .59, .3 and .11 scaling factors.
As far as vertical resolution goes, this is a bit easier to understand. For both systems (PAL and NTSC) the display is created in two passes. One the first pass, half the lines are painted. On the second pass, the other lines are painted in between the originals. Next time, the others again and so forth. These are referred to as the odd and even fields of a frame. A frame is considered to be definitive of how many lines you see, and it adds up to 400+ (odd=200, even=200) for NTSC, PAL a little more, with the remaining scan lines again typically hidden as a consequ
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses modified by Amendment XVI.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
- - - - -
I'd say that pretty well shows that this is, in fact, unconstitutional. Having said that, they'll probably enact it anyway, because as we well know from long experience, they really don't give a damn.
I have a Mac and some WF accounts. WF definitely works in Firefox, Safari, and Omniweb. I presume it works in IE5, but as I've never started the program, nor do I intend to, I can't tell you. :)
No. I simply identify religion as one of the many empty ideas that shelter under the very broad umbrella of philosophy. There are many worthy ideas as well; one way to derive a broad hint is if an idea, existing only as a set of philosophical concepts, untestable, identifies itself as speculation. As soon as claims are made for truth, much less absolute truth, then we can be almost certain that we have exhumed some bunkum.
If, on the other hand, it turns out that an idea or idea set can traverse from the abstract realm of philosophy into that of the real world (for example, various areas of mathematics have repeatedly made this journey) then we have created something most valuable. Cheers and congratulations all around.
Religion, however, has never made this transition. Only the mundane effects of belief make themselves known; everything from Protestants blowing up Catholics to Muslims flying into buildings to the pope denegrating homosexuals can be attributed to religion, and every day brings more and more of this.
While philosophy is, in and of itself, a perfectly respectable and complex realm, that is not to say that philosophy as a whole does not contain a significant number of poorly constructed ideas. It certainly does. Religion appears to me to be one of the foremost of these — one of the least credible, the most invidious, the most deceptive. It preys on the innocent and the gullible... detailed examples abound.
No. There isn't. Religion has no base; there is no objective fact underlying it. No amount of speculating upon an idea that "something" exists for which we have no evidence, regardless of how sincere or complex, can equate even slightly to honest inquiry. It is naval-gazing, pure and simple.
Science produces tangible, useful results that improve our lives each and every day; thus we demonstrate that it is a working system based upon useful, reality-based precepts. Religion produces nothing but confusion and self-referential pabulum. It would be delightful if it were otherwise, just as it would be delightful if there were a Santa Claus, if there were brownies, if there were sprites, if there were mermaids. Alas, these things exist only in the mind.
Of course they don't. Philosophy, while certainly the home of many interesting systems of thought, is also the sheltered breeding ground for an unlimited variety of utter nonsense. Most of it contradictory, some of it self-contradictory, and all of it indefensible on a level playing field with anything that is reality-based.
It is not in the philosophical realm that religion would have real value. It would have real value if indeed, you could pray and receive correction for those facets of life that are inconvenient or outright destructive; it would have real value if the innocent would not suffer, if heaven actually awaited after a life of strife and service; it would have real value if disease and accident and injustice were outclassed by the forces brought to bear by religion. However, we know that none of this is true. Life, and its various inconveniences, goes on utterly unchanged outside the locus of our own skulls, no matter what antics the preists, shamen, and philosophers indulge in. This, in turn, shows religion has no value outside of self-deception. That is not the same as no value, but compared to the ability of science to actually mediate issues such as a woman's odds of dying in labor and a child's odds of surviving its first few years, prayer and worship have about as much practical value as astrology and phrenology.
I will grant you that the social structures built by organized religion have practical value; for instance, Mormons have very strong support on a tangible level for other members of their group; but this support is comparable to that of any coherent, aligned social group such as a ham radio club or one's family. It is not, in and of itself, a benefit unique to religion.
Because in the human circumstance fear, ignorance, and wishful thinking are built in, while courage, knowledge and pragmatism are difficult to develop, integrate and build onto.
Religion is the easy antidote to fear; the gentle road away from honest inquiry; the very milk and honey of wishful thinking.
Life continually confronts us with the unpleasant in the form of death, suffering, inequity, inability to overcome forces much larger than we are in both the social and physical senses, that most people simply cannot marshall the intellectual resources required to look these challenges in the eye and march onwards regardless. Instead, they cleave to hope-impregnated stories of an all-powerful entity in the sky watching over them, promises that it'll all work out in the end if they'll just do this, or that, or the other.
Science, in sharp contrast, requires intellectual honesty, and the better at it you are, the more you will have to hew to that line. Religion is the polar opposite. Claims — or presumptions — without a single objective fact to back them up form the very foundation of religious thought.
Science will always take its most effective adherents from those people who have a stronger element of curiosity than they do of fear, while being willing to admit that there are things they will almost certainly never know — and that's acceptable to them.
Religion doesn't describe something "outside" the physical universe. It doesn't describe anything at all. It is not theory. It is not history. It is not anything outside our imaginations.
In light of the above, my prediction is that religion will not recede from society until, or unless, a significant improvement in mental quality can be obtained in the general population. No beneficial technology, no depth of reach into the cosmos, no collation of knowledge seems likely, to me, to stand in for such an improvement. Remember: Religion does not rely upon, or often even give lip service to, objective fact. This implies that no matter what you do in the real world, you will not resolve the problem. Only superior thinking abilities can do that, and that seems to require a significant improvement in mental quality. Barring unanticipated drug discoveries and outright genetic manipulation, I expect religion will be with us for a long, long time.
That in no way makes it a "good thing."
Voting is not, under the US system, an effective control on government actions. Not only does it fail to reach the issues, it is exercised too seldom to rip an errant politico from their job when they screw up. By the time a full term has been served, they're secure in a pork job somewhere and there is nothing that the citizens can do with or about them or the actions they took in office.
Regarding your means test, I would agree, if only voting meant something. As it is, we only have party-chosen hacks whom we may elect, and I truly don't believe that an educated voter can make any better decision than a coin flipper.
Educated (and qualified in the tested sense of the term) voters that vote directly on matters of substance, coupled with the complete elimination of elected "representatives", that might be able to work. Can we get there from here? Not through any political process that derives from what we have now, IMHO.
I know there is no representation in Washington that stands for what I believe in -- I am literally without representation of any kind.
Joe takes in 5 million new dollars and/or the equivalent: earned income, contributions, interest, gifts, located treasure, value of non-monetary tangibles, awards, insurance payoffs, rewards, whatever. New dollars. Joe pays 500,000.00 -- 10%. We don't care what he does with his other 4.5 million bucks. Not our business. We won't be taxing it again while it is in his hands. Ever. Also, since we don't have to worry at all about what he's doing with his 4.5 million, we can fire 99% of the tax lawyers, accountants, collectors and other parasitic vermin, thus reducing the amount we need to collect by that much more, plus, they can get real jobs with valuable work product and help out the economy that way, too.
George, on the other hand, makes 20 grand in new dollars, same exact conditions. He pays 2,000.00 -- 10%. We don't care what he does with his other 18,000.00 bucks. Not our business. Etc.
In addition, churches pay 10% on income. Save The Children pays 10% on income. Colleges pay 10% on income. George W. Bush pays 10% on income. My business pays 10% on income. Not profit, income. What it does with the rest, as usual, none of anyone's business. Part of what it does is pay some to me, though, and 10% of that, I get to fork over because it is new income to me. My business doesn't concern itself with this at all. If I hire someone to fix my plumbing and pay her, she forks over 10% of that. Which is not my problem, actuarially speaking. If she in turn hires my kid to mow her lawn, he forks over 10% of that.
That's a flat tax. What you are describing isn't a flat tax, it's just a mess not very dissimilar to what we have now, and as you intuit, it's not a good idea.