At the exact centre of the earth you have zero gravity in the sense that the attraction to mass is equal in all directions and cancels out. However if you create a really large "house" let's say with a diameter of a few thousand kilometers you would get (micro-)gravity: welcome to the hollow earth theories.
Don't ask me exactly how big this "house" would have to be before the gravity of the mass "below" you is significantly greater than the mass "above" you (which is increasingly further away as you expand the diameter of the "house"). Hmm a nice math problem there, perhaps something to do this sunday...
There would not be equal gravity at the inner poles and the inner equator because of Earth's rotation but if most of the inner gravity is caused by attraction to mass (which is likely) it would be possible to stand at the the poles. This is different in comparison to rotating space colonies where all the "gravity" is caused by rotation.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that the Earth is hollow but I find it an interesting thought and I would not be surprised if at some point naturally hollow planets or possibly moons are discovered. The standard view of solid planetary bodies as "points of gravity" only holds true as long as one is one the outer surface or above. Of course gravity is not necessarily all there is to it and there might be other factors that make natural hollow planetary bodies an impossibility.
Lol I'm not trying to be mean or anything it's just that your posts seem to beg for jibes:) So I just have to reply because of the following...
"Learn how to find the g-spot, it does exist."
...begs me to joke "are you talking about your own g-spot?" or "find your own g-spot yourself goddammit!"
Whatever, here's a well-intentioned hint from the rest of humanity above thirty: don't brag about sex, it only makes you (anyone) look immature and/or stupid:) It only gives the impression that the person thinks they're the first to discover it and that everyone else should care, and both those notions are completely ridiculous.
I dunno about the average Slahxpert (say it out loud, it has a nice Futurama ring to it hehe) or "scientific media whore" but I'd define the edge of the solar system to be the heliosphere.
Oooh ooh don't even get me started on 2+2=4!!! *begins foaming around the mouth*;) j/k
Yes Slashdot is amazing and so is the real world too, it's absolutely astonishing how little it takes to get a lot of people totally and senselessly hysterical (not riled up --although that's easy as pie too-- but plain hysterical). There are some measured responses in this thread but they seem few and far between (at least among those modded positively).
Anyway, nice AC's are the color green and mean AC's are the color yuck:)
Onto the topic: just about any country will try a little bit of hacking "now and then" (i.e. as much as they can get away with) and no it's not necesarily the same as war, actually often it can be the exact opposite of war (NRO, NSA & unnamed seldom start wars & regularily avoid them afaik and that process is not a one-way street). Might also be wise to remember that China isn't quite as homogeneous as the CCP would like it.
Not that I'm an apologist for the CCP (I'm anti-socialist); I wish they'd get the hell out of Tibet and leave Taiwan alone plus a lot of other stuff, but I still think Nixon & co chose the right strategy (and apparently every single president after Nixon have shared this point of view).
p.s. Whitey McWhite? You fall in a bucket of paint or something? We're pink! Caucasians are pink, even caucasian nerds are pink or at least yellowish:) (blame it on the CRTs and lights if you wish)
No, they found out after the shuttle returned and after they could remove and gather and then interpret the data from the detection system. Possibly TFA is crap (BBC is no guarantee) but it's at least mentioned in or easily understood from this article: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_051211_dis covery_leak.html
Other things to mull over: - three of the six "catch bottles" (name of the measuring devices) showed completely normal values, one had "corrupt data" (don't ask me why, perhaps a mechanical failure since the catch bottles seem to be mechanical in nature), and two "indicate higher-than-allowable levels of gaseous oxygen" - if there is a problem at all it is the possibility of a leak somewhere because leaks tend to expand over time
Yes to ignore, forgive or overlook and often (but not always or by necessity) with some level of implied support (seldom of the matter at hand but because of unrelated topics).
I wrote: "And I don't think "condone" means what you want it to mean since you're making a strawman argument in order to criticize."
Read the whole sentence, condone != criticize right? However as you yourself point out if he had said "not condone" he wouldn't have a problem with offering the criticizm at all, but he didn't say that and as such contradicted himself. I guess you would agree with that unless you think one can condone something at the same time as making a point out of criticizing it. His whole post is exactly the opposite of "condoning his actions" since the poster isn't ignoring it and/or seems not to forgive it and/or doesn't overlook it.
This was my first computer, I got it as a hand-me-down from my dad and it was portable! I think it only weighted something like 17 kilos. Thank you dad, love you!:)
Aaah, the days when one had to change fuses inside the computer:)
Linux never represented Linux (users) as a whole. Only dorks thought so.
Wake up people he's a person not a PR-machine or a Messiah. If he has opinions that are not the same as yours it doesn't make him a lesser person, and if you as Linux users can't accept differing opinons you need to grow up.
And more importantly they seem to want it from only one program, that's the slippery slope right there imho. Imagine where it will end (trick question: it wont - say hello to Windows). Then again Linux is not Unix:)
Come off it, he didn't mean that people should be forbidden to use Gnome and you should know it. I bet Linus couldn't care less if some people absolutely love Gnome (and obviously some do), but he doesn't and that's his right (he's using the very possibility of choice you're saying he's taking away from others).
If there are tens of thousands of Linus-worshippers out there who automatically drop Gnome just because Linus did they have only themselves to blame for not using their own preferences to make a choice. Somehow I don't think that will happen because you didn't all start using Linux on ppc-architectures (which Linus does afaik) now did you? *imagines hordes of wannabe nerds buying Apple just to wipe it off* lol:)
And I don't think "condone" means what you want it to mean since you're making a strawman argument in order to criticize.
Disclaimer: I use Flux-like GUIs, (thinking) people will use whatever fits them best and that can be anything: cue the CLI-fanatics:).
Amen to that, it's annoying as hell and then some (I've experienced it during some other movie years ago).
And I feel sorry for the child/children cause they're growing up with a parent that has zilch social intelligence which increases the likelyhood they'll grow up to be bitches or assholes and those people always seem to get theirs in the end.
I thought about this as well when seeing Sony mentioned because I have no intention of paying Sony & affiliates anything.
So... it's no problem for me not to pay for it or see it but I'm not going to trash the tv not to see it in umpteen years when it comes on the tube:) (and there's this rumour about something called "filesharing" lol not that I'd bother).
Imo parents with kids are excused though, afaik it's not like Sony produced the entire movie - not that I should have any say about what they choose anyway.
Perhaps you're right but give the guy some slack, not everything in this world is a matter of willpower and anyway I'm pretty sure he's got a major point right about general reading abilities whatever or whoever is the cause of it (at least it's easy to get this impression from todays kids and adolescents).
p.s. love your nick with all its possible interpretations:)
p.p.s. I'm even more pathetic by your manner of thinking
I loved the books as a kid too, I probably wont see the movie but perhaps some time in the future.
Anyway I haven't read any else of C.S. Lewis and although I'm personally religious I'm not christian per se and like you if I reread it now it would probably be a very different experience.
Orson Scott Card being a mormon is mostly irrelevant to me, just like I couldn't care less for the political opinions of lots of actors, musicians etc. However Orson Scott Card is one of the few people I haven't found any major disagreements with so far politically (which is a nice surprise in itself but I'm sure there's something we could disagree on) but in regard to his storywriting I couldn't really care less about that, I simply just enjoy his writing (some of it is directly political of course but I'm thinking of the fiction now).
I've read just about anything (at least 80% and that's a cautious estimate) of everything Stephen King has written and afaik he's fairly far away from me politically but he's still a genius (especially when it comes to characters) in my opinion. China Mieville is a brownblooded commie but I still love his Perdido Street Station even though it has plenty of politics in it, and I admire anyone who can write that well.
I'm highly sceptical of Syrias current rulers but I can still enjoy the beauty of the islamic tiling in their parliament (or wherever what's-his-name hold the speeches - a bit embarrasing his name escapes me right now). Not that I think he did the tiling;)
Yes you should care about political viewpoints, you have your life and your experiences and thoughts that make you who you are and you should be true to yourself, but no you shouldn't let that keep you from enjoying and even admiring those things that you actually think are worth it. Nobody can agree with anyone about everything, finding a few things is more than good enough. It's a bit like the flaming that occurs about RMS and other F/OSS personalities here at Slashdot: it easily gets too narrowminded and exaggerated in either direction.
Hell I really despise Fahrenheit 9/11 and could trashtalk Michael Moores movies for hours while foaming at the mouth (lol;)) but I remember his tv show and a lot of the stuff there was right on target (although not everything), so if absolutely necessary I can actually say something good about him too, something I think he did right even if I'm otherwise diametrically opposed to him.
We can all get carried to far by strong opinions, sometimes we just need to slap ourselves and enjoy stuff for it's face value:)
Last of all remember than any person is more than their political beliefs, their job, their actions, other various opinons and beliefs, anything you can think of. This is why Saddam deserves as fair a trial as possible even though it might make ones bonemarrow shudder not simply to take him out and give him a bullet, and that's an example very few other people can be compared to, right? So anyone you disagree with but who are talented enough to be able to do something you can enjoy you should cherish for it and take as an opportunity and encouragement to not totally despair when you meet normal people you otherwise can't see anything good in (like me probably if we ever got into a discussion about Bush & Iraq;)).
Theo (another person whose political standpoints, at least some of them, are far from mine - but oh boy how he can think straight on code security!) said it well when asking if they would like everyone to vote for the same political party too since they were so afraid of forks...
I think "long-range energy directed devices" could be something like this http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/ if it has enough energy to punch up through the atmosphere (afaik it doesn't but I wouldn't know - it might fly high enough and be strong enough).
Then again "long-range energy directed devices" is sufficiently diffuse to reference just about anything from a golfball to a deathstar:)
Definitely Bruce Willis but he has to wear really big cokebottle-style nerd glasses with big black frames!
Oh! And a pocket protector!
And the movie needs lots of really big sci-fi guns shooting electriciy or plasma and there should be tons of absolutely gorgeous bigboobed ladies! Some of which could be beautiful Astec ghosts...
"And that means that the ones who are open minded aren't allowed to have their own society?"
That is not implied by my post. What my post says is that I find (from my own experiences) that the name is as much of an oxymoron as if there was a group calling themselves Society for Open Minded Fundamentalists. I'm also surprised by someone forming a society specifically for atheists and agnostics as the two doesn't have anything more in common than agnostics and religious believers.
<sarcasm>Then again I guess the name is an indication of how openminded they are since they've narrowed it down to those two views.</sarcasm>
If the point of the society is to be openminded then why not allow anyone in?
I doubt your average atheist or agnostic in Kansas is much different from the average one in Norway or anywhere else in the world. Read my posts in the other subthreads of the parent to fill in the picture.
I can assure you that it's not only closeminded theists who act like that, I've seen both theists and atheists (or agnostics for that matter) act that way and they can be just as bad. I would say that close to 90% of all atheists and agnostics I've listened to or talked with look at any kind of religion as a personal threat. Personally I find it much easier to talk about religion with people who are religious in some manner (even if we're in total disagreement) as long as they're openminded rather than atheists because it seems there is some sort of a conceptual abyss that has to be bridged (and bridged well) before people actually understand each other. That's not any sort of derogatory remark by me, I'm just trying to underscore how big the difference can be in how individuals reason their way through to whatever conclusion is correct for them and who few seem able to realize that what's right for one person can be totally wrong for another one or for that matter accept that one might actually be wrong in whatever belief one holds.
Anyway I sympatize, I've taken a somewhat similar stand myself. Noone likes to be pigeonholed still we all at least occasionally do it, both intentionally and unintentionally - it's unavoidable.
I respect that you're an atheist, you have that conviction and hold it as axiomatic for you personally just like I do with my conviction and that's the only right thing for either of us to do in my opinion, personally being the key word.
But to clarify: I acknowledge that I might be wrong even with my conviction being what it is (I believe in a monotheistic god). I concur that I have no interobjective proof of God in any scientific sense (I would like to add that there aren't any such against the existence of a God either imo) and as such I am not "absolutely dogmatic" (or anywhere close) about it in relation to others. The aforementioned is extremely important to me because if I did not do those things I would be closing my mind to the possibilities of new ideas, new interconnections, new knowledge and understanding of how others see the world and reflect upon it.
I have met and spoken with many atheists and agnostics and it is striking how many of them actually are absolutely dogmatic in relation to others (just like many "fundamentalists"), they seem like they aren't even willing to entertain the idea that the world can be seen from a different perspective, even if it just for the sake of conversation and discussion hypothesising about possibilities.
To me that makes them as uninteresting as biblerthumpers as there is little if any possibility for interesting conversation and openmindedness when people apply an attitude of absolute certitude on the unproveable.
I guess I could sum it up as "openmindedness about something is admitting that one can be wrong about it" but then again that loses some of the detail of the above.
I'd like to add that of course not every atheist or agnostic behave in this manner just like not every "fundamentalist" does.
As to people becomming exasperated and feeling others are obtuse this isn't directly related imo (although it can be). I've experienced it myself (both ways, actually experasion/being obtuse is usually the flip side of the same thing) and it has much more to do with the difficulty inherent in clearly communicating something which is usually so massive as a fundamental opinion or belief. It's easy to forget that the opinion one has come to is (hopefully) the result of a lot of thinking and when trying to communicate all that it is extremely easy to miss out on explaining absolutely everything (often implied consequences and links) that have become inherently obvious for the person explaining but which to the other person seems lacking and disjuncted.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the size of your "house" :)
At the exact centre of the earth you have zero gravity in the sense that the attraction to mass is equal in all directions and cancels out. However if you create a really large "house" let's say with a diameter of a few thousand kilometers you would get (micro-)gravity: welcome to the hollow earth theories.
Don't ask me exactly how big this "house" would have to be before the gravity of the mass "below" you is significantly greater than the mass "above" you (which is increasingly further away as you expand the diameter of the "house"). Hmm a nice math problem there, perhaps something to do this sunday...
There would not be equal gravity at the inner poles and the inner equator because of Earth's rotation but if most of the inner gravity is caused by attraction to mass (which is likely) it would be possible to stand at the the poles. This is different in comparison to rotating space colonies where all the "gravity" is caused by rotation.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that the Earth is hollow but I find it an interesting thought and I would not be surprised if at some point naturally hollow planets or possibly moons are discovered. The standard view of solid planetary bodies as "points of gravity" only holds true as long as one is one the outer surface or above. Of course gravity is not necessarily all there is to it and there might be other factors that make natural hollow planetary bodies an impossibility.
Lol I'm not trying to be mean or anything it's just that your posts seem to beg for jibes :) So I just have to reply because of the following...
...begs me to joke "are you talking about your own g-spot?" or "find your own g-spot yourself goddammit!"
:) It only gives the impression that the person thinks they're the first to discover it and that everyone else should care, and both those notions are completely ridiculous.
"Learn how to find the g-spot, it does exist."
Whatever, here's a well-intentioned hint from the rest of humanity above thirty: don't brag about sex, it only makes you (anyone) look immature and/or stupid
That's swell, but can it sing Daisy Bell?
I dunno about the average Slahxpert (say it out loud, it has a nice Futurama ring to it hehe) or "scientific media whore" but I'd define the edge of the solar system to be the heliosphere.
o yager_agu.html so I guess I'm wrong... at least on Slashdot ;)
NASA seems to agree http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/v
Oooh ooh don't even get me started on 2+2=4!!! *begins foaming around the mouth* ;) j/k
:)
:) (blame it on the CRTs and lights if you wish)
Yes Slashdot is amazing and so is the real world too, it's absolutely astonishing how little it takes to get a lot of people totally and senselessly hysterical (not riled up --although that's easy as pie too-- but plain hysterical). There are some measured responses in this thread but they seem few and far between (at least among those modded positively).
Anyway, nice AC's are the color green and mean AC's are the color yuck
Onto the topic: just about any country will try a little bit of hacking "now and then" (i.e. as much as they can get away with) and no it's not necesarily the same as war, actually often it can be the exact opposite of war (NRO, NSA & unnamed seldom start wars & regularily avoid them afaik and that process is not a one-way street). Might also be wise to remember that China isn't quite as homogeneous as the CCP would like it.
Not that I'm an apologist for the CCP (I'm anti-socialist); I wish they'd get the hell out of Tibet and leave Taiwan alone plus a lot of other stuff, but I still think Nixon & co chose the right strategy (and apparently every single president after Nixon have shared this point of view).
p.s. Whitey McWhite? You fall in a bucket of paint or something? We're pink! Caucasians are pink, even caucasian nerds are pink or at least yellowish
No offense intended (or needed) :)
No, they found out after the shuttle returned and after they could remove and gather and then interpret the data from the detection system. Possibly TFA is crap (BBC is no guarantee) but it's at least mentioned in or easily understood from this article: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_051211_dis covery_leak.html
Other things to mull over:
- three of the six "catch bottles" (name of the measuring devices) showed completely normal values, one had "corrupt data" (don't ask me why, perhaps a mechanical failure since the catch bottles seem to be mechanical in nature), and two "indicate higher-than-allowable levels of gaseous oxygen"
- if there is a problem at all it is the possibility of a leak somewhere because leaks tend to expand over time
Yes to ignore, forgive or overlook and often (but not always or by necessity) with some level of implied support (seldom of the matter at hand but because of unrelated topics).
I wrote:
"And I don't think "condone" means what you want it to mean since you're making a strawman argument in order to criticize."
Read the whole sentence, condone != criticize right? However as you yourself point out if he had said "not condone" he wouldn't have a problem with offering the criticizm at all, but he didn't say that and as such contradicted himself. I guess you would agree with that unless you think one can condone something at the same time as making a point out of criticizing it. His whole post is exactly the opposite of "condoning his actions" since the poster isn't ignoring it and/or seems not to forgive it and/or doesn't overlook it.
Lol I see we are in agreement :)
http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/sanyo775/
:)
:)
This was my first computer, I got it as a hand-me-down from my dad and it was portable! I think it only weighted something like 17 kilos. Thank you dad, love you!
Aaah, the days when one had to change fuses inside the computer
1. Never bother with Top 10 lists
Nice to see someone pointing out the real news :)
Linux never represented Linux (users) as a whole. Only dorks thought so.
Wake up people he's a person not a PR-machine or a Messiah. If he has opinions that are not the same as yours it doesn't make him a lesser person, and if you as Linux users can't accept differing opinons you need to grow up.
"many people want a complete solution"
:)
And more importantly they seem to want it from only one program, that's the slippery slope right there imho. Imagine where it will end (trick question: it wont - say hello to Windows). Then again Linux is not Unix
Come off it, he didn't mean that people should be forbidden to use Gnome and you should know it. I bet Linus couldn't care less if some people absolutely love Gnome (and obviously some do), but he doesn't and that's his right (he's using the very possibility of choice you're saying he's taking away from others).
:)
:).
If there are tens of thousands of Linus-worshippers out there who automatically drop Gnome just because Linus did they have only themselves to blame for not using their own preferences to make a choice. Somehow I don't think that will happen because you didn't all start using Linux on ppc-architectures (which Linus does afaik) now did you? *imagines hordes of wannabe nerds buying Apple just to wipe it off* lol
And I don't think "condone" means what you want it to mean since you're making a strawman argument in order to criticize.
Disclaimer: I use Flux-like GUIs, (thinking) people will use whatever fits them best and that can be anything: cue the CLI-fanatics
No worries :)
:)
So I guess you're teaming Neil up with Mary Cheney then? *really big grin*
Amen to that, it's annoying as hell and then some (I've experienced it during some other movie years ago).
;)
And I feel sorry for the child/children cause they're growing up with a parent that has zilch social intelligence which increases the likelyhood they'll grow up to be bitches or assholes and those people always seem to get theirs in the end.
Wow I broke the rant-meter, sorry about that
I thought about this as well when seeing Sony mentioned because I have no intention of paying Sony & affiliates anything.
:) (and there's this rumour about something called "filesharing" lol not that I'd bother).
So... it's no problem for me not to pay for it or see it but I'm not going to trash the tv not to see it in umpteen years when it comes on the tube
Imo parents with kids are excused though, afaik it's not like Sony produced the entire movie - not that I should have any say about what they choose anyway.
Perhaps you're right but give the guy some slack, not everything in this world is a matter of willpower and anyway I'm pretty sure he's got a major point right about general reading abilities whatever or whoever is the cause of it (at least it's easy to get this impression from todays kids and adolescents).
:)
p.s. love your nick with all its possible interpretations
p.p.s. I'm even more pathetic by your manner of thinking
I loved the books as a kid too, I probably wont see the movie but perhaps some time in the future.
;)
;)) but I remember his tv show and a lot of the stuff there was right on target (although not everything), so if absolutely necessary I can actually say something good about him too, something I think he did right even if I'm otherwise diametrically opposed to him.
:)
;)).
Anyway I haven't read any else of C.S. Lewis and although I'm personally religious I'm not christian per se and like you if I reread it now it would probably be a very different experience.
Orson Scott Card being a mormon is mostly irrelevant to me, just like I couldn't care less for the political opinions of lots of actors, musicians etc. However Orson Scott Card is one of the few people I haven't found any major disagreements with so far politically (which is a nice surprise in itself but I'm sure there's something we could disagree on) but in regard to his storywriting I couldn't really care less about that, I simply just enjoy his writing (some of it is directly political of course but I'm thinking of the fiction now).
I've read just about anything (at least 80% and that's a cautious estimate) of everything Stephen King has written and afaik he's fairly far away from me politically but he's still a genius (especially when it comes to characters) in my opinion. China Mieville is a brownblooded commie but I still love his Perdido Street Station even though it has plenty of politics in it, and I admire anyone who can write that well.
I'm highly sceptical of Syrias current rulers but I can still enjoy the beauty of the islamic tiling in their parliament (or wherever what's-his-name hold the speeches - a bit embarrasing his name escapes me right now). Not that I think he did the tiling
Yes you should care about political viewpoints, you have your life and your experiences and thoughts that make you who you are and you should be true to yourself, but no you shouldn't let that keep you from enjoying and even admiring those things that you actually think are worth it. Nobody can agree with anyone about everything, finding a few things is more than good enough. It's a bit like the flaming that occurs about RMS and other F/OSS personalities here at Slashdot: it easily gets too narrowminded and exaggerated in either direction.
Hell I really despise Fahrenheit 9/11 and could trashtalk Michael Moores movies for hours while foaming at the mouth (lol
We can all get carried to far by strong opinions, sometimes we just need to slap ourselves and enjoy stuff for it's face value
Last of all remember than any person is more than their political beliefs, their job, their actions, other various opinons and beliefs, anything you can think of. This is why Saddam deserves as fair a trial as possible even though it might make ones bonemarrow shudder not simply to take him out and give him a bullet, and that's an example very few other people can be compared to, right? So anyone you disagree with but who are talented enough to be able to do something you can enjoy you should cherish for it and take as an opportunity and encouragement to not totally despair when you meet normal people you otherwise can't see anything good in (like me probably if we ever got into a discussion about Bush & Iraq
Theo (another person whose political standpoints, at least some of them, are far from mine - but oh boy how he can think straight on code security!) said it well when asking if they would like everyone to vote for the same political party too since they were so afraid of forks...
I think "long-range energy directed devices" could be something like this http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/ if it has enough energy to punch up through the atmosphere (afaik it doesn't but I wouldn't know - it might fly high enough and be strong enough).
:)
Then again "long-range energy directed devices" is sufficiently diffuse to reference just about anything from a golfball to a deathstar
Definitely Bruce Willis but he has to wear really big cokebottle-style nerd glasses with big black frames!
:)
Oh! And a pocket protector!
And the movie needs lots of really big sci-fi guns shooting electriciy or plasma and there should be tons of absolutely gorgeous bigboobed ladies! Some of which could be beautiful Astec ghosts...
*insert huge grin here*
Seriously who wouldn't pay to watch that? Think "Falling Down" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0106856/ combined with "Doom" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0419706/, "Poltergeist" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0084516/, "Ghost Busters" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/ and any big boobs porn flick (without the porn).
Hmm I think I need to listen to Deadbolt now... Deadbolt and Man or Astroman? should obviously both be major contributors to the soundtrack
"And that means that the ones who are open minded aren't allowed to have their own society?"
That is not implied by my post. What my post says is that I find (from my own experiences) that the name is as much of an oxymoron as if there was a group calling themselves Society for Open Minded Fundamentalists. I'm also surprised by someone forming a society specifically for atheists and agnostics as the two doesn't have anything more in common than agnostics and religious believers.
<sarcasm>Then again I guess the name is an indication of how openminded they are since they've narrowed it down to those two views.</sarcasm>
If the point of the society is to be openminded then why not allow anyone in?
I doubt your average atheist or agnostic in Kansas is much different from the average one in Norway or anywhere else in the world. Read my posts in the other subthreads of the parent to fill in the picture.
I can assure you that it's not only closeminded theists who act like that, I've seen both theists and atheists (or agnostics for that matter) act that way and they can be just as bad. I would say that close to 90% of all atheists and agnostics I've listened to or talked with look at any kind of religion as a personal threat. Personally I find it much easier to talk about religion with people who are religious in some manner (even if we're in total disagreement) as long as they're openminded rather than atheists because it seems there is some sort of a conceptual abyss that has to be bridged (and bridged well) before people actually understand each other. That's not any sort of derogatory remark by me, I'm just trying to underscore how big the difference can be in how individuals reason their way through to whatever conclusion is correct for them and who few seem able to realize that what's right for one person can be totally wrong for another one or for that matter accept that one might actually be wrong in whatever belief one holds.
Anyway I sympatize, I've taken a somewhat similar stand myself. Noone likes to be pigeonholed still we all at least occasionally do it, both intentionally and unintentionally - it's unavoidable.
I respect that you're an atheist, you have that conviction and hold it as axiomatic for you personally just like I do with my conviction and that's the only right thing for either of us to do in my opinion, personally being the key word.
:)
But to clarify: I acknowledge that I might be wrong even with my conviction being what it is (I believe in a monotheistic god). I concur that I have no interobjective proof of God in any scientific sense (I would like to add that there aren't any such against the existence of a God either imo) and as such I am not "absolutely dogmatic" (or anywhere close) about it in relation to others. The aforementioned is extremely important to me because if I did not do those things I would be closing my mind to the possibilities of new ideas, new interconnections, new knowledge and understanding of how others see the world and reflect upon it.
I have met and spoken with many atheists and agnostics and it is striking how many of them actually are absolutely dogmatic in relation to others (just like many "fundamentalists"), they seem like they aren't even willing to entertain the idea that the world can be seen from a different perspective, even if it just for the sake of conversation and discussion hypothesising about possibilities.
To me that makes them as uninteresting as biblerthumpers as there is little if any possibility for interesting conversation and openmindedness when people apply an attitude of absolute certitude on the unproveable.
I guess I could sum it up as "openmindedness about something is admitting that one can be wrong about it" but then again that loses some of the detail of the above.
I'd like to add that of course not every atheist or agnostic behave in this manner just like not every "fundamentalist" does.
As to people becomming exasperated and feeling others are obtuse this isn't directly related imo (although it can be). I've experienced it myself (both ways, actually experasion/being obtuse is usually the flip side of the same thing) and it has much more to do with the difficulty inherent in clearly communicating something which is usually so massive as a fundamental opinion or belief. It's easy to forget that the opinion one has come to is (hopefully) the result of a lot of thinking and when trying to communicate all that it is extremely easy to miss out on explaining absolutely everything (often implied consequences and links) that have become inherently obvious for the person explaining but which to the other person seems lacking and disjuncted.
This reply got a bit long, sorry anout that