On the Impact of 'Everything else'.

[Trolldor]

So many people like to draw attention to 'The God Delusion' and its compadres... but I can't help but consider them weak and feeble arguments against religion. It seemed to me that they were simply 'affirmations of belief', ineffectual parrots. I can no longer see anyone being reasonably swayed by their arguments, rather the books would simply act as a way for them to admit what they already thought.

If there was something which changed how I thought, really thought, about religion, it would have to be a combination of 'Cosmos' and 'Infidel'. Cosmos opened up the universe to me in a way which was nothing more than an idea, I found myself able to touch the surface of that immensity, to wonder and awe at the possibilities of what I was seeing. It occured to me that when I look up I am not just staring at an expanse unfathomable to my mind no matter how I might label it, but that I am staring at the Universe as it was rather than as it is.

As for Infidel, it gave me a confidence and a conviction to aggressively pursue the doctrines and ideals of religion.
(To a great extent Hitchens's debates and interviews did much the same, but not his book. Oddly I found that he grew more convincing the further I moved away from that thing.)
It really soldified the will to challenge superstition and ideas, to really argue against religion with conviction. Consideration for their feelings, their culture, it vanished completely and utterly. There was too much 'evil' - and there is no other word for it - in religion.

So, what is the most effective way of fighting off the threat of religious ignorance? (Yes, a threat. I can think of only two things more vile and reprehensible than religion, and almost all religions advocate at least one of them.) Is it really the musings of these 'Horseman' who seem to me to be only effective for those inclined to cheerleading? Or might religion be fought by bringing Science back to the popular mind, and by making the horrors and the attrocities more than just tucked-away media reports?

[Toontown]

So, what is the most effective way of fighting off the threat of religious ignorance?

Nukes.

However, the problem will take care of itself without resort to the nuclear option. Religious ignorance will lead to overpopulation, which will in turn lead to famine and pestilence on an apocalyptic scale.

The Catholics and Muslims are already intentionally walking straight into the trap, seeking to take over the world by sheer numbers.

And their stragedy will "work". Up to a point. By the time they see the "point", it will be too late.

Their own stupidity and lust for power has already set them up. Unrestrained immigration will do the rest.

Those who wish to survive the apocalypse will keep their numbers down, their powder dry, their food stocks up, and their secret bunkers deep. The problem is, most of them will be religiously ignorant end-timers and Mad-Maxers. Thus it will be necessary for the A-Men (atheists) to form and shepherd a well trained and equipped army of atheist terminators through the apocalyptic times, in order to seek out and anhiliate the remaining cells of ignorant believers and thuggish road warriors.

The story of the apocalypse, and what caused it, will be kept and passed down to future generations.

Voila! Problem solved. Oh, did you think there was a simple solution? Millenia of religious ignorance and oppression says otherwise. Granted, it would probably be better to just go ahead and die, hoping to be reborn in another Hawkinge-verse as a member of a more rational race. Your odds are probably better that way. However, that possibility will also be tested in due time. No need to rush into anything.

[Tero]

Even thru that scenario, the more copies of your DNA you leave, the more you win.

[Toontown]

Even thru that scenario, the more copies of your DNA you leave, the more you win.

Depends on how you define "win". You can define anything to be a win. Saddam did that. He declared victory at the end of the Gulf War, after all those countries finished kicking the shit out of Iraq and left. By his rules, he was still there. They weren't . He won. By their rules, Saddam was out of Kuwait and his army was all messed up. They won. So everybody won, by their own sets of rules.

Apparently the Catholics and Muslims are looking at it in a Saddam-ish kind of way. I don't see it. I see nothing victorious about a plague of locusts, no matter how "there" it is. In the end , they all die after growing huge heads and gnawing pointlessly on everything they can get their mandibles on. So what if they leave some eggs behind to repeat the miserable process. Are they like, "Yee, Haw! I won!" when they lay their eggs? Well. That's their opinion. Not mine. To me, the "win" comes when they all die off, and the earth replenishes itself before the next pointless batch of locusts hatches. The locusts are just a random evolutionary mistake. Their system is not worth a shit. It just happens to keep them coming back.

Oh well. If the Catholics and Muslims want to be no better than a plague of locusts, so be it. But I think they will only reach plague proportions once. Because the resources their bloated numbers will gobble up are not renewable.

And then my rules kick in. In my game, you can't make a shitload of copies of yourself, because there isn't enough food, water, or anything else. Because the locusts done ate it all up. In my game, the victory conditions are more realistic. You don't try to convert the entire mass of the universe into copies of yourself. That way, you don't piss off nearly as many aliens.

In my game, the primary victory condition would be expressed as "Locust game over".