Jump to content

Todd Andrews

Member Since 16 Nov 2006
Offline Last Active Jan 06 2015 01:29 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: timschochet's thread

06 January 2015 - 12:28 PM



Well you tried. religion, atheism, whatever? Not exactly coherent. Also the image of Hillary tea bagging David Duke is rather unappealing.


You're gonna have to give him bonus points for Snake`n`Jake's they do have Naked Wednesdays there or used to so that scenario is somewhat plausible.


I don't think Dukie is going anywhere near that part of Oak though.



You only get bonus points for Snake'n'Jakes if you're in a "sit on a sofa covered in dried human fluids" contest.



I win!!!

In Topic: Coward fatally ambushes 2 NYPD, commits suicide

06 January 2015 - 12:21 PM



I do appreciate you posting it, though.  This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?


That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?


Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.



That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here. 


It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play. 


Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.



Maybe this would do justice to its absurdity:


It would be like if Dick Cheney and George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had been playing Call of Duty in 2005 and they kicked ### and then had the federal government write up a NIE and Bush gave a State of the Union address downplaying the various hazards of the war in Iraq based on their successful and efficient gameplay.

In Topic: timschochet's thread

06 January 2015 - 11:54 AM


Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Some might wonder how the bold impacts modern 2d amendment analysis.....

In Topic: timschochet's thread

06 January 2015 - 11:51 AM

After drinking far too much Dome Foam on a recent trip to New Orleans, Jim Mora was overheard mumbling in Snake and Jake's early one morning: "religion, atheism . . . whatever . . . imagine if wikkidpissah had Steadman illustrating . . . it'd be better than Hillary Clinton teabagging that scumbag racist nazi David Duke then slapping him in the nuts with a rolled up copy of the Constitution . . . barkeep!"

In Topic: timschochet's thread

06 January 2015 - 11:40 AM



OK, let's break down the article that Saints posted. There's a lot to cover:


Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?

Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.

Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.

In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.


So what Platinga is essentially saying here is that even if one rejects all of the philosophical arguments for God's existence (there are, at last count, 36 of them; I listed them all and discussed them in a previous thread); at best that leads to agnosticism, not to atheism. This argument is part of the insistence by religious people, in these sorts of debates, to insist on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Apparently by forcing well known atheists like Richard Dawkins to admit that they are actually agnostics, that gives religious belief more clout for some reason.


But to most of us who call ourselves atheists, it's an insignificant distinction. You want me to admit that, instead of being 100% sure there is no God, I am 99.9999% sure? Fine. Does that make me, technically, an agnostic rather than an atheist? Fine. Does being an agnostic therefore mean that I'm uncertain? No, because 99.9999% is enough for certainty.


As a matter of fact, I could and have made "positive" arguments for atheism, separate and distinct from merely rejecting arguments for theism. But I won't repeat them here, because I reject Platinga's thesis here that it's not enough to argue against theism. I say it IS enough for me, and it's probably more than enough for those philosophers.


Without getting into your 100% versus 99.9999% silliness, on a very simple and basic level, you do understand that the absolute certainty of an atheist is just as illogical as the absolute certainty of a religious believer, dont you?


When you put it that way, sure. But I try not to think of it that way. I prefer to think of my atheism in the same way that a scientific theory is regarded- it's considered true until someone comes along and disproves it. Furthermore, the burden of proof for any debate regarding God's existence must by definition be on those who believe in God's existence. 



Thank you for agreeing with me, you filthy agnostic.