Posts that don't deserve threads, Volume I.

[Professor Chaos]

G.W. continues to be a gigantic sack of shit.

The balls on this fucking guy.

[Irreligious]

The man is true to form, at least. Nothing he does surprises me anymore.

Professor Chaos wrote

G.W. continues to be a gigantic sack of shit.

The balls on this fucking guy.

That's one of the least objectionable things he's done recently. :lol:

[Sternwallow]

Professor Chaos wrote

G.W. continues to be a gigantic sack of shit.

The balls on this fucking guy.

We need a document stronger than the Constitution just to protect us from our presidents.

[Sternwallow]

Evil_Mage_Ra wrote

That's one of the least objectionable things he's done recently. :lol:

For someone that is so stupid, why does he have such a talent for screwing the counrty?

Oh, come on. He's just trying to get the Jewish vote back after Pelosi gave a speech in Israel. Gotta keep the god-blocs happy. What's more important, obeying the laws of the Constitution which he took an oath (on the bible) to protect, or getting votes?

[Sternwallow]

robusthealthysoul wrote

Oh, come on. He's just trying to get the Jewish vote back after Pelosi gave a speech in Israel. Gotta keep the god-blocs happy. What's more important, obeying the laws of the Constitution which he took an oath (on the bible) to protect, or getting votes?

Surely there are concrete cynical goals for "W", but it seems that his approach to things that are self-serving and illegal is consistently more intelligent than the approach to all other issues.

[R and All]

Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of W. But it seems that the senate is taking its "advice and consent" role a bit too far these days. If a man is obviously unfit for a job, that's one thing, but to refuse to allow an appointment that is the pres's privilege to make on purely political grounds is BS, imo.

[LEToxin]

HC? http://www.glumbert.com/media/trialbike

[Rhinoqulous]

R and All wrote

Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of W. But it seems that the senate is taking its "advice and consent" role a bit too far these days. If a man is obviously unfit for a job, that's one thing, but to refuse to allow an appointment that is the pres's privilege to make on purely political grounds is BS, imo.

Isn't the point that this guy doesn't actually have qualifications to be the ambassador? He's just a business-man who donated to the Swift Boat campaign, and being rewarded for doing so. Though I'm sure many presidents did similar appointments, I don't think any have been as brazen as W's.

[LEToxin]

HC? http://www.planetvids.com/html/1950s...Gay-Video.html

Any one seen The Reaping?

Don't you feel put in your place every time some christologically-minded twat puts us atheists and skeptics in our place with hard evidence by completely making up a story that proves that Jeebusites are right? OK maybe I'm over-reacting and it's just a horror movie, but the kind of story (like this one) where some skeptic (the spledidly named Hilary Swank) gets pwned, always gets my goat and shags it.

[R and All]

Good article by skeptic Joe Nickell concerning Hilary and The Reaping here.

Excerpt:

I learned from Cox that, by the end of the movie, the miracles investigator would be led by the evidence to regain his or her faith. Exasperated, I said that asking me to assist with such a drama was rather like suggesting I stick my foot out and shoot a bullet through it. I have since adopted a more resigned attitude.

Who wants another strawman's post about Atheists?:

http://agradevaduta.wordpress.com/20...m/#comment-221
The following piece is in response to a very interesting article by Professor Mano Singham which appeared in his web journal some time back. The link for the original post is: http://blog.case.edu/singham/2007/03...s_nonexistence.

I have segmented my response into two parts for the purpose of easy reading. In this first part, I wish to bring to the attention of the reader, the logical improbability of the final conclusion an atheist would most likely reach. At this juncture, I have no qualms about the “belief” that there is no God. However, the purpose of this post is to challenge the “conclusion based on scientific analysis” that there is no god.

“The anthill is the ant’s world, the open savanna its universe”

Human beings have since time immemorial attempted to explain life and the position we occupy in the universe. However, it is seldom that one begins to appreciate the inescapable truth that human beings like all other life forms on Earth, are inherently limited to what they are able to perceive. When an individual observes his environment and thereupon arrive at certain conclusions, such observations and conclusions are inherently restricted in accuracy to the ability of such an individual to perceive his environment and corroborate his findings with prior knowledge or values.

Now the question arises as to how one can be certain that an atheist’s conclusions on religion are not infallible. The answer lies in the concept of “truth derived from probability” or what some may call “relative truth”.

This is where it gets interesting…

If one is to accept the theory of evolution for instance, human beings are still in the process of evolving, and therefore are “less evolved” than the stage of evolution that lies ahead. If one is to accept the concurrent theory of natural selection, then our species would give way to a more sophisticated and biologically successful species at some point in the future. All these widely accepted scientific “truths” seem to point in one direction: the relative insignificance of humankind in comparison to the deep and infinite bounds of the universe. It is therefore likely that human perception is relatively flawed. There is no way of proving this, but then again, the probabilities of thinking otherwise seem logically puerile, unless you believe the universe centers on us human beings. The relative concept of truth would therefore suggest that in terms of scientific theory (and by “theory” I mean scientific speculations which are incapable of being proven beyond doubt) we are more likely wrong, than right.

Atheism would therefore require certain presumptions to be first accepted before it can claim logical superiority over any belief system. In fact atheism itself is more likely a belief system than, as some atheists would insist, an empirical conclusion.

Thus it is my opinion that Atheism, which is allegedly founded on scientific and logical reasoning, cannot be accepted in the absence of some fundamental dependency on the faculties of human perception and reliance on the probability that human perception depicts an accurate reality. Sounds like faith to me.

Thank you for reading.

[Sternwallow]

BEAJ, there is a fundamental difference between faith based on our interactions with whatever fragment of the real world that we can perceive and faith based solely on subjective and emotional reactions without connections, however tenuous, to the real world.

Subjective faith is not accessible to anyone else and, lacking objective evidence, it is likely to be wrong. If it is wrong, there is no way to detect that wrongness and repair it.

Faith that my chair will not collapse under me is based on many many experiments and, while it may one day be wrong, it is not irrational as subjective faith is.