Page 5 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Come June 10, would you vote for a leftwing secularist above a radical right-libertarian to be WP's Most Strident Atheist given that radical right-libertarian policies lead to low levels of atheism?
I would vote for the leftwing secularist! 55%  55%  [ 18 ]
No, I would vote for the religion helping, self-hating atheist right-libertarian. 15%  15%  [ 5 ]
None of the above 30%  30%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 33

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

27 Mar 2011, 10:31 am

Bad Religion, American Jesus wrote:
I don't need to be a global citizen,
'Cuz I'm blessed by nationality.
I'm member of a growing populace,
We enforce our popularity.
There are things that seem to pull us under and,
There are things that drag us down.
But there's a power and a vital presence,
It's lurking all around.

We've got the American Jesus,
See him on the interstate.
We've got the American Jesus,
He helped build the President's estate.

I feel sorry for the Earth's population,
'Cuz so few live in the U.S.A.
At least the foreigners can copy our morality,
They can visit but they cannot stay.
Only precious few can garner our prosperity,
It makes us walk with renewed confidence.
We got a place to go when we die,
And the architect resides right here.

We've got the American Jesus,
Bolstering national faith.
We've got the American Jesus,
Overwhelming millions every day.

He's the farmer's barren fields, (In God)
The force the army wields, (We trust)
Expressions on the faces of the starving millions, (Because He's one of us)
The power of the man, (Break down)
He's the fuel that drives the Klan, (Cave in)
He's the motive and the conscience of the murderer, (We can redeem your sins)
He's the preacher on T.V., (Strong heart)
The false sincerity, (Clear mind)
The form letter that's written by the big computers, (And infinitely kind)
The nuclear bombs, (You lose)
The kids with no moms, (We win)
And I'm fearful that he's inside me... (He is our champion)

We've got the American Jesus
See him on the interstate
We've got the American Jesus
Exercising his authority
We've got the American Jesus
Bolstering national faith
We've got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

One nation, under God...


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12kcpP-8jfM[/youtube]



Poetry to me.




Image


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

27 Mar 2011, 6:24 pm

Black screen?


_________________
.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Mar 2011, 9:34 pm

^ And I believe that is sufficient to count as an official declaration of Skafather's candidacy. Vote skafather84 for 2012! Because we've been waiting almost 20 years for this kind of stridency.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 Mar 2011, 9:39 pm

Orwell wrote:
^ And I believe that is sufficient to count as an official declaration of Skafather's candidacy. Vote skafather84 for 2012! Because we've been waiting almost 20 years for this kind of stridency.

I don't think this forum has existed for 20 years. Maybe Alex Planck is being maintained by plastic surgeons and cosmetologists though.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Mar 2011, 9:44 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Orwell wrote:
^ And I believe that is sufficient to count as an official declaration of Skafather's candidacy. Vote skafather84 for 2012! Because we've been waiting almost 20 years for this kind of stridency.

I don't think this forum has existed for 20 years. Maybe Alex Planck is being maintained by plastic surgeons and cosmetologists though.

A reference to the "84" in his name, interpreting it as a 2-digit date which nicely coincides with the pattern set for American election years.

Although I see a typo now- that should be 30, not 20.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 Mar 2011, 9:51 pm

In any case, if we are to have a campaign, we need to have moderated debates. That's just that. We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism. You know whose rationalism is the most awesome and glorious and hard? Mine. If you really believe in atheism, you need my strong and hard rationality inserted into this campaign. My rationality will make you feel good, and it accepting it is just another step to a better world.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

28 Mar 2011, 8:05 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
In any case, if we are to have a campaign, we need to have moderated debates. That's just that. We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism. You know whose rationalism is the most awesome and glorious and hard? Mine. If you really believe in atheism, you need my strong and hard rationality inserted into this campaign. My rationality will make you feel good, and it accepting it is just another step to a better world.


That is just false. You are incompetent in delivering a knock out blow to apologists. I can.

Evidence: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt143014.html



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Mar 2011, 9:11 am

Orwell wrote:
that should be 30, not 20.


And now I feel old.


Could just be that it's Monday. :P


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Mar 2011, 9:24 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism.


I disagree. The enemy we fight fights with rhetoric first and as its primary source of power and control. While the rationalism should be protected, the rhetoric needs to be finely tuned and turned louder at appropriate times while softer when necessary.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

28 Mar 2011, 10:15 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
In any case, if we are to have a campaign, we need to have moderated debates. That's just that. We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism. You know whose rationalism is the most awesome and glorious and hard? Mine. If you really believe in atheism, you need my strong and hard rationality inserted into this campaign. My rationality will make you feel good, and it accepting it is just another step to a better world.


Talking dirty to me wont get you my vote. And your rationalism needs a prophylactic.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Mar 2011, 11:39 am

Fuzzy wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
In any case, if we are to have a campaign, we need to have moderated debates. That's just that. We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism. You know whose rationalism is the most awesome and glorious and hard? Mine. If you really believe in atheism, you need my strong and hard rationality inserted into this campaign. My rationality will make you feel good, and it accepting it is just another step to a better world.


Talking dirty to me wont get you my vote. And your rationalism needs a prophylactic.

HA HA HA HA HA! I am glad someone got the joke.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Mar 2011, 11:43 am

skafather84 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism.


I disagree. The enemy we fight fights with rhetoric first and as its primary source of power and control. While the rationalism should be protected, the rhetoric needs to be finely tuned and turned louder at appropriate times while softer when necessary.

Actually you don't. I said "get in the way of". Secondly, that statement that you are protesting on grounds of the value of rhetoric is actually a very very rhetorically loaded statement, in fact, often statements attacking rhetoric are laced with rhetoric, and really just done on behalf of promoting a virtue.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Mar 2011, 11:56 am

01001011 wrote:
That is just false. You are incompetent in delivering a knock out blow to apologists. I can.

Evidence: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt143014.html

Yes, a debate against 91, a man who is defiant to even logic itself, is really good evidence of my lack of talent. Seriously, he's disputed textbook logic, taking multiple pages where multiple posters pointed out that his claims disagreed with standard textbooks on the matter. The fact that I can take the time to deal with the endless waves of inanity show that I deserve a medal for patience.

Even further, in that thread, there is no real sign of you showing much ability to deal a knock-out blow. Maybe you disagree, but seriously, I have seen no sign that you have the great counter-apologetics skills you think you do.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Mar 2011, 12:04 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
often statements attacking rhetoric are laced with rhetoric, and really just done on behalf of promoting a virtue.


A tactic that one must be familiar with and proficient in.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

29 Mar 2011, 7:35 am

Every apologist is defiant to logic and evidence to some extend. It is naive to think that one can convince an apologist simply by stating logic. The way to silence an apologist is to convince him he cannot hope to stay in the game by producing more nonsense. It is evident that the same 91 quits debating with me much sooner than with you.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Mar 2011, 11:58 am

01001011 wrote:
Every apologist is defiant to logic and evidence to some extend. It is naive to think that one can convince an apologist simply by stating logic. The way to silence an apologist is to convince him he cannot hope to stay in the game by producing more nonsense. It is evident that the same 91 quits debating with me much sooner than with you.

I would have to actually agree with his criticisms of your method. Your focus on rigor is unrealistic for the average conception, as while it may be true that everything can be stated in analytic terms, it is not true that in order for a position to be valid, it has to be stated in analytic terms. Even further, a lot of these arguments HAVE BEEN, just that 91 wasn't going to cut and paste an entire analytic argument. Secondly, a lot of your criticisms do go back go an infinite regress.

Even further, 91 himself recognized that I, unlike you, was acting from a standpoint of familiarity with the issue.
91 wrote:
I would be cautious on commenting on the way that AG takes on the debate, he has shown a large degree of familiarity with the subject matter. He does not make the mistake of assuming that the other side's contentions are unfounded, he just concludes that they are wrong.

The arguments I am putting forward have been subject to the peer-review process attacking the underlying definitions is a risky proposition since you are assuming they cannot be justified.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf144289-0-150.html

Note, let's be fair to myself, I think that his position is intellectually unjustified. I even provided a logical disproof of his notion of God using very basic premises.(this is where he began to question logic itself) However, I do agree with him that I clearly know what's going on in the underlying philosophical issues, and that your criticisms are often rather stupid. (Note: I did defend YOUR lack of rigor in a criticism of the cosmological argument if I remember correctly, pointing out that Craig has practically done the same thing in presentation that you were being criticized for, making the criticism overly pedantic.... BUT the degree to which your method DOES seem overly pedantic, or even similar to presuppositionalism in terms of focus on everything starting perfectly analytic isn't something I can get behind)

(It is true though, that 91 doesn't address issues as much as he ought. For instance Waltur was still asking for his perfect pizza, which the ontological argument ought to give us.)