Obama is the great hype machine

[zk]

Perhaps I should be able to tell by the context what “Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s” means. But since it seems to be at the crux of your argument, I’d prefer to ask exactly what you mean by that rather than to assume.

[Dukehorn]

Heh heh, I actually am an angry Asian dude (well when it comes to anonymous folks glibly talking about racism or creationism–otherwise I’m at a pretty good stage in my life)

Anyhow, surprisingly enough I was a card-carrying Republican over 10 years ago–was asked to become involved with the Republican National Committee way back then. Refused to vote for Bush for governor of Texas and felt like I’ve been FORCED steadily leftward due to my concerns about the environment, my love for science, my involvement in high tech industries and my secularism. Guess I’ve always been a fiscal conservative but the social issues have gotten to be more important to me.

I guess the day that a prominent NYC law firm asked me as a 2L to sign a document that they had interviewed a “minority candidate” really brought to focus how shitty life could be for really smart African Americans (strangely, only that one law firm did that and they did give me an offer).

[Dukehorn]

Heh heh, I actually am an angry Asian dude (well when it comes to anonymous folks glibly talking about racism or creationism–otherwise I’m at a pretty good stage in my life)

Anyhow, surprisingly enough I was a card-carrying Republican over 10 years ago–was asked to become involved with the Republican National Committee way back then. Refused to vote for Bush for governor of Texas and felt like I’ve been FORCED steadily leftward due to my concerns about the environment, my love for science, my involvement in high tech industries and my secularism. Guess I’ve always been a fiscal conservative but the social issues have gotten to be more important to me.

I guess the day that a prominent NYC law firm asked me as a 2L to sign a document that they had interviewed a “minority candidate” really brought to focus how shitty life could be for really smart African Americans (strangely, only that one law firm did that and they did give me an offer).

[Dukehorn]

Heh heh, I actually am an angry Asian dude (well when it comes to anonymous folks glibly talking about racism or creationism–otherwise I’m at a pretty good stage in my life)

Anyhow, surprisingly enough I was a card-carrying Republican over 10 years ago–was asked to become involved with the Republican National Committee way back then. Refused to vote for Bush for governor of Texas and felt like I’ve been FORCED steadily leftward due to my concerns about the environment, my love for science, my involvement in high tech industries and my secularism. Guess I’ve always been a fiscal conservative but the social issues have gotten to be more important to me.

I guess the day that a prominent NYC law firm asked me as a 2L to sign a document that they had interviewed a “minority candidate” really brought to focus how shitty life could be for really smart African Americans (strangely, only that one law firm did that and they did give me an offer).

[Dukehorn]

Heh heh, I actually am an angry Asian dude (well when it comes to anonymous folks glibly talking about racism or creationism–otherwise I’m at a pretty good stage in my life)

Anyhow, surprisingly enough I was a card-carrying Republican over 10 years ago–was asked to become involved with the Republican National Committee way back then. Refused to vote for Bush for governor of Texas and felt like I’ve been FORCED steadily leftward due to my concerns about the environment, my love for science, my involvement in high tech industries and my secularism. Guess I’ve always been a fiscal conservative but the social issues have gotten to be more important to me.

I guess the day that a prominent NYC law firm asked me as a 2L to sign a document that they had interviewed a “minority candidate” really brought to focus how shitty life could be for really smart African Americans (strangely, only that one law firm did that and they did give me an offer).

[Dukehorn]

Heh heh, I actually am an angry Asian dude (well when it comes to anonymous folks glibly talking about racism or creationism–otherwise I’m at a pretty good stage in my life)

Anyhow, surprisingly enough I was a card-carrying Republican over 10 years ago–was asked to become involved with the Republican National Committee way back then. Refused to vote for Bush for governor of Texas and felt like I’ve been FORCED steadily leftward due to my concerns about the environment, my love for science, my involvement in high tech industries and my secularism. Guess I’ve always been a fiscal conservative but the social issues have gotten to be more important to me.

I guess the day that a prominent NYC law firm asked me as a 2L to sign a document that they had interviewed a “minority candidate” really brought to focus how shitty life could be for really smart African Americans (strangely, only that one law firm did that and they did give me an offer).

[bsrsharma]

Let’s conduct a little thought experiment.

Imagine that scientists in a lab have engineered a perfectly rational robot. This robot appears human in every way: He speaks articulately and spontaneously, is capable of advanced learning, and can pass for human in all social commerce.

The only difference between the robot and human beings is that the robot is perfectly rational. “Rationality” is here defined as the refusal to form beliefs without having sufficient reason to think they are true. It is the nature of reasons that they are capable of clear expression. To believe something rationally is to be able to say why you believe it — and to say so in such a way that an intelligent listener would understand how the “why” supports the belief.

Now imagine yourself trying to persuade our perfectly rational robot that the following statement is true:

Everything was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing being who exists outside of space and time. This being impregnated a human woman through non-physical means and was born as her offspring. Within space and time, the being was executed as a criminal and spent three days in a tomb. But then it came back to life and went up to a place called Heaven, which we cannot detect or observe. We eat this being’s body once a week. By doing this — and sundry other things, such as getting sprinkled with water by a man in a robe who utters an incantation, or telling the man in the robe all the bad things we do — by doing this, we too can go to Heaven after our own bodies come up out of their graves.

What will you tell the robot? Can you marshal empirical evidence demonstrating that these claims are true? Can you show their truth by logic alone?

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDEwMTRjZTgzOGZmNWE3ZjY3Y2FmN2UxZDUwY2EyYmY=

[bsrsharma]

Let’s conduct a little thought experiment.

Imagine that scientists in a lab have engineered a perfectly rational robot. This robot appears human in every way: He speaks articulately and spontaneously, is capable of advanced learning, and can pass for human in all social commerce.

The only difference between the robot and human beings is that the robot is perfectly rational. “Rationality” is here defined as the refusal to form beliefs without having sufficient reason to think they are true. It is the nature of reasons that they are capable of clear expression. To believe something rationally is to be able to say why you believe it — and to say so in such a way that an intelligent listener would understand how the “why” supports the belief.

Now imagine yourself trying to persuade our perfectly rational robot that the following statement is true:

Everything was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing being who exists outside of space and time. This being impregnated a human woman through non-physical means and was born as her offspring. Within space and time, the being was executed as a criminal and spent three days in a tomb. But then it came back to life and went up to a place called Heaven, which we cannot detect or observe. We eat this being’s body once a week. By doing this — and sundry other things, such as getting sprinkled with water by a man in a robe who utters an incantation, or telling the man in the robe all the bad things we do — by doing this, we too can go to Heaven after our own bodies come up out of their graves.

What will you tell the robot? Can you marshal empirical evidence demonstrating that these claims are true? Can you show their truth by logic alone?

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDEwMTRjZTgzOGZmNWE3ZjY3Y2FmN2UxZDUwY2EyYmY=

[bsrsharma]

Let’s conduct a little thought experiment.

Imagine that scientists in a lab have engineered a perfectly rational robot. This robot appears human in every way: He speaks articulately and spontaneously, is capable of advanced learning, and can pass for human in all social commerce.

The only difference between the robot and human beings is that the robot is perfectly rational. “Rationality” is here defined as the refusal to form beliefs without having sufficient reason to think they are true. It is the nature of reasons that they are capable of clear expression. To believe something rationally is to be able to say why you believe it — and to say so in such a way that an intelligent listener would understand how the “why” supports the belief.

Now imagine yourself trying to persuade our perfectly rational robot that the following statement is true:

Everything was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing being who exists outside of space and time. This being impregnated a human woman through non-physical means and was born as her offspring. Within space and time, the being was executed as a criminal and spent three days in a tomb. But then it came back to life and went up to a place called Heaven, which we cannot detect or observe. We eat this being’s body once a week. By doing this — and sundry other things, such as getting sprinkled with water by a man in a robe who utters an incantation, or telling the man in the robe all the bad things we do — by doing this, we too can go to Heaven after our own bodies come up out of their graves.

What will you tell the robot? Can you marshal empirical evidence demonstrating that these claims are true? Can you show their truth by logic alone?

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDEwMTRjZTgzOGZmNWE3ZjY3Y2FmN2UxZDUwY2EyYmY=

[bsrsharma]

Let’s conduct a little thought experiment.

Imagine that scientists in a lab have engineered a perfectly rational robot. This robot appears human in every way: He speaks articulately and spontaneously, is capable of advanced learning, and can pass for human in all social commerce.

The only difference between the robot and human beings is that the robot is perfectly rational. “Rationality” is here defined as the refusal to form beliefs without having sufficient reason to think they are true. It is the nature of reasons that they are capable of clear expression. To believe something rationally is to be able to say why you believe it — and to say so in such a way that an intelligent listener would understand how the “why” supports the belief.

Now imagine yourself trying to persuade our perfectly rational robot that the following statement is true:

Everything was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing being who exists outside of space and time. This being impregnated a human woman through non-physical means and was born as her offspring. Within space and time, the being was executed as a criminal and spent three days in a tomb. But then it came back to life and went up to a place called Heaven, which we cannot detect or observe. We eat this being’s body once a week. By doing this — and sundry other things, such as getting sprinkled with water by a man in a robe who utters an incantation, or telling the man in the robe all the bad things we do — by doing this, we too can go to Heaven after our own bodies come up out of their graves.

What will you tell the robot? Can you marshal empirical evidence demonstrating that these claims are true? Can you show their truth by logic alone?

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDEwMTRjZTgzOGZmNWE3ZjY3Y2FmN2UxZDUwY2EyYmY=

[bsrsharma]

Let’s conduct a little thought experiment.

Imagine that scientists in a lab have engineered a perfectly rational robot. This robot appears human in every way: He speaks articulately and spontaneously, is capable of advanced learning, and can pass for human in all social commerce.

The only difference between the robot and human beings is that the robot is perfectly rational. “Rationality” is here defined as the refusal to form beliefs without having sufficient reason to think they are true. It is the nature of reasons that they are capable of clear expression. To believe something rationally is to be able to say why you believe it — and to say so in such a way that an intelligent listener would understand how the “why” supports the belief.

Now imagine yourself trying to persuade our perfectly rational robot that the following statement is true:

Everything was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing being who exists outside of space and time. This being impregnated a human woman through non-physical means and was born as her offspring. Within space and time, the being was executed as a criminal and spent three days in a tomb. But then it came back to life and went up to a place called Heaven, which we cannot detect or observe. We eat this being’s body once a week. By doing this — and sundry other things, such as getting sprinkled with water by a man in a robe who utters an incantation, or telling the man in the robe all the bad things we do — by doing this, we too can go to Heaven after our own bodies come up out of their graves.

What will you tell the robot? Can you marshal empirical evidence demonstrating that these claims are true? Can you show their truth by logic alone?

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDEwMTRjZTgzOGZmNWE3ZjY3Y2FmN2UxZDUwY2EyYmY=

[zk]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Well, obviously the vast majority of the electorate is religious, and therefore themselves have beliefs as absurd as any listed above. Once you take physics out of it and believe in the supernatural, any belief is as realistic or likely as any other.

[zk]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Well, obviously the vast majority of the electorate is religious, and therefore themselves have beliefs as absurd as any listed above. Once you take physics out of it and believe in the supernatural, any belief is as realistic or likely as any other.

[zk]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Well, obviously the vast majority of the electorate is religious, and therefore themselves have beliefs as absurd as any listed above. Once you take physics out of it and believe in the supernatural, any belief is as realistic or likely as any other.

[zk]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Well, obviously the vast majority of the electorate is religious, and therefore themselves have beliefs as absurd as any listed above. Once you take physics out of it and believe in the supernatural, any belief is as realistic or likely as any other.

[Author]

Posts