DangerousToy (6479) 1 SFW Posts | 33 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed Registered 2009-01-24 05:06:55 Comment Karma: 5 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from DangerousToy

Comment on Logic, courtesy of 4chan. (2010-08-05 15:47:54)
Those are some deeply fascinating links. Gave me something new to think about.
Comment on why there were riots (2010-07-10 13:24:40)
Watch any of the multiple videos of the instance. “Two officers appear to be struggling with Grant prior to the shot being fired,” Borelli said. He was handcuffed, face down, with a knee on the on the back of his head. But don't let that get in the way of your quote mining. Watch the video. I know you don't have the stones to admit that you're wrong after the hysterics you're indulging in here - but watch -any- of them anyway.
Comment on why there were riots (2010-07-10 07:57:01)
Try RTFA. The murder victim didn't "try to get up" because he couldn't. He was handcuffed and another cop had a knee planted on the back of the victim's neck. This officer drew his firearm and shot the -completely compliant, restrained and helpless- victim in the back with fatal results.
Comment on thomas paine - my country is the world, and my religion is to do good (2010-06-14 08:51:13)
Agreed.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-11 12:10:55)
For the most part, I concur. I always enjoy being challenged by vigorous debate and re-evaluating my opinions as new positions present themselves. I don't expect "to win". It's about refining my own understanding as much as anything.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-11 12:06:03)
It seems you're advancing that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." However, while absence of proof is not proof of absence, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. More formally, for a set of evidence the hypothesis most probably correct is the one most concisely describing it; so, unless you have an evidence set including some elements more concisely described by a hypothesis relying on the existence of X, the non-existence is more probably correct. Also, more formally, it's not that "God does not exist because there is no evidence for it", but rather "God probably does not exist, because all the evidence we have is better described by hypotheses without God". And I think we start touching on "Double Standard of Proof - Equivocation as to whether metaphysically absolute or empirically probabilistically standard of proof is appropriate." as well. I see where you're going, and I respect it. I just think that it gives sloppy science and non-science a pass.
Comment on Comicon/Halloween (2010-06-10 23:31:57)
That is pretty awesome.
Comment on rogue cosplayer (2010-06-10 23:30:28)
Thou dost wrong me! Faith, I know not where I wander; methinks the most capricious zephyr hath more design than I. But lo, do not detain me, for I am resolved to quit this place forthwith!
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-10 23:11:22)
I don't so much think that it's oversimplified as it's simply not being usefully construed. Nothing in the example insists on, or even mentions, empiric examination. There are a multitude of provable concepts in the world that don't rely on empiric evidence. But they are, with the necessary level of understanding - provable. Science is continually updating it's mechanism for achieving that understanding, discarding the demonstrably false and amending it's understanding to allow for new ideas and methods. Which is why empirical analysis is only one of many ways to do so. Thus it is true that if it cannot be tested for and/or proved by some means that can be demonstrated and replicated - then it doesn't exist. Unless you're then suggesting that things which cannot be perceived and tested are somehow inherently true by virtue of conception?
Comment on john adams - the united states government is not in any way founded on the christian religion (2010-06-10 18:20:12)
I differ. I think it's a fine analogy. I can safely relegate religion to the dustbin with all the other irrelevant ideas that people waste time, money and energy on, and occasionally try to pass into law. It's like being bald because, much like being bald my belief or disbelief reflects the non-existence of my opinion. It isn't that I *don't believe* in your religion, it's that unless some evidence presents itself to the contrary it's beneath my consideration unless someone is attempting litigate my behavior or freedoms because of these beliefs.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-09 23:48:39)
Quoting a smart guy: "I don't see why people (theists?) have such a problem trying to conceptualize the state of not believing in an idea. It's pretty easy. Do you believe that a teapot orbits the Sun? This question is a proposition, with either a T or F answer. Is there a teapot that orbits the Sun? This is another, different proposition. It also has a T or F answer. The logical conjunction of these two propositions gives us four possible results: 1. There is a teapot and I do believe 2. There is a teapot and I don't believe 3. There isn't a teapot and I do believe 4. There isn't a teapot and I don't believe Now, theists think [1] is true. Atheists think [4] is true. Atheists think that theists belong to [3], and theists think that atheists belong to [2]. [1] and [4] are the only answers that are logically consistent, but [1] is the only one that requires proof of the existence of said teapot. Without proof, only [4] is logically provable as true. QED"
Comment on Electra Cosplayer (2010-06-09 07:23:03)
Ah Yaya. Awesome every time.
Comment on john adams - the united states government is not in any way founded on the christian religion (2010-06-08 23:15:51)
Atheism is a religion the same way that being bald is a hair color.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-08 08:14:39)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot I'll just leave that here.
Comment on Lady Warrior (2010-05-04 13:36:04)
Very hot.