patrick.net

And is it only a coincidence that he was supposed to testify about the Benghazi clusterfrack two days from now? If I was in power and I found out a guy was having an affair, I'd hold that info for a convenient excuse in case I had to make him suddenly resign/fall on his sword to advance my own purposes or to cover up my own misdeeds. It ain't a far stretch to see this being the true news. What IS a stretch is to believe the official story. Why would he need to resign because he's getting a little tail on the side? Him and probably half the other politicians and bureaucrats. He's in pretty crowded company. If that was a valid reason to resign from political office, we wouldn't have many people working for good old Uncle Sam.

Bellingham Bill says

I thought he would be a formidable (R) candidate for 2016 and wondered WTH Obama was doing appointing him to CIA.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer...

Quigley says

What IS a stretch is to believe the official story. Why would he need to resign because he's getting a little tail on the side?

Don't be daft. Remind us all again what his job was.

I never understood why people care about other people's extramarital affairs. These are private matters.

Peter P says

I never understood why people care about other people's extramarital affairs. These are private matters.

Absolutely, me neither. Actually it is none of their business.

Peter P says

I never understood why people care about other people's extramarital affairs. These are private matters.

"Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of our society and the first level of self government. Its daily lessons -- cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance –- are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic."

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544910/ryan-says-obamas-policies-threaten-judeo-christian-values

Nice petard you guys got there.

But I support marriage reform.

Marriage is a contract. The government should enforce private contracts but it should not dictate what the contracts are.

I see family as an economic unit, not unlike a corporation.

God has no place in politics.
(Although it is irrational to be an atheist. Read Pascal's Wager.)

Peter P says

Marriage is a contract.

So why do we conduct marriage ceremonies within a Church... Before God!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

thomaswong.1986 says

So why do we conduct marriage ceremonies within a Church... Before God!

You don't have to do it in a church. You can go to Venice inside Las Vegas!

The church is just like any venue.

Peter P says

I never understood why people care about other people's extramarital affairs. These are private matters.

I can think of a few reasons why it might matter when you're Director of the CIA.

Bigsby says

I can think of a few reasons why it might matter when you're Director of the CIA.

Only if the affair is secret.

If the society becomes more tolerant of affairs perhaps they do not need to be secretive.

Peter P says

Only if the affair is secret.

I agree. Didn't he keep the affair secret?

Bigsby says

Peter P says

Only if the affair is secret.

I agree. Didn't he keep the affair secret?

Sadly yes.

Peter P says

You don't have to do it in a church. You can go to Venice inside Las Vegas!

Marriage is a religious practice.. but you can have civil unions per govt.
Changing a religious practice ' infact' establishes' a new religion.

As is the case with Church of England... see Henry VIII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Marriage_and_religion

I have to disagree. I think Marriage is more like mergers but with natural persons.

Its a shame. I'm sure Petraeus is too conservative for him and I to agree on much politically, but he always struck me as extremely competent and professional. Its a loss for the country as far as I'm concerned.

Peter P says

I have to disagree. I think Marriage is more like mergers but with natural persons.

And you can state that based on what part of our Western Tradition.

Peter P says

irrational to be an atheist

athiest is just a label people use to bully others. The "Judeo-Christian" diety has no evident claim on reality. Just more bullshit people believe as far as I can tell.

"Athiests" as labelled just strongly disbelieve in one more putative fairy tale than Christians.

Ah, I see the single one-star Amazon review of your book recommend gets into that:

"Also I was also disappointed that Sam as a philosopher did not at least discuss other religions. To tackle the possibility of God/a god and then not discuss which god left an intellectual and spiritual vacuum."

yeah, no shit

I have many atheist friends. They all understand Pascal's Wager but they all choose epistemic smugness over rationality.

I am actually not a big fan of Ayn Rand. I find objectivism highly limiting, especially on the ethical and epistemological fronts.

Reality has no objective basis. The metaphysical is inherently unknowable.

However, God has nothing to do with religions. Some religions are built around some gods. That's it.

Peter P says

They all understand Pascal's Wager but they all choose epistemic smugness over rationality.

what, you were talking about Pascal's Wager as in Blaise Pascal and not that book???

Welcome to ignore, LOL.

What book? :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Peter P says

I have many atheist friends. They all understand Pascal's Wager but they all choose epistemic smugness over rationality.

It's perfectly rational to be an atheist irrespective of an understanding (or not) of Pascal's Wager.

Bigsby says

It's perfectly rational to be an atheist irrespective of an understanding (or not) of Pascal's Wager.

How?

If the existence of X is unknowable and believing in X gives higher potential reward irrespective of the ontological truth, what is the rationality of NOT believing in X?

Unless you think knowledge has value in and of itself, regardless of its applicability?

Peter P says

If the existence of X is unknowable and believing in X gives higher potential reward irrespective of the ontological truth, what is the rationality of NOT believing in X?

Because it's based on the argument that there is only one God and no other, and that God is the one that you worship. The chances of a person being correct in their belief in the 'one true God' out of an infinite number of possibilities (and not just a single deity) are so infinitesimal that to not worship any God at all is a perfectly rational decision to make.

Ah...

Not being an atheist does not mean I have to believe in and worship one specific god and nothing else. There is a big gap there.

Do you only place bet on one number on the roulette table? Or do you spread your bets?

Peter P says

Ah...

Not being an atheist does not mean I have to believe in and worship one specific god and nothing else. There is a big gap there.

Do you only place bet on one number on the roulette table? Or do you spread your bets?

Did you miss the part where I mentioned multiple gods ('not just a single deity')?
Pascal's Wager is meaningless as a criticism of an atheist's (lack of) rationality. Most people do not worship multiple gods. They are generally adherents of one of the 3 main monotheistic religions. And even if you happen to worship multiple gods, your chances of being correct are still infinitesimal, so you can hardly lay claim to a position of rationality whilst claiming atheists are being irrational.

What if you believe in the Universe? It is strictly Pantheism and it covers all. Like an umbrella policy.

On the other hand, infinitesimal chances with infinite rewards can be economical. :-)

Besides, what does believing in a God cost you? Some coolness in front of your friends? :-)

I had a nightmare the other nigh though... I dreamed that afterlife is an infinite recursion and I had a stack overflow. Shocked me a lot.

Peter P says

What if you believe in the Universe? It is strictly Pantheism and it covers all. Like an umbrella policy.

And what is that supposed to mean? Saying you believe in all Gods is just a nonsense you are peddling to try and cover your arse over your Pascal's Wager comment. How exactly can you believe in all Gods?

Peter P says

Besides, what does believing in a God cost you? Some coolness in front of your friends? :-)

That's not what is being argued. You directly questioned the rationality of atheists by peddling Pascal's Wager.

Bigsby says

Peter P says

What if you believe in the Universe? It is strictly Pantheism and it covers all. Like an umbrella policy.

And what is that supposed to mean? Saying you believe in all Gods is just a nonsense you are peddling to try and cover your arse over your Pascal's Wager argument. How exactly can you believe in all Gods?

It depends on how you define God.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

Peter P says

What if you believe in the Universe? It is strictly Pantheism and it covers all. Like an umbrella policy.

And what is that supposed to mean? Saying you believe in all Gods is just a nonsense you are peddling to try and cover your arse over your Pascal's Wager argument. How exactly can you believe in all Gods?

It depends on how you define God.

You are just playing games now.

Bigsby says

Peter P says

Besides, what does believing in a God cost you? Some coolness in front of your friends? :-)

That's not what is being argued. You directly questioned the rationality of atheists by peddling Pascal's Wager.

Because if the cost is infinitesimal then the wager is always rational. How much AAPL $100 Puts will you buy if it is free? I would "buy" up to the position limit. (NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.)

Athiest: "I believe all religions are bullshit"
Devout Christian: "I believe those other religions are bullshit"

Now, that's somewhat unfair, since Christians have also ginned up a Loki character for their narrative, an entity able to deceive any number of people into believing in false things (eg, conveniently, all other competing religions), but that makes their entire philosophical superstructure unfalsifiable and not worth my time unless I start seeing empirical evidence supporting all the stuff they attest.

The hubris of humans even imagining they could find divinity here on a nondescript planet circling a nondescript star cycling in a nondescript galaxy in a mind-killingly immense and aged universe is somewhat humorous to me.

Understandable though when the world was apparently a much smaller place, and was man's known universe.

The very existence of Mormons (and Scientologists for that matter) is proof enough that millions of people will believe any bullshit you feed them.

As an "athiest", I see still great mystery in the universe. Just thinking about it makes my head hurt sometimes when my train of thought starts getting into the manifest complexities of the implications of our existential reality that our daily-use brains routinely ignore -- for our own sanity I suspect.

Atheism is about the non-existence of God. It has nothing to do with religions.

Believing that there is no God *is* the same as making an ontological statement about God. As with all things metaphysical, that statement is unknowable and such belief forms the basis of a religion.

Money is a religion too. It is useful if and only if people believe in it.

Bellingham Bill says

As an "athiest", I see still great mystery in the universe. Just thinking about it makes my head hurt sometimes when my train of thought starts getting into the manifest complexities of the implications of our existential reality that our daily-use brains routinely ignore -- for our own sanity I suspect.

This is why I subscribe to metaphysical and epistemological subjectivism.

Peter P says

Because if the cost is infinitesimal then the wager is always rational. How much AAPL $100 Puts will you buy if it is free? I would "buy" up to the position limit. (NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.)

What? That has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager nor with saying that atheism is irrational. And since when has a belief in a specific religion been 'free'?

Bigsby says

What? That has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager nor with saying that atheism is irrational.

It has everything to do with it.

If betting on X is cheap (or free) and it has a better outcome than the alternative, then it is always rational to bet on it irregardless on the uncertainty, unknowability, and chances.