ydoaPs

All of them. You've not demonstrated that any infinity is part of 1.

You would see that as innuendo, you perverted atheist communist scum! My invisible dragon is perfectly innocent; it shall remain unsexualized.

I stand corrected; it is not often that I make a silly mistake such as that. Theism is (∃x)(Ex•Dx) where E is the property of existing and D is the property of being able to be accurately described as a deity. There is more than one way to not hold this position: one can have ~(∃x)(Ex•Dx) as a member of their premise set, or one could simply not have (∃x)(Ex•Dx) as a member of their premise set. There's nothing saying a premise set must be saturated. I tip my Philosopher Hat at you and for this you shall be allowed to ride the invisible dragon in my garage.

Here's a video explaining how our budget got how it is now. How is it that Obama is responsible for the debt, again?

Which infinity? There are infinitely many sizes of infinites.

Infinity does.

Spoken like someone who has never studied ethics a day in their life. Species membership is irrelevant; personhood is what matters. Fetuses are not people. Furthermore, they are parasites. Do you not have the right to rid yourself of parasites?

That's not atheism. Atheism would be "Theism is false!".

/me points to his VP.

How sneaky of those biologists to disagree with themselves!

And? Atheism is not the rejection of religion; it's the rejection of theism. While not antitheistic, general Buddhism is atheistic; that is, it doesn't require belief in gods but doesn't necessitate any either. Buddhism just isn't concerned with gods. This is why some sects believe in gods and others don't. This also means there are atheistic Buddhists. Notably, Steven Batchelor has written a few books about atheistic Buddhism in the modern world. While theism is a subset of religion, it is not the case that religion is also a subset of theism. Thus, the sets are not identical. There can be, and are, religious atheists. Under some legitimate definitions of "religion", Humanism is even a religion. No, it doesn't.

I've been ordained in the Universal Life Church for over 7 years.

/me dons Philosopher Hat Strictly speaking, the above quote is false. The set of all atheists is merely the relative compliment of the set of all humans and the set of all theists. This means that atheism only is the rejection of theism; that is, atheists do not believe that the existence of at least one thing that could aptly be described as a deity is actualized. This, however, has nothing to do with buildings regardless of whether or not they are for worship. There could be a building dedicated to the worship of Charlie Sheen, and atheists could worship there completely without contradiction. /me doffs Philosopher Hat

Church of Atheism? Admiral Akbar tells me this is a trap; everyone knows atheists combust upon entry into churches.

E2=(mc2)2+(pc)2 Photons are massless. Bam, E=pc edit: typo

Actually, faith in humanity is once again revoked; I forgot about this correlation:

If they got the Congressional approval needed to become a state with this Congress, I may have to change my trousers. Puerto Rico is overwhelmingly blue, and their statehood would mean 2 Senators, 5 or 6 Congressmen, and 7 or 8 Electoral College votes. There's no way this Congress will allow such a shift into the blue; far too few of the people that made this the most obstructionist Congress in US history have been removed from office.

The consequent here is not logically entailed by the antecedent. Epiphenomenalists, for example, believe that brain states are causally efficacious on both other brain states and on mental states, but that mental states aren't causally efficacious at all. That is, conscious experience is only a representation; all causal relations in choice relations are solely due to brain states. The original idea had the causation of the mental states occur simultaneously with the brain state causal chain, adding a delay doesn't really change anything. All it means is that you're not aware of your choice until after it is made. This delay in awareness of your choice in no way rules out that you took in epistemically possible outcomes as inputs, deliberated on them, and due to such deliberation determined the actualized ontological outcome. Let's take the example of a car with an indicator showing the position of the gas pedal. The position of the gas pedal determines the amount of gas going to the engine regardless of whether the indication is instantaneous, there is a lag, or there is no indication at all. And in case you're wondering, there's nothing stopping anyone from being an epiphenomenal functionalist.

Have they not already done that?

How does 1, then, come in different sizes? In what sense can something cardinally dominate itself? If a=b, then it is not the case that a>b.

And last I looked, if marriage equality were up to a national level popular vote, equality would win.

Even countable infinities cardinally dominate 1.

For the most part, those aren't different mechanisms, but rather terms describing things the previously mentioned mechanisms do or how they work.

When America acts like a democracy rather than a democratic republic, we get things like equality and recreational use. It is almost enough to restore some faith in humanity.

He was also trying to be bipartisan. There's always a chance that he'll use his second term to play hardball.