These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

Most important snippet from this video. 6500 members, out of 100's of millions. At this point, does it really matter what they do/think? They're irrelevant.

Well, answering the second half of her questions is easy. Obviously all those things will be done by whatever warlord gains supremacy in the area. Unfortunately the same can't be said for the first half of her question. Many of those functions simply wouldn't be fulfilled.

Pretty sure he just plays a character for the camera. Like a Bill'o

Definitely over the top with the heart strings stuff.
But
The fact that their is sufficient hatred and ignorance to rank atheists as less trustworthy than known rapists does speak to a looming problem. Whenever I see or read something like that it really does boggle the mind. It really does leave me wondering what believers are taught about atheists. Must be some awful stuff.

I don't think Bill was totally off. Lots of things you do aren't monitored. A hell of a lot of things are, of course. I expect he was just trying to call out the over-generalization.

So much of what you are saying here is not terribly accurate.

Fleeing in this case is easier to sympathize with on account of the US's recent history of locking up and torturing whistle blowers for years on end.

You do live in a country where you pick and choose which laws to follow. Constantly. Like most people. Did you have a drink before you were of age? Have you rolled through a stop sign? Did you tear a label off a mattress? Have you smoked weed? Average people break the rules when they think that the rule is dumb and deserves to be broken, or when they think following the rule would be a greater wrong than breaking it. I expect the latter case applies to Snowden.

Turning himself in is hardly win/win. Maybe he's not interested in being locked up and abused for years on end for what he considers a service he did to the US people. It's not everyone's sole goal in life to die of old age.

His case isn't that much stronger if he turns himself in. He's not some rhetorical genius or a mastermind lawyer waiting to uncover his byzantine court strategy. He released some information regarding serious infringements by the US govt, and that's it. His motives are easy to see, and anyone could pick up and argue his case for him. It's just not that deep.

You're right that the outcry didn't follow. People are getting rather well conditioned to being spied on in pretty much everything we do. To me, the much more important revelation was that the US govt had a collection of secret laws that only it knows about, and that it acts based on it. Privacy is just the tip of the iceberg.

This is what makes rugby so much more exciting for me than American football. This sequence of play would have taken 30+ minutes to play out in a American football, and would have lost all semblance of fluidity.

eia? really? I guess the definition has changed a bit.

In most dictionaries, two non equivalent definitions are given for atheism. The one I'm using and the one you're using. That is why I was very explicit in what I said. Precisely the same situation for my use of the word agnosticism.

Atheism does not answer the question 'Does God Exist'. Instead it addresses your belief regarding the existence of god. The only real question that can be answered by atheism is 'Do you believe (g)God(s) exists?' to which there are exactly two answers. Yes and No. That's theism and atheism. Agnosticism (with regards to the existence of divinity) simply isn't an answer to this question. It says that ultimate knowledge one way or the other is impossible to obtain. Note that even if you answered Yes or No, it does not imply that you are 100% absolutely certain, only that you hold a belief. Using the agnostic qualifier explicitly states that the belief is not at a 100% level.

That video is pretty funny.
For some reason, the speaker thinks that the definition of words is based on formal logic. I guess I'm missing his point entirely.

This most precise definition for agnostic I've come across is:
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

It is often used as a shorthand for agnostic with regards to claims of the existence of god, but strictly speaking, it is only meaningful when combined with a knowledge claim.

I don't think there are many atheists at all that claim to be gnostic atheists. I would say at least 99% of atheists are agnostic atheists. Meaning they can't prove god's existence or absence, but they are sufficiently unconvinced that they act as if there were no god.

Actually, there have been at least a few converts, and they do call in from time to time to the show. Matt Dillahunty actually married a previously christian caller.

Conversion isn't really what the show is about though. I believe it's primary effect is to illustrate that there are atheists in Texas, and that they aren't inherently evil. Most importantly it is to counter the BS spewed from the pulpit with regards to atheism.

On that show, they regularly cover the difference between agnosticism and atheism, as callers often bring up the subject.

The hosts are agnostic atheists. Meaning that they are aware that they do not have absolutely conclusive evidence of a god's absence, but they live their lives assuming there is no god. This is the exact same position that everyone (I HOPE!) reading this post has adopted with regards to unicorns and leprechauns.

A gnostic atheist would be an atheist that is certain this is no god. There are similarly gnostic and agnostic theists. The word agnostic, despite very specific roots, has become commonly misused, to the point where most dictionaries now contain two contradictory definitions for it.

Only qualified empathy for the douche that lost his head phones.