Recent Comments by Barbar subscribe to this feed

What is NOT Random?

Barbar says...

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.

shinyblurry said:

There is no theory which can explain how natural selection gets you from non-life to life, to a cell with genetic information. Natural selection is therefore not adequate to explain the information in DNA. What we have observed is that information only comes from minds; therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer.

Inside The KKK's Plan For Expansion

Barbar says...

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.

Questions for Statists

Questions for Statists

Barbar says...

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.

Kevin O'Leary on global inequality: "It's fantastic!"

Anything but an Atheist (Long version)

Barbar says...

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.

Bill Maher interviews Glenn Greenwald

Barbar says...

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.

artician said:

I'm relieved Greenwald shared my opinion of Snowden's "they basically have freedom of access over your entire life" (paraphrasing) comment, because Mahar's labeling of that perspective as crazy was really unexpected. I don't see how you can't see that as the present and definite-future on our current path, when you look at the history of humans and power. You have to have a lot of (misplaced) trust to think any of the people in charge running that show are capable of showing restraint.
We need to understand that we're pretty far behind the curve for making a change to this. It doesn't matter what "laws" get passed or (false) changes are made to their system. Individuals are basically fucked for privacy from here on out, end of story. It's going to take a war to stop it at this point. I am so glad I don't have children.

Snowden Scolds US Policy

Barbar says...

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.

VoodooV said:

Yeah you don't get to ignore a trial simply because you don't think it will be fair. Every criminal ever would be justified in fleeing the law in such a case.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

We don't abide fleeing the law in any other situation, How come this is different?

We don't live in a country where we pick and choose the laws we want to follow.

Besides, turning himself in is win win. Snowden is virtually guaranteed that he will only die of old age because if anything happens to him, the US will be blamed.

His case is stronger if he turns himself in and argues his case. Fleeing hurts him.

Also, I hate to break it to you. Snowden's fleeing didn't create the public outcry you expected. The jury is in on this. Thanks to GPS and smartphones and other apps that use personal information. The public really doesn't have a lot of problem with being eavesdropped on. Most people already knew it was happening Congratulations, you created numerous internet memes but no actual change.

Attitudes on privacy are changing. Sorry you didn't get the memo.

An Entertaining game of Rugby

Barbar says...

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.

We're Cycling At The Moment, See?

Atheist TV host boots Christian for calling raped kid "evil"

Barbar says...

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.

shinyblurry said:

There are three possible answers to the question of whether God exists: Yes, No, and I don't know. Atheists, going along with the current trend of redefining the meaning of the word atheism, want to both select both no and I don't know at the same time. No, because that is what they really believe, and I don't know because they can't prove it. To be an "agnostic atheist" is simply a contradiction in terms. An agnostic neither believes or disbelieves in God, while an atheist disbelieves; they are mutually exclusive. To cut this short, you can't answer no and I don't know at the same time.

Atheist TV host boots Christian for calling raped kid "evil"

Barbar says...

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.

shinyblurry said:

An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe *or* disbelieve in God. An atheist is someone who believes God doesn't exist. If you think atheism means a "lack of belief" then watch this video by one of your contemporaries:



It all comes down to whether you are an honest or dishonest skeptic. An honest skeptic investigates. A dishonest skeptic doesn't want to know.

As far as this video goes, this show often has Christians on that don't know the bible, and don't understand apologetics, so they often get frustrated and say something that comes out the wrong way. The caller was trying to make some kind of point that we're all sinners but it was misplaced and ill-timed. It's not as if you can't find a billion examples of atheists saying the most horrible things. I just had an atheist tell me he wanted to crucify me the other day.

Atheist TV host boots Christian for calling raped kid "evil"

Barbar says...

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.

Jerykk said:

Not sure what the point of this show is. It isn't going to convert anyone, Christian or atheist. I suspect that atheists watch it so that they can see Christians getting humiliated and Christians watch it in the hope that the hosts get humiliated. I don't see how that's different from something like Jerry Springer or any of the other shows that focus on stupid people.

Atheist TV host boots Christian for calling raped kid "evil"

Barbar says...

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.

AeroMechanical said:

I would argue that (and we might be getting into the areas where things are not well defined) atheism is a belief, as opposed to agnosticism which isn't. There isn't, of course, any true definition of these things though.

Anyways, you do have a very good point I hadn't considered in that the caller obviously watches the show, and presumably so do a lot of other people like him. In that sense, it serves a purpose.

Thief With SPOT-ON Timing In New York Subway Train.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon