skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for Alex_Grebenshchikov

( Alex_Grebenshchikov )

Comments made by Alex_Grebenshchikov

Covered California Officials Admit They Need To Do More To Attract Latinos

Everyone knows latinos don’t buy insurance.

December 19, 2013 at 9:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego Artist Turns Rush Hour Into A Rainbow

This is actually really cool after reading how the artist did it. I was hoping I would see my scooter go by, but no luck. It reminds me of a doctoral thesis presentation I attended years ago at Scripps Institution of Oceanography where the researcher set up a camera pointing down at the turbulent surf zone and took photos at regular time intervals for several days. Then, he was able to remove the white pixels and overlap the photos so that it looked like there were no waves in the ocean. Then, putting together a series of these clear ocean photos into a video, he could watch the movement of the sand in the surf zone as it rippled and moved with the waves and currents. Well done Kuckenbaker, you're an artist thinking like a scientist!

"I invite my fellow arm chair anthropologist to parse out what those car colors say about us."
Let me take a whack at this - sports cars and brightly colored cars are phallic, whether the driver is male or female. Humble cars and muted colored cars are also phallic, but in the opposite way since the driver is saying, "I don't need a fancy or noticeable car to prove what I've got", but if everyone knows they are making that statement, and they know everyone knows, then they are doing the exact same thing as the drivers of the sports cars and brightly colored cars. Motorcycles, regardless of color, are phallic since the driver is saying, "look how wild and adventurous I am, I don't care about danger, please be attracted to me". So I guess what I'm saying is, all cars and motorcycles are phallic, but scooters are not since they are more dangerous than motorcycles, but less cool, and less expensive than cars or motorcycles, and less versatile or practical for longer distance travel. They do however, have a nice, small carbon footprint, but there is nothing phallic about being green.

December 18, 2013 at 3:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Navy expands sonar testing despite troubling signs

OK CaliforniaDefender, it's hypothetical, but I admire your willingness to lay down your own life for animals; that is assuming you wouldn't more readily discard the life of someone else over your own being that they are of equal value :-). So to narrow the gap a little between one human and all animals, the follow up question is, if you had to choose to save the lives of either one thousand cute little puppies and kittens, or ten Jews, what would you choose?

December 17, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Navy expands sonar testing despite troubling signs

Peking, my point is not that I want all animals dead so that humans will die also, but rather, I am making a statement regarding which has greater worth. If it were possible for humans to live without any animals on earth, and you had the choice to either save one human life, or the lives of all the animals, which would you choose?

December 16, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Navy expands sonar testing despite troubling signs

JeanMarc, I'll give an even more generalized and elegant form of your equation:

Any Human >> All Animals

December 16, 2013 at 2:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Momentum Building For Covered California Online Enrollment

Yea, right. We shall see. I will be amazed if they are ever able to get enough young, healthy people to sign up to subsidize those who chose not to value healthy living their whole lives and now deal with the consequences such as morbid obesity. If this whole thing collapses, and all my tax money is wasted, I will still hardly be able to contain my glee.

December 13, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Mt. Soledad Cross

The people complaining want to be mollycoddled by the government. I can't understand why anyone would be so offended. I personally do not want a government to step in and make sure I don't get my feelings hurt, I just want the government to protect my life from foreign invaders and leave me alone as much as possible. Our society has become so unbelievably soft, weak, easily offended and dependent on the government that we should all be ashamed for letting things get this bad. How embarrassing.

December 13, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego Atheist Group Looks To Spread Non-Belief

This post will get too long, but you no doubt are aware of some of the theistic arguments made by scholars such as the philosopher William Lane Craig. How do you answer his Kalam cosmological argument, that given the universe began to exist, the best explanation for the cause is an eternal being who exists by the necessity of his own nature, namely, God? We don't have evidence of anything coming into existence uncaused out of nothing. And no, quantum vacuum fluctuations are not examples of this since they pop in and out in an already existent dimensional framework and
"The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-ca...

When I refer to "nothing", I mean in the philosophical sense - nothing at all, not empty "space" (since that is a dimensional framework) or a vacuum - I mean incomprehensible nothingness. If the universe did begin uncaused out of nothing, then what is so discriminatory about nothingness, which has no properties by definition, that it only produces universes? Why not unicorns? Why doesn't this happen all the time?

This post is getting too long, but have you considered Pascal's Wager? You are taking a gamble in some sense either way. And choosing not to choose is still choosing... but that choice leaves you in the riskiest section of the decision matrix, my friend.

November 26, 2013 at 12:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego Atheist Group Looks To Spread Non-Belief

TheAholeAtheist, thank you for coming on here to chat! I commend you in your willingness to be out in the open and ready to face people who may disagree with you.
So, if I understand you correctly, you really have a problem with faith in general, not necessarily a particular god or religious view. You argue that faith is a failed epistemology, that is, a failed theory of knowledge. Or to put it another way, when we ask ourselves, "how do we know that what we know is true", the answer, "by faith" is inadequate because it doesn't answer the question at all. Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your views. I would classify you as an evidentialist since you write, "I reserve my belief(s) for things which warrant my belief based on at least some empirical evidence." As an evidentialist, you would form your belief system around that for which there is the most, or best, evidence. You might argue that gravity is real, even though you don't see the field, because of the evidence physics has provided, the mathematics describing gravity, and the repeatability of experiments demonstrating gravity. Gravity can be tested, and therefore, the scientific method is adequate to help us gain knowledge about gravity.
How do you personally deal with questions that evidentialism fails to address? I assume like most people, you choose the answer that seems most reasonable based on other knowledge you have. You cannot prove that we are not "brains in a vat", nor can you prove that we are, but it is most reasonable to operate as though the reality we perceive with our perceived senses is what it actually seems to be. If you did not operate in such a fashion, you could not claim any knowledge about anything, and you may even end up trying to kill yourself to see if you can escape this twisted nightmare in which you don't even know if you exist, as some have sadly done in their madness.
Could you be convinced that it is most reasonable to believe that there is a God? Or, to use a word that you dislike, is it possible for you to be convinced that it takes more "faith" to be an atheist than it does to be a theist?

November 26, 2013 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego Council Approves 15 Percent Water Rate Hike

I'm pretty happy now about my rain catchment system and my waste water recirculation system I built in my apartment. It seems less disgusting to me to drink my filtered toilet flush water than to pay 15% more for water from the tap :-)

November 22, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )