Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Steve Zara


1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213872 by Steve Zara on July 19, 2008 at 6:33 am

Comment #213865 by BillySands

I may be being dense, and someone may have pointed this out before, but isn't there just a little problem with this statement from txpiper:

Crocodiles, for instance, as evidenced by the fossil record, haven't received any packages for tens of millions of years.


How can he be using arguments like this when he is a young Earth creationist?

He can only raise the question of crocodiles not changing much physically over tens of millions of years based on the fossil record if he accepts that there is actually a fossil record which has recorded fossils over tens of millions of years.

As he doesn't, this arguments is even more meaningless.

2. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213848 by Steve Zara on July 19, 2008 at 3:39 am

Where is the Dawkins that specialises in Physics and really brings the subject alive to the masses?


I suggest you look up Brian Greene. He writes superbly on the subject.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213846 by Steve Zara on July 19, 2008 at 3:34 am

txpiper-

I may have missed it, but I still have not seen an explanation of the apparent paradox you have described.

You say you aren't particularly bright, yet to state you are able to interpret data in a way that puts you far in advance of even Nobel-prize winning biologists and chemists and geologists.

Perhaps you could explain this? It would be a useful gift to share.

4. Researchers Discover Remnant of an Ancient 'RNA World'

Comment #213829 by Steve Zara on July 19, 2008 at 2:16 am

Comment #213628 by Dhamma

Or am I just naive to think they'll ever accept the evolution?


Many just will never accept it, ever. I have encountered such people. What they do is deny science altogether, and state that what it produces is an illusion.

What we can achieve is to make such people seem ridiculous, and educate future generations.

5. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213814 by Steve Zara on July 19, 2008 at 1:00 am

Comment #213812 by Dr Doctor

I have a reaction to simplistic generalisations. Some may consider this a fault.

Let's see. There is also the major series on Charles Darwin which will be broadcast over the next year. (ERV has just described her envy of us Brits for being able to watch this first)

I could go on... but I think the point has been made.

EDIT: I surely have to mention the excellent "In Our Time" with Melvyn Bragg on BBC R4, where some of the latest ideas are discussed, both in science and the arts.

6. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213811 by Steve Zara on July 19, 2008 at 12:51 am

Hoho, masterly slap down there of Germaine "I'm an intellectual you know" Greer and British TV.


And a rather odd and inappropriate one. This is the same British TV that recently produced the wonderful "Live in Cold Blood" by David Attenborough, and which presents the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, and which had a recent documentary on the ideas of Stephen Hawking.

The entire intellectual output of British TV should not be judged by Celebrity Big Brother.

7. The Return of Religion

Comment #213594 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Greatest band ever?

The answer is that there is no such thing. There are people who have influenced bands over decades. David Bowie, Brian Eno, Rick Wakeman, Trevor Horn. There is no single "great band". There are just fashions and trends and influences. Personally, I think people like Brian Eno and Peter Gabriel have influenced much of the music I have liked, just like Mark Ronson is doing that now.

8. The Return of Religion

Comment #213588 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm

You all seem so stuck in the 70s', 80's and 90's in terms of music. I am approaching 50 years of age, and I love 00's music. My latest favourites are The Feeling, Sam Sparro, Goldfrapp.

9. The Return of Religion

Comment #213566 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Harris wants to promote it that way as well.


I am even less Buddhist-sympathetic than Harris. I have little sympathy with his views that re-incarnation needs to be investigated.

The main idea I want to promote is that Western and Middle-Eastern ideas of what "religion" means simply does not apply to other ideas, which may not involve Gods, or even the supernatural.

I do think that Buddhism if taken non-dogmatically, as, I believe, it may have been originally intended, actually contains some useful recipes for living a contented life that is in no way conflicting with either science or rationality.

10. The Return of Religion

Comment #213533 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #212722 by Mitchell Gilks

I have not been following this thread. Thanks to those who have brought this to my notice.

I in no way support any supernatural aspect of Buddhism.

I believe that some of the ideas and principles of Buddhism as expressed by some schools of thought (such as the Theravaddin) can be useful, but they are entirely practical.

The idea of karma can be expressed in terms of the Golden Rule - how you treat others is how you will be treated. The idea of re-incarnation is nothing more than that one's influence in this life can affect others in the future. One of the most powerful ideas in Buddhism is anatta - the idea of "no soul" or "no self". This is that someone like Daniel Dennett would approve of - that there is no central "person" in the so-called "Cartesian Theatre".

At it's core, Buddhism is not a religion. It is a set of practical and philosophical principles to help people not to be too miserable during their lifetimes.

11. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213518 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Comment #213508 by Joe Morreale

I actually would like you to keep posting. This may not be a popular view, but the more you post, the more people throughout the world can see that you can't answer questions. If you wish to damage your cause, please do keep posting as you have. You are doing a very good job.

12. The Return of Religion

Comment #213501 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Drama wasn't their best


Trevor Horn has reported a recurring nightmare. That he gets a phone call from the members of "Yes" saying "Jon Anderson's voice has gone - could you come and sing the high notes again?"

13. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213450 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #213435 by Cartomancer

And only a despicable Shirtist would deign to argue over the words used to describe the Great Trousers - a true believer would know that all human language is inadequate to properly describe their magnificence.


Would these be the "Trousers of Time" as described by Terry Pratchett?

14. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213434 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #213427 by Gregg Townsend

If find the SteveZara'sWife stuff utterly hilarious, as does "the wife". I could explain why, but it would be a long story, involving some cartoons by David Shenton.

15. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213429 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Joe,

I tried to be decent to you for a few posts, but your comments regarding thewhitepearl have been unacceptable. Her question about development and transtional forms is a profound one, and destroys so many of the arguments of creationists.

I suggest you try and answer her question.

16. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213423 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Comment #213403 by Gregg Townsend

You know, I am tempted to set that site up?

Since he is currently stuck with his leg up most of the time, having bruised a bone after falling down a hole in the road, left by careless workmen, at the weekend, he is in a mean mood. Being a Yorkshireman, he can easily deal with Italians. (I know from experience)

17. Bush Bureaucrats at Dept. of Health and Human Services Redefine Contraception as Abortion

Comment #213410 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Comment #213108 by Dr Doctor

Its like the whole cracker discussion never happened.


I know what you mean. One can ask questions again and again, and just not get answers, as people keep pressing the "reset" button.

18. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213382 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Comment #213376 by al-rawandi

You have already won.

If someone isn't (or so a proxy thinks) prepared to sit at a keyboard and debate you, you have already shown him inadequate to deal with your arguments.

Joe has already admitted defeat.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213381 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #213375 by Quine

I agree. That is why I encourage people to visit that blog and try and embarass the fellow (or at least make him look embarassing to his readers).

20. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213365 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Comment #213361 by al-rawandi

If you charged for viewing such a debate, I would pay.

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213360 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:58 am

Comment #213347 by Quine

I worry that someone supposedly educated can have their mind so deeply hijacked by religion. I also worry about the associated arrogance.

22. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213346 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:51 am

Comment #213339 by Quetzalcoatl

I think you may just have a point.

23. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213336 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:47 am

I am nobody, that is why i am asking you to try your crap on Dr Zakir LIVE.


Oh, I see. It is a public debate thing.

I have a suggestion. Why not ask Dr Zakir to request a live debate with David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland? He is keen on live debates, and is apparently "ok with evolution".

What do you say, Joe?

24. The Return of Religion

Comment #213329 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:45 am

Comment #213324 by ColdFusionLazarus

I like good tunes, and I am hooked on music with good production. Anything by Trevor Horn.

25. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213323 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:40 am

Besides Steve has that cool hat so he automatically trumps my avatar.


I am also of Italian descent.

26. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213305 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:28 am

Comment #213294 by Joe Morreale

Joe. I take your point, but you have to look at it from our point of view.

Dr Naik is making an extraordinary claim - that centuries of work by hundreds of thousands of biologists is wrong. That extraordinary claim requires solid evidence. If his evidence fails in any way, that makes the whole thing suspect.

Can't you see that?

You need to realise that there are respectable scientists who challenge current ideas of evolution, such as Lynn Margulis. They are respectable because they check their facts.

Why don't you look up Margulis' work? She is someone who does not make the big mistakes that Naik does.

27. The Return of Religion

Comment #213293 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:20 am

Comment #213288 by thewhitepearl

I'll go for Linkin Park. As for the Smiths, I really, really tried to like them, but just couldn't manage it.

28. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213286 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:15 am

Comment #213282 by Joe Morreale

Joe - can you tell the difference between an insect and a fishing lure?

This is an important question, as it throws the whole reputation (assuming he has one) of Dr Naik into doubt.

I would like an honest answer, as, I expect, would many, many of the readers of this site.

29. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213275 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #213268 by Joe Morreale

I feel it only fair to point out that this is a very high-traffic site. Posts here are highly visible.

This means that many, many, many people (possibly including people who know you) will notice that you refuse to answer Al-rawandi's simple question.

I would suggest that to avoid embarassment, you answer the question.

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213272 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment #213240 by Quine

I find the thread more worrying than funny (although it does get hilarious towards the end).

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213213 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 9:44 am

So as society advances and the necessity of believing in the irrational becomes less and less, the religious become more desperate to remain relevant in this new environment? Is that what you're suggesting?


That is not what I was suggesting, but it certainly seems to be happening.

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213195 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 9:12 am

Agreed. But once they admit it is not rational, they have no basis for imposing it on everyone else.


There may be an evolutionary analogy. Rationality is the only "stable strategy" for dealing with disputes in a democratic society. If people aren't prepared to present evidence to back up their claims, and if people aren't prepared to accept evidence to refute their claims, we are left with nothing but argument by numbers (there are more of us so we are right), or who shouts loudest.

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213160 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 8:28 am

Comment #213152 by epeeist

Wise words. Perhaps what I am guilty about is provoking someone, purely with reasonably calm challenges to their ideas, to abuse and insults.

(Wow, free therapy on the net!)

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213134 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 7:49 am

Comment #213127 by Diacanu

I don't mind theists who keep themselves to themselves, and leave me alone. Messing about with crackers results in collateral damage to those harmless ones. I believe in good manners. I'll leave them alone with their crackers if they don't start spouting nonsense about evolution, for example.

This one is different. He claims direct contact with God, and he calls non-believers (and particular those who support science) foolish and ignorant.

I only discovered this view after we had had a polite debate, and a distinctly amicable exchange of e-mails. All the time during that he was considering me (and those who helped me in the debate) to be deluded fools.

When asked to defend this attitude, he initially said that I had neglected that his blog was targetted towards a Christian readership. When I pointed out that considering Einstein foolish and dismissing evolution was not mainstream even amongst educated Christians, things got worse...

So this is a special case.

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213121 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 7:31 am

Al-

As you have said, one can get to a position where some statements (such as that mentioned by Phil) simply need underlining, not refuting.

Incidentally, I should mention that the comments on that blog are open to anyone (for now). MPhil has posted there to good effect.

Not that I would want to stir things up by enouraging anyone to post there, and deal with issues far more effectively than I have.

Actually, yes I would...

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213114 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #213106 by phil rimmer

I don't think he realises how funny it sounds.

I have a simple insistence that people who effectively claim super-powers (I know that my mind can sense perfection, and I have a direct line to the creator) should actually have to justify such things if they say it in public outside of a theocracy.

37. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213109 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 7:15 am

Comment #213104 by Laurie Fraser

1. Do you ever sleep?


I have suffered from insomnia since a child. I sleep on and off, and at odd times.

2. What satisfaction can you possibly accrue from arguing with these troglodites?


I keep learning so much, about things like how to argue, and what really matters in a particular discussion. In this particular discussion, my opponent seems positively angry because I won't play his game, as I insist that the rules have to be discussed first. For some reason he just won't see that "The scriptures are the truth" can't be a valid starting point.

There is, I have to admit, a certain guilty pleasure in winning.

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213099 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 6:45 am

As this is the new "thread that will never ends" (and topic changes are usually allowed on such threads), some may be interested in this:

http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/square-circles-and-the-trinity-part-3-the-law-of-identity/#commentshttp://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/square-circles-and-the-trinity-part-3-the-law-of-identity/#comments

I had a debate a while back with a theist. It seemed amicable at the time, but then I found he was an anti-science creationist. Based on past experience, and ideas from this site, I have tried a new strategy, which explains how ideas have to be defended in a civilized society:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/153592.html

The rather amusing consequences of trying this out can be seen in the last 10 or 20 posts in the Bnonn Tennant thread.

I think it is useful.

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213079 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 6:01 am

Comment #212391 by Tyler Durden

Incidentally, I think your linkage of religion with OCD is fascinating. I have thought that for some time. There is comfort in ritual, with everything done at the right time, and the right words.

40. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #213077 by Steve Zara on July 18, 2008 at 5:58 am

Put simply your ideas require more faith to believe in nothing, rather than something bigger, greater than our limited understanding creating a perfect world


Here we go again.

In spite of your rudeness, we nice atheists here (all atheists are nice deep down, you know) generally give a few polite responses to people, to give them a chance to engage in reasonable debate.

So, in addition to irate's excellent questions, I would like to add a couple:

Could you please explain what the supernatural is, and how you have the ability to detect it? Before science can weigh supernatural "explanations" against others, it needs to know that an explanation is indeed supernatural. I am sure you must have an answer as to how to achieve this.

Could you please explain how you know that there is something greater than our limited understanding, if, by definition, our understanding of it is limited. We can't assert that which is beyond our knowledge, only the limits of our knowledge. But you seem to know better?

41. The Return of Religion

Comment #212522 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 9:43 am

Comment #212479 by Richard Morgan

Clear thinking does not mean calmness. When one clearly sees the harm that religion enables, it is not surprising if some people get quite irate.

42. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212516 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 9:36 am

This really will have to be sorted out. Each wafer will have to be signed for by each communicant, with full terms and conditions.

43. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212457 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 8:35 am

Comment #212449 by The Reverend Dark

I agree. It isn't a hate crime.

44. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212444 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 8:16 am

Comment #212435 by The Reverend Dark

Next time you are playing cricket (assuming you do), start kicking the ball around.

Why not? The ball was handed to you freely.

Next time someone hands you a bunch of flowers, rip it up in front of them.

Why not? It was handed to you freely.

I don't think this is about theft. It is about freely entering into a ritual or game, with full knowledge of the rules, and just ignoring them. It is bad manners, no matter how over-the-top the reaction is.

That is the way I react to this.

45. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212361 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 4:53 am

I think, like Bonzai, (my response to him is comment #474) you under-estimate how close most people need to be to their victim to effectively use a handgun. Also, I'm not sure how much more thought is needed to assault someone with a knife or bat than is needed with a gun.


You don't hear many reports of drive-by battings or stabbings.

46. The Return of Religion

Comment #212320 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 2:31 am

Comment #212313 by thewhitepearl

I hope you don't mind if I don't. I think Robertson is trying to hold the FCOS together by equivocating about creationism. One the one hand he says how the sin of mankind led to distasters like tsunamis and earthquakes (so there must have been a "fall", before which there there was no death, disease, distasters, etc), and on the other hand he says he is OK with evolution. This is not consistent, and for someone in a position of any UK church to flirt with creationist ideas is not good in my view.

47. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212307 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 2:15 am

Steve, I have to disagree. Weapons don't trivialize life, people do. When someone uses violent means be it knife, bat, brick, gun (or Taser even) to take something from a person with no regard for that person's life, they are placing their needs above their victim's and are thereby trivializing that person's life.


I believe concealed handguns do trivialize life because their use is so easy. There is not much thought needed, and you don't have to approach the victim that much.

48. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212293 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 1:30 am

I think one of the difficulties philosophy has is that it mostly uses the same language as everyday conversation. It is the same problem science has with the word "theory".

49. The Return of Religion

Comment #212288 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2008 at 1:23 am

Hello "clearthinker".

Any progress on sorting out your views on evolution, the fall, and disease death and disaster before humans appeared?

50. The Return of Religion

Comment #211992 by Steve Zara on July 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Comment #211981 by irate_atheist

Irate Brits don't shout. They turn red in the face, and then splutter, and then write a strongly worded letter to The Times.

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next