Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #219513 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 4:05 am

Comment #219509 by Mitchell Gilks

Battles are best fought with those who are actually fighting against you. In this case, those making death threats, and idiots like Bill Donohue.

I don't think generalising the battle to make it against all Catholics is useful at this point, especially when they could be of help in this particular situation.

702. Write to UCF

Comment #219506 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 3:41 am

Comment #219504 by Mitchell Gilks

Most people are reasonable, and don't like bullying. Most people are also a bit deluded in one way or another (like me thinking I have any hope of ever running (or even walking) a marathon). If you are going to go around shouting "you are wrong" at anyone who is deluded you are going to be very busy.

I think we need to deal with the specific problem - elements within the Catholic "community" who are clearly thoroughly nasty. Now we can work with the majority of Catholics (who, like most people, are reasonable) against them, or we can try it alone. I say let's gather all the allies we can to sort out this immediate problem.

703. Write to UCF

Comment #219503 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 3:32 am

Comment #219499 by Mitchell Gilks

I hope that no-one thinks I want to show only mild disapproval of the bullying. I think it should be condemned in the strongest terms.

I think things could have been handled in a way which made it even worse for the bullies - by actively encouraging most Catholics to condemn them.

Instead, by effectively saying "you are all mad and deluded", it might be the case that many who would have otherwise condemned the bullies now have some grudging support for them.

My feeling (and I could be proved wrong by what happens) is that this is simply not politically effective.

704. Write to UCF

Comment #219449 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 2:06 am

Comment #219448 by AllanW

Oxford is only an hour away for me. I would certainly be interested.

705. Write to UCF

Comment #219435 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 1:25 am

Comment #219432 by Laurie Fraser

That is kind of what my wise husband says.

My concern is that ridicule is only useful if you provide someone with a way of looking less ridiculous in some way. Ridicule is like applying pressure. You need a way for the pressure to be released in a manner that can be harnessed, otherwise you just heat up a situation.

Rather than applying pressure to all Catholics ("it's just a cracker"), with the only way out of it being for them to agree with you (which they won't do), I think it might have been productive to try and ally with the majority of (hopefully) reasonable Catholics to point out how ridiculous the attacks on Cook by a minority made them look. The majority could then have made themselves look reasonable and sensible by joining in to support Cook and attack Bill Donohue and other nutters.

Targetted offense and ridicule can be very powerful indeed. "Crackergate" did not seem targetted, and indeed may have made many Catholics even more defensive, I think.

I think it is useful to compare this with the fight against creationism in the UK. We don't say "you are all nuts to believe in the Bible". Instead, alliances form between atheists and believers to stop the "fundamentalists".

See what I am saying?

706. Write to UCF

Comment #219429 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 12:55 am

Comment #219428 by Sconnor

I read the article. It was extremely impressive and eloquent defence of the rationalist position. Richard posting there to support the "desecration" of The God Delusion was priceless, and if anything shows the difference between rationalist and religion, that did.

As my position is that when finer minds than mine hold a contrary view, they are usually right, and as both Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers hold a contrary view, I asked my husband about this (another finer mind). He pointed out that one might as well just say "it's a cracker" because there is simply no possibility of rational debate about this matter.

So, I will concentrate on what I think is important, and write in support of Cook.

707. Write to UCF

Comment #219427 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 12:36 am

Comment #219423 by Richard Dawkins

Regarding 1. I would never accuse you of being Orwellian. I just don't see where such statements get us. But that is just my view.

As for point 2 - I hope you are right! Considering the situation, you may be being optimistic.

708. Write to UCF

Comment #219424 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 12:30 am

Comment #219406 by irate_atheist

My main issue with all this cracker thing is that up until now we seem to have made major progress through debate. There have been stories of people who have read The God Delusion and it has changed their minds. We now happily have Oystein Elgaroy here who compared the arguments of Hitchens and McGrath.

However, here is the cracker debate:

Moderator: "Approaching the podium is PZ Myers, who is about to present his opening statement."

PZ: "It's just a cracker" (steps down and walks away)

Moderator: "Thank you PZ. Now we have Richard Dawkins"

RD: (steps up) "Anyone who believes this is an idiot" (walks away)

If anyone could explain to me how this kind of arguing is actually going to change minds, and can be considered a case for rationality, I would be grateful.

Previously PZ said he was going to "prove this cracker is nothing". He didn't. He made a significant clever gesture that showed that he thought the cracker was nothing. But I think we all knew that aready.

(Actually, I realise that at various times PZ has said more about transubstantiation, but it has not been widely publicised as far as I can tell)

My point, if I need to make it, is that we seem to win by calm and rational discussion. Just saying "you are wrong, so there" isn't that.

However, I absolutely agree that the way that the Catholic church has behaved here is appalling, and I support the letter-writing campaign.

709. Write to UCF

Comment #219260 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Then again, one can see baldness and paunches. How many can see baby Jeebus in a cracker?

When I was a Catholic, I sort of could. And nothing that Richard Dawkins wrote in his first paragraph, and no amount of descration by PZ Myers would have changed my mind.

In fact, I think (remembering my mindset as a teenager), what they have done and said would have reinforced my views. I would have been defensive.

The way to deal with such views, I think, is to make them seem of no consequence and irrelevant.

I think we should say that matters of crackers should be considered as of no consequence beyond the community that believes such nonsense. By responding to the issue of whether or not it is a cracker, we raise embarassing issues for Catholics, and the general reaction to embarrassment is not to engage in debate, but to be defensive.

710. Write to UCF

Comment #219232 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Comment #219226 by Brian English

You probably have never attended any "Gay Pride" marches. All I can say is that a significant number of attendees think that baldness and potential six-packs are something to be proudly exhibited.

Comment #219231 by kkelly

I got married to my husband when bald (two years ago).

Look, will you people please stop ruining my metaphor? I am trying to disagree with Richard Dawkins.

711. Write to UCF

Comment #219221 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I don't agree with the tone of Richard's first paragraph. If the thought police punished us all for our grasp of reality, most of us would have a problem. My belief that I can regain a six-pack, and that baldness is appealing would probably condemn me. I don't care what people believe about a wafer.

What has to be condemned without reservation is the hysterical and deeply troubling reaction to what Cook did. Religious beliefs must be a private matter. Cook was, as I understand, engaged in a serious protest about funding of religious ceremonies. Protests of this nature are part of a healthy democratic society. Attempts to condemn what he did are acceptable purely within a religious context. When they extend beyond that, they threaten democracy.

712. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219205 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #219204 by Brian English

It is surely now universal to expect that expletives in polite English to be "deleted" or "bleeped"...

One can imagine hearing Stephen Fry saying

"Actually, Village_Idiot, I seem to find you are a complete ****"

But not

"Actually, Village_Idiot, I seem to find you are a complete asshole"

That is my theory.

713. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219203 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Comment #219199 by Brian English

What is it about a politely worded phrase that ends in an expletive that gives it more oomph?

It is because everyone imagines politely worded phrases in English being spoken by Stephen Fry.

714. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219183 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #219181 by Village_Idiot

I am truly shocked and under painful impression that this discussion forum is hijacked by a bunch of people who are simply high from self-admiration and who just love to compose and discuss "stuff" exclusively for the pleasure of their shallow ego.

That may be true. However, I am not sure about the term "hijacked". I mean, all these other people just keep logging in and posting. I guess we really should find some way to stop that.

They know who they are. They are drooling, in this very moment, on their keyboards typing a response dripping from pompous phraseology that gives them erection.

I actualise the mentalizations of my conceptualisations with on-line pontifications.

(No, didn't have any effect I am afraid)

Unfortunately personality disorders are very hard to treat and most of psychiatrists agree that narcissistic personality disorder is hardest to treat from all of them.

Let me know when you find the anti-bold pills.

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

Comment #219178 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Comment #219176 by Brian English

Joe, please think for 1 second.

Brian, my dear fellow. You know I have a lot of respect for you. But, I do think is worth suggesting you review the above statement. Joe "thinking" would be the equivalent to me being able to resist a good curry... simply beyond what we know from experience is possible.

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

Comment #219080 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 8:38 am

Comment #219056 by Joe Morreale

Joe. The big bang was not an explosion. Do you know what it was?

717. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #219077 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 8:34 am

txpiper-

Why, if you really believe what you say you believe, would any of this matter? What is the point of getting all spooled up over what one lousy Christian thinks?

Because we want to believe there is hope for the future of the human race. People like you won't keep your stupid beliefs private. They are actively trying to wreck education, medicine and science. We need those to survive, especially in a warming and overpopulated world.

You with your arrogance that you know better how to interpret reality than most of the greatest minds living and in history are a symptom of how religion poisons minds, and allows dangerous hubris to prosper.

If we could only get through to you, that might be an indication that there is hope.

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

Comment #219054 by Steve Zara on July 26, 2008 at 7:44 am

Joe spouted-

It destroyed the whole of the materialistic premise of those who wished (eg yourselves) to scientifically deny a Creator.

How did it do that, then?

719. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218698 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Teratornis wrote-

If you called me a "cyclist" I would not view that as an "attack," even though lots of people disparage cyclists much like lots of people disparage drunks.

Sorry, this failed the Turing test, and it also ranks as one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read in more than 25 years of using the internet.

Seriously, whomever you are. Step away from the keyboard and get a life. Explore reality. Talk with real people. I mean this honestly.

720. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218690 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Comment #218673 by Brian English

Empirical tests.

For one thing, he likes my cooking, and we both appreciate dogs, nice cars, Yorkshire, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and continental holidays.

That is perfect enough for me.

721. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218675 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Teratornis-

A computer program with my ability to read, write, and answer questions would add trillions of dollars of value.

Honestly, no.

722. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218666 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Comment #218649 by Radesq

To be honest, I can't think of any conceivable social situation where my knowledge of the spelling of Brendan's name would actually matter.

However, Fraser[sic]. Is not quite perfection. Approaching that is Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow.

Getting closer is Jack Davenport, in those films, with a beard (who could resist that voice?)

Perfection is, of course, my husband.

723. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218646 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm

This thread is moving fast, but a while back I mentioned Brendan Frazer, and my mind kind of got stuck there....

724. Toward a Type 1 civilization

Comment #218642 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Comment #218553 by kkelly

I don't agree. We have evolved self-awareness and the ability to share ideas and plan for the future. We have the ability to transcend the abilities of our individual brains in many areas, not just science and reason.

725. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218621 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Comment #218497 by Radesq

I have no doubt that Teratornis is intelligent. It just seems to me his posts indicate no actual contact with reality.

His ideas that we need to give up privacy are crazy. That would destroy the infrastructure of our society. The idea that we should store all data on a wiki is absolutely barmy.

I have no idea who teratornis is, but if someone said it was an experiment to link some attempt at an artificial intelligence program to the net to see if it passed the Turing test, that would not surprise me. To be totally honest, I think it has failed that test.

726. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218496 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #218495 by thewhitepearl

Talking seriously now. To get a popular blog going, you need to be able to come up with ideas to post at the very least every few days. I try and post at least daily.

The best blogging system seems to be Blogger. I would use it myself, but I have a long history of using Livejournal, and don't want to abandon people who I have contact with there.

727. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218493 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Comment #218463 by Mitchell Gilks

Atheism is about freedom, dude.

Comment #218486 by Cartomancer

Allow me to be your guide.

Regarding female actresses.

I go for Rachel Weiss. Why?

She was in the Mummy. As was John Hannah (sigh). If that was not enough, it starred Brendan Frazer. I think no more need be said.

728. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218483 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Comment #218467 by thewhitepearl

You simply have to blog. It is just so now.

There are so many good blogs around now, it is hard to know where to start.

What I do to keep track of things is to keep up with Dr Benway's blog:
http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com/

She has links to the latest entries on a variety of good blogs.

729. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218473 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Teratornis wrote-

It's hard for me to know when I'm being unclear, because everything I write seems staggeringly obvious to me.

This sounds worryingly like something someone religious would say. That may shock you, and it is meant to. One of the most important aspects of scientific rationalism is to accept that we are all flawed. We need to approach reality with humility, and realise that what goes on in our own minds is not reliable. What may seem obvious is no indication of what is true.

I am concerned that I am responding to you in almost exactly the same way as I have just responded to the newly-theistic Richard Morgan. You both seem to trust what goes on in your own heads.

730. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218455 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Comment #218422 by Richard Morgan

Knowing God is the ultimate liberation.

Thinking that you have experienced God is the ultimate delusion. Thinking that you know God is the ultimate arrogance. (OK, perhaps not. Thinking you are God may be the ultimate)

Atheism isn't denial. It is humility, and honest, and respect for the limits of one's own mind and abilities.

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

Comment #218338 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 9:18 am

Comment #218335 by Vaal

Also, I think that the Church will think twice about raising the "offense" card in future as they will be ridiculed.

That's actually a very good point I had not thought of. One reason why they may be wary of talking about offense in future is not just that they will be ridiculed, but that all kinds of nutters and cranks will come out of the woodwork and make the church look like it is full of ranting nutters. It will be embarrassing.

732. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #218332 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 8:54 am

Comment #218330 by hungarianelephant

What is a euro-poof?

I have no idea, but it had a nice tacky sound to it, rather like Euro-Disney, or eurotrash.

733. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #218325 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 8:44 am

The only ones here being mindless are the ones supporting feminism.

Oy! I'm a feminist.... but a good one, remember?

You Al-Rawandis, you are all the same.

The Big Mean Bully.

Everyone has their niche.

Regards

Steve
(The lefty liberal euro-poof)

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

Comment #218311 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #218304 by AllanW

the points he made in that post, particularly the last paragraph are a stirring reminder of what reason and secularism are all about.

Absolutely.

But I suspect we are no closer to convincing anyone who believes it that a cracker doesn't contain magic stuff.

However, I was wrong about at least one thing - PZ Myers has come out of this with dignity.

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

Comment #218297 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 7:09 am

Comment #218292 by Brian English

I think we have to work to avoid having others define our identities.

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

Comment #218287 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #218276 by Brian English

I have no problem with your analogy, but I don't think it works. Being gay is not an absence in the way that atheism can be.

Comment #218278 by Quetzalcoatl

Isn't there however a degree of inevitability to atheism becoming an identity, regardless of whether atheists themselves adopt it, simply because that is how the religious see it?

I really hope that doesn't happen.

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

Comment #218269 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 6:24 am

Comment #218261 by Brian English

I am not sure I want "atheism" to be an identity. I guess I am with Sam Harris on this.

738. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #218247 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 5:52 am

txpiper-

But the nature of materialist science excludes evidence on the presumption that it can't be there. What it boils down to is acceptance of evolution because of atheism, not the other way around.

No, you have it completely back to front.

We tentatively accept the idea of materialism because science seems to work. We see bones in rocks, and we see a pattern, and then we make predictions that some other pattern of bones should be found in different rocks. We go looking and we find those bones.

Because this works, we don't need to involve anything else, not a god, not aliens, not magic bunnies, nothing.

We don't start off with materialism and then do science, and we don't start with atheism and then study evolution - science has proved very effective and useful, so we assume materialism. Evolution shows without any doubt how species can arise without any help, so it is more evidence supporting atheism.

It is surprising how many people get this the wrong way around.

Also, considering how successful science is, and how much it has revealed that has been beyond anything we could have possibly imagined, it seems terribly silly to pick up an inconsistent old book, and say "this is better than science".

739. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218240 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 5:38 am

Comment #218238 by phatbat

You mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9al-mpqXjc

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

Comment #218233 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #218227 by Brian English

Yes, I agree with all that.

However, Dr Doctor has actually expressed what I have felt about this all along. This is a dramatic statement... but about precisely what?

It shows PZ is not going to be told what to do, or be threatened. That is good. It has also shown how unpleasant some Catholics can be. I am not entirely sure what that means, as given any large group, you are going to find unpleasant people. It has presented the message that everything should be up for question, and by including The God Delusion, he has very cleverly shown the asymmetry between science and religion - we question even our own beliefs. That is very good indeed.

This reminds me of when I see some very impressive and spectacular piece of modern art. It is clearly artistic, and stirs up feelings, but it is hard to see the connection with the title of the artwork.

The label "proving the cracker is nothing" somehow doesn't seem to fit as a title for this "happening", whatever it has managed to achieve.

And, that has really been my point all along. I can't see any way to prove to those who believe that it is nothing.

However, it has been quite something to have followed ....

741. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218225 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 4:59 am

Comment #218221 by Quetzalcoatl

PM for you.

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

Comment #218216 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 4:31 am

Comment #218215 by Dr Doctor

I think he proved something, I feel it strongly. I've just no idea what it was.

That is the best summary of the situation I have read, and I have trawled through hundreds and hundreds of posts on several sites :)

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

Comment #218213 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 4:25 am

Comment #218209 by Brian English

I agree.

But I still wonder if he has achieved what he said he was going to do.

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

Comment #218206 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 4:17 am

Mitchell Gilks ran off with it.

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

Comment #218204 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 4:15 am

Comment #218203 by Dr Doctor

Whether or not you think he did need to prove anything (which is an interesting point), he said he did :)

746. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #218198 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 4:07 am

Comment #218194 by decius

Do we really have to be touchy like convent girls?

Well, I was raised a Catholic, and I'm gay, so I guess I am part way there.

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

Comment #218195 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 4:06 am

Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Has he achieved this?

(Let the flame wars begin)

748. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #218169 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 1:41 am

Ah well. I'll continue discussion of this topic elsewhere. Then I can be confused about what people mean in a less public setting....

749. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #218164 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 1:24 am

Comment #218161 by j.mills

I have given up trying to understand this "english language" that you use here.

750. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #217824 by Steve Zara on July 24, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Comment #217816 by Laurie Fraser

I did my best to understand Aussie humour in the 80's with Crocodile Dundee.

Meanwhile, perhaps time to take another break. Lots of discussion on my blog to keep me busy, and at least there I can be an irritation that needs not to be hammered down (as Brian English says). It is exciting to be able to post on a site like this, but one has to realise that no matter what the scientific subject under discussions, one's views are always "under the radar" of the real experts. That is as it should be.