Comments by Steve Zara

1151. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227459 by Steve Zara on August 10, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #227455 by Brian English

How can you have forgotten? Robertson once had someone give him money to stop him going overdrawn when he wrote a dodgy cheque. That is clear evidence for an omniscient and omnipotent creator who kicked things into action somewhere between 13.7 billion and 6000 years ago, and then sort of made some life which suffered from spiritual death, cancer and asteroid strikes until naughty humans came along and did bad things like gay sex which helped cause tsunamis (or was the Tsunami just spiritual? I am afraid I am a bit confused).

1152. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227453 by Steve Zara on August 10, 2008 at 12:20 am

Comment #227447 by clearthinker

And there is little I can do about Steve's paranoia.

This matches epeeist's "quarrel dialogue" definition pretty well :)

You can of course avoid this by simply stating that I am lying etc

I never said you were lying. I have no evidence that you are. I have had e-mails from 2,500 christians about you. 52% of them think you may not be telling the truth at all times.

Of course, you can avoid the implications of this by simply stating that I am lying.

as are most fundamentalist certainties

You mean like that oath you swore when you became "reverend" that calls the Pope something Satanic (I forget the exact words - I am sure you could remind us).

Life is so much easier when you just know that you are right!

Is it really? I am so rarely right, I would not know. But then I have a insufficiently developed God Telepathy lobe, so I don't get the Holy Ghost telling me what is true.

1153. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227441 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Comment #227439 by Diacanu

Just because he comes to provoke, does not mean it is inappropriate to respond.

I would love to see him try and quote-mine you.

1154. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227435 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Oh, and another of David Robertson's tricks is this:

I have received a number of e-mails from atheists who have been disgusted at the language/tone and continual abuse that occurs here - especially to people like me.

Of course, there is never evidence of such communication, no names given. But David's "anonymous atheist friends" appear frequently in his posts.

The aim is to illustrate how particularly nasty and fundamentalist Dawkins "followers" are.

1155. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227431 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Comment #227264 by JAMCAM87

Clearthinker (David Robertson) has posted on this site under several names. Each time he has worked hard to provoke angry responses. This has often been over a period of time, not immediately. He starts off seeming reasonable, but gradually changes to be more and more unpleasant. What he does is to harvest "nasty atheist" comments which he then presents to others as examples of how lack of belief in his God makes people immoral. As epeeist says, you should watch out for certain phrases, such as "followers of Dawkins" or "tenets of atheism", implying some kind of herd mentality here. That allows him, when talking to others, to say "when I was talking to the followers of Dawkins, one of them said..." etc. He seems pretty obsessed with Dawkins, probably because he realises the threat to his Church, and so to his position. He is always angling for a debate, for publicity. As he has not managed to get Richard Dawkins to debate with him, he has tried, via other organisations, to get members of this site to engage in public debate (because then he could say "I beat Dawkins' followers in debate" no matter what actually happened on the day).

I don't trust him an inch. Every post he writes should be read with care, and assumed to be provocation or spin.

1156. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227167 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Comment #227161 by JAMCAM87

There is plenty of evidence. It may take a while to dig up, but David Robertson is really (as we Brits would say) "not a nice fellow". He is a really nasty piece of work.

1157. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227151 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Comment #227149 by clearthinker

Have you made any progress with my question about how spiritual/natural disasters were introduced to the world?

Incidentally, you are doing a good impression of acting like a reasonable fellow. I think it is time that your history of posting here was presented to reveal why you have been considered an offensive troll so often. I am sure your current flock may be interested. Like my digging up of your 2005 statements about the Tsunami, that make take a while...

1158. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227132 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 11:49 am

Comment #227130 by Bonzai

It seems that he just pulls them out of his arse as he goes along.

Bonzai! Shame on you. Could you possibly be insinuating that we are dealing with someone of middling intellect, struggling to hold together a declining congregation, who could be trying to use Dawkins and this site to increase his personal profile, but then finds himself out of depth amongst people who know not just far more about science than he can even imagine, but far more about religion and Christianity?

1159. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227128 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 11:42 am

Comment #227125 by clearthinker

Steve (this really is the last time)....I do not separate natural and spiritual completely. I stand by both statements.

Excellent. So what was introduced into the world to cause the natural/spiritual disaster that killed the dinosaurs?

(I assume you agree that the Chicxulub crater was more than just a spiritual phenomenon)

1160. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227119 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 11:22 am

Comment #227114 by clearthinker

I think that spiritual death was a result of the Fall - I am also curious as to how the fall affected the rest of the environment - because I think it did. That does not contradict what I said in 2005.

I think when you make public statements, they should be defended in public.

If you don't feel up to public defense of your statements, that is your problem.

In 2005 you did not quality your statements as being about spiritual matters. I can quote you:

"God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment."

You explicitly said natural disasters, not spiritual disasters.

So let me ask you again - what came into the world, and when, to cause natural disasters?

If you choose not to defend your own words in public, that is your choice. I will leave others to draw their own conclusions from that.

David - I have said things that were mistaken in the past. I have admitted it, and moved on. Surely you can equal the humility and ability to learn from mistakes of an atheist?

1161. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227110 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 10:48 am

Steve has asked me my views on evolution and death before the fall. I have answered.

But in a way that contradicts something you wrote in 2005. I am curious about how you resolve this.

1162. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227090 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 10:02 am

Comment #227086 by scottishgeologist

Indeed, but this was supposed to address the actually suffering of people as a result of the Tsunami. It was not some vague spiritual issue.

1163. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227089 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #227088 by clearthinker

An answer to my question about how corruption came into the world would be appreciated.

1164. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #227081 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 9:41 am

Comment #226781 by hawt4dawk

As for Steve Zara's assertion that supporters of Noam Chomsky are uncritical of him, I can only assume he either wasn't referring to us in this discussion or he didn't read our posts.

I didn't say that. I have a lot of respect for your posts, and would not accuse you (or decius) of being uncritical for one minute.

What I actually said what that Chomsky tends to attract uncritical supporters. He is something of an icon. That does not mean that everyone who agrees with Chomsky is uncritical.

I am happy to apologise if you think my posts implied you lacked critical thinking.

1165. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227079 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 9:37 am

Comment #227072 by clearthinker

Here we go, David.

http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

"God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment."

OK, so if there was death before the "fall", please can you explain your statement above? When precisely did the thing come into the world that upset the natural order? As organisms have been dying and there have been natural disasters on the Earth for close to 4 billion years, are you claiming that God was punishing the sin of bacteria?

1166. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227074 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #227072 by clearthinker

Of course there was death before the Fall.

Well that is interesting, as it contradicts something you posted in response to the 2004 Tsunami. It will take a while to dig it up... please be patient (I have).

Incidentally, do you support Intelligent Design?

Very few people read the threads

And what are the figures for postings on your site?

1167. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #227059 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #227055 by epeeist

However, I think we are hypothesising before our data hear.

Of course. This is the internet after all.

1168. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #227047 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 8:33 am

Comment #227042 by shemp333

I just think everyone needs to lighten up a bit and not be so damn serious about all these "gotcha" interviews.

I am distinctly cheery. Honestly.

1169. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #227046 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 8:32 am

Comment #227045 by MistyKleese

I somewhat less strongly disagree with Maher's. It won't keep me from seeing the movie and LMAO, though.

Well said. It isn't just a matter of disapproving or finding it funny.

Although I am probably not one of those who will.

1170. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227028 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #227018 by ukvillafan

It is worth considered replies to clearthinker. I am sure he uses this site for publicity, and to point out his intellectual inconsistencies as near as possible to his posts helps to prevent that.

1171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #227006 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 7:02 am

Comment #226999 by txpiper

I am just this dumb bloke. All this "evil-ution" stuff baffles me, along with this talk of "randomness" and "smart enzymes".

OK, so I am ready to take a look at your alternative product. But I will need a couple of things explained first, so I know what I am buying.

At least these idiot scientists who disagree with you can provide some kind of mechanism for evolution (obviously crazy though it is). That mechanism allows them to help design drugs and stuff. So it may be crap, but it seems at least useful.

So what mechanism do you give for the production of new species, and things like that? How do you suggest drug companies and medical researchers use it to help fight disease?

I am sure you must have an answer, and I'd love to hear it.

1172. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226997 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 6:48 am

Comment #226994 by Border Collie

The wingnuts have us by the throats (I started to say 'balls' but that would have left the ladies out) when we start explaining ourselves to them.

I say we do a lot of good by explaining ourselves. We can then turn to theists and say "your turn".

The only alternative seems to be to shout loudly.

1173. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226993 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 6:33 am

Comment #226979 by Grumpy Max

But for crying out loud, I am genuinely shocked at the wholehearted "Bill's on our side, so whatever underhandedness he employs MUST be OK" responses here.

I am not shocked. It seems a common attitude. To dig up the whole "crackergate" thing again, this kind of attitude was present there too. Whether or not you think it is right to offend religious people, there was a frequently expressed attitude that it just didn't matter, as we are in the right.

Perhaps it is just me, but I don't want to live in a society where people get to just declare they are right.

Oh, and I never liked Candid Camera!

1174. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226961 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 1:55 am

Comment #226959 by Mitchell Gilks

Thanks for that.

It is pretty much as annoying as the original article in many ways.

Purves may be right that there might not be much hard belief in creationism, but that a large number of people are prepared to give the nod to ID in recent polls suggests that at best the public in general has a poor understanding of science and how it works. Which is why Dawkins is so important.

1175. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226954 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment #226949 by Laurie Fraser

I don't expect David to post anything sensible on the subject of evolution, and I really don't expect him to choose sides. My hope is that if any of his flock read threads he contributes to, they will see how he won't commit any particular view on evolution. Possibly people on both sides of the "debate" on evolution will be less than happy with this.

Creationism could be the issue that splits his already split Church....

1176. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226952 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 1:35 am

Comment #226948 by Donald

I thought Libby Purves' response to Richard was much better than her original piece. She had the grace to refer to her original piece as "ranted reservations".

That is a pretty bad admission for a journalist, isn't it? I am not sure the editor of the Times would be happy to know that a contributor is writing "rants".

1177. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226941 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 1:10 am

Comment #226939 by AllanW

Actually, I think David's post is quite illuminating.

Either he is being sarcastic, as I suspect, in which case he considers a belief in creationism to be acceptable in educated circles, or he is being truthful, in which case he agrees that creationism is a position of ignorance.

So, there is no fudge here. Either the creationists or the evolutionists amongst his flock are going to be offended by this post.

Time for him to choose sides, perhaps.

1178. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226935 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:53 am

Comment #226933 by clearthinker

So no progress on clearing up your position on evolution then?

1179. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226931 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:40 am

Comment #226929 by clearthinker

Any progress with a statement of your opinion on the fall, and on whether or not there was death and disease before the arrival of mankind on the planet?

If you have no problem with evolution, then you must have no problem with the mechanisms of evolution, which involve death and disease. But that is a bit of a problem for any idea of a "fall", as it means death and disease were around long before people.

Please explain which you believe - evolution, or a "fall" of mankind? Or if you manage to squidge the two into some intellectual gloop, I would be interested in how you do that too...

1180. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226927 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:17 am

The same is true in this particular case. The Expelled team's actions are morally wrong because they are factually wrong, and Bill Maher's actions are morally right because he is factually right

I don't see a problem with mild deception in order to expose people and find out their views. That is part of the way that investigative journalism works. The problem is if people's views are misrepresented, but that is a different matter.

What I do have a major problem with is statements like the above. For one thing, part of scientific rationalism is realising that there are few certainties. All we can do is believe we are probably right.

Also, if we use the above argument, we have to accept that others may justify their actions against us using precisely the same words.

1181. Gerin Oil

Comment #226755 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Well said, "low dose" Gerin Oil or "moderate" religions including Buddhism may not be harmful in themselves, but they are a gateway drug.

I don't really agree. The real problem with religion is dogma and faith. There are types of Buddhism which encourage scepticism. I think that is healthy.

1182. Gerin Oil

Comment #226744 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Comment #226740 by deadaluspark

Basically my point is: I am fairly sure humans are generally evil/stupid, by nature. If this is the case, bitching about one or the other being wrong isn't helping anything.

There is a profound difference between science and religion. Science works through scepticism. It does not privilege the personal viewpoint. Religion by its very nature encourages individuals to consider themselves to be superior (such as to have the ability to perceive the supernatural) and panders to prejudices (personal feelings are said to have come from, and agree with, the Creator), and that pandering is actively encouraged by most societies. If someone religious feels that homosexuality is wrong, that is considered acceptable simply because it is a religious view.

Religion is thinking without a seat belt. Just because most get away with it, it does not mean it isn't a fundamentally bad idea.

1183. Gerin Oil

Comment #226732 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Comment #226729 by deadaluspark

Where in the practice and methodology of science is there any ethical position that encourages evil?

1184. Gerin Oil

Comment #226728 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Comment #226716 by deadaluspark

Adorno's very true statement that the enlightenment, a period of great scientific and philosophical upheaval, led us realize that humans can use science for evil just as well as they can use religion.

And that point of that is what, exactly?

Yes, their work is serpentine and often confusing, but it can also be amazingly brilliant work if you suffer through thinking about thought.

I suspect you may be missing the point of what Dawkins is saying. I am no expert in philosophy, being merely an enthusiastic amateur, but what the philosophy I have read can be difficult, but clearly written and with appropriate metaphors. The criticism of Deleuze and others by scientists (such as Sokal and Bricmont) is that he abuses science and mathematics by using terms in arbitrary ways. It may be fashionable in some philosophical circles, but it is sloppy and is a real barrier to acceptance of views.

I have seen scientists abuse philosophy (and it is embarrassing to see). It should be equally embarrassing to see philosophers abuse science. It was entirely appropriate for Dawkins to complain about this.

1185. Gerin Oil

Comment #226703 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:20 pm

deadaluspark-

You are going to be thought of as a troll unless you actually post sensible arguments. So far you have just thrown out what seem like a series of random rants.

I am afraid using the good old straw man of claiming that Dawkins or anyone is blaming religion for everything does not illustrate clear thinking.

Dawkins has a specific agenda. He is interested in the public understanding of science, indeed passionate about it, it seems. We have a major battle with religion attempting to corrupt and stifle science. His attacks on religion are well-founded.

1186. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226651 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Comment #226643 by Bonzai

My problem with Chomsky is perhaps not really with him, but the fact that he tends to attract a rather uncritical following. He does not seem to be a person whose views some people can take or leave.

1187. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #226636 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Comment #226630 by Teratornis

It's possible that sex robots will make future generations of people look better, assuming the pleasure plagues do not cause a massive dieback, since people who are only marginally attractive, or worse, will not have to get drunk so they can bring themselves to have sex with other marginally attractive, or worse, partners. Since no one will have to settle for anyone less than a stunningly attractive partner, it's possible that in fairly short order, only stunningly attractive people will still be having real sex.

Seriously, you are either joking or need to get out more.

1188. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #226600 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #224859 by thewhitepearl

Just consider those posts like messages from a parallel reality not quite like ours, a world of sober cyclists which is slowly dying out due to their sexual obsession with robots.

1189. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226507 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 7:31 am

Quetz-

Heck, for all we know the aliens could be fascinated by stars, Newtonian mechanics and vacuum.

Sure, but size of the universe is vastly in excess of what you would need to study all that. A sample size of around 10^22 stars is a bit excessive.

Regarding your blog entry - nice little joke about the cheque :)

1190. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226501 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #226500 by irate_atheist

Bits like that. The resource requirements of simulations would mean that such subsets would been evolved away, leaving things more like Brighton on a Saturday in July.

1191. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226497 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 7:09 am

Comment #226488 by Quetzalcoatl

No, honestly, the universe really is dull! Science works because nothing much changes. This would be a very boring simulation indeed. And, as there will always be competition for resources (even in the world of the simulators), they just would not get research funding for such a pointless simulation.

There, you see! A nice Darwinist argument against the simulation idea.

1192. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226483 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 6:35 am

Comment #226474 by irate_atheist

I have always found the simulation argument rather silly. It is rather like arguments based on fine tuning - the universe we see does not appear like one that is designed to be a simulation - it is wasteful of resources and rather boring. When scientists run simulations they focus on the interesting bits.

1193. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226458 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #226356 by newskin

Natural Selection.

1194. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226408 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:45 am

Comment #226400 by Brian English

trepanation?

1195. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226406 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:42 am

It is simple to understand experimental results in terms of the many worlds interpretation.

Personally, I find things simpler to understand in terms of the Transactional Interpretation.

I guess we all have different ideas of what is "simple to understand"

1196. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226403 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:40 am

Comment #226392 by Oystein Elgaroy

I'm not anything really. I just know that the pilot wave idea tries to reconcile the idea of waves and particles by allowing non-locality.

Best not to read too much actual knowledge into my posts :)

1197. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226382 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:10 am

Comment #226380 by Brian English

My point doesn't really require the in depth discussion it just asks do we say photons are equally waves and particles or on a deeper level waves (or particles)?

I haven't a clue :)

1198. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226375 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:00 am

Comment #226367 by Brian English

The thing is, though, that photons do do very "wavey" things, like being polarised, and they do very "particley" things like knocking electrons out of metals.

The way to treat something as both wave and particle is to use the Bohm "interpretation":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

1199. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226345 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #226342 by newskin

I believe the biologist Lynn Margulis has some objections to "Darwinism".

1200. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226333 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 1:56 am

Comment #225875 by HumanisticJones

Does this validate the Copenhaggen Interpretation and invalidate the Many Worlds Interpretation? It seems that if the Many Worlds version were true, then unmeasuring would result in the collapse of the split off universe

I am afraid it does not distinguish. In terms of Many Worlds unmeasuring would not collapse anything - it would just mean that a certain division into different worlds "heals".