Comments by Steve Zara

101. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234721 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 12:23 am

Stalin is a good example not of the dangers of atheism, but of how religion can be used to manipulate people.

Stalin first tried to purge religion because the churches were an alternative source of authority. Then, during world war 2, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church because it could be used as a method of encouraging patriotism.

102. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234713 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 12:09 am

Comment #234708 by Brian English

I'll get things back on track:

Nairb -

If we dont like the state, their is not a lot we can do - other than vote differently. Perhaps you could suggest something.

There can also be local campaigns for better services, and also health authorities can monitor patient satisfaction.

103. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234712 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 12:06 am

DAR posted-

Religious people who are elected such as Blair and Brown are clearly not accountable to the electorate whereas atheists are.

We recently had a story posted here in which a vicar said he loved Jesus more than his wife.

That is a real problem with religion. You can be absolutely certain of what imaginary voices are saying, and that what those voices say is good and holy and true and from a creator who loves you personally. Those voices can be the most important thing to you ever.

That is just a touch dangerous if you are in power. You can end up doing things like going to war because you asked God and he said it was OK.

The problem, David, is that others asked God and he apparently told them it was not OK.

How do we decide which version of what God said was correct? We can't. So, to be fair to everyone, public discussions must involve reason and evidence, not personal feelings about what God said.

In a democracy, decisions have to be made based on reason, otherwise people with particular beliefs get privilege. You can't bring an invisible friend with you to public discussions.

It therefore healthier for democracies to be run by people who don't think they hear the words of God echoing in their heads.

104. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234706 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Comment #234704 by Brian English

You have got me there.

105. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234703 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Comment #234700 by Brian English

I would only expel them moderately. Perhaps suggest they go visit Disneyland for a week or something.

106. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234699 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Comment #234698 by Brian English

It's fortunate your aren't British, else I would have to (moderately) expel you for the mild evil of disagreeing with me.

107. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234697 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Fanusi-

And unless you have the strength of profound moral conviction, you'll never stand against it.

I actually have a very strong moral conviction that one should be moderate.

108. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234681 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Comment #234680 by David A Robertson

Sorry, but the equivalence between religion and atheism still fails.

The article is not about someone like Milliband being motivated by atheism. It is not about being inspired by atheism. It is about them not having to deal with religious hangups, such as the idea of suffering in this world leading to future heavenly rewards.

It is about not having religion get in the way of dealing with real-world problems, and not imagining voices in your head tell you what to do.

It is about having a truly fair society, where people who claim to have invisible friends don't get special privileges.

I hope the following analogy helps. I suffer from vertigo - a strong fear of heights. That gets in the way of me doing things. Others without vertigo aren't motivated by their lack of fear - they don't go around feeling inspired by lack of vertigo - they just get on with life and can do more than I can.

109. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #234498 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #234400 by LB

Every post on this site should assume that it is being read by someone with no knowledge of the context.

110. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234464 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Comment #234463 by JAMCAM87

I felt there was a glimmer of hope with Vince Cable in charge. He was the one who said that Gordon Brown has changed from Stalin to Mr Bean...

111. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234458 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #234454 by DamnDirtyApe

I think Clegg has been awful. He has managed to work hard to stay beneath the political radar. I really wish that Vince Cable had stayed on. I don't know what his beliefs (if any) are, though.

112. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234393 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 9:44 am

Fanusi wrote-

Moistly suits you well.

It does indeed.

'Moderation in all things', eh? So, if we are faced with evil, it's okay if it's only a 'moderate' evil? Or if we know something to be virtuous, we should only pursue it 'moderately'?

Yep.
Edit: 'moderate' evil is not exactly "ok", but should be dealt with moderately...

113. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234363 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #234353 by irate_atheist

You really do talk a load of bollocks sometimes, you know.

*Ahem*. You've just discovered the "true bollocks" phenomenon.

114. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234362 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 8:54 am

Comment #234349 by Fanusi Khiyal

Whereas you support the rights of goons like Abu Usama, but not of qualified doctors. If the game is who is hypocritical, I think that the judgement falls in my favour, not to mention the judgement about whose political views reflect a saner grasp of reality.

*moistly* Piffle.

I support moderation in all things. I don't support the rights of extreme people to do extreme and nasty things. But neither do I support total libertarian freedoms.

Which is why medicine should be private, not public. That has been my point all along.

No! That is why you have BOTH private and public medicine, but you also have laws to prevent even dangerous quacks operating privately.

You have a very strange and selective kind of libertarianism. Let's just call it "free if you agree with me"...

115. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #234331 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 7:47 am

Tera typed-

I hijack threads with compelling facts

That is a bit naughty for two reasons. I am not sure Josh would be happy for someone to declare that they were hijacking threads. Secondly, you don't get to declare your facts compelling.

116. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234314 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 7:12 am

Comment #234311 by Fanusi Khiyal

Noone in their right mind thinks it should be okay for a twelve year old girl to be engaging in sexual activity. There are names for this, and there are sound reasons why not.

Absolutely. But if they are going to do it, they should be protected against both conception and disease.

The issue is this infernal governmental control over doctor's ethics

Just a minute. This stinks of hypocrisy. You don't want governments to control doctor's ethics, but you are OK with goverments throwing people out of the country if their ethics don't agree with yours (such as regards Sharia).

You are libertarian, but only for people who share your views.

Government regulated medicine is to ensure that all people have the same rights to treatment, and that some people aren't denied treatment because of a particular doctor's views. This isn't about controlling a doctor's ethics. A doctor can have whatever ethics they like, just not work in publically funded institutions.

117. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234300 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #234297 by Quetzalcoatl

Mixing metaphors would be far preferable to posting what I really think when I read that someone considers it ethical for a 12-year old to become pregnant and go through the experience of pregnancy and birth.

118. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234286 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 5:03 am

Jesus86-

Their exquisite consciences won't allow doctors to deny abortions and birth control to 12-year-olds

I am afraid I feel the same as irate now. Some attitudes reduce one to profanity.

119. A flea we missed?

Comment #234258 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 3:42 am

Comment #234257 by BillySands

Someone should produce an annotated bible, with humour and irony emoticons ;)

120. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234238 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 3:11 am

Comment #234234 by Vaal

The "I'm an atheist because God told me he doesn't exist" argument....

121. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234226 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 2:44 am

isthatclear-

I know Mr dawkins is pushing you rather than answering me,

What evidence or argument would convince you that you are wrong?

122. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #234221 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 2:34 am

Comment #232354 by atp

We do have a phenomena we call will, and it does appear to behave as if it is at least semi free.

Not really. We have feelings that we identify as the experience of will. That does not mean that there really is anything real called will. We experience the sensation of red, but there is no actual substance called "red" in the world.

123. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234186 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 12:35 am

I live amongst the BS here, and I hear this "you don't like (insert whatever) you can gyeet the hayul out!!", crap all the time.

Perhaps we should point this out to Fanusi, to show how repulsive "you have the wrong thoughts, so get out of my country" sounds from the other side.

124. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234176 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:59 pm

I can't see anything wrong with Rick Warren setting up this kind of event. What I have a serious problem with is the candidates attending. People should be entitled to ask the candidates any questions, or arrange any event they like. The candidates should have the courage to say that answering certain questions is inappropriate.

125. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233794 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #233789 by Teratornis

Get therapy. Seriously - you need it.

126. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233791 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #233784 by Diacanu

Considering his responses (or lack of), I suggest that Teratornis now qualifies as spam.

127. A flea we missed?

Comment #233773 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:50 am

Comment #233760 by stevencarrwork

I guess Robertson is his own Pope.

If a Christian believes in revelation, they consider themselves to have a super-power - the ability to connect directly with the creator of the universe and know his mind. Everyone is their own pope.

128. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233765 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:46 am

Comment #233759 by Teratornis

suggests it would be quite silly to expect a motorist to honestly confront the consequences of motoring.

It seems my attempt to engage rationally are a waste of time.

129. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233757 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #233751 by Teratornis

I have an honest suggestion, put forward amicably.

Why not go to blogger.com and put your arguments up on posts there? Then, when you feel it is relevant, you can make a short post here containing a link to your arguments? You would not have to re-type so much, and it might encourage a more constructive debate.

130. A flea we missed?

Comment #233748 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:25 am

Cartomancer-

I shouldn't be at all surprised that Robertson made this attempt to selectively interpret what I said to his own advantage.

My dear fellow, David can read the book of an overt atheist (Paul Davies), who (even in spite of funding by Templeton) has been working for a long time to knock down "super-turtles" (what he calls faith-based external origins for the universe), and interpret this book as making a case for theism.

I really don't know how to interpret this. David Robertson is either rather dim, very ignorant, or very manipulative, or some combination of the three.

I am afraid that my impression is that Robertson would make a good Daily Mail journalist... he has some capability at writing, but not much of an intellect.

131. A flea we missed?

Comment #233743 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:16 am

Comment #233712 by JAMCAM87

There is no need to apologise to me. We each come to enlightenment about the nature of David Robertson in our own way.

Goodness knows he provides enough evidence!

I am gay, and I know his views on that. I engage him purely to illustrate how poor his arguments are, and not out of any respect or politeness. I know that as I post he views me as somewhat equivalent to a paedophile.

132. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233689 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 9:21 am

Comment #233686 by decius

All I can say to those who mistrust "big pharma", and evidence-based medicine on the basis of anecdotes of malpractice, is that they should look at the wider picture, and how the system, far from being perfect, is a self-correcting one.

Well said. That view also is disrespectful of the many thousands of honest researchers who work within drug companies.

133. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233668 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 7:52 am

Bonzai-

But the fact that these stories are nonsense doesn't invalidate the technology.

I think it means that they should be approached with caution. I think it is also a problem when such medical ideas are promoted to people who don't realise that the stories behind them are nonsense.

But what if you understand it as just a vocabulary to summarily describe phenomenological observations?

But most people don't treat it like that. That is a problem.

134. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233651 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 7:08 am

Bonzai-

The billiard ball model is just a visualizing device, in his work he doesn't need to work from first principle.

I don't believe one can talk about therapies such as homeopathy and acupuncture being that kind of approximation to reality. They are quite simply wrong in their understanding of nature and what goes on in the body.

135. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233642 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 6:44 am

I don't think it's rational to automatically dismiss all alternative therapies. E.g. many current drugs are refined or synthetic versions of traditional herbal remedies.

There can be real problems - even dangers - with alternative therapies because they are almost always based on incorrect models of the world.

136. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #233629 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 6:07 am

Who killed the asteroids?

You can get some very effective cream for those.

137. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #233609 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 5:19 am

Comment #233604 by Philip1978

If prostitutes can have a patron saint, why not atheists?

138. A flea we missed?

Comment #233506 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 2:10 am

Comment #233492 by David A Robertson

Steve you need to read the Goldilocks Enigma again. I just read over the last couple of chapters last night. He does make a case for theism - and implies he does not accept it. But he makes a fair and in my view a good case. The difference between an intellectual atheist like Davies and an emotional one like RD is that Davies encourages people to think for themselves whereas Dawkins implies that you must accept his opinion or you are a fool.

I think you are misusing the term "make a case". Davies puts forward an explanation only to refute it. What I have a problem with is you taking part of Davies argument, and ignoring the bit that then goes on to explain why theism is not an acceptable option. That suggests you believe you understand the physics better than Davies.

If you are going to accept what Davies says for a hypothetical case for theism, you have to then accept what he says against that case, otherwise you are simply quote-mining.

If I were you, I would leave off quoting anything from Davies for this reason.

Also, I am afraid that criticising Dawkins' attitude does not count as an argument. I am interested in the truth of a statement, not the manner in which it is said.

And I notice you did not answer my question - if Davies is such a convinced atheist why does he endorse Collins book 'the language of God'?

I haven't read Collins' book, so I am not in a position to comment.

Incidentally, If you really want to write something of interest, rather than putting forward arguments which I am afraid have been refuted time and again, over the centuries, I would suggest abandoning your existing book and writing something about why you don't accept Hume's arguments against believing supernatural explanations. I think that is far more devastating against religion even than the discovery of Natural Selection.

139. No credit for creationism

Comment #233472 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #233468 by Bonzai

That is a good point. I would not say that the situation with ideas such as monopoles is quite the same as for ID though; the existence of monopoles is not put forward as something that is true from the start, and has to be accepted until all possible searches have been done. The motivation for ID is clear - we should accept the existence of a designer from the start. Its gap-filling nature means it is something we are supposed to disprove, not prove.

However, you are right about a better argument against ID - it does not advance knowledge. What ID is attempting to do is to stop further investigation by persuading people that irreducibility has been found,

140. No credit for creationism

Comment #233453 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 12:29 am

Comment #233449 by Jesus86

It predicts that the fingerprints of this intelligent creative force will be found on biological structures in the form of irredicibly complex forms.

This is the thing that isn't falsifiable.

Testable model that makes predictions and has evidence proffered in support.

No. The individual cases of irreducible complexity are refutable, but the core of ID - that one will find the fingerprints of the creative force - is not falsifiable. The ID supporter can simply say "we haven't found the fingerprints yet".

By your own admission, the goalposts are also moving for the Big Bang Theory: some predictions are turning out not to hold, so its back to the drawing board.

Exactly. But there is no "back to the drawing board" for ID. There is only the dismissal of individual examples of supposedly irreducible complexity. No matter how many of these are dismissed, it doesn't get at the core belief of ID, as the core belief is not falsifiable.

This is the logical problem with ID.

Actually, "irreducible complexity" is just as absurd, as it is meaningless. There is no way to know if complexity is irreducible; only that we have not yet found out how it arose.

141. Losing my religion

Comment #233436 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Comment #233435 by Jesus86

I had the opposite impression. TEP is fairly technical science, but I thought his exposition was extraordinary.

I agree. I found The Extended Phenotype a delight to read.

142. No credit for creationism

Comment #233434 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Comment #233236 by Jesus86

You guys seem to think, by contrast, that there is some kind of logical refutation for ID.

There is.

What Dawkins was refuting was the irreducible complexity of the flagellar motor. That does not refute ID, as ID is impossible to falsify. What it says is that there are aspects of life that are irreducibly complex. It is forever moving the goalposts. When one aspect is shown to be reducible, it moves on to others. As long as there is anything left to explain about the origin of life and how all biological and biochemical systems have evolved, then there will be "gaps" into which ID will fit. Such gap-filling is logical nonsense. ID being a "theory of the gaps" is as bad as trying to propose a "God of the gaps".

What Dawkins did was to show how ignorant and misleading the proponents of ID are. That is not the same as refuting the "theory" of ID.

143. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #233423 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 11:05 pm

To return to my point: Theoretically, a person could likewise experience inner voices with a peculiar quality that we don't attach to our inner voices, a quality they say is a tinge of the supernatural. I can't disprove that, and I don't think you can, either - unless you are a better metaphysician than Kant.

This doesn't prove anything. All it is subjective evidence for is the feeling of a quality that someone considers supernatural. It does not mean it really is supernatural.

I do find it odd that some religions consider that we are flawed beings, yet we paradoxically have some perfect ability to recognise the divine nature of some of our internal experiences.

We aren't experts on our own brains, or minds. We can experience illusions. No-one is in any position to state that an experience, even a perfectly clear voice in one's head, is supernatural.

The only way to maintain a consistent science / religion compatibility is to give up on the notion that religious "knowledge" can be transmitted between the subjective minds that "experience" it.

This kind of knowledge is meaningless. There is no consistent science / religion compatibility.

144. A flea we missed?

Comment #233232 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 12:28 pm

I think there is a simple question that needs to be asked of David Robertson.

In his 2005 article he talks about physical death, physical cancer, and physical cancer being a result of the Fall. Now he wishes to correct that view and talk purely about the spiritual. Is he prepared to publish a correction to his original article?

If not, why not?

The original article was strongly supportive of creationist views. What he has posted here is supportive (largely) of evolution.

I think we need some honesty from David.

145. A flea we missed?

Comment #233190 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #233184 by Quetzalcoatl

As posted months ago, I thought it might be worth him writing a slim volume with the following title:

"A Religious Treatise on Finance: Cheques and Balances"

146. A flea we missed?

Comment #233169 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #233147 by Cartomancer

I don't know. David seems to be very good at dividing...

147. A flea we missed?

Comment #233075 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #233071 by Roland_F

You could be right, but there is still no doubt that Davies dismissed God as a reasonable possibility, no matter what Robertson says.

148. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #233072 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 5:08 am

Comment #233070 by Tyler Durden

Sure, but it is almost certainly not going to cause us any problems. Galactic collisons can destroy galaxies, but have little effect on most stars and their solar systems.

149. A flea we missed?

Comment #233034 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 3:35 am

Comment #233030 by Philip1978

It does make me wonder why people like Robertson are so scared of themselves. They seem to think that without God to watch them, they would get up to all kinds of things.

150. A flea we missed?

Comment #233032 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment #233027 by AllanW

I agree. We are considered to have no morals, and some of us have lifestyles that are equivalent to paedophilia.

I refuse to be fluffy and cuddly with anyone who believes that. That would be going from basic good manners to masochism.