Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #286362 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Comment #286354 by NMcC

Rice and seafood sounds like a pretty wonderful diet to me. I occasionally do Kedgeree breakfasts.

1702. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286353 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #286346 by Goldy

Sorry mate, but I just don't eat mammal. I am sort of vegetarian. Apart from fish. And ducks, because they live close to water. And chickens, because they are sort of like ducks.

However, I just don't see how anyone like me who lives in the countryside and encounters cows and sheep on a regular basis and sees how they react and think can eat them.

1703. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286342 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #286330 by NMcC

Could I please point out that reasonably full English breakfasts work very well without meat sausages? There is simply no need to ingest the bread-and-gristle filled carnivorous varieties. Any decent supermarket will stock "Cauldron" brands, which give full-flavoured vegetarian substitutes without the nauseating unidentified-body-part-lumps that consitute conventional sausages? (Linda McCartney Sausages are less adequate substitutes).

1704. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286325 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #286321 by decius

No. One thing you certainly are not is an idiot, in spite of your bizarre taste in shoe fashions.

1705. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286318 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #286316 by decius

Faba is the Latin for bean.

I am a biologist. I know. I was attempting humour.

1706. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286314 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Comment #286305 by Titania

Best breakfast I ever had was as a teenager, on an ecology course as part of my "A-level" in Biology, in a field station in Wales in the late 70s. They served me up something I had never had before. Baked beans, fish fingers and fried eggs. Nothing like that to set one up for the day.

Of course, any adult in the UK knows that the best breakfast is left-over curry from the night before, or cold pizza.

1707. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286308 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:25 pm

The best cure for these funky blue moods is to watch AbFab or Python

All of Python is to be put free on the net:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/180159.html

1708. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286304 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Comment #286301 by decius

I was, of course, pulling your leg. I knew that no Brit is immune from Fabaphilia.

Attraction to Robert Downey Jr (Iron man)?

That is quite understandable.

1709. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286299 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #286291 by decius

but I shall never revise my taste in footwear.

I am sure I can change your mind. My husband's sandals with their clips and magnetic locks are the kind of thing Iron Man would wear to the beach.

1710. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286294 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm

decius-

I should have said muesli instead of granola. Can you believe that people actually have breakfast with that stuff? Almost as shocking as the English habit of beans for breakfast.

My taste for museli (at least without equal volumes of sugar) has never recovered from an academic trip to Stockholm in the 80s, where "muesli" consisted of various grades of sawdust with optional goat's milk.

But baked beans are a wonderful part of any decent British breakfast, preferably on a toast of a nice seed-filled brown bread, with plenty of pepper. Providing the bread is soft enough to soak up the bean-juices and the beans are piping hot, there is nothing tastier or more nutricious.

1711. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286287 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Comment #286262 by decius

A lot of otherwise rational people fall for this quackery, as well as the usual crowd of new-agey, sandal-wearing, politically-correct, granola-munching, jared-diamond-worshipping twats.

I bought my my first pair of sandals for decades this year, and they are actually rather cool. They aren't as cool as my husband's, with the magnetic fastenings (the sandal's fastenings, not his), but they aren't bad.

I am not sure what granola is, but I suspect I may have munched it at some point.

So, I say shame on you, you sandal-hating bigot, what with your old-fashioned prejudice against Neanderthals (who, I am sure, fashioned very respectable sandals), and with whom I share a physique.

You need to realise that not all sandal-wearers do this out of choice. For some, it is part of a culture, or pressure from partners.

1712. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #286204 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #286203 by Diacanu

That is sheer genius. Idealistic Theism meets Idealistic Palinism.

1713. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #286162 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 9:00 am

Do you ever stop to think that, just maybe, relying on the science of 700 years ago for your arguments is a teeny bit silly?

The answer to that, like the individual in question, is simple. It is because he is a fool.

The teleological argument is bad enough, you just made it completely and utterly, incoherent.

I love reading this site.

1714. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #286141 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #286133 by DarwinsPitbull

You can have private companies do the roads and charge people for it, like a toll or something. The money you send government would just go to them.

Brilliant! That is a great way to help ensure that businesses are only very high quality. Stop the poor wanting, or even being able, to drive to shops.

Or alternatively, how about limiting the speed of the poor? They can only drive very slowly, as they only pay for a little bit of the road?

Honestly, your clear thinking is really converting me to right-wing opinions.

1715. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #286099 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 7:08 am

Comment #286098 by Bonzai

If Dianelos is high, it has been a long, long trip.

1716. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #286097 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 7:02 am

Comment #286096 by Bonzai

Dianelos believes he is in a purely supernatural/mental reality. There is no physical world at all. It is all illusory. The active "force" in this reality is "mind". Of course, he then manages to come up with a reason why minds are "in three parts", and combining that with the ability of an over-arching supermind (of which we are all a part) to construct illusions, and we end up with...

A Trinity and the resurrection of Jesus!

It is all a huge mental fraud to try and justify Christianity.

It is like he has been infected by Christianity, and a huge festering mental abscess of idealistic theism has resulted in his minds attempt to deal with the infection and make it seem reasonable.

1717. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #286094 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #286087 by Tyler Durden

Comment #78523 by steve99 on October 13, 2007

"You seem to be basing your view of reality on what you personally consider 'reasonable', and consider what is seems not to be reasonable is merely an illusion created by God - the master of the Matrix-like reality you wish to believe you live in."

Check that thread out
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1707,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox,page8

We have been all over this again, and again, and again, and again....

1718. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #286074 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 5:24 am

Comment #286071 by Quetzalcoatl

I assume Dianelos believes other people exist. The mystery is why he assumes his own "absurdity" filter is the one that determines reality. Delusions of grandure, I think.

1719. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #286069 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 5:08 am

Comment #286063 by phatbat

Dianelos' views can be easily explained:

Dianelos' mind is the centre of the universe. It understands everything, or at least should be able to. There can be no mysteries, no challenges. If something in the universe is beyond his mind's capability to interpret, or he thinks that something is absurd, then it must be the universe at fault, not his mind being limited. In other words, Dianelos' judgment determines the nature of reality.

The arrogance of that position is simply stunning.

1720. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #286057 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #286053 by paulb

I don't necessarily agree to that, and I don't think you can prove it

I can prove that, as we know for certain that there are things that appear designed by aren't, such as snowflakes.

You are saying that "there is no need for design".

I don't claim that there wasn't design, just that you are making a pretty wild claim that there was.

As I have explained, a God is a very complex thing indeed, as minds require hardware to run on.

So, given the possibility that something was not designed, or that you have to add vast complexity to the situation by adding God.

In that, as in all other sitations in life, we go for the simpler proposition. Chuck out God. It is silly to add vast complexity unless you have proof that it is required.

You are welcome to believe in God, but you aren't going to be able to come here and get away with saying that God is needed because things look designed and purposeful. That argument was dealt with Hume and Darwin centuries ago.

1721. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #286052 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 3:54 am

paulb-

However, objects "cry out" for the need for a designer.

Why?

1722. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #286048 by Steve Zara on November 18, 2008 at 3:38 am

Comment #286045 by paulb

I am afraid you have just encountered not the flaw in atheism, but the fatal flaw in theism.

Theists say that God is responsible for design because they can't think of any other way that apparently designed things can arise.

But modern science has showed without any doubt that the appearance of design does not require intelligence.

If there is any uncertainty at all that a God was required, your argument fails. It is then up to you to demonstrate that a God was required.

Given than a thinking being is phenomenally complicated, you have a heck of a lot of work to do.

Whenever there is anything that looks designed, that looks purposeful, it is up to you to show that this is not an illusion, and than an intelligence was responsible.

1723. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285985 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Comment #285984 by Diacanu

No answer, but none expected. As we encountered more than a year ago, that is the Dianelos way.

Respond to a few posts, then pause... and reset.

1724. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285975 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 pm

MPhil-

I'll leave Dianelos to you. He seems (as expected from past experience) to have started ignoring me.

I can think of no-one better to handle his nonsense.

Laurie-
He is a troll. The problem is that what he posts is not obviously silly to the causual reader.

1725. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285965 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Dianelos-

If so then I personally find this plausible enough unless you beg the question by assuming materialistic presuppositions such as that thinking is a function of a material system.

I personally find dragons quite plausible unless you beg the question by assuming that flying reptiles can't breathe fire.

Dianelos - do you believe in dragons? You don't? You must be a materialist!

I suggest that you look up the meaning of "begging the question".

1726. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285956 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Mike-

Our brains are adaptable, sure, but evolution is economical. It would not have had considerable amounts of neural networks hanging around waiting for some future extension of the ability to do abstract processing.

1727. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285939 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Mike-

Yes, I do think that homophobia is related to concerns about gender roles.

But back to your main point-

Neural networks are not like computers... their functional power is not directly related to the basic design specs for the untrained network.

I think you are wrong. Functional power is related to the design.

The brain uses huge amounts of energy. That use has to serve a purpose, and that use is refined by evolution. The idea that there can be major functional changes without evolution being involved does not make any sense.

We know that, somehow, major attributes of the brain are genetically controlled. We inherit capabilities and problems from our ancestors.

1728. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285930 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Dianelos-

But the probability of any of these having taken place is so low as to be zero for all practical purposes.

Sorry, you can't use probabilities. You reject the use of Ockham's Razor, which is, at heart, based on probabilities.

1729. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285925 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Comment #285921 by MPhil

There is whole lot of difference between the necessary level of abstract intelligence to adequately navigate a world where the most complex social situations are between tribes and where the most complex artefacts are sharp stones, pointy sticks and bone flutes than a world containing governments, markets, businesses, computers, software, clubs, income, the internet etc.

There can't be. We have not had enough time to evolve better brains to deal with this new situation.

1730. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285913 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Dianelos-

What this argument demonstrates is that if materialism is true one is not justified in believing that our brain is the material system that produces our consciousness. To believe otherwise is to fall for an illusion created by one's failure to consider all possible alternatives.

The only assumption of materialism is that a physical system produces consciousness. No matter how many levels of simulation you involve, it does not change that.

The reason why we sensibly act as if we aren't in a simulation is because it is simpler not to, and our experiments in this world work. We change our experiences through our interaction with this world, in ways that are simple.

Also, the universe we live in, with its physical laws, is very, very simple indeed. There is no need to invoke a simpler one.

1731. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285901 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Dianelos-

It is certainly logically possible for a person not to possess a physical body.

If so, as I pointed out elsewhere, then it is also logically possible for software to run without a computer.

That should cut back on your IT purchasing, Dianelos! I'd love to see this "ghost" software system. Microsoft would love to patent it.

1732. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285895 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Dianelos-

if God exists then the very stability of physical laws is contingent on God's will - which makes it kind of interesting for a theist to observe how for many naturalists the stability of the physical laws is taken to be evidence *against * the existence of God :-)

That is one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard.

If there is a tooth fairy then the disappearance of teeth from under the pillows of children is explained by the action of the fairy, so it is a bit rich for those who don't believe in the tooth fairy to tell children that the teeth disappear for any other reason, isn't it?

1733. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285869 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Dianelos-

So, for example, for a naturalist to insist that "existence" means "physical existence" and that to think otherwise is irrational is to deny herself even the possibility of understanding what theism is about, never mind evaluate whether theism works well or not.

So what is theism about? How does it work? What predictions does it make about reality? What experiments can be performed to show that it is correct? What does theism predict will be the results of the experiments at the LHC? How does theism help with the development of an AIDS vaccine?

Please do tell. It would be jolly nice to have some kind of... "test" to see that theism is correct.

1734. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285864 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Comment #285861 by decius

Does the morphology of the brain at birth really leads to accept all those behavioural speculations, otherwise unsupported by hard evidence?

I think the morphology of the brain is hard evidence.

I think there has been a progression of culture over hundreds of millenia, but I also think that we are trying to determine what people were like during ice ages, during vast changes to the landscape, which would have wiped out so much evidence.

And as for use of fire:
http://www.archaeology.org/9609/newsbriefs/neandertals.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2902neanderthals.html

1735. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285852 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Comment #285846 by DarwinsPitbull

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you posted that video and are going on about the actions of two people. Perhaps you could explain.

1736. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285839 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Comment #285831 by DarwinsPitbull

They are going to use shit like that to cause more resentment towards gay people.

There is already huge resentment towards gay people, for reasons I can't quite understand.

1737. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285825 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Comment #285663 by flying goose

You do claim to know God's mind.

You claim that he loves humanity, and that he sent his "son".

That is quite ridiculous.

1738. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285818 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Comment #285816 by DarwinsPitbull

Only an idiot would assume that the actions of a few would be representative of the attitudes of between 5 and 10% of the human race.

1739. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285817 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Comment #285807 by decius

Worset is right.

Our attitudes about Neanderthals has changed a lot over recent years. The Neanderthals were innovative:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426085.400-neanderthals-bid-for-human-status.html
and big brained at birth:
http://media.newscientist.com/article/dn14682-did-we-outbreed-slowmaturing-neanderthals.html?DCMP=ILC-tabViewArt&nsref=dn14682

They were highly intelligent, with no sign of being less bright than us:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14784-neanderthals-feasted-on-seals-and-dolphins.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4192-neanderthal-hunters-rivalled-human-skills.html

1740. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285658 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #285655 by flying goose

So what religion are you?

1741. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285651 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Comment #285642 by flying goose

What is so often forgotten in these types of discussions is that we are are essentially talking and writing about human beings.

The only people who seem to accept that we are fully human beings are those without supernatural beliefs. Those with such beliefs think they have personal connections to higher powers, and want privileges because of that.

If that isn't arrogant and undemocratic, I don't know what is.

This is not a battle between moral equals. It is between rationalists and believers who want privilege.

1742. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #285630 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Comment #285627 by hungarianelephant

Microsoft's monopoly on desktop systems and the interfaces between those and low-end servers.

1743. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #285611 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 11:26 am

Comment #285605 by hungarianelephant

Sciros & Steve - Good posts & food for thought.

As are your posts. I may disagree with you, but you are always full of information and thought-provoking ideas.

1744. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285608 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 11:24 am

Comment #285604 by Sciros

Yes - it is the "on the same level" aspect that has got to me. That was perhaps my main motivation, even though I had not realised it.

I say we need to force the theists to define what faith means, what it is that we are supposed to be on the "same level" as... come up with a reasonable, testable idea of theism and then I will say that I may be against it.

It may seem a bit odd for someone like me to wish to reduce the use of the term "atheism", but I think I want to move my position on in a new and hopefully constructive way. I am tired of being so reactive.

1745. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285601 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 11:12 am

Comment #285598 by severalspeciesof

So you're an adeludedist? ;-)

That works for me :)

1746. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285599 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 11:11 am

Comment #285593 by Sciros

I am afraid I have become more militant. I refuse to be categorised by the meaningless terms used by people who want to have warm fuzzy feelings about there being "something more" than physical reality.

It is quite a step to no-longer identify as atheist, but I think it is necessary.

I explain things in more detail here:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/179897.html

1747. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285591 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 10:57 am

Comment #285548 by Ian Bamlett

I completely agree. We gay people got nowhere by saying "we are terribly sorry, but we happen to be gay. We hope you don't mind."

Comment #285584 by severalspeciesof

I am now even against the term "atheist". It makes as much sense to me to be "anti-santa-clauseist". I am simply not deluded.

1748. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #285587 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 10:52 am

Comment #285583 by hungarianelephant

Not really. What has happened is that some companies that Microsoft has tried to demolish have survived, and have been able to push a quality of products that Microsoft has attempted to surpress.

I think the point is that while continuing to supress competition, Microsoft managers and shareholders have grown rich through the sales of inferior products that have led to significant problems for customers, in terms of document formats and lack of security. Some "parasitic" communities have benefited from Microsoft's low standards, such as the anti-virus companies.

1749. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #285579 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 10:43 am

hungarian-

Why do you think open source still holds such a small share of the market?

It terms of IT as a whole, open source is extremely successful. Firefox has reached 20% of browser use. Open Office has reached market penetration levels that means that even Microsoft have to finally accept use of its document formats. Most web development is done in either Java or PHP - both now open source. Most web hosting is done on variations of Linux and Solaris - again open source.

And why I need 2Gb of RAM just to keep going, but I digress.

I feel your pain! I am about to have to upgrade to 4GB to keep Vista tolerable because I want to run apps like iTunes (lock-in from two companies)

1750. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #285546 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #285537 by hungarianelephant

You know what you are going to get out of the box, and you know who is responsible for fixing the things that don't work

No, you don't know what you are going to get out the box, and there are major problems with fixing things. I have had to develop for Microsoft platforms since the early days of DOS, and it has been simply awful. Because of their power, Microsoft has led developers a merry dance, trying to keep up with what they have to do for the next version of Windows. The transition from 16-bit to 32-bit was a mess, not made better by the incompatible (Win95/WinNT) versions of 32 bit. Which to develop for? Many made the wrong decisions, and were led down a dead end by Microsoft. I know of many who have recently been let down by Microsoft's abandoning of their Visual Basic 6 developer community a few years back.

I decided long ago never to trust Microsoft and stick only to multi-vendor or portable software solutions, but many were too tied to Windows to change.

You picked the wrong example. Microsoft illustrated just what is wrong with lack of regulation of capitalism.

I have no doubt that Microsoft has held back the development of software and hardware by between 10 and 15 years. That has damaged the entire IT community.

The legal issues are irrelevant. What Microsoft did to the IT industry is what Murdoch has done to much of the media - reduce most of it to such a level of mediocrity that people don't realise they could have so much better.

EDIT: sorry, but this is a subject that makes me rant.