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

Comments by Steve Zara


1. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179555 by Steve Zara on May 13, 2008 at 11:48 am

Irate - PM for you.

2. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #179443 by Steve Zara on May 13, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #179428 by Peacebeuponme

I have every intention of returning in the near future. I am not suggesting a humble blog can reach more than this site. It is simply a place to build up resources; something I have wanted to do for some time. What I have in mind is a set of standard rebuttals and procedures that can save considerable amount of time (even if only via cut and paste into comments).

3. Fleabytes

Comment #179437 by Steve Zara on May 13, 2008 at 8:44 am

Comment #179431

The neural network and logic aspects of the rebuttal are the result of considerable tutition over many months from MPhil.

4. Fleabytes

Comment #179405 by Steve Zara on May 13, 2008 at 8:03 am

In case anyone is following, my latest contribution to the debate with Bnonn Tennant is up:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/122476.html

As usual, many, many thanks to MPhil.

5. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #176995 by Steve Zara on May 8, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Comment #176978 by mordacious1

I'm pleasantly busy and productive. I have been attempting to make my blog something more substantial than it has been (i.e. posting more frequently than once or twice a month). Also, I am preparing some resources to assist with rebuttals of creationist and ID arguments (something more focussed on what we may need here than Talk Origins). I am also close to finishing a long and substantial theological and philosophical debate that I will post somewhere when it is over. I am also researching an article on the theology, philosophy and science of the fine tuning of the universe.

I also have a day job!

I have been following the discussions on this site, and have been pleased with what I have seen. The grinding down of "seeker" was particularly impressive.

I'd like to take this opportunity to promote some new blogs that have appeared recently. Dr Benway's is well worth a look - contains some real gems.
http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com/

Also, Billy Sands has started a blog - an excellent first post, as would be expected:
http://basketofpuppies-billy.blogspot.com/

I will probably resume posting with my usual frequency in a month or two, when I have completed the above projects.

6. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175291 by Steve Zara on May 5, 2008 at 5:57 am

MPhil-

PM for you!

7. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173977 by Steve Zara on May 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Comment #173964 by Diacanu

Sorry mate, I should have been more specific. I meant achieving much in terms of reducing the influence of ID.

Anyway... I think I have made the point I wanted to. Back to other stuff... good luck with the theists :)

8. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173971 by Steve Zara on May 1, 2008 at 11:58 am

Comment #173956 by Bonzai

If you are determined to read nastiness into anything I type, there is nothing I can do.

I post short contributions here too, and sometimes without much thought.

I know about Russell's take on the issue of moderates enabling fundamentalists. You have done far more than that. You often argue that influence of religion is minimal in situations where others consider it significant.

9. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173952 by Steve Zara on May 1, 2008 at 11:46 am

You announced that you were going to quit this site


Oh for goodness sake. It is nothing so dramatic as that. I simply have other things I really want to do, and I have been doing them. The flood of self-important IDers has led me to the conclusion that debating here isn't really achieving very much. We are dealing with people one at a time when there are millions out there. I don't know what the answer is, but spending time responding to people like seeker_of_truth here isn't part of it, I feel.

But when someone chats about me on a site, I think it is reasonable for me to respond.

Russel Blackford, for whom I have a lot of respect, happens to agree with me on the moderate enabling fundamentalist issue. Is he an apologist too?


I don't believe so. He posts long and thoughtful articles. He doesn't appear to post things with the certainty you do.

To call someone an "apologist" is a slur, you should know that.


If that is how you want to read it.

I feel pretty strongly that "moderate" religion is a "bad thing", and I find defence of it problematic.

You can call me a self-important drama queen if you like; I have been called far worse. What I really am is tired of having the same conversations again and again with every new theist who turns up here. I want try and find something more constructive to do, or at the very least, something different.

10. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173927 by Steve Zara on May 1, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #173853 by Bonzai

I think I need to de-lurk to answer this.

EDIT: It is therefore wrong for Steve to barge in, gun blazing, to accuse me of being apologetic to religion. Yes, I was pissed off.


No bargeing in. No guns blazing. Just stating what I saw as fact. You have been an apologist for what you call "moderate" religion here for some time. You have been saying that those who claim moderate religion provides cover for fundamentalists are wrong. We had an intense discussion about the motivations of suicide bombers in the past, were you were trying to diminish the role of religion.

You should not be pissed off when someone simply points out what you have been posting for as long as I have read your posts.

11. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173373 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Comment #173370 by Cartomancer

No. I am content. I see fantastic responses here to ID people and creationists. There is no need for my contributions here.

I intent contributing through writing blog entries and articles, and responding on others blogs.

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173371 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:13 pm

As posted on other forums, I am leaving this site. There is little need for me now, as others with more time and energy are doing a fantastic job. If anyone wants to get in contact with me, they are welcome to by PM.

13. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173359 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Comment #173345 by Brian English

When it comes to what make people do things your posts read like bumper sticker slogans.


My latest blog entry is about bread recipies.

I don't have the energy or motivation to post or debate here any more. I am fed up with ID nuts posting the same old nonsense, and religious sympathisers like Bonzai posting the same old apologetics.

My next blog entry will be a bumper sticker about how to avoid over-cooking fried rice.

I shall continue to support rationality on various blogs......

14. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173341 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Comment #173335 by Vinelectric

Condell appropriately applies the tabloid treatment


On a site that promotes reason and clear-thinking, the tabloid treatment is surely never appropriate.

15. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173338 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:29 pm

As usual, you present a grossly simplified and misleading caricature in order to validate your fixation on religion


I have a fixation on understanding motivation. You seem to have a fixation on defending religion.

This is very different from people who kill themselves because of supernatural beliefs and the supposed rewards in heaven.


No, it isn't. Religion was an utterly fundamental part of their lives, of their families. Their survival after death was not about rewards in the afterlife. Part of their religion was following the orders of the head of their religion.

16. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173327 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Comment #173318 by Bonzai

While they worshiped the Emperor but he was not regarded as a god in the supernatural sense.


As usual, you present false dichotomies.

"The kamikazi pilots could not have been motivated by religion because they didn't worship the Emperor as a god."

No. But he was the leader of their Shinto religion, which states that those who die become family spirits. Students of Shinto were supposed to "offer themselves courageously to the state".

17. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173310 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Comment #173294 by TheTruthID

What I am trying to more fully understand is the controversy surrounding this issue. This is why I asked this question to Dr. Zara.


There are many here who know far more than me.

There is controversy, but it is to do with details.

18. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173295 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Comment #173290 by al-rawandi

If you are talking about the history of his posting here, then I will agree with you.

19. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173271 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Comment #173264 by kurzweilfreak

It is a superb site.

But, I see a problem. If we get into debates where creationists point us at answersingenesis.org, and we point them at talkorigins.org, we could give a false impression that the situation is balanced.

Perhaps we need to point them at a site that shows a thousand further sites with evidence for evolution.

20. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173266 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Comment #173262 by TheTruthID

Quick question. I hope you will be honest with me.


I'll do my best.

In regards to Evolution, from the first life form until what we have now, would you say that every step of the process is scientific fact? Are there any times in the process where one has to infer or assume something, no matter how little,during this process? If there is any area which is inferred, I do realize any inferrence would be based on the observable scientific evidence within the process using scientific principles and doctrines.


I really don't understand this question.

Nothing we deal with is entirely based on facts. We infer things all the time. You put your key in a car, and you infer that if you turn it, the car will probably start.

The correct question is... how do we deal with gaps in knowledge?

21. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173259 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Comment #173220 by PJG

If I hear one more person bring up Hitler, Stalin, "atheism is another faith", "How can anyone be moral without God?" or the f**king bacterial flagellum, I think I will scream.


I know what you mean. However, Carto is right, most people don't know that these points are unoriginal. If we want to act as educators (and I do), we have to generally have patience.

I don't have patience with those who try and put forward these kind of questions with arrogance (as we have seen with seeker_of_truth on other threads).

22. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173250 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Comment #173060 by al-rawandi

I don't think RM is arrogant. Disturbed, sure. Deluded, certainly. He is mistaken in calling me friend.

23. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173197 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Harping on my spelling, getting old.


No offense intended. Was following cartomancer's post.

24. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173183 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Bureaucrates? Wasn't he a 5th century Athenian philosopher who sat in the agora talking to passers by and doing their paperwork for them?


Ah... a Bill and Ted moment:

Bureau-crates:

"All we are is paperwork in the wind, dude!"

25. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173172 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 1:29 pm

The countries that have had the greatest trouble feeding their people are the countries that are run by socialistic governments.


I would be interested what you would call Western European governments :)

Aren't they socialist by comparison with the USA?

26. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173169 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 1:22 pm

In a true free market wealth does not simply congeal at the top. It moves around pretty well. Because you are only entitled to what you earn, and companies do not receive state protection.


Al -

Do you think there ever has been a true free market?

I have no knowledge at all of economics, so would love to know your opinion.

27. Fleabytes

Comment #173161 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Comment #173044 by Richard Morgan

For my friends on RDNet, especially S.Z, P.K. and B.E.


You presume too much. I show concern for people, both on-line and elsewhere, but I am very selective about my friends.

28. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173157 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Comment #173156 by Calilasseia

Unfortunately, "dealing with" assumes anyone you are targetting is going to take any notice. Wooter/clearmind is immune to reason, or evidence.

29. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173004 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #172967 by brian faux

I am not completely negative. I just can't, myself, see the justification for the largely unqualified praise for the guy. If people like him, fine by me.

30. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172998 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:21 am

Comment #172993 by Cartomancer

Indeed. We need to know where to get Atheist-friendly ingredients, for example.

Perhaps you could come up with some appropriate verses for Atheist Grace before meals?

31. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172996 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 am

Comment #172987 by seeker_of_truth

That is perfectly acceptable to me. That is the way forums work. Others here will deal with your evasiveness with their usual skill.

32. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172986 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:16 am

Comment #172979 by Cartomancer

I am about to travel. Later this eveing I will blog on Bread. I have evolved a recipe over the years. I will explain what has been selected.

33. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172976 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:12 am

Comment #172965 by seeker_of_truth

This is to do with science. The majority who use science don't believe the Earth is young. You are welcome, of course, to accept the majority view if you wish. But, to be consistent, you should then stick to their views on medicine. Good luck with your next toothache.

34. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172973 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:09 am

Comment #172969 by annabanana

Don't worry Anna. I have had the same experience. Check back for my posts arguing about speciation. Note the number of times I had to repeat "no, you have it wrong, it isn't just a simple hybrid". I'll bet it still hasn't sunk in.

35. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172968 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #172961 by seeker_of_truth

You don't get to make the rules.

As you clearly ignored specific questions of mine several times, and as you attempted (deliberately or otherwise) to fudge evidence I gave you about speciation to make it look like it was not what you were looking for, I feel free to ignore any requests for information from you.

Why are you here? Is this to save you the bother of buying text books, or the tedium of wikipedia?

36. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172964 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:01 am

It is high time someone talks about that.


Lots of people have been. Just not in quite such simplistic terms.

37. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172956 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 7:50 am

Comment #172952 by seeker_of_truth

I think you should come clean about what your intentions are. So far it seems to be to get people running around asking ad-hoc questions, which range from the nature of gravity to radiometric dating.

Do you actually have any specific point to make?

If you postulate design, then why, and who is the designer?

38. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172916 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 7:03 am

Condell makes some very SERIOUS and IMPORTANT points.


Very obvious ones too, which is why I don't see the point.

If you believe George Carlin is not being "simplistic" in what he says, you are fooling yourself (Brigstocke certainly is, to a far greater degree than Condell).


I never said Carlin and Brigstocke weren't simplistic. But at least they are funny.

If you really want to know how necessary his rants against Islam really are, just listen to the response-videos posted on YouTube by some radical representatives of the religion of peace


Sorry, but I don't consider back-and-forth response videos on YouTube to be representative of anything. It is a self-selecting group.

39. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172907 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #172852 by riandouglas

EDIT: Besides, I'd feel obliged to look through his previous posts to see what position he may have taken.


Good luck if you choose to so so. He is as slippery as an eel. Check the attempt to hand-wave away polyploidy so as to deny that true new species have appeared.

40. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172898 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:47 am

Comment #172882 by annabanana

Are you going to compose posts together? The mixing of styles should be ... interesting!

I keep trying to persuade my husband to join. He sees how much I use this site and says "I have work to do".

41. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172873 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:26 am

Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?


Oh very well.

"ID" has been established as a religious approach to disrupting science by opening the door for the teaching of creationism in science lessons. It is targetted at promoting a specific brand of theism.

One should always be highly sceptical of the motives of anyone who is saying they are simply "searching for evidence of design", especially when they can't say what that evidence could be, or how it could be tested.

42. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172865 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #172863 by seeker_of_truth

Did ever watch a good debater when positions are switched mid-debate and the better skilled debater continues with the upper hand despite the positions switch?


So it is all just a game to you?

I think ID trying to wreck science is very serious.

43. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172859 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:13 am

Hope your cold/virus/whatever thing gets better soon steve, or at least that you become less impatient/grumpy :-)


Is is that obvious, even though I am pointing it out? Oh dear!

44. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172850 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:06 am

I really do suggest Dr Benway's strategy. But that is just my mood :)

45. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #172834 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #172642 by savroD

We are the only creature we know of on this planet that is aware of its place in the universe and has technology. That means we may well have an indefinite future.

46. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172820 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #172816 by annabanana

Oh no! Anna is doing a Zaphod impression!

Nice to see you both :)

(Does this mean that Al's pic will be empty, in a Harry Potter kind of way?)

47. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172814 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #172813 by Philip1978

Dont remove the avatar just yet, I think its quite artful!


I don't know art, but I know what I like.

48. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172796 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:28 am

I am going to apologise. I'll leave you lot to deal with seeker without what little assistance I could. Perhaps because I have a cold, I have little patience. Ignorance is acceptable. Ignorance combined with smugness is more that my temper can deal with right now.

49. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172787 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:21 am

If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design? An answer would be appreciated.


The average IQ is 100.

50. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172785 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #172782 by seeker_of_truth

Me boring? Perhaps.

But that is nothing, not the slightest fraction of the crashing inanity of your "new relevant proposals". "Boring" really doesn't begin to start to cover the merest sliver of the vast dull sinking feeling when I see yet another person like you come to this site and put their hand up and say:

"Hey guys and gals, listen to me. I am interesting! I think there is a problem with science!! I don't believe in 'macroevolution', and that we should search for design!!!!"

This is like an Attack of the ID Clones. Each one thinking it has the cutting argument. Each one thinking that it deserves our attention, and our good manners. Well, the most excellent Dr Benway has come up with a clone repellent. Ask them to answer a core question, and if they ignore it three times, then refuse to discuss this matter with them any more. My core question was how irreducibility could be tested. I thought it was a touch different. Others have more stomach than me and can deal with asking "How is ID science?" again and again. I admire them.

So, please, don't talk to me about "boring".

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