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


551. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193325 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 10:26 am

Comment #193323 by Lil_Xunzian

If you say that it exists at the level of emotion, then you're committed to saying it's something we just feel, not something we think. You remove anything rational or intellectual from ethics. I think we fall right into the hands of the religionists by saying that ethics is just something I feel (and is, therefore, subjective).


Firstly, I am afraid I have little patience with arguments that we play into the hands of religionists. We should be concerned with what is true, not what is convenient.

Anyway, you are setting up false dichotomies. Morality exists both in terms of emotion and cognition.

We don't abstain from gratuitous lying because it feels wrong (the yuck factor) or, as is the case with dimmer wits, because we're commanded not to, but because we wouldn't want to live in a society where nobody could be trusted, where nobody could be trusted as a credible source of information.


That is rationalising as intellectual something that can clearly be seen to have evolved.

Mass lying is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. That is why we feel lying is immoral.

552. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193321 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 10:06 am

And being stuck in that loop, they seem to think we reason the same way, that we merely "picked", disbelief in god or gods out of a barrel of possible worldviews.


Very good point. As we all see the same "evidence", they are puzzled as to why we "choose" atheism.

553. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193291 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 8:04 am

Isn't the "little world view" really belong to those who can't conceive of a creator and that this is all there is? Isn't that limiting mankind?


Theism has been limiting mankind for millenia. The idea that God must have done something prevents rational investigation. One need only look at the struggles of scientists in the past, like Gallileo and Kepler, when their ideas clashed with religion.

Theism gets in the way, it says "look no further". It is a danger to science.

554. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193289 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 7:59 am

Comment #193284 by ketch22

You can't fully trust an idea or theory when the organizers of that idea have an agenda against another theory or idea.


Sure. We can't trust geologists when they have an agenda against flat-Earthism.

My problem with the theory of evolution as a stand alone theory without a creator, is that it has never shown me that a creator is not involved.


I have the same problem with my understanding of meteorology. The existence of Thor behind the scenes has never been disproved.

Tell me, do you believe in Thor?

Also, I find it interesting that when a person, such as I, has had an experience with God


Are you some kind of expert on psychology? Why on Earth should you expect us to believe you had an experience with God?

How does one know that our view of the universe isn't so flawed... based on human observations... that exponential growth of knowledge is based on some flawed ideas from the past which have just cascaded?


Because those ideas are tested against Nature.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that you have a greater understanding of how to investigate reality than minds like Newton and Einstein? Do you really think you have come up with some amazing new perspective on things?

555. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193268 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:43 am

Was Behe telling the truth about Richard Dawkins here, when he claimed that Dawkins would not consider a waving statue a supernatural event?


I wouldn't. It is at least conceivable that such a move is possible using something like a Star Trek transporter. Or, someone could be influencing my mind. Or, Paul Daniels could be around somewhere.

556. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193266 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:18 am

Thus far (as I'm sure any objective reader would agree) all that my bona fide request has brought (with possibly one exception from someone who is "miles away from Scotland") are body-swerves, side-tracking, objections, spurious alternatives etc. etc.


Perhaps you could explain why you wish to have someone who is an atheist, from this site, debating in public with people who are not just religious but question evolution. What are you hoping to achieve? How would the differing claims to reality even be discussed? What would be debated? The truth of evolution?

557. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193254 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:32 am

Comment #193252 by irate_atheist

I suspect it is a combination of the following:

1. He really doesn't understand things and is trying to force the bible and evolution together in his mind and we are seeing the result - a sort of festering chimera of ideas.

2. He is trying to please a range of audiences at once, after all he doesn't want yet another split in the Scottish churches.

3. He is lying. He is either a raving creationist or an evil evolutionist, but won't tell the truth.

I suspect it is mostly 1, but I would love to hear David's opinion on this.

558. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193248 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

He has said he believes in evolution - although I saw he was trying to diss it elsewhere.


Indeed, which is why I am confused.

559. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193240 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 3:39 am

This is not compatible with evolution fanny baws.


Indeed. Has David posted a statement that evolution happened and there was death and natural disasters and disease before people existed?

I mean, this should not be hard to do, if you aren't a creationist.

560. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #193238 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 3:31 am

Or, as cold fusion researcher Stan Szpak puts it, scientists will believe whatever you pay them to believe.


That is both absurd and outrageous.

561. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193237 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 3:28 am

clearthinker-

Steve - decisions are made by then. The nastiness is all in hell.


Ah. So no-one can decide anything in Heaven. No free will there. How boring.

Your definition that something can only be an answer to prayer if it does not involve natural agencies is wrong.


So, if we understand how planes fly, down to the finest detail, it is acceptable to say that is miraculous?

Neat! I am going to say it involves fairies too.

562. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193021 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Comment #192961 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I can't think of anything I have seen by Carl Sagan that isn't awe-inspiring. He isn't always right, but he was one of the most successful and important promoters of science we have ever had.

563. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192969 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #192964 by the great teapot

There is all the difference between something being about me, and something being about us

Religion says things like "We are the chosen people", not "I am the only chosen one".

Religion is a human invention. It flatters prejudices and beliefs. Most people are decent. They care about family and friends. They use religion in that way, which is why, in some religions they want them saved too. Parents can be desperate to baptise children.

For goodness sake, religion is bad enough. We don't need to exaggerate.

Buddhism, for all its many faults, is about relieving suffering. It isn't about relieving just my suffering and (excuse my language) everyone else can just bugger off.

564. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192958 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:35 am

Comment #192957 by Lil_Xunzian

You have forgotten something.

"Well, why are you doing what God wants?

So he will save the eternal soul of my parent/sibling/lover/child."

There is enough to criticise about religion. We don't need the straw man argument that it is entirely narcissistic and selfish.

565. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #192956 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:33 am

Comment #192642 by Jed Rothwell

Sorry, but your post sounds like something from a conspiracy theorist ("it is true, but no-one believes it!")

You are wrong anyway, science IS a popularity contest. If your research can be replicated and is useful, it will become popular. That is the way science works.

I suspect we may be confusing things. Cold fusion is probably possible, but what matters is the production of excess energy - more than you put in.

566. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192951 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:27 am

Comment #192949 by Lil_Xunzian

Religion is, I think, an incredibly narcissistic exercise, period. You make the whole of existence about YOURSELF.


That is an unwarranted generalisation that ignores human nature.

Religious parents have been know to worry about getting their children baptised so that they will not suffer in hell.

Theistic religions are narcissistic because they make the universe about us. I think that claiming people think it is about only themselves is wrong.

567. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192948 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:23 am

Comment #192946 by Quetzalcoatl

It all makes sense now.

Incidentally-

Do you realise that if this thread keeps going, it will exceed the "Fleabytes" thread in length, and so push David Robertson into further insignificance? He claims "biggest thread on this site" as some kind of victory.

Not that this thread's size should any way detract from Paula's achievements.

568. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192947 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:19 am

Comment #192944 by Lil_Xunzian

You would have to be a total narcissist to want to organize your entire life around the alleviation of YOUR OWN suffering.


I don't think any one claims that Buddhism is only about relieving personal suffering.

Pain sucks, but we just have to deal with it.


Buddhism is about how to deal with it, without any "God will help you" solutions.

The satisfaction of knowing that you live an ethical life and pursue and speak the truth, perhaps even at the cost of your own happiness, more than makes up for the pain.


Sounds like a miserable life to me. I want to be able to speak the truth and be happy. I see nothing in Buddhism that would prevent that.

569. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192945 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:15 am

Comment #192927 by Eclectic

I agree with you.

If we are to live together in this world, it is important to understand others cultures and beliefs, if even to know how best to refute arguments.

There are many battles to be won; against creationism, and against those who use religion to promote hatred and violence.

I see nothing wrong with allying with religious people to fight against those. Dawkins himself has done this, working with the Bishop of Oxford.

I believe that Blair's initiative, if it works, will work against faith. Finding out about other religions can be a good way to start to doubt about your own.

570. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192942 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #192940 by Lil_Xunzian

I find it difficult to defend Buddhism.


Let's put things this way. If all theists converted to Buddhism, I think the world would be a far better place. Buddhism has no objection to rational investigation of reality. It does not believe in a soul (there is barely any notion of self). Some schools don't believe in re-incarnation or karma as we think of it.

What is the first noble truth: all life is suffering (dukkha). I see no rational reason to accept THAT.


That doesn't mean we all go around in tears! It means we have desires and fears that make us miserable to some extent. I think that is pretty usual.

Buddhism, stripped of the supernatural rubbish, seems a pretty good way to live a happy life, to me.

571. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192938 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 9:49 am

Comment #192935 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

5. Sceptical doubt

Having been investigating Buddhism for a while, I don't think that is what is intended. For example, wikipedia gives that as

"Lack of conviction or trust."

It is certainly not intended as "faith".

It is a negative thought. If you go around filled with cynicism and trusting nobody, you aren't going to be very happy, which is, after all, what Buddhism is supposed to be about.

572. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192928 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 9:18 am

txpiper wrote-

It's good to see your spirits back up though. Good gosh, I thought you were going to collapse into a puddle of indignation there for a while, with the appeals to shame, etc.. I was surprised that an atheist would even do that inasmuch as shame would just be another human construct, probably the result of a really rank mutation of some sort.


I am extremely indignant. I honestly don't know how you live with yourself.

You must ether believe you have the brain of an Einstein, and are able to see something entire fields of experts can't, or you must believe that they are all somehow deluded and you are special.

The amount of hubris that reveals is, frankly, astonishing. It is acceptable to be deluded and ignorant. You are now no longer ignorant.

I would say that I think people should ignore you, but your views are a danger to society.

PZ Myers posted a wonderful talk that shows what a danger you are:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/remember_this_guy.php

You are exactly equivalent to those who burned the library of Alexandria. I honestly think your views are wicked.

Perhaps that link should also be posted here, to help show what a danger to civilization creationists and those who fight against science are.

573. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192913 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 8:03 am

Comment #192878 by njwong

Buddhism usually contains a lot of nonsense, but it useful to understand it, I think. It shows that religion need not be theistic. That one can be an atheist and believe all kinds of things. Atheism isn't linked to a belief in evolution, or a lack of belief in absolute morality. Most of us here have those views, I suspect, because we aren't supernaturalists, not because we are atheists.

574. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192912 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 7:59 am

Comment #192908 by Quetzalcoatl

But you are a God, so how does praying for someone work? Are there other Gods? Can't you just phone them up or something?

575. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192906 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 7:45 am

I have posted more on this RNA/ice thing on my blog, but I'll reproduce a bit here. This may be inaccurate, but I think it shows we can tell a conceivable and simple story of how life originated. Note how quickly evolution gets involved!

Nucleotides, which form naturally, were concentrated and polymerized in ice. Uncountable random strands of RNA were formed, entirely naturally, until some that could help catalyze their own replication appeared. These would have out-competed the pure ice process. Replication would have not been perfect, and as nucleotides were used up, forms of RNA which were ever more effective at catalyzing their replication would have been naturally selected. Forms which helped protect their structures with proteins (RNA still catalyzes protein formation in our cells) and membranes would also have been selected, as would those which coupled their reproduction to chemical cycles which provided energy to speed up the process. At some point DNA got involved. RNA "genes" which transcribed themselves to DNA would be more stable, so a reversible RNA <==> DNA step would be favoured.

There is not a single step in that which isn't conceivable, and reasonable. It may not be the true story of how life arose (there are others), but it works.

576. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192901 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 7:17 am

Comment #192895 by Paula Kirby

There will also be the increasingly common, but hilariously silly response:

"If you have shown this in the laboratory, it proves that an intelligence was necessary for it to happen in the first place"

577. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192886 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #192875 by epeeist

You will note as well that Paula did not threaten me with physical harm or everlasting damnation for disagreeing with her.

578. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192862 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 4:56 am

Comment #192861 by Cartomancer

Indeed. He should listen to speeches by Obama in which he said that faith can't be used as a justification for public statements on matters of significance - reason has to prevail in a democratic society.

Oh, and a late happy birthday!

579. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192857 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 4:28 am

Comment #192853 by Paula Kirby

(You are just too nice to be an atheist!)

I am actually disagreeing with many, many more people than you. The "abiogenesis is a separate issue" argument is very widely used. I have been a bit shy of discussing this (and disagreeing with so many) until PZ mentioned it.

But presumably there must have been a point before which self-replicating thingummyjigs didn't exist? In which case, the process by which they came into existence could not itself have been evolution by natural selection?


Absolutely. As I understand it, there have to be process that concentrate and polymerize certain chemical units (such as nucleotides to form RNA).

I think it is pretty easy to conceive of vast numbers of random RNA strands being formed in a certain environment, and as soon as one or two of them turn out to be good at catalyzing their own copying (which we know some do), then there you go! It probably won't be very effective evolution, but there is plenty of time ahead for more stable systems to evolve.

What I was clumsily trying to say was that it would be a bit difficult to point to the time at which "life" actually appeared. I think that is because we still have a culture of "vitalism" in our language - perhaps we still unconsciously think of life as a kind of magic stuff.

My mental picture of "abiogenesis" is bits of cells all having to form, then they come together and "bingo!" we have the first cell and evolution can start. I suspect it was nothing like that at all.

There has been some fascinating recent research which shows that RNA probably forms and replicates very well in ice, so a polar origin of the first replicators is possible.

I really believe that we will find out that the origin of life was simple, and easy. Something like RNA replicating in icy environments is just that.

I wonder how creationists will react when we find out how it all happened!

580. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192848 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 3:47 am

Comment #192832 by Paula Kirby

Paula. I am very sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you. I hope it is going to be in an interesting way. What I am going to say was also the theme of a post on PZ Myer's site a while back.

It is highly likely that natural selection (competition for resources and survival of the fittest) occurred all the way back to the first replicating system, be it simple metabolic cycles or RNA chains. It is likely that the first cell itself could have been been a result of mutations and selection - specific nucleotide sequences might have been more attractive to lipids, for example.

What we probably don't see until the first cells are firmly established is Darwinian evolution with Mendelian Genetics.

My personal view is that there will be a seamless progression from chemistry to abiogenesis to evolving cells as we now know them - it will be hard to point to where one becomes the other.

In fact, I really don't much like the term abiogenesis at all. It implies some sort of magic "life started here" idea, when life is really just complex chemistry and thermodynamics.

581. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192846 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 3:38 am

epeeist-

This isn't the way discourse works. You are claiming a specific deity. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate the basis of your claim. Evasion and the attempt to shift the burden simply shows how incredibly weak your case is.


What a delight to read how we now deal with theists like RtG. There is a real "system" working.

582. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #192617 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 4:12 pm

omment #192611 by Mike O'Risal

Thanks for posting this Mike. I would like to point out this link:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/faq.php#donations

583. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192599 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Comment #192588 by MPhil

I'm going to disagree with you (this is going to be fun :)

584. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192577 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Comment #192574 by YssiBoo

Most people aren't trained to evaluate evidence. Methods of understanding the world that work on a human scale in small groups of people don't work that well on larger scales. There was no need for us to evolve the ability to understand things on scales of billions of years, or realise that not all things that appear designed are really designed. It didn't matter. Now the stories we made up to explain those things are a problem, and we need to train people how to understand reality.

585. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Comment #192569 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Excellent narration.

586. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192545 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 10:59 am

As it is in context, I hope people won't mind if I post this again here. I think it was very useful, and illustrates much that I have been saying:

God is a necessary precondition for reason - a debate.

587. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192529 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 9:30 am

In short, I feel that we stand to lose more than we could possibly gain, even in a best-case scenario, from most public debates.


I think calm written debates (like the one between Harris and Sullivan) can educate. They can also help illustrate what theistic arguments need to be dealt with, and how.

If the subject and nature of the debate are clearly specified, one can be in a position to know that one can either win, or hold one's position.

588. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192512 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 8:41 am

Comment #192508 by mixmastergaz

What he is confuses me. He uses creationist language, but I can't tell if that is what he believes, or if it is to appease some groups in his church.

I am pretty sure that he would lap up the publicity, and how he would spin things, no matter what happened on the day.

589. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192501 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 8:11 am

Comment #192500 by al-rawandi

He wouldn't win. He would simply claim victory. He has never one in any argument here. He has claimed victory.


He could win in the sense of persuading a large audience of Christians that they are on his side.

As I and others have pointed out, such a debate would be meaningless. Creationists and theists aren't there to debate science.

590. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192498 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 8:06 am

Comment #192495 by mixmastergaz

Clearly anyone is free to do what they wish. However, I am personally cautious for another reason. I have little doubt that Roberston would spin such an event as "a debate with the followers of Dawkins". If he "won" on any terms (as well discussed by scottishgeologist in comment #192402), he would chalk that up as a "victory against the atheist followers of Dawkins and Darwinism".

Personally, I have no intention of giving him that opportunity.

591. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192469 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 5:56 am

Comment #192466 by Tyler Durden

That would be fun, but I would suggest the topic of debate be carefully chosen. May I suggest:

"Considering Miracles: Cheques and Balances"

592. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192457 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 5:13 am

Comment #192451 by Paula Kirby

There are also objections in principle to debating with a creationist AT ALL, as it merely plays into the hands of those who wish to claim (quite erroneously) that there is actually any scientific controversy on the subject to debate.


Indeed. Creationism isn't a scientific issue, as it is not founded on science and does not rely on science. It is a theological issue.

The debate, I feel, should be between theologists about the religious validity or otherwise of biblical literalism, or between philosophers and theologists regarding how we approach an understanding of reality that permits literalism, or between educators about whether or not biblical literalism is appropriate in schools.

Having a scientist up against a creationist in such a manner is pointless - they aren't talking the same language, and don't accept the same processes of reasoning and standards of evidence.

This debate would give the impression that creationism had any scientific standing. It doesn't.

593. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192430 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 3:40 am

Comment #192426 by The Reverend Dark

Note the probably unintentional irony. Telling us that we are using science incorrectly.

Has he answered my question about his justification for believing himself to be a world-class authority on biology and geology? I haven't the patience to look back.

594. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192429 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 3:37 am

Comment #192428 by scottishgeologist

The bright spot in all that is that Dawkin's Book, The God Delusion, has opened more doors for the gospel than Dawkin's could ever have imagined. It's amazing how the Holy Spirit can take the arrows of Satan and turn them into the flames of faith."


Mind-boggling spin, horrible mixed metaphor (arrows into flames?) and Satan.

Yeah, gotta be him.

595. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192403 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 2:12 am

Comment #192399 by rod-the-farmer

All done now.

596. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192401 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 1:59 am

Comment #192390 by notsobad

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/112587.html

Anything you find useful there you are free to use in any way you like, without attribution.

597. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192400 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #192399 by rod-the-farmer

Sorry. That is because his first couple of statements are on an old website. I am setting up the whole debate as a single post.

Should be done in a few minutes.

598. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192388 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 12:28 am

Comment #192387 by Philip1978

"May I ask how you know this?"


Pick from the following explanations of acquiring knowledge, and see which is the more reasonable...

God wuvs me, and he made all this speshul world for me, so when I had a dream, it was God speaking.

An old book says I will live forever, so it what is in it must be true.

I have been interested in the origins of live for decades and have been keeping up with research into the earliest fossils and the environments in which they occured. I also trust the ability of thousands of experts who are interested in the truth.

My my mum and dad and a man in a funny black dress told me.

Go on... pick one!

599. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192385 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 12:12 am

txpiper-

We know rivers have been flowing for 3.5 billion years because we see patterns of sedimentary deposits and deposition in rocks that old.

Sorry, but you asked how 30 million cubic miles of sediment could arise and cover large land areas. I showed you how.

The nature of this debate was not for me to have to prove absolutely that I was right. It was to provide a conceivable explanation, so as to prove your "it could not have happened" statement was false.

I have done that. You can no longer credibly(!) state that the deposits had to have been put there by flood.

End of conversation with me, as far as I am concerned. You were never here after explanations.

600. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192280 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Comment #192277 by ChristiansTogether

C'mon guys and gals. Is there no-one at all in Scotland from the atheist/Darwinian/Dawkins camp who is prepared to enter into a public debate?


I am occasionally prepared to enter into public debate, but only in writing. Live debates are often futile, as they can end up with people talking past each other. These are serious and important matters. They need to be dealt with in a considered way, and not as part of a public spectacle.

I would also not debate in that fashion with a creationist, as their view means that the process of rational argument had already been abandoned.

More Pages: Previous | 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