701. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189293 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:04 am

Comment #189198 by GordonYKWong

No, not that one...

There is far more substantial formal debate. Everything apart from closing statements has been posted here:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/122838.html

702. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189191 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 5:38 pm

I worry a little that PZ's use of the story in this way will dull the rather subtle and clever message it originally had.

As I posted here that I thought PZ was mistaken, it is only right that I post that I have had my mind changed by reasoned argument.

703. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189187 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm

P.S. to Steve Zara: "You'll be back."

I am sure :)

I do feel an increasing need to get away from the same old arguments.

It reminds me of when I was teaching.. there was only so many years I could mark the same essays...

704. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189182 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Comment #189176 by Pathfinder

You seem to think I have some kind of divinely-inspired (Christian pathology, in your view) plan to deliberately confound and frustrate you.

It isn't all about you.

I do NOT make any claims about reality that has gone on "uncorroborated... in my own mind".

Of course you do. You are proposing that there is a God, based on no evidence apart from what you think.

Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD.

I have no certainty that there is no God. I have close to certainty that all the supposed evidence and arguments used to justify claims of his existence are nonsense. If there were any such evidence, you would put it forward, rather than admitting it's absense.

I have just grown so tired of seeing the same old views. I have been researching and thinking about this matter a lot since cutting back on posting here.

I find myself impatient with the usually unrealised arrogance of theism, especially the Abrahamic religions. That humans are special, that we are able to discern the nature of reality to an extent that we can fill gaps in our knowledge with God, that our inner feelings, our "revelations" are a direct line to cosmic truth. I find the lack of humility really unsettling, especially when people don't realise the implications of what they are saying.

I also find the ignorance of logic annoying - the same old "you can't disprove it, so there" arguments, each time with the person making it thinking they are being clever and somehow witty.

Oh dear. I'll shut up for a while.

705. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189169 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Of course the existence of God cannot be proved! I am aware this is insufficient evidence from a scientific standpoint: no falsifiability, no control experiments, no peer-reviewed papers, no (or not much) competing hypotheses apart from the blindingly obvious...

I knew I shouldn't have come back from a break.

Already I am finding dealing with things here frustrating again.

What I don't understand is why it should then be sufficient evidence from any standpoint.

You are making the biggest possible claims about the nature of reality, yet you make them based purely on what has gone on, uncorroborated, in your own mind. You consider yourself some kind of personal expert regarding reality!

However, as you have more to contribute to this discussion than I have, I shall take another break and leave you to it.... your views regarding ID and creationism are admirable. I hope you get the discussions you want here.

706. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189165 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Comment #189157 by Pathfinder

Provide me with a single falsifiable prediction that remains from the God Hypothesis, and then we can talk how Popper applies.

Forgive me for being so harsh - I am getting less patient in middle age. Your support for evolution is welcome, but my view is that it is inconsistent to complain about people looking for gaps in evolution to put God in when Christianity does precisely that in terms of biology, physics, philosophy and so on.

707. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189152 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Science is science, religion is religion

I am afraid not. Science is about the investigation of physical reality. Theistic religions make claims about physical reality, therefore theism and science will always overlap and conflict.

In science, you can only insert God into the gaps, and even then, WHOSE God?

Theism is nothing but the insertion of God into gaps in our understanding in all areas. It cannot stand on its own terms, let alone against science.

708. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189143 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:18 pm

In many cultures,--all patriarchies,-- the way of grouping people is based on whether you are "active" or "passive" in sex, not based on who you have sex with, The male "fuckee" is considered somewhat pathetic, but the "fucker" loses none of his masculinity in this scheme,

Yes, that is one of the things I was thinking of. I am fascinated by the way some people need to feel that they have to play roles like this.

Welcome back.

Thanks. I won't be back as much as before. Haven't got the time. Too busy blogging, and on other blogs as well.

Consider this a "regeneration" to a FAR less verbose Steve :)

709. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189090 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #189081 by Quetzalcoatl

It is interesting what has been labeled "straight" at various times. Apparently you are still straight in some circles if you have sex with a transexual, or a ladyboy, or an effeminate man and so on.

Homophobia seems to me to be sometimes partly a worry about one's own masculinity. Providing one has sex with someone sufficiently female-acting, it is no threat.

710. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188942 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #188918 by mordacious1

Sometimes I get a bit bored, you know?

711. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188915 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:03 am

I see the Awful Appleby is still active.

As a gayer, I really feel the need to comment.

We are all likable, every one of us. However, we aren't really human, you know. We have evolved something called "gaydar" that allows us to find others of our kind. We also age faster, with one straight year being about 4 or 5 gay years, especially when one is in one's 20s. 40 is positively ancient. We also have a strange biological need for metallic elements, which can only be satisfied by the placing of metal structures through the skin (usually earlobes, but often more intimate places).

Although not quite human, we have some morals. We know what we do is repulsive - after all, what we really want to do is write musicals and bitch about boy bands, but the urge to be naughty is too strong.

We also like Appleby. All of us. Those who say they don't are simply repressed Appleby-likers. So you had better watch out Appleby - we are good at disguise. Just when you think you are safe, one of us will "run" (mince) after you screaming (we always scream) "give us a kiss, big boy"!!

There. I hope that has cleared up a lot of misunderstandings!

712. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #188682 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #188671 by Galactor

Say what?! Steve, we need a chat. Have you been to bible camp or something?

Gosh no. In fact I find myself becoming much nastier and less patient as time goes on.

What I meant is that we can deal with theological arguments for God (as against theological arguments about God) using philosophy and science.

For example, there are reasons why first cause arguments should have lost their power ages ago, as a result of both physics and philosophy.

There are reasons why even a supposedly supernatural God can be shown to be horrendously complex, simply in terms of information theory, and so unacceptable in any way as any form of explanation.

It can be shown, I believe, that the term supernatural is meaningless, as it has no ability to be tested and no explanatory power.

And so on.

713. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188628 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #188626 by Appleby

At least mordacious1 bothers to catch up.

You aren't worth the effort. Trust me.

714. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188622 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 9:28 am

We have to look at things dispassionately to make any progress (in line or contrary to our desires).

Not at all. We are talking here about ethics, not science. It is entirely appropriate to discuss feelings.

My feeling is that you are tiresome, so I shall wander away from this debate.

715. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #188618 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 9:24 am

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

I see the usual nonsense being spouted by religious posters here. Before I slink off again, I think it is worth pointing out that Plantinga (mentioned above) has made frankly embarassingly ignorant use of evolution in some of his recent arguments, which makes his criticisms of Dawkins seem rather inept.

Personally, I think there are arguments to be had with theologists (I am coming close to a very long public debate with one myself), but that was not, of course, the point of Dawkins' book. It was to point out that any use of science and scientific rationality to justify a theistic position simply fails.

Incidentally, the mention of PZ's "Courtier's Reply" allows me the chance to nit-pick. I hope this is taken as a minor point, as I have a lot of respect for PZ.

However, I think his "Courtier's Reply", and his subsequent "Emperor's New Clothes" references are just plain wrong. It appears to me that he uses them to describe situations where people are unable or unwilling to put up evidence for their fundamental beliefs, or to indicate that they are begging the question.

But, that isn't what the original story is about at all. The story is about having excessive respect to the point where people are prepared to pretend and lie. It is also about cowardice, with no-one having the courage to rock the boat, until the naivety of a child who does not know the expected protocols cuts through the pretence.

This clearly isn't the case with theology. Many of the theologists PZ and Dawkins attack clearly do believe in the reality of God, and they do believe that their "Emperor" has clothes - there is no pretence that can be instantly revealed by one person shouting the truth.

I worry a little that PZ's use of the story in this way will dull the rather subtle and clever message it originally had.

716. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188525 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 7:21 am

So I'll find some animal that isn't "harmed" by sex. Or do you think that's impossible?

It's also about "consent", you idiot. Someone could drug you and have sex with you, and you would never know. It would do you no harm, but I am sure you would be pretty upset to learn that it had happened.

Sex shouldn't be much of a problem for many animals. They have those holes for a reason, you know.

By that argument, anyone should be entitled to do what they like sexually to you, at any time. After all, you have the holes - what is the problem?

Twit.

717. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188501 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #188499 by epeeist

Indeed. There have been rather worrying reports of this.

718. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188493 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:47 am

Wouldn't it need qualification on what was meant by "entertainment", since obviously things like greyhound or horse racing are examples of entertainment that aren't necessarily exploitative. (Sorry to nitpick).

Horse racing does make me just a little bit uncomfortable I have to say.

Dogs just love to run, however.

719. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188482 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:30 am

This seems to me to be an inconsistency, which I can't easily reconcile.

I think it can be made less problematic by saying that animals should not be exploited for entertainment while they are alive.

720. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188472 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:14 am

Comment #188466 by Peacebeuponme

I'm sure the cow wouldn't want to be slaughtered in the first place though, Steve.

Indeed, but as you say, we try our best to make things humane. When we can't get their consent, at least we try and avoid suffering.

Personally I am against the use of animals for entertainment, such as hunting. Bestiality would include that kind of thing.

This Appleby fellow doesn't seem to be that good at reasoning, I feel.

721. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188465 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:00 am

OK, I have been drawn in, for now.

Appleby did rant:

And why is it okay for someone to slaughter a cow for food without its "consent" but not to have sexual relations with it?

Because the cow isn't alive while you are eating it you twit. That is the point of slaughtering it - to prevent it running away while you cook it.

(There is a matter of suffering as well)

722. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188124 by Steve Zara on June 3, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #188112 by Cartomancer

Ooh, you're in trouble now Appleby, Zara has entered the fray.

Naah. Still on sabbatical. I just wanted to complement you on your marvellous post, and to express my admiration for adopters of any gender, height, age, hair colour etc.

EDIT: And congratulations, Rachel!

723. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188106 by Steve Zara on June 3, 2008 at 8:28 am

Comment #188097 by Cartomance

As for the adoption issue, again, it's a very simple one. The question we need to ask about any prospective parent is not "what are your sexual preferences?" but "can you look after this child?" In order to deny ANY individual (and it is on an individual basis, not a group basis, that the decision must be made) the opportunity to adopt or foster, one has to make a case that they are unfit to parent.

As some dear friends of mine are hopefully soon to adopt, and I have seen what they have been through, I feel it is appropriate for me to comment.

Excellent post, cartomancer. There is just some minor things I would like to add (assuming it hasn't been mentioned before - I haven't been keeping up with things much). Forgive me if I have repeated what anyone else has said.

First, children who are up for adoption are usually from a difficult background. It takes a lot of screening and consultation for a couple (of whatever genders) to be approved for adoption (at least in the UK), and for good reason. It can take years. Anyone who succeeds (it can be a stressful and heartbreaking process) has my admiration.

Second, many, many studies seem to have shown that what is important for children is to see successful loving and sexual adult relationships in action (although obviously not in explicit detail). It seems that it can be at least potentially problematic for a child to be bought up by a single (as in not in a relationship) parent (of whatever gender) because of this. The gender of the people in those relationships does not matter. It is hard to see why it should: there is such a range of types of behaviour even in heterosexual relationships (older man, older woman, different types of roles and dominance) that gender seems to be a minor aspect.

724. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187000 by Steve Zara on June 1, 2008 at 3:41 am

Comment #186973 by clearthinker

Nice to see you finally come out as creationist. It puts your supposed worries about "balance" when Dawkins turns up into perspective.

725. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #186537 by Steve Zara on May 30, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I trust its OK to half inch some of this material?

Use it however you like. I guess I need to put some kind of "creative commons" statement on what I post.

726. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #186525 by Steve Zara on May 30, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #186519 by Shmeezers

Having just posted a summary of various arguments to to with ID here:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/128357.html

I felt it might be fun to respond.

There aren't two sides. ID is not a competing theory - it isn't even the kind of thing that qualifies as scientific or rational.

ID has only one purpose: to lure people away from the scientific method and rational thinking. The goal is that, in the end, all scientific investigation of reality should be within a theistic framework. ID ignores the fact that any explanatory power theism may have had is long gone, and tries to smuggle theism back in by blocking areas of scientific investigation based on nothing more than human incredulity.

Read what is on the above link. I think you will find your questions more than answered.

727. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183888 by Steve Zara on May 23, 2008 at 5:28 am

Comment #183883 by phatbat

It really isn't me. For one thing, it would be such an incredibly dull thing to do. I suspect wooter/clearmind is a fake, but it is a rather boring one.

728. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182298 by Steve Zara on May 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Comment #182296 by Brian English

Are you sure? Is it fair on the houses? I mean, suppose two semi-detached residences want to "get it on"? Is that homo-homesexual?

I am afraid the moral theology of architecture is beyond me...

729. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182294 by Steve Zara on May 19, 2008 at 3:43 pm

The physical laws of the world enable us to live safely - like gravity that we obey it and we do not jump off the building and we obey the divine laws like do not lie, kill. do adultery, be homesexual, massasre, and on.

I am afraid still not particularly tempted to resume posting here yet, as other projects are taking up my time. However, I see that this site continues to be a source of amusement, and I am intrigued by the idea that God wishes us all to be homesexuals. Does that imply that physical intimacy should be purely within houses, or with houses? In either case, does my possession of Ikea vouchers help me in this?

730. 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.

731. 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).

732. 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.

733. 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.

734. 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.

735. Research Volunteers Needed

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

MPhil-

PM for you!

736. 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 :)

737. 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.

738. 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.

739. 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.

740. 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.

741. 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.

742. 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......

743. 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.

744. 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.

745. 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".

746. 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.

747. 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.

748. 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.

749. 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?

750. 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).