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


851. 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.

852. 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.

853. 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?

854. 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.

855. 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.

856. 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.

857. 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.

858. 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?

859. 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.

860. 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?

861. 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.

862. 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.

863. 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".

864. 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.

865. 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.

866. 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!

867. 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 :)

868. 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.

869. 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?)

870. 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.

871. 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.

872. 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.

873. 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".

874. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172779 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:07 am

That sounds a bit sarcastic? Ask S. Zara, I can bite too.


You can? Sorry, didn't notice. All I noticed was ignoring of evidence, blurring of arguments and refusing to deal with points raised.

875. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172775 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:55 am

Is someone seeing how long we'll dialogue with such an obviously deluded person?


Clearly, yes.

876. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172768 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:31 am

Comment #172765 by brian faux

But being an informer is pretty good.


I don't feel he is really a informer. It is just comforting to many to have someone who is a professional performer tell back to you what you already believe. Nothing wrong with that, but we need, I think, to realise its limits.

877. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172767 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:29 am

Comment #172754 by Incredulous

I am afraid I agree. It will have no effect at all. I believe now that wooter is a wind-up. No-one could possibly be that stupid AND that persistent.

878. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172739 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:50 am

Comment #172737 by MPhil

Last part of main debate. Then summing up (I get last word)

879. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172735 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:34 am

Comment #172734 by MPhil

Btw, Steve... I hope my comments on your blog-entry meet with your approval :)


How could they not? With reasoned debate, you have, over the months, definitely changed my mind on a major issue (consciousness).

The reply to Tennant is coming along... see, I get productive when I set deadlines.

880. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172729 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:20 am

Comment #172724 by decius

Condell doesn't unsettle me. I just don't much like what he does. It seems to me to be pandering to his audience - rabble-rousing. Now that can be fun to listen to, but I don't think at achieves that much.

It also don't think it achieves much. It alienates some who we might need or want as allies. Richard Dawkins has worked with religious people on occasion to help work against some extremes of unreason. Maybe some of us will want or need to as well.

It is true that Condell has no second thoughts while he proceeds slaughtering the sacred cow of Political Correctness, removing its baroque contrivances from his verbiage. But since when directness and clarity are no longer virtues, and by whose decision?


Be careful of what you slaughter. The same political correctness that is used to extremes to protect the religious from insults also helps shame racists and homophobes. Political correctness really only means good manners. Sure, it needs to be kept under control, but not abandonded unless we want to end up with a yobbish culture.

You see, this is why I don't like Condell, as he encourages such simplistic statements about political correctness. He has all the subtlety of a head-but. I think life is more complex than that.

881. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172507 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Condell is a bit more intellectual about denouncing


Condell intellectual?

Sorry, can't see it myself.

882. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172500 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Comment #172475 by McLir

Codell is no Carlin. Not by a long way. I realise this is only a matter of taste, but I find his rants simplistic, and I have problem deciding what the purpose is and what the tone is supposed to be. Is it self-prompotion? Is it supposed to be funny?

I far, far prefer Carlin, or Lewis Black. I also really enjoyed and admired the Marcus Brigstocke rant posted on this site.

883. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172491 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Comment #172489 by MPhil

Your opinion on a blog entry would be much appreciated :)

884. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172490 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I don't understand why there's a timeout set at all, if there's no timeout specified, the cookie is a session cookie which lasts until the browser is closed or it's explicitly removed (e.g. via a "logout").


Timeouts can be used very carefully on different pages to deal with issues of resource use by sessions on high-traffic websites, like this one. On the other hand, I can't imagine there is much session state to be maintained.

885. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172487 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Comment #172484 by MPhil

When he's talking about the mind... yes.


I think Penrose is one of the great physicists of the past century. The problem is he hooked up with Hamerhof in dealing with the mind, and Hamerhof is unquestionably a crackpot.

886. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172478 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Well I don't know. I think we are talking about things at a very speculative end of physics.


It is very speculative that these things (wormholes, time machines) exist, but the solutions to general relativity have been discussed for decades. It isn't like efforts to unify physics, where even the ideas that are being considered are tentative, let alone whether or not they do, or could, exist.

It is a mistake to think that scientists are rational people, Science is a rational enterprise, but original ideas often come from irrational places.


A rational person can have a very active imagination. Being able to think up original ideas, and having interesting dreams and daydreams does not mean you aren't a fundamentally rational person, surely.

I can't think of many scientists who fit your description of the genius/crackpot. It seems to be mathematics that attracts (or generates?) that kind of mental instability. Cantor and Godel come to mind.

887. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172441 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Comment #172439 by Bonzai

I have done that (flagged myself, not you!). A request for confirmation of the flagging would be useful.

888. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172431 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Comment #172428 by Bonzai

I didn't say you post nonsense.


I apologise. I am in a grouchy mood. I suspect I am developing a cold. It affects my brain like this.

What I was trying to say was that it should not take much effort to know, for example, that business about not being able to travel back before the construction of a time machine.

This is not about knowing the subject in any detail at all. Is is about knowing that there is any issue at all, so as to be able to research in more detail if the matter were ever to arise in discussion.

On the other hand, maybe trying to keep up broadly with science, even in your own field, is rare. I just don't know.

889. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172426 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm

You make it sounds like he was flunking math or something, it wasn't like that.


Of course not. He simply didn't have the specific math required for general relativity. This was to illustrate my point that there is a very broad range of knowledge between so-called "pop science" and being able to construct detailed mathematical models.

890. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172420 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #172416 by Bonzai

Good with relativity.
Bad with relatives.

891. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172415 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Comment #172410 by Bonzai

Sorry, that is nonsense, A journalist would love to believe that, I am sure.


I do try not to post nonsense. All those matters I have mentioned have, in fact, been dealt with by the very "pop science" you are talking about. Pick up almost any book by Kaku or Davies from a store and this will be mentioned. There will be very little detail, to be sure.

892. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172409 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #172405 by Bonzai

Those are very speculative stuffs even though it is not so easy if you want to actually make mathematical models rather than just making pop science-tish assertions.


False dichotomy. It is possible to have considerable understanding of the state of knowledge in a subject, even a detailed understanding of the subject itself, without being able to make mathematical models.

Einstein had major insights into physics, but had to get help with the math.

I don't know what you are implying with the "pop science" assertion, but it is possible to have followed over the years the debate that Hawking has had with many in the physics community about "chronology protection" without being able to sit down and write the equations involved.

893. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172385 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Comment #172383 by Corylus

Can you make a cake so big you can't eat it?

894. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172351 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm

MPhil-

or you could use your "free will" and decide for yourself :)

895. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172349 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm

MPhil -

top one

896. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172344 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #172333 by al-rawandi

They believe the same guy is reborn over and over and over. Come on.... Cookoo!


Naah. That is just Tibetan Buddhists.

I am not trying to defend Buddhism. Well, not that much. I am just trying to point out that Buddhism isn't like Teratornis describes. Well, not all versions. For one thing, it sometimes hasn't trashed other religions. It has had a Microsoft "embrace and extend" attitude to them in some parts of the world: "We'll sell your local gods back to you as part of Buddhism Vista".

897. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172331 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 1:35 pm

To believe any religion, one must blind him/herself to the lack of any conclusive evidence for many of that religion's truth claims, while simultaneously rejecting all equally unsupported competing religions


I think you need to find quite a bit more about Buddhism before you make generalisations like this.

898. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172314 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Bonzai-

From what he told us about himself I think he is a very intelligent and scientifically informed person, probably knows more physics than anyone here


But it is very selective. The issue of wormholes, their stability, the expansion of the universe and the limits of theories of time machines and so on aren't that deep physics at all.

899. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172278 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #172275 by Frankus1122

I agree entirely.

900. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172256 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 11:52 am

We dont have that framework of a goal outside of our differing beliefs, so there will be conflict.


I think this is really a matter of how one generally treats others on an open forum. If Styrer, or anyone else, shouts, it can potentially stop a interaction that others may wish to continue.

That's all I am saying, really.

More Pages: Previous | 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 31 32 | Next