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


51. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203617 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #203615 by Peacebeuponme

In the same way, whatever happens with the CofE, I can't see an increase in homophobia occuring amongst the population.


Perhaps not, but overt homophobia will become more acceptable in some groups.

52. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203616 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 8:44 am

Comment #203605 by Tack

The ratio of C12 to C13 isn't being used here for dating. It is a possible signature of life. Biochemical processes tend to concentrate C12, so C13 (which is rare anyway) is even rarer in living organisms.

53. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203598 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 8:06 am

The physicist Paul Davies has been speculating about possible multiple origins of life. He asks an interesting question - if there were small organisms around with a completely different biochemistry, would we know they were there? We have barely begun to classify bacteria and archaea... there might still be a significant mass of life around from another origin.

54. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203587 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 7:53 am

Comment #203582 by Ygern

Yes, that is possible. But the nature of life around now suggests something else happened. It looks like the ancestral forms of life from which we all evolved were thermophiles - able to live at pretty high temperatures. It is also possible they are related to the prokaryotes that now live quite a way down in the Earth's crust. Life could have appeared, and spread, but was then mostly wiped out, with only bacteria-like organisms deep in rocks surviving. Those then gave rise to everything else.

55. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #203566 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 7:03 am

I wonder why they even turn on a computer, or turn a light on, or go to the Doctor?


Oh that is apparently easily explained, science is partially useful, in some limited ways.

EDIT: Can't open your link to your blog


Sorry.. this site has appended a "blockquote" to the end of the URL. Try now.

56. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #203561 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 6:46 am

Comment #203556 by Quetzalcoatl

I can't help but think that you wasted your time with this guy.


I learned a phenomenal amount during the debate, and at the moment Brian English and I are watching him struggle after it was pointed out in the debate that the concept of the Trinity was logically impossible. I have a feeling he may resort to abandoning logic altogether in order to keep his religious views.

I find this sad. I thought I got on well with him. But I now realise he is a fundamentalist nutter, to be honest.

I can't but help take his views on that post that scientists are basically incompetent deluded fools a bit personally.

57. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203557 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #203553 by Peacebeuponme

Unless I'm missing something The Church of England has been homophobic by default,


It was a broad church.

Whatever happens, I can't see additional mainstream legitimacy to homophobia arising, given that 1 billion catholics and 1 billion muslims are already bigoted.


I don't think that is a reasonable statement. Their official religion may be bigoted (and that certainly is a problem), but I don't think one can say that 2 billion people are all bigoted.

58. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #203552 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 6:27 am

Comment #202225 by Steve Zara

I had a long formal debate with him (I accepted a challenge months ago). It was quite informative as to how theological arguments go:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/135785.html


I have just made a rather sad discovery on this chap's site:
http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=36

"Indeed, this is my advice to Christian scientists�"there is no need to waste time fighting secular scientists on their own ground by trying to disprove evolution. Evolution will fall apart all by itself sooner or later."

I feel like I am in some kind of intellectual horror film. People I think may be reasonable turn out to be creationist pod people.

59. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203536 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 5:34 am

I don't know why Peter Tatchell is bothering to campaign. Let the deluded gay haters have their church, and the deluded gays theirs.


If this goes ahead, there will be a recognised group that supports this homophobia. That will give more legitimacy to such views.

60. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203505 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #203499 by Quetzalcoatl

That is brilliant - milli-Hovinds!

Nice to see how quickly and easily Robert was dealt with here.

61. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #203482 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2008 at 2:32 am

Comment #203219 by gr8hands

I am sorry, but I'm going to have to go with Hungarian on this one.

Indoctrination is not the same as teaching. It is distinguished from teaching because you are given ideas that you are supposed to accept uncritically.

My view is that faith schools are like religious people - they aren't all bad, not by any means. My concern is about the principle of the thing, and the way that they can allow indoctrination to happen because of the view that faith is a good thing and what happens in schools with particular traditions should not be questioned. Faith schools can leave children unprotected from those who wish to indoctrinate. But that does not mean that serious indoctrination is the rule.

62. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203216 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Comment #203203 by Linda

Steve Zara #203199 - man oh man - Now you have made me worry that Glenn Beck will cite the story as another brick in the wall heralding the end times.


Was the story balanced and appropriate? Seriously, what do you think? How do you personally rate the Daily Mail as a reliable news source? What is your motivation for sending the story here, knowing it is from that source?

63. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203199 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Comment #203190 by Linda

I really, really, hope not. In that case the gleeful troublemakers at the Daily Mail will have won a little victory, and rational discussion will be just a little bit weaker.

There is plenty to disagree with about religion without this kind of nonsense. Let's concentrate on the serious issues. Let's discuss rationality at the level of Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, not at the level of Bill O'Reilly and Richard Littlejohn.

64. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203189 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Comment #203182 by Paula Kirby

You wouldn't say that if you'd seen my dog yesterday. She'd found a mud bath and emerged absolutely caked in muck. I seriously considered planting potatoes in her coat and having done with it.


"Mud"? You are lucky. Our labrador sometimes arrives home after walks with far worse than mud.

As to your main point, I, of course, agree.

Every media source will have some spin. Those of us in the UK know well the position of not just right-wing, but sensationalist papers like the Mail, and, increasingly, the Telegraph.

I have no objection to the political bias of a source. What matters is whether or not a story is pitched simply to sell more papers with sensational headlines that pander to prejudices.

65. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203156 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #203146 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I think "Fox News" is probably an appropriate comparison. The Daily Mail ranks alongside Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly in terms of neutrality and reliability.

66. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203143 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Comment #203105 by Paula Kirby

I share your mixed feelings. Showing the awful views of many in the Anglican church may not be a bad thing, but there are so many complications. Will the Archbishop compromise? What views become the those of the established church?

On the other hand, this may be an opportunity. The sight of a schism in progress lends weight to our argument that there is no objective theistic truth behind Christianity. As both sides will say they have been guided by the Holy Spirit, we are in a position to ask them both how they know this. It could be quite illuminating.

67. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203138 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #203128 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I totally support you on this.

The Daily Mail is an appalling "newspaper". It thrives by manufacturing scare stories, about immigration, about cultures, about health, about anything.

Nothing posted with the Daily Mail as source should be considered accurate without further investigation.

To be honest, I am rather disappointed that a story from that source has been posted on this "clear thinking oasis".

68. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202977 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #202972 by Robert O'Brien

Unless/until the "uncausedness" of virtual particles is established, they remain a paper tiger to Craig's argument.


No, sorry. That is simply crap philosophy.

To make an argument like Craig's you have to demonstrate that the premises are sound.

Until the causedness of virtual particles is established, Craig has no business putting forward his premises.

But, you know what? Even then Craig still wouldn't be justified. He has to show beyond all doubt that uncaused events are impossible. It matters not one whit if it turns out that the entire known universe is deterministic. That still doesn't mean that Craig's premises are sound. One can't base proofs purely on what one considers intuitively obvious.

You don't get to prove philosophical arguments by default.

I think the phrase "run out of steam" applies here.

69. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202968 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #202963 by decius

I am a novice at philosophy, but I have learned a lot from MPhil.

One such thing is that starting an argument with axioms you aren't sure are well-founded is perhaps not a good way to put a case. You can't really go from "I think QM may be deterministic" to "Jesus loves me and I'll go to Heaven".

70. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202956 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 7:16 am

Comment #202954 by Robert O'Brien

Virtual particles _may_ invalidate one of the axioms but that is far from established.


Excellent. Then you admit that one of the axioms is currently unfounded. It does not qualify as an axiom.

So your whole argument is question-begging.

Or, to put it another way - you are wrong. Even if the axiom was sound, you still have to show the whole argument applies to reality by demonstrating the actual existence of God.

I don't expect to change your mind, but it is fun to show others how feeble your arguments are.

71. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202952 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 7:11 am

Comment #202947 by Robert O'Brien

The same argument applies.

You need to demonstrate that there aren't logically possible worlds in which Quantum Mechanics doesn't break causality.

If you can't, and continue on this line, then you are simply trolling.

You have lost it. These kinds of philosophical arguments don't take you to reality without evidence. You can show proofs that God must exist as much as you like, but you still need to demonstrate that he does exist.

72. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202946 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 7:05 am

Comment #202932 by Robert O'Brien

Then I want you to take account of interpretations of QM that preserve causality.


We don't need to. Ontological arguments are philosophical, not evidence based. That there are interpretations of QM that don't preserve causality is enough to show that Lane Craig's premises are unfounded. This is about logically possible worlds.

Sorry, try again.

73. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #202874 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 5:20 am

Comment #202860 by UncleJJ

I don't mean to sound to critical, or mean, but...

Thanks to Pat for being our voice


I didn't vote for Pat to be my voice. I enjoy some of his rants, but others make me uncomfortable. But that is just my opinion. Others have theirs. That is the point - we are different.

If Pat Condell was considered to be some kind of representative, some general voice for atheists, I would not be happy (I would not be happy if anyone was put in that position). Although we may enjoy what others have to say, and we may even point to what they say as what we think, we should speak for ourselves.

74. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202859 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 4:22 am

Comment #202854 by decius

You have forgotten that the translation you are using was misread due to the presence of several dead flies pressed onto the pages.

What it actually said was "I did not come to bring peace but wood." It is about a different kind of fencing.

75. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202849 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 4:02 am

Comment #202842 by Brian English

I am after a believable explanation of how snakes actually move. I see a film of a python wrapped around a tree branch, and then a few seconds later, it has moved from there to there, with no apparent effort. Seems like a clear case of magic to me.

76. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202832 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 3:39 am

Comment #202827 by Brian English

I don't know if you caught the latest news of the discussion with a theologist you may be referring to that I posted on another thread, but apparently I took his words that science has to give way to scripture and that science is "destructive of knowledge" and "seriously flawed" out of context. I did not take into account the audience. Apparently it is OK to make such statements if you have a mainly Christian readership.

So that is all OK then.

77. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202828 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment #202728 by Niel Crafford

What is all the fuss about.


Richard is such a quiet and reserved guy. He keeps himself to himself; is close to being a hermit. We treasure any rare public appearance.

78. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202824 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 3:32 am

Comment #202820 by decius

But I can talk faster and more loudly in public about my feelings about fencing than you. That means I clearly win. I will also refuse to take anything epeeist says seriously, as he is obviously prejudiced and closed minded because he will insist that only actual experience of physical swords matters.

79. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202809 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 2:59 am

Comment #202808 by epeeist

I know very little about fencing, but I had a friend who did it once. Never tried it, even though it was suggested.

So, based on that, can I tell you that you are doing it all wrong. It is far more effective to hold the pointy end and thwack them with the handle thingy.

80. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202798 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 2:31 am

Comment #202794 by mordacious1

Heh. Sorry. No pressure intended. I just love this stuff so much. I love the way that Nature seems to be playing games(*), by frequently giving us the illusion of something superluminal, but it sadly never is.

(*) A metaphor, of course!

81. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202790 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 1:53 am

Comment #202789 by mordacious1

I have heard that one can look back after an experiment has been completed and see that particles have tunnelled at superluminal speed through certain gaps. The problem is that this is always retrospective. You can't use it to send information to someone in the future faster than light.

The only think I can find regarding caesium was an experiment in 2000 with caesium gas. The group velocity was around 310c. Perhaps that isn't what you are thinking of.

82. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202787 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 1:32 am

Comment #202704 by Robert O'Brien

these processes merely involve the possibly uncaused conversion of pre-existing energy into material form.


No, that is not what quantum effects are. They are not about conversion of "pre-existing energy". I don't think that Oppy (a mathematician and philosophy) should be arguing with Paul Davies (a highly respected physicist) on such matters. This isn't argument from authority. It is arguing based on knowing the subject. There has been considerable work into the possible nature of what quantum mechanics is, and this includes that time really is meaningless at fundamental levels - it is a high-level average of things, an emergent property like temperature. Then there is Craig's flawed handling of mathematics and infinities... Lane Craig is in no position to justify his premises. They are nothing more that what he feels to be right.

83. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202786 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #202637 by mordacious1

Perhaps you are thinking of the "group velocity" of light waves?

84. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202776 by Steve Zara on July 2, 2008 at 12:59 am

Comment #202725 by Robert O'Brien

One doesn't get to win debates by simply declaring oneself right you know.

You haven't fared well here. You have presented what you surely believed were your best ontological arguments and they have been thoroughly shot down, which is not surprising as there are people on this site who understand philosophy, and who know more about the subjects (physics, mathematics) that people like Lane Craig use in their arguments than Craig clearly does. His debates on his ontological argument shows what happens when you try and use millenia-old reasoning with centuries-old understanding of science and mathematics and then get faced with the fact that knowledge has moved on.

So, unless you can come up with something new, it makes little sense to state that you are going to steamroller anyone unless you can provide evidence that you have any steam left, and can roll.

I see none.

85. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202619 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Guys, this is about as reasonable as religious people get.


I am afraid that at least for me, it isn't reasonable enough, as he seems to want to declare that abandoning reason to allow for magic is appropriate for scientists.

What he writes about evolution is nonsense. He is basically saying "please leave gaps for God because people like him".

What he writes about consciousness is also ill-informed to say the least, both in terms of the philosophy of mind and in terms of neuroscience.

It is a poorly argued and inaccurate piece.

86. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202617 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Comment #202223 by Roger Stanyard

You are right. It is just as you describe.

However, there has been an interesting development. He now claims I have not taken into account the audience for this words. He was writing those remarks about science to Christians.

So that's all OK then.

I think I got him a bit riled, as I pointed him at this:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/146017.html

I will admit it is a bit silly in some respects, but if scripture can't even say something about the "God" particle, which, if it exists, will be a fundamental part of reality....

87. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202538 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Comment #202532 by the great teapot

Does the fact we discuss consciousness mean it exists.


It's getting harder to post views on this site. I used to get away with any old stuff, but we have an increasing number of philosophers and physicists :)

However, my thoughts, for what they are worth, is no, that does not mean it exists, at least perhaps not in the sense you mean. It means something to be conscious as against unconscious, but there need be nothing mysterious or non-physical about it. I think it was Daniel Dennett who said something about that we wrongly consider ourselves experts about what is going on in our own minds.

88. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202533 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Comment #202530 by Quine

I was just pointing out the delightful inappropriateness of biochemical nomenclature in some situations.

89. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202527 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Does consciousness even play a role in the way we interact with the world?


Well, we discuss it! The fact you are typing words about consciousness probably means something... quite what it means has been the subject of intense philosophical debate.

90. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202513 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Comment #202501 by Quine

If LSD receptors exist in the brain, what molecules does the brain itself make to get transcendent experiences?


Off-topic I know, but having once been a biochemist, I can tell you it is quite feasible that some biochemist has labelled the receptor "the LSD receptor", as if the brain had evolved to bind LSD. This sort of thing is common in biochemistry. During my B.Sc. I came across a "herbicide binding site" in plant cells. "How clever of evolution to have thought of that" I thought, ironically, at the time.

Well, I find this nomenclature amusing anyway...

91. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202428 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Evolution could potentially get along with some deism


I guess it could, but I have always thought of deism as rather silly. Darwin's message was universal - you don't need a designer to give the appearance of design. That applies to the universe too. If God has been removed from the creation of species, he should also be removed from the creation of universes.

92. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202373 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 11:59 am

Given recent comments, I thought this might be appropriate:
http://www.particlezoo.net/

93. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202352 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 11:16 am

All of our models say consciousness shouldn't be possible, that it should just be atoms and molecules in your brain randomly doing things. Nothing that we've developed for a model of how human intentionality works makes sense of our own experience of the world.


This is sheer nonsense. It is not hard at all to understand why we have the feeling of intentionality and why we then act on that.

I think there's a reckless extrapolation from what we know about evolution to an all-encompassing materialism.


It isn't reckless. Ideas of supernaturalism block rational investigation.

94. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202283 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 8:15 am

Comment #202280 by fides_et_ratio

There needs to be justification for segregating children on the basis of supernatural belief. Supernatural beliefs need to justify their presence in public discourse.

I am not saying that all faith schools are harmful. What I am saying is that the idea of faith schools is at the very least deeply silly.

95. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202274 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 7:34 am

As I understand it there is a mechanism in the ekpyrotic/cyclic universe scenario for clearing the brane ("branewashing"?) of stuff you don't want in the universe.


I love that term! I thought there must be some way of making it compatible with monopoles, otherwise it would not be still going.

I had no idea that monopoles were the main issue.

96. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202251 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 6:19 am

Comment #202239 by decius

No matter at what level something like that is pitched, I love listening to it.

It did remind me of something that I had forgotten, and taught me something I didn't know:

The "didn't know" was the evidence supporting inflation is not just the homogeneity of the universe (especially the cosmic microwave background), but the flatness of the universe at the time the microwave background was emitted. The universe was pretty young then, so there must have been a very fast very early expansion.

I had forgotten that there is also the apparent rarity of magnetic monopoles (assuming they exist at all). This particular issue would seem to be a problem for the ekpyrotic idea (that the universe arose from clashing parallel branes), although I really don't know enough to comment.

97. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202248 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #202245 by interested observer

The best thing to do is to just ignore posts you don't like. Mind you, I'm not always the best at that!

98. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202234 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 4:54 am

Comment #202227 by decius

I was a little disappointed. I assumed it was traditional for all descriptions of inflation to involve grapefruits (as in "by the time inflation had ended, that tiny volume of the universe had grown to the size of a grapefruit")

99. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202225 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 4:30 am

Comment #202220 by 8teist

Or what ?


We reject science.

I had a long formal debate with him (I accepted a challenge months ago). It was quite informative as to how theological arguments go:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/135785.html

100. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202218 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 4:16 am

Comment #202217 by Oystein Elgaroy

Seriously?


I am afraid so.

What sort of theologian is this?


http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/

Does he mean that we should reject science whenever it contradicts scripture?


That is what he has written.

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