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


1551. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194008 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #194000 by Quetzalcoatl

Ah! I see what you mean.

It still probably isn't going to be likely. We would have a lot of problems living on Earth more than a hundred or so million years ago, as the oxygen varied so much.

1552. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193999 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #193983 by steveroot

Naah, air pressure isn't going to work. Just think what would happen when it was released ... all life would explode with the change of pressure and the seas would boil.

Anyway, even if air pressure would work, it would be a fragile system. Just one crack in the ice, and all the air would rush out with a huge farting noise and the Earth would career around the solar system like a deflating balloon.

1553. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193993 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

Comment #193980 by Quetzalcoatl


well, let's face it, when we have the ability to, everyone will be looking in the Goldilocks zones anyway.


Yeah, that is inevitable :)

And they are at least the best place to look to find planets capable of supporting us, ie with liquid water and reasonable temperatures.


Actually, that probably isn't true. Earth was only what we consider "Earth-like" for about the past 600 million years - a tiny fraction of its existence.

There is most likely far more warm water in the underground seas of gas giant moons, the result of tidal heating.

1554. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193989 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

How difficult can it be to debate with those who already believe the way you do?


I am prepared to debate with those who disagree with me. I am not prepared to engage in discussion with those who claim I must be wrong because God told him so.

I used to be rather mild and polite here, but I have gone past the limit of my patience. I am just fed up with people like you claiming you are some kind of superman. You have an ability to detect universal truth that is beyond that some of the greatest thinkers of our time.

It can be fun to imagine you are batman or spiderman when you are young (just don't try the climbing or flying bits), but we are supposed to grow out of that.

Claims of superpowers look ridiculous in an adult.

Cut those claims, admit that you could be wrong, and we could talk.

1555. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193976 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #193974 by Quetzalcoatl

Actually, any orbit would do. The problem is how to avoid collisions of the crystals, which would de-orbit them. As you say, another problem is the energy required to bring them out of orbit. I guess it would be orders of magnitude more than an asteroid impact.

1556. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193973 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

Comment #193972 by Quetzalcoatl

Heh. Don't get me started on the subject of Goldilocks zones!

I can thoroughly recommend "Evolving the Alien" by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart. It puts to rest the idea of the Goldilocks zone.

Even an extra-solar planet with no warmth other than internal radioactive decay could be as full of (simple) life forms as the Earth. (Being extra-solar, it would have a thick atmosphere of insulating hydrogen, and the surface temperature would be nice and warm for billions of years)

1557. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193971 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:53 am

I'd like to know how the ice was held aloft. The support structures would have had to be huge (and made of something more than ice). There should be geological consequences of such structures.

1558. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193967 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #193947 by Quetzalcoatl

as to the reason why the planets actually have such a short orbit, they could have formed that close in to the star, but it's more likely that they formed further out and their orbits were disturbed, perhaps by a rogue gas giant, sending them spiralling in towards the sun.


Absolutely.

There is another factor at work here too. These are simply the Earth-like planets we can detect. It might be more common for Earth-like planets to be at Earth-like distances.

1559. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193961 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:46 am

Comment #193950 by phatbat

I am not sure how to respond.

Shall I just make something up? That seems to be acceptable in some circles.

OK, I'll say it is in the shape of rather wonderful ice sculptures of angels :)

1560. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193943 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 8:26 am

Comment #193921 by phatbat

Yes.

I mean, honestly.

1561. Only a Theory

Comment #193865 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #193859 by Cartomancer

Surely there must be some things about reality queerer than we are able to suppose?


Yes, that is it precisely, if you change it to "about natural reality".

Did you mean that the ID hacks are saying science should be limited based on what we understand about the universe now, or what we understood two millennia ago, or on what unimaginative people are capable conceiving without putting any effort into it, or something like that?


Yes. Basically, they are saying that if Behe or Dembski can't figure out what is going on, then it must be God. There is no waiting a decade or two, or even a millenium or two, to see if an explanation turns up.

You might almost think that ID was an "End Times" doctrine. We are the pinnacle of creation, and nothing beyond us will exist than can understand nature more than we do.

Incidentally, researching the claims of ID, I have noticed that there is another "bacterial flagellum". The archaea, a parallel group to the bacteria, have a flagellum of an entirely different construction, and of a different origin, that does the same job. Odd that a designer would have invented the same thing twice, when either one would have done the job?

1562. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193857 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #193738 by Steve Zara

I am not a philosophy "expert" (if there can be such a thing), nor am I a neurology or science wonder. I am a hospice RN who I believe God gave enough intelligence to discern truth from lie.


See what I mean, people?

Translation: I am one of the special few. I have a supermind that exceeds what you inferior mere mortals can do. What do I need actual knowledge and understanding for?

I just hope he/she doesn't start thinking they can fly.

And I used to think wooter was scary....

1563. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #193850 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 6:15 am

Remember that almost all the Earth's water was delivered by comets (dirty snowballs coated with oily organic muck) so early on, there were no oceans.


Icy environments would have helped. Freezing not only concentrates the nucleotides, but it looks like replication can occur naturally in ice.

1564. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193846 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #193834 by phil rimmer

Are there any theories working from the basis of the appearance of information, perhaps in relation to the necessary energy transfer involved?


I really haven't the faintest idea :)

1565. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193822 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:54 am

What if D is natural?


But then D can't be the source of objective morality etc., so it can't be Robertson's God.

1566. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193821 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 am

Comment #193806 by steveroot

Actually, you have a point! It is not quite the same, but close.

The problem for a flood would be to melt the ice without incinerating the Earth with the heat. The problem is that the melt would take centuries, if not millenia. Noah must have been very patient.

1567. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193818 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #193810 by Philip1978

David Robertson is interested in nothing more than (as epeeist has pointed out) "quarrel dialogue". He will take things out of context and insult and mock freely, simply to provoke. He has nothing else he can do. If you can stand it, read one or two of his Dawkins Letters. They are an intellectual joke. He addresses the arguments in TGD with nothing more than a combination of ignoring them and personal incredulity. (His response to Dawkins dealing with the argument from complexity was to repeat the argument from complexity). He is a poor intellect who is desperate for publicity. I suspect he is trying to establish a role for himself in what we know is a declining church. This could be why he is so fuzzy about evolution - mustn't shock the fundamentalists or the moderates. Trying to position himself as the "anti-Dawkins" is just not working. No-one really cares. He is just not up to it. He can't even bluster like McGrath. He can't rant like D'Souza. All he can do is come here and be obnoxious, and play games with posts on his own site.

1568. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193807 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:23 am

Comment #193805 by hungarianelephant

It took me quite a while to understand the power of the argument that MPhil uses.

This isn't a matter of something being outside of 4D spacetime. It is about something being entirely "extra dimensional".

1569. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193800 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:59 am

Comment #193788 by hungarianelephant

That still doesn't work, as it doesn't address the problem of causality. Something that influenced things at the quantum level would still have to influence them at a certain time and place. MPhil's argument is fully general.

1570. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193795 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:53 am

Comment #193786 by epeeist

Even then there were problems with attenuation.


This is the key point. It would kill all plant life.

There is this idea called "snowball Earth" that suggests that the entire planet froze over roughly 600 million years ago. There was a problem with the theory - the ice would have stopped photosynthesis and killed everything. There is a solution - some kinds of ice (which form slowly) are very clear, and life could survive, but it still can't be that thick.

I can't believe I am actually bothering to even deal with this absurd nonsense, but a canopy of even the purest ice required to flood the entire planet would block wavelengths of light required for photosynthesis. Everything would die.

Also, how much energy would be released when this amount of water fell to earth.


Excellent point.

Let's say the earth was covered with only 100 m of extra water. That would be 5x10^16 cubic metres. The mass would be 5x10^19 kg.

Let's assume it fell only 1000m. The potential energy released would be around 5 x 10^23 J

That is asteroid impact level, but worse as it isn't local. That is everything on the surface roasted.



So, there is another of txpiper's bright ideas down the toilet.

1571. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193780 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:26 am

Comment #193767 by Quetzalcoatl

You don't need to label yourself "clearthinker". You have convinced us that you think clearly through considerable evidence, and over some time.

I think it is rather sad to have to provide that label for yourself...

1572. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193773 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 am

txpiper wrote-

but I think an ice or ice crystal canopy was involved.


Oh dear. I am reduced to crying with laughter. I just don't know where to start. I didn't believe I would ever come across ideas nuttier than those of wooter, with his "God designs each snowflake", but boy did I underestimate humanity.

Dammit, these people are turning me nasty. I am a really decent and kind bloke normally.

1573. Only a Theory

Comment #193766 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #193760 by King of NH

You are right. We really must not give in at all. The controversy that ID wants taught is not about how life evolved, but whether or not science should give way to religion as a method of understanding reality. That is not something appropriate for science lessons.

1574. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193765 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 am

Comment #193763 by clearthinker

To which the only answer is 'what are you on?!



You truly are an awful person, David. You are now reduced to insulting someone who clearly has a deep understanding of philosophy (unlike you). I suspect that MPhil, with his astonishing knowledge of philosophy and politics will become someone we all hear more of in the future. You will look back on what you say here with embarassment if you have any morals at all.

What MPhil is saying is actually quite simple (athough the philosophical discussions of it can get a bit obscure). Cause and effect have no meaning without space and time. Without time, causality has no meaning, and without space, there is no ability to determine what caused what, as that requires chains of spatial connectedness.

So, to invoke a being outside of any space and time and to say that He influences physical reality is simply gibberish. The words don't make any sense. It is like saying "circles have 8 sides".

I think you should apologise, otherwise you are moving towards troll territory yet again.

Any answer to my questions on evolution yet?

This thread has run its course for me.


Looks like not.

1575. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #193755 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:14 am

Comment #192998 by clearthinker


However I am a little surprised that the man who claims that whites are more intelligent than blacks is cited on here. Surely the desperation to prove that the more intelligent you are the less likely you are to believe in God, should not lead one to post an article by such a racist?


Erm. Articles are posted here for discussion, not because we believe they are all true. You may wish to note that PZ Myers has rubbished this particular article:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/tainted_by_its_authorship.php

The issue about belief is education, not intelligence. An understanding of evolution, of cosmology, physics and philosophy show that, to put things bluntly, there just are no gaps for God left at all, and where there are gaps in our knowledge, God isn't the kind of thing that would fill them.

Incidentally, could you please state that you believe in evolution, and that natural disasters and disease occurred before the existence of humans? Honestly, it would help clear up any concern that you are a creationist.

1576. Only a Theory

Comment #193754 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:09 am

Comment #193750 by Hamish

But the hypotheses, that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that there is evidence of irreducible complexity, are testable hypotheses. They can be falsified.


Indeed, which is why they are less of a threat to science.

I'm not saying that Behe and other proponents of ID aren't also challenging empiricism, and if they are, then that is their far greater sin.


They are saying that science has limits based on what humans can conceive of. That is worrying to me.

1577. Only a Theory

Comment #193743 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 1:41 am

Modernity is less threatened by the intelligent design theorists, who try to prove their case in terms of evidence and observation, than by those who challenge the process of science itself.


I disagree. The agenda of ID is clear, and they are not after evidence and observation, indeed as Behe's attitude has shown, they reject it. I believe they do directly challenge the process of science, with their idea that we can define a point at which science has to stop, and allow in God.

1578. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193738 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #193588 by ketch22

Honestly people, I think even responding to this fellow is a waste. He has already declared that his beliefs are beyond any ability to challenge, and that any lack of belief on our part is a result of our flawed minds.

His understanding of modern science and philosophy is basically zero, yet he hand-waves away MPhil's explanations, for example.

This is definitely an irate-atheist situation, and I suspect responding will only boost an aready vast ego. It is, as epeeist so wisely says regarding another poster "allowing him to define the discourse".

Unless he concedes that he is prepared to change his mind on any point, then he is doing nothing more than trolling.

But that's just my view :)

1579. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193728 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 12:56 am

RtG wrote-

No. I have the ability for disernment in recognizing, what science has proven.


I know I am late to this, but honestly. It has taken me most of my life to recognise this, but the arrogance of theistic religions is simply mind-blowing. RtG literally thinks he has some kind of super-power. He can sense what is true about science, in a way that makes him superior to Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking... he thinks they, and us are some kind of inferior species.

This is a general theme of Abrahamic religions - the inferiority of other. We see it in Jewish cultures that don't want out-group marriage, we see it in the Muslim attitude to apostates, we see it in Christian groups that label the heads of other groups Satanists.

We can't carry on in a world where twits like RtG think they are supermen, able to hand-wave away the work and ideas of centuries of experts because of their magic super-brains. It is too dangerous.

This is why I am focussing on this point, and on ridicule. I suspect at least some who may know RtG, if they are reading, may find rating him/her above Einstein may be a bit absurd.

1580. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193490 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Comment #193484 by Corylus

You write so well, though.

I am undecided what the best approach is. I like the emotion in your version, but I wonder if it isn't just a bit idealistic; it sort of makes scientist sound rather too good. Some scientists do come to things with pre-conceived notions. Some do try and make the data fit their ideas. The thing is, that science protects against that....

1581. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193482 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:15 pm

A re-write, using some of Corylus' excellent ideas..

We humans are imperfect creatures. Recognizing that, scientists seek to learn about the world by testing what we believe to be true against what might instead be. Science is self-correcting and forces us to deal with what evidence reveals and not our expectations or pre-conceived answers.

Creationism assumes that scientific knowledge can be ignored if it does not tally with ancient texts and doctrines.

There could be no useful debate, as the two sides disagree about the justification for making statements about reality.

1582. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193479 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Comment #193477 by phil rimmer

Even with Corylus' excellent summary, I now have gone back to preferring my version (perhaps if worded better).

I think what is appropriate is a description of why debate is futile, and not so much a description of why we think science is right.

1583. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #193475 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Comment #193471 by Jed Rothwell

It is fascinating how other belief systems can seem much like religion. People disagree with you because just about everyone is corrupt, but if you follow the right prophet, you will get to the truth.

And so the "religion" of "cold fusionism" reveals itself.

1584. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193474 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Comment #193470 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Put like that doesn't it just want to make you scream. STOP BEING SO ARROGANT.


Yes. That is why I have stopped being so nice. It has got to me.

1585. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193472 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Comment #193468 by phil rimmer

We've got out of the debate, but we still want to stick it to them that they (however well intentioned) have nothing, don't we?


That is where philosophy comes in. We need to discuss the nature of knowledge, of evidence and so on.

1586. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193458 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Should we not (however falsely) assume that all parties are well intentioned?


Ah. Good point. That was why I emphasised lack of ability to communicate as against any particular intention.

For a debate to work, either creationists would have to accept scientific evidence in this area to be worth discussing, or the scientist would have to accept the bible as a useful source of information about the origin of species.

1587. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193450 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Comment #193444 by Corylus

Perfect, especially the last sentence.

1588. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #193425 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Comment #193418 by

Codes that give detailed instructions on how to build nanotech machines are always the product of intelligence, this is the evidence we have - yet to be falsified because it is capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny.


Rubbish. It was falsified by Darwin, who showed that complexity could arise by Natural Selection.

Your assertion does not apply to faulty replicators, which is what life is.

Furthermore, we can also advance the hypothesis that the genetic code arose by intelligence - which can be falsified if it is ever produced by natural phenomena. Or we can advance the hypothesis that life arose by natural phenomena . . . which can never be falsified.


This is wrong in many ways.

The hypothesis that life on Earth arose by natural phenomena can obviously be falsified. Suppose we discovered the remains of a spacecraft in 4-billion year old rocks, with a sign that we decoded as "Panspermia Ltd of Alpha Centaurii".

Invoking intelligence is never a good idea as a default position. Intelligence is extremely complex. One has to work through less complex alternatives first.

1589. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193401 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Comment #193393 by Standing

Creationism isn't a scientific disagreement. It rejects science, and wishes to hinder its acceptance.

1590. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193397 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #193389 by phil rimmer

I have been waiting for an excuse to use "epistemological" for ages. You make a good point about appeal to majority.

I have a slight problem with your text, in that the exclusion of all other explanations does not equal a test for intervention. It simply means we just don't know what happened.

Just my personal view, but I prefer the "not speaking the same language" point.

The debate ends up like this:

Evolutionist: "Evolution happened"
Creationist: "No it didn't"
Evolutionist: "Yes it did, here is my evidence"
Creationist: "I don't accept your evidence. I know God made everything, and quite recently too. Here is my evidence"
Evolutionist: "I don't accept your evidence. We might as well just go home"
Creationist: "I guess you are right. Could you give me some money for my bus fare? God wants you to."

1591. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193378 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm

However, because God created us, He is outside any man made logical prose and debate. Anything we can conceive as a way of disproving God or His attributes can only come from our limited minds that He actually created. Depravity and ignorance breed more depravity and ignorance.
Someone shows you are in no position to argue for God on any rational basis, and you simply define yourself as correct.

So, you aren't prepared to discuss it, because you are right, because you are right.

Bit of a waste of time posting here then.

I have forgotten Al-Rawandi's "discussion over" list...

Which was the one where the theist gives up debate and starts preaching?

1592. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193376 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Comment #193369 by ketch22

1. God makes sense of the universe's origin: both philosophically and scientifically it can be argued that the universe had a beginning.


No, this is nonsense.

Those who have had an experience with God, know that this is an experience with God and nobody from the outside can tell us otherwise. It is appropriately grounded in our own experience.


Rubbish. You clearly have no idea of psychology and neurology, or logic. If you are going state that your personal subjective experiences have unquestionable truth on this basis, you have to accept everyone else's personal beliefs about Gods. You have to accept Poseidon and Thor.

1593. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #193372 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Comment #193367 by Theo

Also, present evidence points to a designer thus this conclusion is more likely than an imagination that so happens to be natural.


Evidence does not point to a designer. Lack of understanding of how something happened does not point to any specific cause for that event.

Zara, I cannot prove that a phenomenon will never be explained naturally just as you cannot prove the non-existence of God. In fact, I could be just as preposterous by stating that atheism is nonsense until someone comes up with a method for demonstrating that God will never be discovered.


No. God is excess to requirements, and is infinitely complex. The "God exists" and "God does not exist" statements are not of equal weight in terms of the burden of proof.

As said before I have no ontological predisposition, if you want to call that supernaturalism, that is your choice; I however seek to fill gaps with evidence rather than "precedent".


Please explain what would be the nature of evidence for the supernatural, and it could be proved that it was not some unknown natural phenomenon. "Supernatural" is a positive claim - that some phenomena are permanently beyond natural description.

1594. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193364 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Comment #193361 by Steve Zara

However, I trust science as well and never implied I didn't.


I don't believe you are qualified to make this statement, as you appear to have no understanding how it works, as shown by this statement:

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.


Your opinion on the involvement of Thor in weather would be appreciated. After all, it has never been shown that he was not involved.

1595. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193361 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Comment #193356 by ketch22

If I may contribute...

"A Reasonable Deity"
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/123642.html

"The God Razor"
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/114429.html

I have dealt with people like you before.

1596. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193357 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #193349 by phil rimmer

I think this approach deserves much wider application. We should not engage in any such events in future, where a science V. Creationism format exists.


Absolutely.

Regarding a summary of why a debate is pointless, I think it can be brief:

There is no point having someone who accepts evolution based on a scientific understanding of the evidence debate this with someone who not only does not accept the evidence, but questions the entire process of science by taking a position on a scientific issue that is at odds with the overwhelming majority of scientists, and justifies that position based on religious ideas. There could be no useful debate, as the two sides disagree about the justification for making epistemological statements. Such an event would only act as publicity for creationism, a view that is considered seriously flawed and problematic by the majority of educated people.

1597. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193345 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Comment #193344 by thewhitepearl

THAT is by far the coolest nickname ever.


I didn't think so at age 6! :)

1598. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193340 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #193339 by mordacious1

It was a nickname I had in primary school. With a name like Zara, such things are to be expected.

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/109099.html

1599. 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.

1600. 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.

More Pages: Previous | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 | Next