Comments by Steve Zara

1751. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211143 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Gregg-

I agree with you, and Brian, and Clod.

1752. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211116 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I remeber the last time someone tried to change my mind using ridicule and humiliation it turned out to be a very bad strategy effectively closing off all communication and leading to entrenched positions.

Exactly.

Comment #211115 by Brian English

Brilliant Brian. A protest like this is unlikely to cause congnitive discomfort, only emotional discomfort. Which may be satisfying to cause but...

1753. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211111 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Comment #211108 by Gregg Townsend

I think that in a free, democratic society, people should be free to believe in absurdities. Even PZ has said that.

I think if PZ targetted a protest against specific nasty aspects of the Catholic church that everyone implicitly supports by being a member, that would be a positive thing.

But if we are going to ridicule people just for believing absurdities, we are going to have little time for anything else.

1754. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211109 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Comment #211101 by Quetzalcoatl

It's not just "it's just a cracker" any more though, is it? It's become "it's not just a cracker, and the barrage of abuse I've received has convinced me that something should be done".

I guess I am not sure what this does. Shows that PZ is not afraid of a cracker... knew that already.

1755. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211103 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #211097 by irate_atheist

No, not all. I have friends who are Catholics. One even came to my civil partnership ceremony.

Thanks all for the discussion. It has been useful. I think my mind has nearly been changed. I am definitely wavering.

1756. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211095 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #211091 by irate_atheist

You are starting to change my mind.

I would be happier if PZ did what he does as a specific protest about something to do with the Catholic church.

But just doing it because "it's just a cracker" won't achieve much, I think.

Comment #211093 by Epinephrine

I don't care ione way or another about desecrating the wafer, but the notion that it is magical or special needs to be addressed.

Sure, but I don't see how this achieved it. The original Cook protest was effective because he made use of the fact that those in the Church had a certain belief.

Just stating that "it isn't magical" doesn't deal at all with the belief that it is.

However, I have no idea how to adress that belief....

1757. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211089 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #211083 by Ian Bamlett

Surely you have heard the argument time and time again that religion should have no special right to respect that is not accorded to other beliefs on matters of, say, politics or sporting affiliation?

I fully agree. However, what seems to be implied is that people who are religious have less rights.

If someone were to show their contempt for a football team by buying dolls of that team's mascot and, say, burning them, and videoing the result, I would think that rather a crass thing to do. It would give me an icky feeling.

It turns out I was wrong about the original "offender". What he did was decent, and above board. It was a targetted protest against funding of religious ceremonies at a particular site, and against a particular group who knew about this. Good for him.

1758. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211082 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Of course, if Steve actually holds that a cracker is the flesh and blood of a deity, well, that's just plain fucking crazy!

Decades ago, I used to be a Catholic. I have to say I never really understood that bit.

Comment #211073 by Auraboy

The wafers are readily handed out. It's like someone handing me a free copy of the Koran in the street,

Not really. It is as if you went to a Koran-handling ceremony at which you knew it was normal practise to treat the book well, and according to certain customs. It isn't stealing, but it is a breach of trust.

1759. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211075 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #211069 by irate_atheist

Seriously Steve, because that's what - in effect - you're saying.

Not really no. What I am saying is that we recognise that something has meaning for someone else. That is all.

This is a bunch of adults who are credulous, gullible and stupid enough to actually believe that a piece of bread not only symbolises but is literally the body of their dead but not-dead man-god-son.

We had better be really careful we aren't in the least bit credulous, gullible or stupid ourselves then, as there might be just a bit of hipocrisy.

We should argue our case recognising that everyone can occasionally be credulous, gullible and stupid sometimes. We make the case that rationalism helps cope with that.

1760. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211067 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #211062 by Auraboy

I think it is the whole "getting hold of a cracker" that I feel uneasy about. It implies some breach of trust by someone at some point. Drawing satirical pictures is something that can be done alone. It isn't directly invasive of a ritual.

If PZ "blessed" some bread himself, or something like that, I would not feel so uneasy.

1761. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211061 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Comment #211058 by Am I Evil?

But there's a side of me that's rather intrigued to see what happens next...

Me too, actually! But I feel guilt about that.

1762. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211051 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Myers: The response has done nothing but confirm it: I have to do something. I'm not going to just let this disappear. It's just so darned weird that they're demanding that I offer this respect to a symbol that means nothing to me. Something will be done. It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power. This cracker is nothing.

I am not at ease with this. Just because a symbol has no respect for one person, does that mean another should not show no respect. I think all this will show is that PZ (and many of us) are sure that the cracker is nothing. But will it further the argument?

I have blogged about this. I am happy for anyone to try and change my mind.

1763. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211037 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Comment #211025 by al-rawandi

Yes, guns scare me a lot. What I don't like about them is that they give people such causal power. You don't get drive-by stabbings. Shootings can be on impulse, and you don't have to get up close and push the knife in (which at least requires some effort and thinking time). Guns aren't something that can be also be used to kill. They have no other use, like cleaning the cooker, or lighing a bonfire. They are a tool designed to kill. So yes, they do scare me.

1764. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211022 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Comment #211020 by al-rawandi

Guns are like alcohol, potentially dangerous, to be enjoyed responsibly.

How, for a typical city-dweller, are guns "enjoyed"?

1765. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211015 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Comment #211012 by skybri

It's got to be up to nuclear. That assured destuction will keep us all safe, surely.

1766. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211013 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 12:07 pm

So will you join my campaign to outlaw tobacco?

Unless you have a very tough cigarette and the right kind of rifle from which it can be fired, it is pretty hard to kill anyone else on impulse with tobacco. Although, apparently, if you drop a cigarette box off the empire state building....

1767. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #211011 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Comment #211008 by The Reverend Dark

Excellent post.

There is also Erwin Schrodinger's book "What is Life?"

So, txpiper is apparently wiser than Shrodinger.

1768. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #210974 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 10:25 am

What I suggest is that physicists probably don't spend their time evaluating geology or biology. You can prove me wrong easily enough by posting or quoting their assessment of the idea of DNA copy errors producing biological complexity and organization.

OK then. You are simply brighter than the geologists and biologists. Brighter that James Watson. Brighter than Stephen J Gould. Brighter than Richard Dawkins, than John Maynard Smith. Brighter than .... hundreds of thousands of others.

Please explain how you achieved this? Accident of birth, or some kind of miracle drug?

You have a bit of a problem here. If you can't show you are brighter than them, then you are going to sound like a conspiracy theory wingnut - the whole world of science is wrong, and txpiper knows better.

You are a real gift to this site. You willingly step up and show how crazy and deluded supposedly educated creationists are. We need more posts from you as evidence of this.

1769. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210845 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 6:31 am

But this whole incident shows that there are many Catholics who do take this very seriously, so it's not enough for us to simply call it preposterous and leave it at that. It is, but just belittling the belief isn't going to change anyone's mind. I think this is something that Catholics need to be challenged on, whatever arguments they put forward need to be examined and countered if we are genuinely interested in changing their position on this.

Precisely, Quetz.

Simply saying "it's a cracker you idiot" is not going to achieve anything, no matter how good it may feel.

1770. Lourdes fears priestly scandal will make profits dry up

Comment #210840 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 6:23 am

Comment #210835 by fides_et_ratio

That is actually quite a nasty thing to say: People give love and service because of the spirit of God, not just because they are nice.

I have more respect for people than that.

1771. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210839 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 6:21 am

Comment #210834 by Dr Doctor

I don't understand why this position is so troubling to some, or difficult to understand.

What you are proposing is a bullying and undemocratic society, where everyone gets to harrass anyone else just because they say "we are right".

If you get to harass Catholics, they get to harass you too. It's only fair.

1772. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210837 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 6:19 am

Comment #210830 by Tyler Durden

So you want a dictatorship of ideas, and you are happy to wander into any ceremony anwhere, and disrupt it because you think their views ridiculous?

You don't want to engage in reasoned debate - you want direct action against Catholics, and you want it now?

1773. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210819 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 5:45 am

Comment #210808 by Tyler Durden

As I said, we aren't dealing with what is true, we are dealing what people believe to be true.

You can go around saying "It's just a cracker" all you like, but that isn't going to persuade people who disagree with you.

Are you suggesting that when dealing with others there is no need for anyone to justify their views? That we can simply declare ourselves to be right?

I would rather live in a democracy than that kind of dictatorship.

1774. Periodic Table of Videos

Comment #210790 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 4:26 am

An atom of iron is more likely to last, un-transmuted, until the end of time than any other type of atom.

I am afraid not. Proton decay (if it happens) will mean that even iron will start to decay to lighter elements.

1775. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210789 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 4:24 am

I stand by my comments that not all life is sacred. Those who rape, rob (not burgle), and molest cause more human suffering than their shitty existence justifies.

I would not want to be the one who had to judge this of someone.

1776. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210773 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 4:03 am

Comment #210633 by RickM

Anyone that believes a wheat cracker is the body of some fictitious mythological character should be ridiculed at every opportunity. I'm sick of this crap about "respecting" people's stupid religious magic.

First, it isn't ridiculous to someone who has been brought up to believe that since they were a child.

We believe otherwise because we support scientific rationalism and reason.

We can't start off from the point of view that everybody should be able to see immediately that we are right. We have to first argue our case and win. This is why I object to statements like "it's just a cracker". Of course it's just a cracker - to us.

Meanwhile, until we can persuade others to believe that, what do we do? If we are going to say it is acceptable to ridicule and harass individuals because of their beliefs, we are in no position to complain if they do the same to us.

This is not just about who is right - it is about how we live together in a society with a range of beliefs.

1777. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210762 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 3:56 am

Comment #210759 by Brian English

I have a new post today!

Also, I may be a bit slow for a while. I have RSI and also my reading/screen glasses are broken.

1778. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210753 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 3:43 am

Comment #210745 by Brian English

Hey, he did not say you weren't one of the few!

1779. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210740 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 3:21 am

I wouldn't feel obligated to attempt the use of the less-than-lethal weapon if, in my judgment, it wouldn't work.

Hopefully that clears it up.

It helps. But, I think this is a very difficult ethical matter indeed. At what point can one say that it has become a life-or-death situation? Tazers would definitely incapacitate someone so you could escape.

Given a gun and a tazer, then with someone coming at you, I can't see any circumstance where one should use the gun first.

1780. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210737 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 3:13 am

You certainly have a dizzying intellect

If you are talking about Bonzai, then I have always thought so. I have disagreed with him about much, but there is no question about his intellect.

1781. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210729 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2008 at 3:01 am

Steve,
I love the Taser, but you are right it is not as versatile as a handgun. If someone accosts me with a knife, I'd just as soon Taser him, but I wouldn't feel obligated no to shoot him.

So, even if you had a non-lethal weapon, you would not feel any obligation not to use a lethal one.

I am honestly astounded.

1782. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210648 by Steve Zara on July 14, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Comment #210645 by Christopher Davis

Tasers are pretty effective forms of defence, and should be non-lethal.

Would you support people having tasers rather tha guns? Or is the long-range lethal capability of a gun what is required by the average citizen?

1783. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #210641 by Steve Zara on July 14, 2008 at 11:27 pm

txpiper-

You say you aren't particularly bright, but you suggest we rate your ability to interpret data over that of Einstein and Hawking.

Could you please explain this conflict?

1784. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210337 by Steve Zara on July 14, 2008 at 9:26 am

Comment #210325 by Mitchell Gilks

I agree. What I am trying to determine is Dr Doctor's position. Is he in favour of being a total bastard providing it is against religion?

1785. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210212 by Steve Zara on July 14, 2008 at 5:12 am

Dr Doctor -

I am not in support of NOMA. I would like religion gone from society. The question is how we achieve this. You seem to be suggesting we label religion a thought crime, and can interfere with its ceremonies and rituals just about anywhere and at any time. I think not. I think we have to argue our case in a civilized way.

1786. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #210211 by Steve Zara on July 14, 2008 at 5:09 am

Comment #210163 by Sue Blackmore

For the term "God" to have any meaning at all, it surely has to include the idea of a mind, and the ability to perform actions (such as creation).

I am not comfortable with trying to re-define God in the way you (and others, such as Stuart Kauffman) describe..

After all, we would not let people get away with calling Father Christmas "simply the essence of snow".

1787. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #210190 by Steve Zara on July 14, 2008 at 4:17 am

txpiper wrote-

Oh gosh no. I don't think I'm brilliant at all

Yes you do. You say that you are better at interpreting scientific data than Einstein or Hawking.

We have a simple choice here as to who to believe.

txpiper and creationism, or Einstein and not creationism.

If you are saying you aren't that brilliant, then I am afraid we have to go with Einstein. Why don't you?

1788. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209980 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Comment #209974 by decius

I agree. My problem is with people who say "this is what all Catholics are really like". Religion can provide a way that some people can express awful views. That does not mean that all people of a certain religion hold such views.

1789. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209972 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Would an atheist ever claim that abusing a cracker is the most vile thing he could think of? I don't think so.

I am an atheist. I rate myself as more of an atheist than Richard Dawkins. But, I think this argument is silly.

Of course, a Christian would not worry about abusing a "cracker". But, for us to say that they should not worry is to assume the argument has already been won. It is begging the question. It may be begging a very silly question - "is this bit of cracker Jesus?" but that does not matter.

I have a real problem with much of the response to this matter - that those who disagree with us can obviously see that they are wrong and we are right.

1790. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209964 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Comment #209963 by decius

That is deeply scary. What does trouble me though is comments on PZ's site saying that we are now seeing the true face of Catholics. I worry about such comments. Most people are decent, so most Catholics are decent. What we are seeing is religion providing a framework for nasty people to express their views and feel virtuous. We need to vigorously critcise religion, but I will never support any campaign to criticise most religious people.

1791. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209961 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 4:10 pm

I mean, to offend for the sake of offending seems awfully childish to me. I was with him until he expressed his desire to purposely offend Catholics by desecrating the Eucharist. That seems a little over-the-top to me and I can't support that.

It seems that he was a Catholic. No desecration was intended, but a protest against funding of religious ceremonies.

But, even if desecration was the intention, does it seem reasonable that the creator of the universe would be upset by what happened to a tiny bit of bread? The fuss about all this seems to be like worrying about blasphemy. If God is all-powerful, what does he care about what people think and say?

1792. Man Sues Church Over 'God Injury'

Comment #209939 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Comment #209937 by huzonfurst

We have tried, so many of us, to get babrock to stop treating this site like something he is text messaging to. We have asked nicely, so many times, but to no avail. One might think that someone who can be bothered to type "unsuccessfully" can actually follow a "t" with "he". Apparently not.

I am afraid I skip his posts. I can't be bothered to deal with the irritation they cause me.

I consider persistent mis-spelling and ignoring of grammar, especially after it has been pointed out, to be a form of low-grade rudeness.

1793. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209895 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #209891 by Bonzai

Being able to run simulations with controlled inputs are quite different from being able to make predictions.

Not really. That is just what climate change researchers are doing now. We can't get precise predictions, but we can get some idea of statistical ranges.

1794. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #209779 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 10:20 am

Comment #209554 by Scot Rafkin

That is a wonderful post. Perhaps txpiper believes that Mars is the work of Satan?

1795. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209771 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 9:57 am

Comment #209768 by Bonzai

It may be. I don't think we have enough information yet. In a century or so, I would not be surprised if one could model a brain fully, and run simulations of behaviour resulting from different inputs. I don't think brain activity is chaotic in the same way the weather is.

1796. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209765 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 9:25 am

Am I even close?

Close.

Suppose we have a chaotic system like the weather. Your ability to predict decreases exponentially up to a point. After a few weeks, you lose the ability to forecast typical rainfall, but you can still say that winters are colder than summers.

In the real world, chaotic systems have constraints. The orbits of planets are subject to chaos. We can't predict with precision where pluto will be within it's orbit 100 million years from now, but we can predict that it will still be in orbit.

1797. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209757 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 7:57 am

An error bound so big would essentially means you have lost track completetly if your purpose is to make say, weather forcasts.

But that is the point. There are error bounds on chaotic systems. Whether or not the chaos matters depends what you want to predict.

1798. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209748 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 7:01 am

No, because remember a chaotic system is one that not only you cannot predict with certainly, but you cannot even meaningfully estimate the uncertainty

The weather is chaotic, but I can predict that the uncertainty is not greater than -100C to 100C for the temperature of the Earth's surface anywhere next year.

1799. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #209499 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 12:42 pm

My personal views about the future of the planet are defined by eschatological expectations focused on mankind, so they wouldn't make much sense to anyone here.

How could your views make sense to anyone on the planet? You have a mind that exceeds that of Einstein and Hawking.

I don't understand why you are wasting time posting. With an intellect like yours, a Nobel prize is a minor matter. Why don't you go for one.. I hear the prize money is good.

Incidentally, if you are so sure of your world-class intellect, why not post your full name?

Incidentally, my Higgs Challenge:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/146017.html
now has prize money involved. If your super-brain can predict the answer, you can win cash!

1800. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #209456 by Steve Zara on July 12, 2008 at 10:20 am

This is not about "things". It is about a specific issue concerning what mutations can actually do.

No, it is about the whole foundation of modern science. It is about relativity, and radioactive dating, and geology, and chemistry, and biology.

Einstein has had influence in all those areas.

And yet we are supposed to bow down before txpiper as the greater mind.

Honestly, you really are making yourself look a complete idiot. I don't think even your friends and family who may be reading this think you are a genius greater than Einstein. Or, have you been keeping your posts secret out of embarassment?