Comments by Steve Zara

2001. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191486 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 3:42 am

Comment #191480 by epeeist

You can indeed. It gives me an excuse to by a book MPhil recommended.

2002. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191478 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #191476 by Paula Kirby

You were really heroic for sitting through that quietly.

That was an interesting report. I am increasingly encountering postmodernism in discussions with theists. It does seem a last-ditch defence, as reason and science are proving so successful in revealing the flaws in religion.

2003. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191470 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 2:58 am

What happened to the new Steve With Bite?

I thought Comment #191446 was suitably full of teeth :)

2004. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191461 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #191454 by hungarianelephant

Absolutely outstanding. Nothing more need be said!

Next theist please....

2005. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191446 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #191437 by ypostelnik

Some of us have been looking at "the other side" for years, if not decades. My personal view is that you are almost certainly not debating with. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

The reason why I believe you are not worth discussion is because your blog post has to be one of the most ignorant of just about every area of science I have ever seen, and that is saying a lot. It is so bad that I am tempted to see it as a joke, or perhaps a publicity stunt to promote your company (which I see is mentioned after your post).

Your post is precisely equivalent to writing a series of letters (in coloured crayon, I would expect) to Einstein, Hawking, Watson, Crick, and Dawkins) each of which says "I am sorry Professor, but I know better than you. Let me point out where you are wrong".

I don't think you realise what bad publicity this is for you. Not just your ignorance in dealing with science is now known to thousands, but your arrogance in assuming so much of it is wrong is as well.

What you have to do to convince me you are worth discussion is to list what evidence or argument would persuade you to change your mind.

2006. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191434 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 1:03 am

txpiper-

But I do enjoy explaining as best I can, why I don't accept what other people believe.

You haven't explained that.

You have given a list of things that you don't understand. You haven't given any explanation of why you feel able to rate your personal feelings above entire fields of science.

I await that explanation.

2007. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #191431 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2008 at 12:32 am

Comment #185335 by Theo

If however, metaphysical supernaturalism connotes metaphysical neutralism i.e. it allows for the possibility of supernatural causes only when phenomena cannot be explained by natural means, then I cannot at this time foresee any negative consequence.

This is a very common sort of statement. It is nonsense. Or, at least, I consider it nonsense until someone comes up with a method for demonstrating that any given phenomenon can never be explained by any kind of natural cause, known or unknown.

"God of the gaps" arguments are considered inappropriate by many religious people, from theologists to popes. Unfortunately, "Supernaturalism of the gaps" is just as flawed.

2008. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191419 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 11:21 pm

txpiper write:

No. I don't like to generalize. But arrogance, like humility, means different things to different people.

Your arrogance is inescapable.

Could you please explain why we should waste time listening to arguments simply because you rate your personal incredulity as a more powerful force for understanding than the entire fields of biology and geology?

You may not realise how stupid and dangerous this is. Would you let someone inexperienced fly a plane you were in because they had a firm inner conviction that they were better than any pilot? The result would be a disaster.

There is a world-wide battle to prevent people like you trying to "crash" science.

So, an explanation of why anyone should take you seriously would be appreciated.

2009. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191208 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

could be a search for positive evidence of Intelligent Design.

I am afraid not. Positive evidence for ID is, in principle, impossible:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/119104.html

2010. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #191186 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 10:41 am

Comment #191180 by Vaal

Is this the new you? One body blow followed by a right hook and the poor old theists are out for the count. Will they come back for round two?

Yes, this is my new attitude. I have been taking time off, and have been learning a considerable amount from a good friend here who is a philosopher. I have also taken on board what epeeist has said to me, and very wise words from Dr Benway. I have also been debating theists and theologists, and have had comforting victories. I have many new ideas about strategies to deal with those who wish to promote religious ideas in public.

2011. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191179 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 10:26 am

Comment #191172 by sent2null

A wonderful post!

But.. those are still things that happen within our spacetime.

What is truly bizarre are ideas of how our spacetime itself could have arisen from a background that is built of more fundamental units than space and time. I have picked up hints of this work from reading the books of Brian Greene, and there is also the now classic work of Hawking and Hartle.

2012. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #191176 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 10:19 am

Comment #191156 by Shmeezers

Well, not I. But scientism should be honest enough to understand this. It is a faith system, like any other. Science has never proved that God does not exist, nor that God did not intelligently design anything. Rather, it simply excludes such a possiblity from the outset, which naturally leads to its dogmatic adherence to Darwinian evolution.

Nice to see you again.

I have quite a bit of work for you to do. Are you ready?

First, you have to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. You have to show that certain phenomena are not just beyond our understanding now, but beyond any possible understanding of any future investigation of nature.

Actually no, that isn't enough. You have to show that phenomena aren't just beyond any understanding of nature, but that they definitely don't follow any natural rules.

Having done that, we can now address the matter of God. God is a supreme being, with infinite extent, and infinite knowledge and infinite power. So what you have to do is exclude all possible non-infinite alternatives, even supernatural ones, before your God is acceptable.

I think you might perhaps have some idea of the problem. It isn't science that has excluded God from the outset. It is theology. If you want to talk about a "God" who is natural, and perhaps not terribly bright, then perhaps a conversation could be possible.

Are you prepared to have that conversation?

2013. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191163 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #191138 by irate_atheist

Excellent post.

What people confuse, I feel, is "faith", with "hope".

"hope" = I have no evidence, but I really want there to be a God.

"faith" = I have this deep inner feeling that there is a God, and that is evidence

Enough "hope", and you start deluding yourself you have "faith".

But, this still isn't the true "belief without evidence" of the theologists. It is something far worse and more dangerous.

2014. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #191145 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

Comment #191136 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

A Blank Slate?

Close to it, yes.

However, during development, various parts of the brain will have been stimulated by the various nerves that attach to it, and in the womb the fetus will have experienced warmth, touch, and sound, so not quite blank.

2015. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #191130 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 9:16 am

It was an analogy rather than a literal comparison I was making, though there are some point mutations in genomes that are extremely deleterious to the organism. The main advantage that DNA/RNA has over Windows Vista is it's ability to repair damage and errors in it's coding. Computer scientists have started using similar biological techniques to develop resilient software for mission critical apps.

I didn't mean to be too critical, but I don't believe that genome can be anything like the same kind of thing as software. I say this as a programmer with 40 years experience (!). It is far more like a robust recipe.

2016. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #191116 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 8:49 am

(Bother. I am addicted. I admit it)

Comment #190929 by Obecalp

That's hardly an argument. For an instance there are only very few genes responsible for making antibodies (the tiny protein fragments which, among other functions, can neutralize a pathogen), but still a human being is able to generate a staggering diversity of 10^18 different (!) antibodies!

But those don't form complex structures. Variety is not complexity.

By the way, are you implying that a newborns brain is NOT extremely complex???

Yes, that is just what I am saying. Brains develop as a result of learing and nerve stimulation.

A potential way to look at a very, very young brain is like a huge disk drive. Vast amounts of the same structures (neurones/magnetic domains), ready to store information, and as a result, contain complexity.

Comment #190944 by Buddha

The Human genome needs to be viewed as a computer Operating System rather than a recipe book. A computer programming language may have only a few dozen instructions, but it's the combination and interaction of those instructions that provide the infinite variety of software applications.

One thing we can be pretty sure that the genome is NOT like is an operating system. Just about all software systems we know are very fragile - change a single character and it is possible to bring the whole thing down. Living systems (including the brain) are robust. Major parts can be damaged and changed, and they carry on.

Comment #191020 by Mozglubov

I just wanted to quickly point out before I head off to work that the infant brain is, in many ways, more complex than the adult brain (I guess it depends on your definition of complexity)

Indeed. What you are describing is simplicity, not complexity. The pruning is one mechanism for introducing complexity, of sculpting the brain.

2017. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191014 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 5:37 am

I am not in an ethical free for all because I believe in an absolute God who provides the standard for absolute morality.

Inspired by this (and past responses of a similar nature), I have posted a little something based on a response I wrote here some months back.

I humbly hope that it may be found relevant (part of my reason for blogging is to build up resources)...

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/134308.html

2018. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190880 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Max...

It is no big deal. I am involved in other interesting and hopefully useful ways of promoting reason. I am just not in the mood to deal with that sort of "vigour".

Incidentally, I am about to post the closing statement of a long formal debate (just need a friend to look it over) that has been going on for most of the year (or at least so it feels like). I'll post here when it is done, as some may find it interesting.

2019. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190874 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Fuck's sake, Steve. This is not on.

Don't worry. I'll take a break from here again. I guess I am not suited right now to the robust nature of discussions here. Maybe I'll try again in the near future.

Back to the blog :)

2020. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190869 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Comment #190866 by MaxD

I am taking a new approach after much thinking about dealing with creationists. I hope others feel it is complementary to theirs. I think that although describing their scientific errors is extremely valuable (and it has been done superbly on this thread), in the end it is futile in dealing with the individual concerned. Instead, I point out how unethical their attacks on science are: you have added appropriate adjectives - it is certainly dishonest. It is cowardly because all you get from a scientist is a good argument (no condemning you to hell), and it is unbelievably arrogant. If this does not shame an individual into retreat, it may make others question their position, and keep their religious views away from scientific discussions.

This is a far less tolerant approach that I have taken in the past, but I feel it may be necessary.

2021. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190863 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Comment #190860 by MaxD

Perfectly expressed.

Styer-

Is it the hat or something, or am I somehow just fundamentally annoying? I really am not intending to be, but it is getting a bit tiresome to be picked on whichever thread I happen to be on.

Seriously, if I am being a total ass, I'll shut up for a while - better than winding people up without knowing why.

2022. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190861 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm

You may think it is magnificent, I think it is narrow-minded and guarantees absurd and erroneous results:

But to me it is repugnant.

Here you show your incredible arrogance again. Truth does not care about what you find repugnant. No amount of trying to deny evidence and twist the findings of other scientists will change that you are personally claiming to have a more profound knowledge of their subject and how it should be investigated than they do.

If you don't want to accept science, you are entirely free to simply ignore it. However, what you are doing here is not just arrogant, it is obscene. You are trying to interfere with science because you don't like what it says.

You should be truly ashamed.

My beliefs are just a tad more sophisticated than you might think.

Nonsense.

You aren't sophisticated at all. You have beliefs that weren't even respectable in the middle ages.

At least try and act with a bit of dignity. Go back to your holy book and stop trying to act like you have some world-changing knowledge of science. This is frankly embarassing to watch.

2023. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190853 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm

It is my view that most believers don't have faith. They think they have evidence. If you have evidence, what is faith needed for?

Nope, for most believers the complexity of the world and the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they think of God, and they listen to the imagined voices of Jesus in their heads.

To most of them, "faith" means little more than "trust the warm fuzzy feeling".

The ones who really have to have faith are the theologists, who know what fragile assumptions their beliefs are based on.

2024. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190826 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Comment #190824 by Styrer-

No rudeness intended, and no huff.

However you want to use the term creationist, one can surely consider as truly bizarre the idea that natural disasters are somehow a consequence of sin.

Well, I do anyway :)

I'll stop posting just on this particular thread for a while and let things calm down.

2025. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190820 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Styrer, Steve, hey chill

I am quite cool, but somewhat bemused at what I have stirred up.

David seems to be a very odd creationist - some hybrid of YEC and Old Earth, in which there was a period before man in which the Earth was somehow a much nicer place. Quite how he imagines the world was free of cancer before humans is puzzling.

Perhaps a better term would be "Old Eden"?

On the other hand, I may simply not have experience at reading religious writings, and am taking things at face value in David's writings that I shouldn't.

Any guidance offered would be appreciated.

2026. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190813 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Comment #190810 by Styrer-

Sorry, but I have neither the time or inclination for this discussion. You are welcome to call me what you like if you feel it helps the battle for reason in some way. It does not concern me.

For whatever reasons, DR is, and has been, making creationist noises. It is now clear that he has been making noises for some time, but perhaps just to a selected audience. That is both interesting and concerning. I feel we should concentrate on that matter.

2027. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190807 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Comment #190805 by Styrer-

I don't know why, but I do seem to get you riled up. It is not my intention.

From my point of view, there is more than enough in that single article to label someone as creationist if that is their honest view. No-one who believes in evolution (or geology!) would state that God made the world initially free of death, disasters (even cancer), and those were a result of man's sinfulness. It is hard to see how much more flagging of creationism there could be short of claiming to be a personal supporter of Ken Ham and best fiends of Ben Stein.

However, perhaps best for your temper if you don't engage me in discussion :)

2028. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190797 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Comment #190794 by Styrer-

As occasionally happens, I am losing track of what you are saying.

What I meant was that the evidence has been there for years.

I am not exaggerating about that.

Mind you, one has to perhaps be cautious about what the evidence shows. Was DR a creationist, playing at being a creationist, or simply nodding in the direction of creationism to placate some people?

Who knows.

2029. We happy hooligans

Comment #190789 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm

So it is with much of theology (that Dawkins is accused of not studying). It's not focused on proving God exists but how we might think about the divine or the supernatural or phenomena science can't explain or give meaning to. (I'm referring to more modern theologians mentioned obliquely or not in the article.)

This is hugely question-begging. It assumes there are divine or supernatural phenomena. This is quite an assumption; in fact, I am personally convinced it is unprovable.

I am not saying science can deal with everything - it clearly can't, and there is an important role for philosophy, for example. But, theology has to first justify that its field of study actually exists.

2030. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190767 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm

It is possible to shift the opinion of theists, very occasionally. I would like to report a very small victory in the battle for reason. Today in a thread on Pharyngula Vox Day has conceded that I was right in a criticism of his discussion about Dawkins' discussion of complexity. There are now, apparently, 7 criticisms of Dawkins in this matter, not 8.

It isn't all hopeless. If we can shift even the most vigorous theists even a little, just think of the impression we can make on those watching discussions who are far less certain.

2031. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190752 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #190748 by Styrer-

My hindsight is focussing on that article.

2032. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190740 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Comment #190729 by Styrer-

Forgive me, I was not clear. Scottishgeologist has posted a link to an article by DR regarding the Asian Tsunami, written in 2005. It is distinctly creationist in flavour:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

It implies that human sinfulness resulted in a fall, which brought death and natural disasters into the world.

I am not talking about hindsight in terms of looking at his postings here - this is about looking back at what we now know he has written in the past.

2033. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190724 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #190718 by Quine

To follow on from Quine's excellent post, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that there are serious problems even with the term "supernatural". We have discovered physical phenomena that are way beyond anything we imagined possible centuries ago. An example is the time dilation effect of relativity. It seems, therefore, highly problematic for us to label anything we see that is beyond our comprehension as "supernatural".

The concept of the supernatural is as flawed as that of intelligent design. It is a "gap filler" that can never be shown to be correct, as it would be impossible to exclude the range even of conceivable potential natural explanations, let alone those we don't know of yet.

Intelligent Design is understandably held in contempt even by theologists and popes. Unfortunately precisely the same arguments apply to supernaturalism as a whole.

A debate which even involved mention of God is question-begging. Debates should start with the science and philosophy of naturalism, and only if and when the supernatural has been established as a viable concept should discussions about theism proceed, in my view.

2034. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190696 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Comment #190692 by al-rawandi

I feel that it's like setting a date to play golf with a friend, I come to the course dressed and carrying my golf clubs, and my friend shows up wearing a kilt, naked from the waist up and wielding a large axe. How does one proceed?

Doesn't that depend on the sex of the friend in that case?

2035. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190680 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #190672 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I am highly suspicious about this new, more overt creationism from David Robertson. In hindsight, it has always been there, but I do wonder what political motive there is for revealing it now. Perhaps it makes Robertson more visible, or gives him allies from the more fundamentalist factions of various religions.

One thing is for sure; I would never debate him publically. As we have seen on this site, he would always be responding to things never said, to his own ideas of what he wants people to believe "atheists" think.

2036. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190665 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 10:54 am

The main reason for this is that atheists (most often) seek to disprove God from the Darwinian rationale (as seems to be the case for Dawkins). So what is being suggested is just an attempt to "mirror" these perspectives on each side of the question.

No. You are confusing the issue of creationism with that of theism. The main refutation of creationism is evidence for evolution. The main refutation of theism is the argument regarding the appearance of design of the universe.

If you wished to have a debate regarding the appearance of fine tuning of the universe, that would not be too unreasonable, however arguing about evolution would present an extreme position (creationism) as if it had any merit or standing in mainstream science or religion. It doesn't. Creationism is roughly equal the the idea of the flat earth in terms of rational credibility.

2037. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190568 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #190510 by irate_atheist

It was amazing enough watching nephews and neices. I can remember the strong desire to learn, not just the capacity. The attempts to stand, to walk, to talk...

2038. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190494 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:46 am

Comment #190491 by DamnDirtyApe

Our brains are insane, complex things.

Probably not initially. They end up that way as we learn.

There can't be that much initial complexity in the brain, as there are only around 20-30,000 genes in our genome. Not enough for much software :)

2039. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190475 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #190448 by Peacebeuponme

Also, why did god choose Banda Aceh, Sichuan and the Irrawady Delta? Are they more sinful than elaewhere?

I don't know. But what is interesting is how geological features millions of years old were laid down in preparation to give that quake.

Because I am a generally nice person, I have tried to come up with a way to explain how human sinfulness can go backwards in time like that.

I think I have found an answer. I will call it the "Sodom" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

The "Copenhagen" interpretation suggests there is an observer effect, which forces quantum states - alternative realities - to settle into one true reality. The "Sodom" interpretation implies that which reality is actualised depends how wicked you are. If we are naughty, then a past history of the world in which natural disasters have always happened becomes the real history. "Sodom" is an appropriate label, as it fits with the occasionally expressed opinion of some religious leaders that gay sex causes floods etc.

2040. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190436 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 5:19 am

Comment #190420 by scottishgeologist

What a useful link you post:

God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death.

The world has been corrupted by sin

http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

So, there weren't natural disasters, cancer and death before sin.

David - perhaps you could please explain how sin caused the permian extinction? The Chicxulub impact that killed off the dinosaurs?

I don't honestly expect an answer, but I think it is useful to have this question in a public space, and associated with David Robertson's name, to make it clear that he is a creationist: one of that arrogant crowd who claim to know more than mainstream biologists. And here is me thinking that pride was a sin.

2041. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190406 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:11 am

Comment #190404 by scottishgeologist

Hey... we can quote mine too!

From that page you linked:

"Whether or not the existence of God can be proved; and leaving aside the matter of creation, a relationship with God through a surrender to His son Jesus Christ has totally transformed countless millions of people's lives over the past 2000 years."

Perhaps a better name for "Christians Together" would be "Delusions R Us!".

Who cares if God exists - as long as people are happy.

This clearly illustrates the Brave New World thinking of some theists... just keep feeding the flock the soma of Christianity.

I wonder if David supports this view - after all his name and picture are on that site?

It would be good to get a confirmation that he believes that the existence of God is either unprovable or irrelevant.

2042. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190398 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #190393 by JuxtaMonkey

It isn't worth getting worked up. One of clearthinker's tactics is to get people worked up so he can quote what they say. He can spin anything.

My suggestion is that responses to him have to be calm to avoid this. When he is right, we have to accept that; goodness knows there is enough he is wrong about.

2043. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190381 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 2:10 am

clearthinker wrote-

I argue for justice (remember that strange concept that cannot exist in the athiest world of moral relativism?)

No come off it David. You know that atheism does not lead to moral relativism. I am sure, as an educated fellow, you know that there are hundreds of millions (at the very least of Buddhists) who don't believe in any supreme being watching over them, but who believe in transcendent absolute moral values.

This is proof that you don't need theism for a belief in absolute morality.

I will note this. Any future statement from you that atheism means moral relativism will be pointed out as incorrect, and it will also be shown that this has been pointed out to you.

However, use of reason can lead to an understanding that there are no absolute morality. This does not lead to moral anarchy, as we all have to get along.

I am sure you must know of the serious philosophical work that has been done regarding ethics. If not, I am happy to point you at some references.

2044. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190376 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:56 am

You are so desperate to make me out to be a liar that you just make stuff up.

Perhaps then, to help show what a truthful person you are, you could come up with a list of the tenets of atheism, the supposed doctrines of lack of belief. You have been mentioning them for months and months. I am sure you aren't making up this idea, but in any case some further information on this would deal with any idea that you have just made this up.

2045. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190365 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:11 am

txpiper-

I see you haven't responded to my questions.

Let's try again.

Please explain why you have the incredible self-confidence to believe that you are in a position to judge who is right, and who is wrong in matters such as evolutionary theory and molecular biology. Are you some kind of equivalent of James Watson or Francis Crick, that you can say "the vast majority are wrong, and I, the great txpiper, know why"?

Also, if you are going to claim that you can introduce God because our scientific understanding of certain areas is not perfect, or because there is controversy, then we are going to have a field day discussing the imperfections and controversies about God!

Please do answer my questions. I am fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists, and that is effectively what you are. Just because creationism is more widespread than 9/11 conspiracy nuts does not make it any less cranky: there is still this "almost everyone but me is wrong" position.

So, please, explain...

2046. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190252 by Steve Zara on June 8, 2008 at 4:13 pm

The last thing that would occur to an establishment geologist/paleontologist would be the whole paradigm is wrong.

Nonsense. There have been major revisions in these subjects.

However, even assuming they were wrong, what makes you think you are in a position to judge? Are you an expert with decades of research and publishing in these areas? Are you some kind of Einstein-equivalent, who can shake up a whole area of science?

Well mostly because 2LTD is the norm consistently observable in every single detail of the tangible universe. Things decay from an organized state into a disorganized state.

Nonsense.

In systems far from equilibrium order and organisations can spontaneously arise. This happens all the time, both in the laboratory and in Nature. Self-organising systems are common.

Do you understand what this means? It means you are wrong about physics as well as about biology.

Well in the case of molecular level stuff, it isn't their work. Everyone should marvel at what they have done. It is their non-work I have a problem with. Nobody has ever coerced anything at that level into doing what it does starting from scratch. And, as I've pointed out, anything that they do in the way of mimicry will not be in accordance with what you believe, because they will have used their intelligence to cause the (re)design.

This is gibberish. There are hundreds of thousands of biologists working at the molecular level.

And your final sentence is absurd. You are stating that you will never believe evidence of biogenesis or biological evolution in the laboratory, as it will be in a laboratory.

So, basically, you have isolated yourself from any possible scientific proof that you are wrong.

You really should be ashamed of yourself. Your arrogance in dismissing the work of thousands of scientists who know far, far more than you is deeply shocking.

What you have said is that you believe what little you understand of thermodynamics because it suits your view of the world, and you dismiss virtually all experts in biology because it doesn't.

Honestly, I really do dispair of people sometimes. It is odd how people who claim they are religious can so blatantly go against the tenets of their own religions.

In how many other areas of knowledge do you consider yourself more qualified than virtually all in a field?

Yes, and they really should. That is a reasonable, rational conclusion to draw

No, not if you are educated, it certainly isn't.

There is a good example of how order can appear in the universe and be confused with design. It is called the Giant's Causeway:
http://www.northantrim.com/causeway_stones.htm

This amazing structure looks like it was built. But it wasn't, it was formed by crystallisation.

One of the things intelligent people are supposed to do is to learn from experience. Why are you stuck with a stone-age view of the world?

2047. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190187 by Steve Zara on June 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm

There comes a point where the laws of thermodynamics cannot be ignored, and in this universe, disorganization is the norm.

Perhaps you could explain why you feel that thermodynamics is a science which meets with your personal approval, but evolution isn't? Could you perhaps let us know what your criteria are for judging the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists?

2048. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190021 by Steve Zara on June 8, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #189761 by BeyondBelief

I actually don't think any "organising" is generally necessary. Just persistent but polite questioning when someone puts forward a position based on religious authority.

What may be important in some circles is being "out" about being an atheist. There is another parallel with gay rights here: once friends, neighbours, members of families and prominent people start coming out as gay, then homosexuality can start to appear as it should be - normal. Simply being known as an atheist and carrying on with life as normal can reveal to people that we don't need God to be good.

There will be resistance to this message, as it removes part of the power base of religious authorities.

2049. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189983 by Steve Zara on June 8, 2008 at 4:04 am

Comment #189972 by clearthinker

I wasn't going to reply, but one statement was so hilarious....

If atheism is simply the absence of belief with no philosophical or practical consequences, then it cannot be a motive for bad behaviour or good. Which then leaves us in a free for all.

Does your lack of belief in elves leave you in an ethical free for all?

I suspect you don't believe in fairies, or goblins either. I just go a bit further than you.

Incidentally, a firm statement of your disbelief in elves would be appreciated.