2051. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189808 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 10:14 am

Comment #189798 by The Reverend Dark

If it helps you, think about it as church without the fairy tales, or need to feel guilty about what imaginary sky fairies say is naughty.

May I humbly suggest a correction: "we don't need to feel guilty because of what an imaginary sky fairies says." (That is not to say we won't feel guilty anyway).

Many of us probably feel guilty about the same things that sky-fairyists say we should feel guilty about, but for different reasons.

Sorry to nit pick, but your post seems to imply that we need not feel guilty about stealing, or coveting asses because the supposed sky fairy says they are wrong.

Yes, I am back and in full pedant mode!

2052. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189802 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #189778 by txpiper

I am afraid your case completely fails. It fails because your hypocrisy is clear.

We aren't the ones claiming that those we disagree with are morons - you are.

We rationalists are humble. We don't assume we know what is going on in the world. In dealing with biology, I ask biologists what the situation is. When they disagree amongst themselves, I ask them what is the current consensus, and then I say "OK, that will do for me". It has to do, as being a person with less experience of the subject than them, how else am I to judge?

Now compare this with your position. First you make your mind up, and then you cherry pick the few who agree with you. What you are basically saying is that you, personally, are able to decide who, out of all the experts in a field, are correct.

I would love to know what other areas of knowledge you consider yourself such an expert in that you feel yourself qualified to pick views considered by the majority to be nuts? Do you support the Flat Earth theory?

You should honestly be ashamed of yourself. The Christian religion (I assume you are a Christian) teaches humility, yet you claim that you have special gift for sensing the truth that makes you superior to hundreds of thousands of scientists who have spend decades working hard to understand reality. If that isn't a "sin", I don't know what is.

Shame on you.

2053. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189797 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 9:45 am

Comment #189793 by epeeist

Colour me cynical, but I wonder if he is looking for new material to quote mine.

He has then already heard of the Atheist Handbook, so I am afraid he may therefore be on to us.

It may be worthwhile having a look at your PMs Steve if you haven't done so for a while.

I did get the useful one regarding DR and his creationism outing.

I have to say it did not surprise me, although I always wonder how much of what he says is pure spin. This month, he is creationist....

2054. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189789 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #189785 by thewhitepearl

That clearthinker feels the need to post here is a very hopeful sign. People him are now put in a defensive position.

2055. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189753 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 6:51 am

Given that they no longer can rely on their base position or the automatic deference the religious are going to struggle to justify their position. As such the only things they can do are to give up many of the properties of their god and holy book or actively seek to undermine the position of reason and rationality.

Indeed! I have seen so many attempts to undermine that position, which is kind of ironic, considering how often it is claimed that science in Western countries was inspired by Christianity.

Of course, the undermining of reason and rationality has a problem now for Christians in societies like that in the UK, as there are competing forms of irrationality. So, who gets to decide which form of irrationality gets to say what is "right"?

2056. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189738 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 5:56 am

Seen on another site : "One of the core atheist beliefs is that they do not have core atheist beliefs."

Yep.

Oh come off it. I have plenty of core beliefs, and so do, I am sure, most people here. They are the core beliefs of most decent people. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

The issue is whether or not those core beliefs can be, or are, derived from atheism.

They can't be. Atheism is a privative. One can however, have beliefs about atheism (such as that one should have the right to use the label without being oppressed).

Most people I know who don't believe don't even think much about their lack of belief.

One might have hoped that the time you were on this site would have revealed the absurdity of generalisations like this. Clearly not. I find that sad.

2057. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189732 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 5:24 am

Comment #189730 by epeeist

To invert that, the thing I promote is lack of deference.

I don't think that is enough. One can say that people should have to justify claims, but one also, I feel, has to provide a foundation for how claims are justified. We need an equivalent of the Queensbury Rules for public disagreements and debates.

As far as I know, good legal systems are based on reason. They aren't just after fairness (as implied by lack of deference), they are after truth.

2058. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189727 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 4:23 am

It's all about symmetry

I hope you don't mind me responding to this, but I believe you are confusing reversibility with the direction of time (as I feel the article does).

At micro scales, a time-reversed recording usually can't be distinguished from the non-reversed one. This obviously does not mean time itself reverses.

However, and very small scales, time itself is uncertain, and can indeed reverse.

I feel that the article is confusing about this. One can actually tell which direction time is running in when looking at some micro-scale situations, such as atomic decay, and there are some aspects of particle physics which aren't symmetrical with respect to time reversal.

2059. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189722 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 3:56 am

Comment #189719 by Grumpy Max

I think you have a point.

I don't think the real battle should be about atheism anyway. It is the wrong label to apply for the general point of view I believe most people here support.

I don't promote "atheism". I promote "reason". What I am after is people to justify public statements about matters of importance with logic and evidence. I don't believe faith, tradition, or culture should be used as such justification simply because they are faith, tradition, or culture.

One finds considerable opposition to promoting "reason" in public discourse, I have found (someone in a thread actually called this "intellectual bullying"). But, when one thinks about it, how else are we to manage our societies fairly? The alternatives include listening to those who threaten, or shout the loudest, or just to go along with the majority because they are the majority.

An analogy I have used elsewhere is that we already use reason in places where we feel things really matter. In court cases we don't usually accept statements like "I have been vouchsafed a deep inner conviction of the accused's guilt" as evidence. It seems odd, therefore, that we should accept the religious views of Bishops and preachers when we discuss other matters of importance, such as gay rights.

2060. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189721 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 3:46 am

What I mean is, my confusion is, how science can define the word 'time' so that it can move a negative amount. Can things also, then, move negative distances and have negative mass or negative volume (these latter two would revolutionize the fad diet industry)?

You are right: it's about direction. It means that something sitting at rest, would "see" other things apparently moving backwards in time.

2061. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189714 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 3:22 am

I'm obviously discussing ideas above everyone's head.

All you have offered is circular arguments and rants.

However, from others we have had some simply superb examples of reason and clarity in posts from those opposing you, especially Comment #189462 by hungarianelephant and Comment #189403 by MaxD.

This is certainly the kind of clear thinking and reason that this site was set up to encourage.

EDIT: I'd also like to heap praise on...

[enter name here]

Apologies if I have not given praise where praise is due. I have been dipping in and out of this thread.

2062. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189691 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 1:54 am

Comment #189686 by clearthinker

Hello David.

And why feel the need to organise, evangelise and behave like a religion? And why set up a website espousing atheist beliefs if there are no atheist beliefs?

Last time I read the description of this site it was about "clear thinking" and "rationality". Didn't see any requirement for atheism.

However, perhaps, being of queer orientation, I can explain to you why someone with, in principle, no creed, and no belief would want to organise.

I have no "gay creed". I have no "gay belief". I am not anti-straight. All I want to do is to live my life unharrassed, and my empathy for others means I want to ensure that anyone who is gay can share that freedom.

In societies where religion is dominant and dominating, it is common that homosexuality is considered terribly naughty and preachers and bishops attempt to limit the rights of people like me. The disappointing thing is that governments sometimes listen, even though the only justifications given to support such views are "it's wrong because it's wrong" and "a little God whispered that it is wrong in my ear".

So, you see, people without a creed or dogma can have enough reason to organise against mainstream religion even if they don't consider themselves atheists.

Atheism isn't the only view some of us have, you see. Some of us don't want religious busybodies interfering with government, preaching morality based on nothing more than gut feeling and old books. We want societies to be based on reason and rationality, where people have to not keep saying "it's what God wants" as justification for anything (unless they can demonstrate the existence of that God first - surely a reasonable request?).

As for claiming that "atheists" behave like a religion. Well, some do. They are called Buddhists.

Still, the atheist religion is going to have problems. Unlike you we can't get guidance from invisible beings, as our non-gods clearly don't think us special enough to non-talk to us.

(The difference between an atheist and a believer is that the absence of God doesn't talk to atheists).

2063. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189681 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 1:16 am

Comment #189630 by Quine

Steve, I would not advocate censorship. I do advocate taking more effort to choose our words so as to better add to the public understanding of science.

But words need not be chosen, I think. The public may not understand the type of order involved in your example of a car engine, but it is the same kind of order as in an unbroken egg. What seemed to me to be implied in Comment #189614 was that there was a different kind of "order" at the start of the universe, and not one that theists would attempt to explain by a creator.

That is wrong. Just because it may not be understood, does not mean it is a different type of order. It isn't. It is described by the same thermodynamics, by the same Second Law.

We can't sidestep that the order of origin of the universe is something that needs to be explained.

Comment #189646 by Luis_Cayetano

Stenger's ideas aren't shared by many.

2064. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189624 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 6:08 pm

So as to not confuse the general public, physicists need to stop using the word "ordered" and start using another word like homogeneous or the likes. The universe didn't start out "ordered" in the sense that the general public thinks about it

But it did. The universe started of in a low entropy state. That is the whole foundation of the second law of physics. The broken egg point that Carroll uses is correct. This is the kind of "order" that the public things of. The universe was more ordered that it could have been in just the everyday sense that an intact egg is more ordered than a broken one.

The universe may not have had that much order, as the expansion allows much more possible entropy, but ordered it certainly was, and in the "common sense" way.

What matters is that it was astronomically less ordered than the mind of any creator.

We really shouldn't be censoring scientific discussion because of the religious.

2065. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189599 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

That is, I understand that all distant objects are expanding away from the Earth at more or less equal speeds. Since it would be silly to assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, there is a model that says the universe is expanding like a 3 dimension "surface" on a 4 (multi?) dimensional "balloon."

Not quite. You don't need the 4th dimension. All you need to think of is the substance of space is expanding. A better analogy is to imagine an infinite load of bread rising - everything separates, even though there is no centre.

Does this mean if one was able to take off on a spacecraft moving at near the speed of light in one direction they would then shortly (due to space-time compression) find themselves back at thier original location (in the far future) having "circumnavigated" the universe?

It is possible if the universe is finite.

Or would the universe expand beyond them? Or would it collaspe around them? Or are all these things possibilities considering what we don't know?

They are all possibilities.

2066. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189591 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Comment #189583 by thewhitepearl

The bubbles I was referring to are represented as seperate universes in the space time.

In a model called "eternal inflation", this is the case.

I believe it's thought that each universe is a bubble with it's own space time though.

This is true of other models.

I thought eddies was the term used for different turbulances within the space time.

This was a pun from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"Eddies in the space time continum!"
"Who is Eddy?"

I heard that if you fell into a black hole you would be stretched as thin as a spaghetti noodle.

In the black holes we encounter in nature, that is what happens at some point before you hit the centre,

What also interests me is the concept of the white hole.

There are the mathematical opposite of black holes, but very unlikely. After all, where does all the mass and energy the emit come from?

Black holes eventually radiate all the mass back out into space again, as Hawking radiation, so it can't come from them (there once was an idea that black holes are white holes could be linked).

2067. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189580 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Steve, you've been hanging around alot lately. Just can't stay away, can you?

If you think this is hanging around a lot, you should have seen me months ago!

Basically, I have done what I planned. In a day or two I should have finished a major project, which is a formal debate (which is now close to the length of a short novel). I have started a blog, and I have built up a store of responses and rebuttals with which to save myself a huge amount of time if I decide to deal with IDers. (I don't think I have any patience left for interacting with pure creationists).

I am going to work hard, however, to try and avoid this syndrome again:
http://xkcd.com/386/

2068. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189574 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:24 pm

According to Neil deGrasse Tyson ("Death by Black Hole"- an enjoyable read), a person crossing the event horizon (assuming such existed, per Dr. Zara) would be ripped apart by tidal forces.

Only with small black holes. One could fall into a very large one (such as those suspected to be at galactic cores) and feel nothing at all, until you came close to the centre.

2069. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189569 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm

So, an observer is falling into a black hole, he looks away from the hole as he approaches the event horizon. He sees a more and more time-speeded, blue-shifted universe and then, right as he crosses the event horizon, he almost gets a glimpse of infinity, but then everything goes to invisible gamma rays and, utter darkness?

Yes, that is what I understand happens. You wouldn't get a glimpse of infinity... things would blue shift to invisibility pretty fast.

Sorry if I am being a bother, I don't think I've ever really got a chance to ask someone knowledgable about this subject in the recent past.

You aren't a bother at all. This has been an interest of mine for decades, ever since I realised the implications of the event horizon when I read about it in a popular science book in the 70s. It can be hard to get a clear answer!

It is worth pointing out that current models of black holes have a lot of "holes" in. Some people think the event horizon is a special place, others don't. There have even been suggestions that spacetime simply can't form black holes, and changes its nature (gravastars).

It is still an open question if event horizons can actually form.

2070. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189557 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm

I see. But then, at what point would the observer's time-speeded perception become such that it nears infinity? That is, isn't space-time distorted to infinity at the event horizon?

Wouldn't an observer outside the black hole see the spacecraft falling into the blackhole "freeze" at the event horizon? Would the observer inside observe the blue-shifted, time-speeded outside universe speed to near-infinite speeds?

Models of black holes are shifting. A recent suggestion by Lawrence Krauss is that they don't exist in the form we have thought.

However, assuming they do, it is likely that quantum effects come into play. You can't see the infinite future of the universe for two reasons: first you would have to be able to hover exactly at the position of the event horizon. Second, everything would be blurred and consist of invisible gamma rays. So, because you are falling in, it is sort of like the future light of the universe falls in after you, but can't catch up.

People outside the hole would not see you freeze permanently at the event horizon, as light from you would be red shifted further and further. Eventually they would see one last very, very red-shifted photon and then your image would fade.

2071. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189547 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:01 pm

What would an observer falling into a black hole see as they crossed the event horizon? That is, I understand once you cross the event horizon all paths lead to the center, so would they see utter blackness around them?

Things would look pretty normal, just distorted. It isn't that all paths only lead to the centre. It is that to avoid moving ever-faster to the centre, one would have to exceed the speed of light. It is still possible to see other things around you.

What you would see looking towards the outside the hole would be ever-more blue-shifted and time-speeded views of the outside universe.

2072. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189517 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #189511 by zeroangel

Good question. Things would only get that uncertain if the universe got down to Planck-scale sizes. It might not have. It could have "bounced" from something bigger.

The point I was making in my blog is that the universe, however it started, almost certainly didn't come from a singularity.

2073. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189510 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 11:34 am

Comment #189384 by Cartomancer
(and others)...
'WWSZWD'

I like it.

Sort of like the FSM, but presumably more human.

2074. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189493 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #189480 by zeroangel

My understanding was the singularity at the Big Bang is basically the beginning of space-time.

I hope this helps:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/129811.html

(Please don't take offense at the title - it is about journalists who still mention the topic)

2075. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189337 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 4:18 am

Comment #189333 by Appleby

Sorry mate, but that doesn't sound like an answer to my question.

Congratulations! You have passed my "troll test".

2076. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189327 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 3:39 am

Appleby-

Why do you find gay sex repulsive?

Just curious.

2077. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189293 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:04 am

Comment #189198 by GordonYKWong

No, not that one...

There is far more substantial formal debate. Everything apart from closing statements has been posted here:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/122838.html

2078. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189191 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 5:38 pm

I worry a little that PZ's use of the story in this way will dull the rather subtle and clever message it originally had.

As I posted here that I thought PZ was mistaken, it is only right that I post that I have had my mind changed by reasoned argument.

2079. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189187 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm

P.S. to Steve Zara: "You'll be back."

I am sure :)

I do feel an increasing need to get away from the same old arguments.

It reminds me of when I was teaching.. there was only so many years I could mark the same essays...

2080. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189182 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Comment #189176 by Pathfinder

You seem to think I have some kind of divinely-inspired (Christian pathology, in your view) plan to deliberately confound and frustrate you.

It isn't all about you.

I do NOT make any claims about reality that has gone on "uncorroborated... in my own mind".

Of course you do. You are proposing that there is a God, based on no evidence apart from what you think.

Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD.

I have no certainty that there is no God. I have close to certainty that all the supposed evidence and arguments used to justify claims of his existence are nonsense. If there were any such evidence, you would put it forward, rather than admitting it's absense.

I have just grown so tired of seeing the same old views. I have been researching and thinking about this matter a lot since cutting back on posting here.

I find myself impatient with the usually unrealised arrogance of theism, especially the Abrahamic religions. That humans are special, that we are able to discern the nature of reality to an extent that we can fill gaps in our knowledge with God, that our inner feelings, our "revelations" are a direct line to cosmic truth. I find the lack of humility really unsettling, especially when people don't realise the implications of what they are saying.

I also find the ignorance of logic annoying - the same old "you can't disprove it, so there" arguments, each time with the person making it thinking they are being clever and somehow witty.

Oh dear. I'll shut up for a while.

2081. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189169 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Of course the existence of God cannot be proved! I am aware this is insufficient evidence from a scientific standpoint: no falsifiability, no control experiments, no peer-reviewed papers, no (or not much) competing hypotheses apart from the blindingly obvious...

I knew I shouldn't have come back from a break.

Already I am finding dealing with things here frustrating again.

What I don't understand is why it should then be sufficient evidence from any standpoint.

You are making the biggest possible claims about the nature of reality, yet you make them based purely on what has gone on, uncorroborated, in your own mind. You consider yourself some kind of personal expert regarding reality!

However, as you have more to contribute to this discussion than I have, I shall take another break and leave you to it.... your views regarding ID and creationism are admirable. I hope you get the discussions you want here.

2082. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189165 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Comment #189157 by Pathfinder

Provide me with a single falsifiable prediction that remains from the God Hypothesis, and then we can talk how Popper applies.

Forgive me for being so harsh - I am getting less patient in middle age. Your support for evolution is welcome, but my view is that it is inconsistent to complain about people looking for gaps in evolution to put God in when Christianity does precisely that in terms of biology, physics, philosophy and so on.

2083. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189152 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Science is science, religion is religion

I am afraid not. Science is about the investigation of physical reality. Theistic religions make claims about physical reality, therefore theism and science will always overlap and conflict.

In science, you can only insert God into the gaps, and even then, WHOSE God?

Theism is nothing but the insertion of God into gaps in our understanding in all areas. It cannot stand on its own terms, let alone against science.

2084. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189143 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:18 pm

In many cultures,--all patriarchies,-- the way of grouping people is based on whether you are "active" or "passive" in sex, not based on who you have sex with, The male "fuckee" is considered somewhat pathetic, but the "fucker" loses none of his masculinity in this scheme,

Yes, that is one of the things I was thinking of. I am fascinated by the way some people need to feel that they have to play roles like this.

Welcome back.

Thanks. I won't be back as much as before. Haven't got the time. Too busy blogging, and on other blogs as well.

Consider this a "regeneration" to a FAR less verbose Steve :)

2085. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189090 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #189081 by Quetzalcoatl

It is interesting what has been labeled "straight" at various times. Apparently you are still straight in some circles if you have sex with a transexual, or a ladyboy, or an effeminate man and so on.

Homophobia seems to me to be sometimes partly a worry about one's own masculinity. Providing one has sex with someone sufficiently female-acting, it is no threat.

2086. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188942 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #188918 by mordacious1

Sometimes I get a bit bored, you know?

2087. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188915 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:03 am

I see the Awful Appleby is still active.

As a gayer, I really feel the need to comment.

We are all likable, every one of us. However, we aren't really human, you know. We have evolved something called "gaydar" that allows us to find others of our kind. We also age faster, with one straight year being about 4 or 5 gay years, especially when one is in one's 20s. 40 is positively ancient. We also have a strange biological need for metallic elements, which can only be satisfied by the placing of metal structures through the skin (usually earlobes, but often more intimate places).

Although not quite human, we have some morals. We know what we do is repulsive - after all, what we really want to do is write musicals and bitch about boy bands, but the urge to be naughty is too strong.

We also like Appleby. All of us. Those who say they don't are simply repressed Appleby-likers. So you had better watch out Appleby - we are good at disguise. Just when you think you are safe, one of us will "run" (mince) after you screaming (we always scream) "give us a kiss, big boy"!!

There. I hope that has cleared up a lot of misunderstandings!

2088. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #188682 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #188671 by Galactor

Say what?! Steve, we need a chat. Have you been to bible camp or something?

Gosh no. In fact I find myself becoming much nastier and less patient as time goes on.

What I meant is that we can deal with theological arguments for God (as against theological arguments about God) using philosophy and science.

For example, there are reasons why first cause arguments should have lost their power ages ago, as a result of both physics and philosophy.

There are reasons why even a supposedly supernatural God can be shown to be horrendously complex, simply in terms of information theory, and so unacceptable in any way as any form of explanation.

It can be shown, I believe, that the term supernatural is meaningless, as it has no ability to be tested and no explanatory power.

And so on.

2089. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188628 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #188626 by Appleby

At least mordacious1 bothers to catch up.

You aren't worth the effort. Trust me.

2090. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188622 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 9:28 am

We have to look at things dispassionately to make any progress (in line or contrary to our desires).

Not at all. We are talking here about ethics, not science. It is entirely appropriate to discuss feelings.

My feeling is that you are tiresome, so I shall wander away from this debate.

2091. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #188618 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 9:24 am

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

I see the usual nonsense being spouted by religious posters here. Before I slink off again, I think it is worth pointing out that Plantinga (mentioned above) has made frankly embarassingly ignorant use of evolution in some of his recent arguments, which makes his criticisms of Dawkins seem rather inept.

Personally, I think there are arguments to be had with theologists (I am coming close to a very long public debate with one myself), but that was not, of course, the point of Dawkins' book. It was to point out that any use of science and scientific rationality to justify a theistic position simply fails.

Incidentally, the mention of PZ's "Courtier's Reply" allows me the chance to nit-pick. I hope this is taken as a minor point, as I have a lot of respect for PZ.

However, I think his "Courtier's Reply", and his subsequent "Emperor's New Clothes" references are just plain wrong. It appears to me that he uses them to describe situations where people are unable or unwilling to put up evidence for their fundamental beliefs, or to indicate that they are begging the question.

But, that isn't what the original story is about at all. The story is about having excessive respect to the point where people are prepared to pretend and lie. It is also about cowardice, with no-one having the courage to rock the boat, until the naivety of a child who does not know the expected protocols cuts through the pretence.

This clearly isn't the case with theology. Many of the theologists PZ and Dawkins attack clearly do believe in the reality of God, and they do believe that their "Emperor" has clothes - there is no pretence that can be instantly revealed by one person shouting the truth.

I worry a little that PZ's use of the story in this way will dull the rather subtle and clever message it originally had.

2092. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188525 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 7:21 am

So I'll find some animal that isn't "harmed" by sex. Or do you think that's impossible?

It's also about "consent", you idiot. Someone could drug you and have sex with you, and you would never know. It would do you no harm, but I am sure you would be pretty upset to learn that it had happened.

Sex shouldn't be much of a problem for many animals. They have those holes for a reason, you know.

By that argument, anyone should be entitled to do what they like sexually to you, at any time. After all, you have the holes - what is the problem?

Twit.

2093. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188501 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #188499 by epeeist

Indeed. There have been rather worrying reports of this.

2094. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188493 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:47 am

Wouldn't it need qualification on what was meant by "entertainment", since obviously things like greyhound or horse racing are examples of entertainment that aren't necessarily exploitative. (Sorry to nitpick).

Horse racing does make me just a little bit uncomfortable I have to say.

Dogs just love to run, however.

2095. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188482 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:30 am

This seems to me to be an inconsistency, which I can't easily reconcile.

I think it can be made less problematic by saying that animals should not be exploited for entertainment while they are alive.

2096. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188472 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:14 am

Comment #188466 by Peacebeuponme

I'm sure the cow wouldn't want to be slaughtered in the first place though, Steve.

Indeed, but as you say, we try our best to make things humane. When we can't get their consent, at least we try and avoid suffering.

Personally I am against the use of animals for entertainment, such as hunting. Bestiality would include that kind of thing.

This Appleby fellow doesn't seem to be that good at reasoning, I feel.

2097. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188465 by Steve Zara on June 4, 2008 at 6:00 am

OK, I have been drawn in, for now.

Appleby did rant:

And why is it okay for someone to slaughter a cow for food without its "consent" but not to have sexual relations with it?

Because the cow isn't alive while you are eating it you twit. That is the point of slaughtering it - to prevent it running away while you cook it.

(There is a matter of suffering as well)

2098. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188124 by Steve Zara on June 3, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #188112 by Cartomancer

Ooh, you're in trouble now Appleby, Zara has entered the fray.

Naah. Still on sabbatical. I just wanted to complement you on your marvellous post, and to express my admiration for adopters of any gender, height, age, hair colour etc.

EDIT: And congratulations, Rachel!

2099. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188106 by Steve Zara on June 3, 2008 at 8:28 am

Comment #188097 by Cartomance

As for the adoption issue, again, it's a very simple one. The question we need to ask about any prospective parent is not "what are your sexual preferences?" but "can you look after this child?" In order to deny ANY individual (and it is on an individual basis, not a group basis, that the decision must be made) the opportunity to adopt or foster, one has to make a case that they are unfit to parent.

As some dear friends of mine are hopefully soon to adopt, and I have seen what they have been through, I feel it is appropriate for me to comment.

Excellent post, cartomancer. There is just some minor things I would like to add (assuming it hasn't been mentioned before - I haven't been keeping up with things much). Forgive me if I have repeated what anyone else has said.

First, children who are up for adoption are usually from a difficult background. It takes a lot of screening and consultation for a couple (of whatever genders) to be approved for adoption (at least in the UK), and for good reason. It can take years. Anyone who succeeds (it can be a stressful and heartbreaking process) has my admiration.

Second, many, many studies seem to have shown that what is important for children is to see successful loving and sexual adult relationships in action (although obviously not in explicit detail). It seems that it can be at least potentially problematic for a child to be bought up by a single (as in not in a relationship) parent (of whatever gender) because of this. The gender of the people in those relationships does not matter. It is hard to see why it should: there is such a range of types of behaviour even in heterosexual relationships (older man, older woman, different types of roles and dominance) that gender seems to be a minor aspect.

2100. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187000 by Steve Zara on June 1, 2008 at 3:41 am

Comment #186973 by clearthinker

Nice to see you finally come out as creationist. It puts your supposed worries about "balance" when Dawkins turns up into perspective.