Comments by Steve Zara

2401. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253517 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #253508 by Quetzalcoatl

Sorry, missed that statement. Things several billion light years away really aren't that different... we can see that they aren't!

Comment #253507 by robotaholic

Well, as Oystein says, he may be implying that something that is now outside of the visible universe that was once sufficiently close to have had influence. He talks about something that may have been pushed away by inflation. But that seems pretty far-fetched to me, as inflation was incredibly good at diluting things out. There is another major problem with the idea too. If current theories are right, virtually none of the matter in the universe was around until after inflation - the Big Bang was actually post-inflation, resulting from dumping of the energy of inflation when it ended. This means that the matter of the galaxy clusters could not have been influenced by any close structures before inflation, as it didn't even exist back then.

In sort, I haven't a clue what this article is saying. It makes less sense the more I consider it.

2402. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253510 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Steve, as a matter of fact I have: see te hybrot example, again.

I have been following such experiments over the years. They are interesting because they illustrate how we can usefully interface to neurones.

But, if you will excuse an English idiom, they show bugger-all about consciousness or awareness. All it shows is that neurones operate in the way we already know they operate. That isn't news. We know the mind consists of neural activity, but neural activity in highly organised networks of billions of neurones. That is not a description of the neural apparatus of an embryo.

and yet you want abortion, without rocksolid evidence that we're not dealing with infant lives here?

Unless one can show that personality can exist without neural substrate, then there is rock-solid evidence that one is not dealing with infants, but with the precursors of infants - something with no mind, awareness, or knowledge of its surrounding - effectively little more than pure reflexes.

It is up to those who believe we are dealing with actual people to show how such primitive and undifferentiated neural structures could operate as a personality.

2403. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253506 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #253503 by robotaholic

wait I may be wrong but if something is outside of the observable universe it can still have an effect just not observable one

No effect can travel faster than than light, so nothing outside of the observable universe can have any effect at all.

2404. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253500 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #253494 by Fanusi Khiyal

Based on those studies, and the endless information about embryology, it seems that the concept of unborn child is accurate.

No. That is just your analysis. The consensus is quite the opposite.

So far you have provided no evidence that early fetuses can experience pain, or have any of the awareness which we would expect for there to be a "person". Showing that several thousands neurones can operate as... neurones is not evidence for anything.

I really do have trouble understanding the mentality that approves of the death penalty for unborn children, but not convicted murderers and jihadists.

The "mentality" begin this is pretty simple to understand. I don't accept that early fetuses are children because there is insufficient neural development for them to classify as a "person", and I don't believe in a perfect legal system.

2405. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253491 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Steve, the hybrots prove that you can get rudimentary calculation ability, learning ability, consciousness, with ten thousand rat neurones arranged haphazardly on a chip. What can we expect from far more than that number of human neurones, in a developing brain?

Sorry, that puts is well into the 'reasonable doubt' territory. We don't kill humans for this reason.

No, the story does not show that at all. It says nothing whatsoever about consciousness or experience. What it shows is that one can make useful neural networks out of actual neurones. That is of use as neurones are far more compact than current artificial neural network circuitry.

We could, in principle, get the same functionality from a considerable number of artificial circuits.

But no-one would claim that such an artificial network would feel pain or be conscious, or that turning off such a network would be murder.

2406. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253480 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Comment #253474 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve, you're a biologist, much like myself. Have you looked at the studies that are coming out of neuroscience now? Look up those things called "hybrots". And also take a look at the stages of embryological development.

I have been following this matter with great interest. The matter of pain in early fetuses is controversial, but there is a stage at which neural development simply isn't sufficient for conscious awareness of pain.

2407. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253475 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Many other people fall into the opposite liberal hypocritical stance where they say abortion is perfectly okay to do, but not killing someone who murdered a family or something.

It isn't hypocritical. People like me with such views don't consider an early fetus to have personhood. There is not yet a person to kill. I mainly object to capital punishment for what I think to be a very good reason: the legal system is not perfect. We have seen many cases in the UK of people being released, often after many years, because they were found to be innocent. No such change of mind is possible if capital punishment is imposed.

2408. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253471 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Comment #253463 by Fanusi Khiyal

There is confidence that embryos don't feel pain because they don't have the neural apparatus for the experience. There can be movement away from stimuli that is pure reflex. We can experience stimuli that would be considered sufficient to cause pain, but we don't feel pain if not conscious. It is hard to consider embryos as conscious.

Comment #253467 by Fanusi Khiyal

Also, am I the only one who sees something wrong about forcing doctors to violate their conscience?

Doctors form a public service. There has to be a consistent service, based on a consensus of what is acceptable, and doctors should stick with that. That is the nature of the job. If they don't like it, they should resign and campaign for changes in the law.

2409. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253466 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Comment #253461 by PaulJ

That would be the 'ether' then, that these particles are tacked to?

It isn't like the aether, as it doesn't involve any fixed frame of reference.

2410. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253456 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Comment #253450 by astroprof

Matter in the universe is only moving apart at the largest scales, but space is expanding at all scales. It is just that on smaller scales, the expansion has no influence on the organisation of matter.

2411. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253440 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Comment #253433 by Nairb

If the universe is getting bigger, are we all getting bigger too?

No. The particles we are made of aren't anchored to space, and the forces that stick them together to make our bodies are vastly greater than any influence of the expansion of the universe, at our scale.

Some particles are anchored to space, and do sort of grow as the universe expands.

We see light red-shifted from distance galaxies not because they are moving away from us through space, but mainly because photons get stretched to longer wavelengths as they travel through expanding space.

2412. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253432 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Comment #253372 by Koreman

I have actually come up with an idea that may solve the "naked" (Boltzmann) brain problem.

The problem is that given enough time, even something as complex as the physical structure required to support intelligence could arise spontaneously. Given an eternal universe, minds within such structures could arise often enough that they are the typical observers of the universe, not us planet-bound life forms. That is a problem because much of science is based on the assumption that we are typical.

However, I believe that conditions in which new universes can form (that would expand in new sets of dimensions) are probably far more likely than the formation of "space brains". If this is the case, then universes "bud off" other universes far more frequently than they give rise to "space brains". This explains why, in a multiverse, we non-space-brains would outnumber the "space brains".

Yes, this does sound like I am discussing something completely nutty, but it is a real scientific problem.

2413. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253406 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Comment #253399 by SharonMcT

That is a very important point, and one that seems often forgotten.

Here is some more Catholic nonsense:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7633761.stm

"A Roman Catholic school has banned pupils from receiving the new cervical cancer vaccine on its premises."

I suppose they consider that being vaccinated against sexual diseases encourages promiscuity (assuming there is anything wrong with that). What these people seem not to take into account that contraception and vaccination protect someone from the actions of a partner.

You can be as much of a "good" girl as to be beyond criticism by the Catholic Church, but that won't protect you from disease if your husband is having affairs without you knowing.

2414. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253323 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 9:52 am

Comment #253321 by Oystein Elgaroy

It doesn't seem that convincing, as one of the main points about inflation is that it largely wipes out any existing features leaving behind a pretty featureless and flat spacetime.

2415. Primordial Fish Had Rudimentary Fingers

Comment #253301 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 9:25 am

Primordial fish fingers? Next they will be finding out how chicken nuggets arose.

2416. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253299 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 9:24 am

I have a bit of a problem with this article. If something is outside of the observable universe, in some far-distance region of space, it can't influence matter in the universe. That would require superluminal effects.

Also, this bit is wrong:

So even if light started travelling toward us immediately after the Big Bang, the farthest it could ever get is 13.7 billion light-years in distance

We see light from far further than 13.7 billion light years, because the universe has been expanding as the light travelled, carrying the light with it.

2417. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253191 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #253177 by Mitchell Gilks

I don't see how anyone could ever call you dull.

2418. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253080 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 4:29 am

Comment #253070 by Mitchell Gilks

Unless I misread things, AtheistJon was not talking about hating homosexuals. He said he found the idea of homosexual acts repulsive. I think that is quite a different matter.

2419. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253069 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 4:24 am

Logicel-

It is not an achievement to be admired, but rather an over-spilling of their prejudice--they just can't keep it to themselves. If they follow the admission with that they are seeking professional therapy to overcome their bias and ignorance then that is admirable. If they just say that they will not act on those strong feelings, then I say that they are fooling themselves and you.

Yes, I see what you are saying. Maybe I fooled myself about AtheistJon's situation because I wanted to make peace and seem tolerant.

I do worry about defining attitudes as being equivalent to illnesses, needing therapy. As Sargeist pointed out, the majority of people considered homosexuality an illness only a matter of decades ago. I don't think we can say that most people needed therapy!

2420. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253052 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 4:01 am

Comment #253046 by Sargeist

You post makes a lot of sense to me.

2421. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253038 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 3:35 am

Comment #253026 by Mitchell Gilks

Comment #253029 by Lev-CapeTown

Now I am going to have to think more about this.

2422. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253020 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #253017 by Mitchell Gilks

I think that the race analogy is yet again apt, him not wanting to kill all some of a different group, or segregate them...they merely sicken him, does not earn him any love from me.

Me neither, but I actually think it is better for someone to admit that they have an issue with race, or with homosexuality.

I am not saying I support AtheistJon's attitude towards homosexuality, I just wanted to point out that he is not an active homophobe - he recognises that there are limits as to how he should act based on his feelings. I think this is admirable.

2423. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252992 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 2:23 am

Comment #252989 by GordonYKWong

If I lost my hat, what would be left? I am already faceless and, apparently, gutless.

2424. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252985 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 2:17 am

What has Fanusi used against you besides words? Clearly they do matter to you.

Ah well, I seem to be posting again...

Words do matter to me, but what I said was that I was not going to get worked up about what people think if they leave me and others alone. AtheistJon admits to a revulsion regarding homosexuality, but does not want to act against homosexuals to interfere with their rights (as I understand it).

2425. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252955 by Steve Zara on September 24, 2008 at 12:57 am

Steve, I am stunned that you can defend someone who says that you disgust them.

This is the same issue I have been discussing with Fanusi. People should have the freedom to think what they like. What matters is actions. I don't care if someone says they find homosexuality disgusting, or if they say they want to live under Shariah law. What matters is the actions they do or don't take. If they are prepared to leave me and others in peace, no matter what their views, that is fine by me.

2426. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252706 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Comment #252703 by Bonzai

Could you people please not start writing interesting posts on a thread on which I am trying not to post because, technically, I am not posting because I am too angry?

EDIT: Perhaps I could post, but on condition there is assumed a certain background level of irritation?

2427. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252698 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Steve you routinely post b.s. about me and then whine when you get a little of your own medicine? Cry me a river, why don'tcha?

I am only posting here now because I wish to ensure that people are clear about what was said in an exchange between me and AtheistJon some time ago.

I believe that AtheistJon, unlike you, is a decent person, who is neither fundamentalist or dogmatic. I probably disagree with him about politics, but I think he is, at heart, a reasonable person. He is someone I would be prepared to sit down with and have a rational discussion with.

2428. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252689 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #252682 by Bonzai

There was discussion afterwards. One of my wake-up-in-a-panic nightmares was that I was driving and had passed by the last junction before the viaduct and could not turn back.

On the day, I was perfectly happy to wait for an hour at an "aire" while my husband drove back and forth over that architectural monstrosity, but my offer was refused.

Comment #252683 by decius

I guess I am still trying to be charitable..

2429. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252680 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Comment #252678 by decius

The point I am trying to make is that we all have prejudices. What matters is how we deal with them. My feeling is that AtheistJon is honest about his prejudices, but has the decency to realise that his personal prejudices should not influence political views. I think that is really admirable.

2430. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252676 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Comment #252669 by decius

There may be a useful analogy that relates to my recent holiday in Europe.

I have a phobia about heights (actually, specifically, edges). Many years ago I followed the construction of the Millau viaduct. It seemed a pretty crazy idea when I first heard about it - a narrow roadbridge a quarter of a kilometer above a valley, suspended on the slimmest of pillars. Even worse, the sadistic architect had decided that no driver should be unaware of their altitude, and he curved the bridge, so the supports and the valley below would be visible to all.

On hearing about this construction, I promised myself I would never go near and so be subject to the tortures that this construct would impose on me.

Well, on my recent holiday, the name "Millau" appeared on the map. My dear husband and I had a somewhat tense discussion, in which his desire to experience this "architectural marvel" was in opposition to my deep-seated panic about crossing the viaduct. My fears resulted in a 45 minute diversion.

But, back to the subject, I can understand someone having a dislike of homosexuality (like my fear of heights), but no objection to others who don't share that view.

2431. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252666 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Comment #252651 by hawt4dawk

Thank you for linking up the content of various posts to provide a narrative that I had missed.

I had skimmed over so much of this thread, and I might not have been so charitable to AtheistJon if I had remembered that he was the author of post 606.

EDIT: Yes, I would have. No matter what AtheistJon had accused me of, I could not allow the accusation of him being anti-gay-rights to stand.

Was it the Elton John comment that got you so steamed?

Fanusi was trying to rile me with his lunatic ideas that prominent gay men will be killed in public places in the UK unless we support his facistic strategies.

Fanusi doesn't realise that most people who label themselves as Muslim are decent people. There are even gay and lesbians who are Muslim, and campaigning openly for gay rights as Muslims in the UK.

I will still defend AtheistJon regarding the issue of gay rights, but I will leave it to him and others about whether or not he should apologise to me about the charge of bigotry.

2432. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252612 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment #252606 by AtheistJon

First, I don't consider you a fanatic. Right wing, yes, but not a fanatic.

Secondly, sorry about the typo. I have corrected it.

2433. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252598 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 11:46 am

Steve! Glad to see you back. It sounds like you're over the anger from yesterday?

No, I'm not!

I have seen Fanusi continue to post crap about me, and I just can't be bothered, but this issue is another matter, as it affected you. We settled that discussion from long ago in a friendly way.

So, I just felt that I should put my side of things for your defense, as I was involved in the original discussion. I disagree with you about many things, but I have no doubts that you are in favour of equal rights for gay people. I think that needed pointing out.

I was tempted to support you via a private message, but I thought my support should be public.

2434. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252587 by Steve Zara on September 23, 2008 at 11:37 am

I have to post in defence of AtheistJon. I am sorry that an argument that I thought was over a long time ago, and settled amicably, has been dug up again.

I admire his honesty in saying he is repulsed by homosexuality. But, providing he isn't going to condemn anyone for being homosexual, and is going to respect their rights, I don't see how he can be criticised. I disagree with him about many things, but I think he has been attacked a bit unfairly in this matter.

I thought it appropriate to post, as the debate between he and I has been the subject of discussion.

2435. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252042 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Comment #252031 by decius

If I ever cease to let people on fora wind me up to the point of huge sulks followed by dramatic exits, this will indicate such a character change that I would not be the same person.

2436. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252023 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I think my reaction is best understood that I have come back from the best holiday for years, in which I have been more relaxed than I can remember, and, to be honest, I just can't be bothered to have to go around the same circular debates again and again with people who throw insults and try (successfully) to push my buttons. I can't see why I should put in the effort to deal with that. I will blog instead. I have been reading Victor Stenger in some detail on holiday, and I intend to post a summary of his rather fascinating ideas. That seems a far more constructive use of my time than fighting a losing battle against the dominance of right-wing fanaticism on many threads here, which, as Laurie says, derails intelligent discussion.

2437. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252004 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 12:32 pm

That does it. I kind of assumed that over nearly 2 years of posting here I had built up some kind of reputation, but if I am being accused of bigotry and lack of clear thinking, and if someone can't see why Fanusi is trying to push my buttons by mentioning Elton John (here's a clue - we are both gay), then posting here really has been a waste of time, amounting to very little.

I have made many good friends here, who I hope will remain friends on other forums, and on blogs, but it seems that so many words posted here have amounted to so little.

But I guess that is the nature of the internet. All is, appropriately, transient.

2438. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251991 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #251985 by annabanana

Yeah, I know how you feel. Obviously, I had chosen to keep my comments confined to the blogging arena as of late. :)

If anything I post on my blog can match the quality of your recent entry on Sarah Palin, I would be proud - it was superb.

2439. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251981 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Comment #251972 by NewEnglandBob

I can't ignore it. This site is supposed to be representative of the rational and clear thinking of one of my intellectual heroes; someone who has changed my thinking over decades. When someone tries to hijack such a precious site for their own particularly nasty political agenda, there are few actions left to Dawkins supporters. One is to fight such an attempt, but that involves a considerable amount of time and effort that I simply can't spare. However, continuing to post on a site gives tactic support to such views unless they are robustly rejected by others.

I honestly think that Fanusi is damaging this site. Religious anti-Dawkinists must love his posts. I don't know what the solution is, but ignoring him is not going to work.

2440. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251965 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 11:48 am

Comment #251959 by Fanusi Khiyal

As I said, Steve, will only come to his senses when Elton John get's beheaded in Trafalga square.

That's it. I have had enough of your offensive lying crap.

I have wasted enough time dealing with your facistic nonsense, but I can't continue an association with this site while you give the impression that we are all bigots like you, or that your bigotry is part of normal discourse.

I'm out of here until you cease, or are shut up.

2441. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251960 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 11:44 am

Comment #251957 by Sciros

Steve, immigration control violates human rights?

No.

Immigration control based on whether or not you wish to overthrow the state, or commit criminal acts is fine.

But to pick one religion, which has hundreds of millions of followers, and assume that simply because someone identifies as a member of that religion they are intending such acts is absurd. Most muslims in the UK live peaceful law-abiding lives. We should not assume by default that others aren't the same.

There are even (although small in number) people who are Muslim who support gay and lesbian people of that faith. Are we going to prevent them from entering the country simply because of the "Muslim" label?

2442. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251956 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #251952 by Fanusi Khiyal

(Steve, for example, won't even consider stopping Muslim immigration).

"Even"?

It is contrary to human rights you ethical moron. But then I guess human rights mean little to you, and you don't give a damn about imposing policies that George Orwell warned about in 1984.

I suspect that recent advances in portable brain scanners will please you, as the idea of policing thoughts is becoming practical.

2443. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251951 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

Comment #251930 by annabanana

I do agree they conflict to a degree. I believe religion, in the public sphere, by its very nature conflicts with human rights. But Robertson isn't attempting to divert every thread into a "join my gang, because the sky is falling because of Islam" rant like Fanusi. I am of two minds how to react - to continue to post to try and counter such propaganda, or to just ignore it and hope no-one considers it typical of those who support Dawkins, or just resort to blogging. (Actually, that is three minds). I came back from holiday in a good and calm mood, but that is fading fast.

2444. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251918 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 10:32 am

Comment #251916 by Sciros

There is going to be less support for being a fool if you aren't told that being a fool has the support of a creator and will give you entry into paradise.

Religion is more a proliferator of ignorance than a symptom because it is taught to impressionable children as fact, in a way that post-modernism or Marxism aren't.

2445. Ancient underwater reef found in SA's Flinders Ranges

Comment #251917 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 10:29 am

Comment #251914 by decius

That is very exciting. A recent discovery has given the Snowball Earth idea some support, which is that very slow forming ice can be very transparent, which means that photosynthesis could have continued even under quite thick ice sheets.

2446. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251915 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 10:24 am

Comment #251908 by Jesus86

If run-of-the-mill, garden variety religious people frighten you, you need to get out more.

They don't, and I don't think that everyone who is religious is a nutter, and I am not trying to demonise anyone. Some of my very best friends are religious, and attended my civil partnership ceremony, so have clearly survived the prejudices that their faith tries, to varying degrees, to impose on them.

What I am saying is that religion in general is a stunting and infantilising belief system. That does not mean that everyone, or even the majority, don't manage to turn out to be decent people. I hope I am now known on this site for my view that most people of any faith, no matter how unpleasant the doctrines of that faith, are basically decent. However, in order to end up as people who really understand the world and our relationship to it, they have to overcome barriers that religion places in their way. Theist religion is particularly bad at this in a way other dogmas (such as post-modernism) aren't, as it gives divine authority for view, and provides the ultimate comfort of eternal life.

To compare religion with other ideas is like comparing crack with coffee. It does not operate at the same level.

However, I will freely admit to being more anti-religious than Dawkins. But that in no way means I am anti religious people.

2447. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251905 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 10:07 am

stupid comment that mathematics is not a science

That is certainly an ignorant comment. Relatively recent developments based on Godel's proof of incompleteness have shown that mathematics will increasingly be a matter of experiment and exploration.

2448. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251887 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 9:43 am

Comment #251883 by Lev-CapeTown

I don't know. David Robertson does post some poorly-thought out stuff, and occasionally he can be deliberately provocative and offensive, but I get no sense of him actually considering large groups of people as "the enemy", or proposing such shocking ideas as deporting native citizens for thought crimes. I suspect that for all his many faults, Robertson supports the idea of general human rights and civilization.

2449. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251855 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 8:13 am

Oooh! Wonderful. Now we can quote mine:

The church persecuted Newton, the scientist 'Bertrand Russell and was even responsible for promoting slavery!

As said by David Robertson, on this site, 22nd Sept.

Vaal's point was sound. Religion is always the bane of science, as it has a directly opposed worldview. The religious claim to have special magic abilities to sense truth when there is no evidence or reason. Science says, humbly, "we don't know, let's not jump to conclusions".

Unlike you, David, we scientists don't claim super powers.

2450. Richard Dawkins infected with Satanic 'virus of mind', Christian group claims

Comment #251743 by Steve Zara on September 22, 2008 at 2:51 am

David Robertson-

If you are going to say that relying on intuition, gut feeling, interpretation and revelation are acceptable ways to define a religious point of view, then you are in no position to state that someone who uses the same techniques to come up with extreme views is wrong. All you can do is say that his gut feelings about what God wants are different from your gut feelings about what God wants. There is no way to resolve such disputes, which is why churches keep fragmenting.

This fellow does indeed provide ammunition to castigate all religion, as it shows where thinking without a seatbelt (which is what belief in the supernatural is) can lead.