201. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #201937 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I don't think String Theory should be ridiculed for having multiple dimensions. The problem is that it has indeed been oversold. There are some amazing people working on String theory, from Brian Greene to Edward Witten.

It isn't entirely true that String theory hasn't connected with the real world. There have been some amazing insights into black holes from string theory, but nothing that is experimentally verifiable.

My personal concern is that String Theory isn't even the kind of thing that should be considered as a candidate for ultimate reality. It would, even if true, explain the origin of all particles and forces, but it gives no insight into quantum uncertainty.

202. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201862 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 10:49 am

Comment #201848 by Isaksson

But SG1 as the #1? Well, not in my taste.

A reason I really liked SG1 was its humour, and character development, something sadly lacking from much of Star Trek. Also, it was pioneering in one way. There was a cast member - Samantha Carter, who was never treated as anything inferior or incapable in any way because she was female; indeed, she was revealed to be a pioneering scientist and highly capable soldier. Also, Jack O'Neill was allowed to progress into grey-haired middle age without becoming feeble or useless. Indeed, he has had some action scenes in the recent StarGate Atlantis series.

I think the StarGate series have been, in general, far more pioneering and reflective of modern society than anything the Star Trek franchise has come up with.

203. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201845 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 10:15 am

Comment #201812 by Robert O'Brien

Diacanu has what I would call a fierce intelligence. One of the finest here. He can see through the fluff and spin of an argument and responds with vicious eloquence.

You, however, have failed. You are doing nothing but trying to patch up arguments that have been shot down. There is nothing left of your initial bluster. We aren't naive and inexperienced here. We have met the arguments you have tried to use many times before. You came here telling us how little we knew, but you have only exposed your own ignorance of the counterarguments to your position.

If you want to continue to debate here, that is up to you, but if you want to be considered anything other than a waste of time, you need to come up with decent debating points, and present them in a new and interesting way that is worth our attention.

204. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201841 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 10:06 am

I belive you are right in that it is for kids of all ages, wether they be 5 or 55. In other words, I can subscribe to the notion it is family oriented. (Much just like Farscape)

Could you please add a few more years (decades?) to the 55? I am approaching 50, and being close to the top of an age range makes me feel aged :)

I am a huge fan of Farscape, by the way.

And BG is one of the best, prolly even the best Scifi series I have ever seen. Hows that for an opinion!

It is a good opinion. James Olmos is a fine actor.

But best sci-fi series surely has to be StarGate SG1...

205. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201826 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 9:47 am

Comment #201821 by Robert O'Brien

Benevolence is a positive attribute. If that doesn't get you the theist God then it gets you close.

No, it doesn't. The nature of "positive quality" is not defined for the argument. Therefore, to say that any particular attribute is a positive quality has to be separately justified.

So you are back to square one.

A bit of advice: Human intuition about ontology may be useful, but only when combined with evidence about reality.

Evidence for God is required.

206. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201822 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #201801 by Quetzalcoatl

It is probably something like this: There are a a variety of measures of greatness, but as God is great in all respects, all measures of ultimate greatness are associated with God. As all measures of ultimate greatness are the same, there can only be one God.

Typical theological nonsense.

207. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201818 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #201808 by Robert O'Brien

What you believe does not matter. We are talking about what you have evidence for.

Comment #201807 by Robert O'Brien

Sorry, but this fails. For one thing, Godel's argument is not for the existence of a theist God. It is only for some essence of positive attributes. It doesn't even get you to a deist God. There is no mention of "being" or of "mind".

I note you have dropped the use of Lane Craig's proof. That was wise.

So, what do you have left? Ontological arguments have failed...

208. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201805 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 9:27 am

Comment #201802 by Robert O'Brien

You don't understand the ontological implications.

The "if" doesn't matter.

If a fictional entity met the criteria, your argument is destroyed, by definition.

209. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201795 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 9:20 am

Comment #201786 by Robert O'Brien

No. But He is unique by the identity of indiscernibles (q.v.)

Uniqueness is not the issue. Existence is. Answer Brian's question, please. Otherwise, perhaps you might want to stop wasting our time.

210. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201788 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 9:13 am

Comment #201779 by Robert O'Brien

If the FSM met the criteria for a God-like being in an ontological argument, then it would just be another name for God.

Wonderful. You have now proven your argument has no validity as to reality.

The FSM was deliberately and knowingly fictional.

This suggests to me that you don't actually understand the nature of ontological arguments. They aren't there to attempt to show that the idea of God is coherent, or that the idea of God is a possibility. They attempt to demonstrate that the reality of God is necessary.

If you consider that a fictional God (one which exists in no world) meets the criteria of an ontological argument (one that must exist in at least our world, probably all worlds) then you just don't understand this at all.

211. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #201776 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #201768 by Oystein Elgaroy

I am no expert on the "sum over histories" approach to quantum gravity, but as far as I know there are technical difficulties with it that are yet to be resolved.

That seems a very polite response, considering there isn't yet any practical theory of quantum gravity.

However, it seems like a very sensible step to take the state of the universe today as a starting point instead of unknown initial conditions at the Big Bang.

I'd like to add that this is a sensible use of the much-maligned anthropic principle... this is the universe we observe, so it makes sense to explain this universe, with its conditions.

212. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201771 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 8:48 am

Comment #201764 by Isaksson

The only point you made I took issue with was your emphasis on Dr Who being a children's programme, as if that should somehow give us a different perspective on its quality. I would use a different term - Dr who is family drama. It can be much harder to produce quality drama that is viewable by all ages. You can't derive emotion from easy shocks such as sex or violence. Horror has to be understated. It is harder to make something exciting, and yet in the revived Dr Who, they have achieved absolute wonders - compulsory family viewing that can reach the peak of quality drama.

213. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201712 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 6:19 am

Steve. I thought you were off on another sabbatical

If I ever say that, just ignore me. I am addicted. It ranks along with "this really is my last square of chocolate".

PS have been reading your blog-great stuff.

Thank you. I am trying to post something interesting and relevant to this site and "reason" at least daily. I am also researching a way to index the posts, as the number is building up.

214. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #201698 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 5:07 am

TeraBrat-

I think that not allowing children access to religious books is as bad as forcing religion on them.
.....
I believe that ridiculing religion, as opposed to camly explaining why you don't believe, is as bad as enforcing it.

I am sorry if this sounds really patronising (I guess that is unavoidable in this context), but I believe you really need to think in depth about what you have posted here.

Let's try your logic on another area of controversy:

"I believe that ridiculing drug use as against explaining calmly explaining why you don't think it is wise is as bad as holding someone down and injecting them with heroin".

You keep using that phrase "as bad as". I do not think it means what you think it means.

215. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201679 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 3:32 am

Comment #201676 by Barry Pearson

Are you suggesting that in fact there was an Intelligent Designer who helped religion over its difficult bits?

We don't need a designer. We are lucky to be able to observe a speciation event actually in progress:
http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/06/schism-schism-cataclysm-well-almost.html

216. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201672 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #201668 by Goldy

Wow! Go for it!

Incidentally, I believe there is a simple test which shows that ontological arguments should generally be rejected even before they have been examined. Any argument which includes the word "intuition" (as Lane Craig's does) can't be taken seriously. The argument can looked at to examine the beliefs of the proposer, but certainly not as any useful tool for understanding reality.

217. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201648 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 1:40 am

Dr. Who is not about convincing performances

Perhaps you have not been watching the same new series as I have :)

The revived Dr Who has won major awards for drama. There have been some episodes that rank with the best that there is on TV. Blink, Girl in the Fireplace, Midnight.


This isn't the Dr Who of the 70s or 80s. It is often first-rate drama, with outstanding performances from of the finest actors - David Tennant, John Simm, Penelope Wilton, Derek Jacobi etc.

I thought Dawkins was fine, although I had hoped for more of an interaction with the Doctor at some point.

218. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201646 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 1:31 am

And where is the evidence that religious dogma locks in behavior more so that non-religious dogma?

Do you believe that marketing and advertising works? Do you believe that a parent rewarding a child with love and affection works? If so, then you are going to have to concede that religion locks in behaviour more than other dogma.

It works like this. Suppose you were offered reward points for shopping at a particular store. Say 10% off. That would encourage you to shop there, perhaps. The more the reward points, the more it would encourage you. That is not controversial. Supposed you got told you didn't just get reward points - you actually got paid to shop at the store. And, you would get a hug from the cute manager for doing so. And, it was actually good to shop there (even though you come out with more money than you went in with). I kind of think you would be pretty keen to shop there. Now let's ramp things up a bit. Suppose the store not only pays you to shop, but offers health benefits - free medical treatment when needed, and the store owner has actually said they are in love with you. How does that sound? Good? It turns out that things are even better. The free medical treatment gives indefinite life, and during that life you can have unlimited sex with people who are always available. Sounding wonderful, isn't it! It is so great, you would desperately want to ensure that your family, friends and future generations shopped there. In fact, it would seem positively wicked not to ensure that they do, wouldn't it?

But it gets even better than that... whatever belief you have about the world, be it gays are nasty or cows should not be eaten will be approved by the store manager. They will give you a big hug and say "yes dear, you are just SO right about all that". That includes not liking people enough to fly planes into buildings.

Combine that with the actual words of people who say why they are motivated to shop at the store - their testimonies - and you have a convincing case.

Other stores (dogmas) don't offer the same health benefits. They don't tell you that it is actually very good to shop there. Nationalism or worship of a dictator does not bring benefits in the afterlife.

If one was going to design from scratch a system of dogma that could make people do anything, it would be religion.

219. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201638 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 1:06 am

I have to say I find a guilty pleasure seeing Brian and MPhil get to work in this way. I know enough to understand their arguments now, and it is quite fun to see someone arrogant taken down. I have no objection to a good discussion, but I just can't be having with "you are all to stupid or ignorant to understand".

220. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201435 by Steve Zara on June 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Comment #201432 by Goldy

Heh. Sorry. Just ignore me if you like.

221. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201426 by Steve Zara on June 29, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I have been watching the discussions with interest. I think Brian is spot on. Best put off discussions of legends of magic men until the existence of magic has been established. Don't put up with any arguments about complexity or philosophical arguments about beginnings and causes. They are irrelevant, as they are nothing to do with the issue of magic.

Unless magic can be shown to exist, or be a potentially reasonable explanation, all this virgin birth and life of Jesus stuff is nothing more than question begging.

Basing ethics on words in an old book is also highly dodgy until the existence of God thing has been established.

222. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #200893 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Comment #200891 by Galactor

I have seen that as well.

It is time to say farewell here again, for a while. I don't feel anything is achieved by me posting here. I have a blog, where things are discussed. That is enough, for me.

223. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200865 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:56 am

Comment #200860 by epeeist

In my household, there is an ongoing (and daily) battle about who is "the master" (albeit on the chessboard). I hope you are your wife don't "fight" over breakfast the way me and my husband do!

224. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200850 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:36 am

Comment #200849 by epeeist

I would like to add that I think epeeist looks rather dashing, in a middle-aged Errol Flynn kind of way (if he and his wife don't mind me saying so)

Any comments about men and long weapons are probably inappropriate.

theIdiot is clearly a troll, and should be ignored.

225. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200848 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:24 am

Comment #200837 by Barry Pearson

Your website is a useful resource. I think your "Evidence in Court" argument is right on target.

226. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200842 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:13 am

I was in the middle of posting, and then I noticed this:

And a menacing one at that

Twit.

I'm pretty menacing too, you know. I can threaten people with my "abilities" to sing Alanis Morrisette songs.

For goodness sake grow up.

227. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #200836 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:04 am

Comment #200833 by babrock

I happen to be a huge fan of Dr Who. I have been all my life. I may be able to provide you with information about when particular episodes will air. But, in return, I ask just one minor thing.

Please post in English and not in text-speak. Is that really too much trouble?

228. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200835 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #200784 by Bonzai

Let me try and explain things simply.

In order to show that an argument is just word play, you need to understand the use of words, and how they are played.

Part of the battle against theologists is to defeat them on their own ground, using their own rules. This is not to concede that their ground exists, or that their rules exist, but it shows they are inconsistent.

229. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200825 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #200796 by theIdiot

Just a minor thing.

I am prepared to post here, argue with you, and even admit honestly when I have slipped up, under my own name. Not that I don't mind when people generally don't - that is up to them. But my question to you is are you prepared to admit who you are?

230. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200821 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 9:23 am

Comment #200816 by TeraBrat

I think you need to understand something. Many people on this forum have been involved in debates with the media of e-mail and forums for longer than some who post here have been alive.

I want to give you some honest friendly advice. Come here to learn, not to teach, about to deal with debate opponents. Before I came here I had been using the internet for more than two decades. But even so, I have learnt a huge amount here. I admit I sometimes fail to follow my own advice, and I am proved wrong, but it is always a learning experience.

231. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200815 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 9:12 am

Comment #200814 by epeeist

Steve Zara and Billy Sands both have a good tactic (at least as far as I am concerned) and, despite what Steve says, this is partially based on ridicule.

I won't deny that. It is just that ridicule is not my main motivation. It is a bonus.

I would also like to point out that my contributions have been minor. Billy has a long and very distinguished record of dealing with David Robertson's nonsense.

232. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200813 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 9:10 am

Comment #200808 by TeraBrat

Why take the bait? Why not just let him spout and ignore him and he'll go away.

Because when questions are left unanswered, or points are left unaddressed on very high-volume and public forums like this, the casual reader (especially those who may have been encouraged to view this site by Robertson) will assume that we can't respond.

233. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200809 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 9:01 am

Comment #200804 by TeraBrat

I was referring to attacking them on the basis of "I'm right and your wrong" when they aren't doing anything more than expressing an opinion that they believe in god.

Just think about what that statement of opinion means. Consider the context.

Someone has come to the site of perhaps the world's most well known atheist and rationalist, and posts that they believe in God.

I would also like you to take a look at how people who post such things are generally treated here when they first post. It is generally with politeness. We have had good civil discussions with many religious people on this site.

234. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200799 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #200787 by TeraBrat

Attacking religious individuals is mean spirited.

Depends on the individuals.

I'm gay, and live a normal life with my husband with everyone knowing about it.

The only attempts to condemn that overtly have been from religious people, attempting to restrict my rights. Their attacks on me are somewhat more vigorous than just "mean spirited".

As the target of so much hatred from so much religion, I actually think I am being decent most of the time. I am prepared to occupy the moral high ground and argue things through for a while, but my patience is, to be honest, running out.

Religion having the status it does in our societies protects people who want to condemn and even cause harm to me from being openly criticised.

I don't find that acceptable.

235. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200780 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 8:27 am

Comment #200773 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I have to confess my opinion of Atkins' performance in that debate has changed since I last commented on it in another thread recently. Atkins has a strong anti-philosophy bias, which is unfortunate as any good atheist philosopher could have countered Lane Craig's positions in that discussion.

Comment #200777 by Layla Nasreddin

Don't worry. The default rationalist's position should be "maybe I'm wrong". This is why we have certain standards of evidence, and procedures for judging hypotheses like Ockham's Razor. Supernaturalist religion fails those tests as something we should even start to consider reasonable.

236. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200764 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #200761 by Radesq

I did mean it. I was wrong, and it is only fair, and honest, to admit it.

But just on that point.

I still think theIdiot is a brash buffoon. I found the gay/abortion statement he posted highly offensive.

237. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200736 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 7:23 am

Comment #200732 by TeraBrat

There is all the difference in the world between ridicule and shouting. Ridicule can actually be quite gentle. I have learned a lot from people here telling me my views were ridiculous. I am no longer a physical dualist. My view of free will has changed. Even my political views have been subject to people saying to me "that is silly".

It can work, if done right.

238. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200730 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 7:11 am

And when you have the fucking balls to answer this damn question, let me know.

If you want to deal with that post, then yes, I did misread it. To my shame, I should have admitted that earlier. I was, I feel, understandably confused by your earlier statements regarding God, but nevertheless it was dishonest of me not to have conceded this, and I apologise.

239. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200724 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #200718 by TeraBrat

You ridicule and put down what you can't argue against.

No. A lesson it has taken me a long time to learn is that sometimes by arguing against one point you may have already conceded some far more important point.

I used to spend a considerable amount of time arguing with people who support Intelligent Design about the evidence for and against certain types of evolution.

My view (and I don't expect others to share it) is that this can be missing the main point, which is that Intelligent Design is a laughable rejection of the entire foundation of not just modern biology, but the scientific method.

It is reasonable to point out one or two examples of how someone is wrong, because, after all, they might be ignorant, but after that, they are fair game, because their point of view is ridiculous and should be ridiculed. It is that they rank their own understanding of reality above just about everyone in science.

Of course, one can continue to debate with them, but I feel it has to be on this matter - their demand to even discuss issues of science. And if they can't provide qualifications to do that, they thoroughly deserve to be shown to be ridiculous.

If one does not react like that, there is a danger that one loses perspective (I used to), and forgets the broad picture. It also might seem to the causal reader that one considers ID and Creationism to be legitimate scientific positions to be debated.

This is just my approach. Others have found different strategies. One particularly good one, in my view, is to be educational and ridicule at the same time, to show the contempt that the creationist/ID view should be held in (a nod to The Reverend Dark, and others).

240. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200708 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 6:24 am

Comment #200705 by Nova

That isn't the point. Once the assumptions are agreed, then real proofs are possible. This is quite unlike science, where one can never know if one has finally reached the truth.

241. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200702 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 6:12 am

You're an idiot, judging that the original post that you accused me of holding position I do not hold

That was because you had already written a post in which you said something like:

"God does not hold people back from being good".

Clearly implying theistic beliefs.

I can't help that you get post something, get irate, and then try and pretend you didn't, or that we are misreading.

You have done it too often now. The awful post about holding back from gay rights and abortion being related to society being "over-sexualized" was the last straw for me.

I can do this too! Watch-

You really are an idiot. Or a troll. Or both.

(Oh, but at some point in the future I may say "that is not my view", OK? Although I suspect I probably won't)

242. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200695 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #200693 by TeraBrat

When one is attempting to remove the power base of religion, to indicate that it is not appropriate to use religion as a justification for public statements of fact, it does not matter what the person you are ridiculing thinks. It matters what those who might listen to them think.

243. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200692 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 5:39 am

Comment #200689 by Nova

However the idea of "definite proof" for anything is an illusion.

There are definite proofs of logical and mathematical statements.

This can be useful. When a theist makes certain claims about the properties of God, it is possible to show that those claims are certainly false, given common use of words.

This can be applied to ideas such as combined omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence, and
the Trinity, and that one can believe with confidence that an experience is supernatural.

My strong feeling is that one can reduce all claims that God exists to merely claims that something vague might exist, but it certainly isn't the Abrahamic God, which is a logical impossibility.

244. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200691 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 5:35 am

Comment #200687 by TeraBrat

Please give me an example of something you were convinced of by being ridiculed.

Why do you assume that ridicule is for convincing the person being ridiculed?

When one points out a fool, it is can be to show others what is foolish, and to show them that it is OK to say that.

245. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #200665 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 3:56 am

Paula really is an excellent interviewer. I like this discussion format.

246. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200655 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 3:32 am

Comment #200653 by Quetzalcoatl

It's OK - I was actually trying to make the point that epeeist was. It is about preventing schism. And, the juggling analogy is very good.

EDIT: One should not, of course, neglect the possibility that David really is as confused as he appears to be, but I don't like to assign to stupidity what I can assign to malice. Things are more satisfying that way.

247. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200638 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 2:41 am

As often happens, someone expresses a point I make much more clearly:

My suspicion is that it is worse. he knows he is talking shite, but has to keep up appearences for reasons of position and power. He is the scum that floats to the top when religion is allowed a free reign

If it were just this, it would be bad enough. It is the likely involvement of creationism that troubles me. This isn't just about whether or not to worship the virgin Mary, or whether Jesus actually rose to heaven like a space shuttle. It is about the future of science and education.

248. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200636 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 2:32 am

Comment #200632 by decius

Very often he is indeed spot on. Sometimes he just goes too far, and pushes messages that are worrying simplistic, in my view. But, I have said all this before, and I am happy to just agree to disagree with people on this.

249. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200628 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 2:16 am

Comment #200618 by scottishgeologist

I think the situation for Robertson may be more complex than this. I am re-posting what I just wrote on another thread:

What I am about to write may be nonsense, but I think I may have a clearer understanding of Robertson's motives for attacking Dawkins. I think it is more than just about atheism. I think Robertson is trying to keep a church with a range of views on creationism together. By attacking Dawkins (the great evil-utionist) on matters of atheism, Robertson can also be seen to be implicitly attacking evolution by those who want to see that. At the same time, he drops little hints about his concern for those in science who won't follow the standard line on evolution, and when he can he makes noises that sound like he believes in a "fall".

250. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200622 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 2:05 am

Comment #200617 by epeeist

Do you think that Steve actually expects an answer from David Robertson? Or do you think he is exposing him to ridicule by pointing out that he never answers questions asked of him.

You are along the right lines. I would actually like an answer. This isn't really ridicule. I think the matter of creationism is of great importance, and especially relevance with Robertson.

What I am about to write may be nonsense, but I think I may have a clearer understanding of Robertson's motives for attacking Dawkins. I think it is more than just about atheism. I think Robertson is trying to keep a church with a range of views on creationism together. By attacking Dawkins (the great evil-utionist) on matters of atheism, Robertson can also be seen to be implicitly attacking evolution by those who want to see that. At the same time, he drops little hints about his concern for those in science who won't follow the standard line on evolution, and when he can he makes noises that sound like he believes in a "fall".

I think this is a very dangerous approach. It panders to fundamentalists, people who wish to threaten science and education. We need such people exposed, and Robertson keeping them within a broad church hides them.

I think getting a clear and non-contradictory statement from Robertson, very unlikely though that would be, would damage his standing, and help curb his activities at least a little That is why I am pushing for one.