Comments by Steve Zara

2751. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235945 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:43 am

Comment #235943 by Fanusi Khiyal

Oh? And what about when Abu Hamzas new mujahideen converts get out of jail and kill fifty, sixty, a hundred innocents?

Killing people is naughty. We have a legal system to deal with people who kill.

2752. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235942 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:39 am

Option 3, which I do reserve for incitement to jihad terrorism or being complicit in such acts, is death.

What a brilliant idea. It will be bad enough putting to death people who want to be martyrs for a cause, but just imagine what you will stir up if a less-than-perfect legal system wrongly puts to death an innocent.

There is no question you have considerable knowledge, but your "solutions" are little more than Richard Littlejohn-style rants.

2753. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235708 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Comment #235704 by Joe Morreale

So, if you can't reply to my post with a simple example, then you, personally, are making Islam look bad.

I hope Muslims who read this site are seeing how you are lying and making them look bad.

2754. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235702 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Comment #235698 by Joe Morreale

I have certainly not lied. My answers to transitional fossils, genetics and the rest are in my comments.

No, they aren't.

Answer my question. What kind of transitional fossil evidence would convince you?

If such answers were in your comments, then you could simply cut-and-paste a short answer.

Or, perhaps, you are adding yet another lie to your record?

The more you lie, the more you make Islam look evil, Joe. So, if you can't reply to my post with a simple example, then you, personally, are making Islam look bad.

2755. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235693 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #235688 by Joe Morreale

You lie. Your posts are full of lies. You lied about wanting evidence from Dawkins (you won't say what evidence you want), you lied about no research having been done into the Chimpanzee genome. By the standards of your own religion, you have sinned.

2756. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235691 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #235685 by DrCogSci

Personally, I don't think that the post was a result of malice. I am just a bit puzzled about why it is so problematic to edit those posts and put "I was wrong" at the start.

As I've said, I'd have really liked to see people engaging with the arguments *only*. Guess not.

Some of us have engaged with the arguments. You seem not to have noticed.

2757. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235686 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 11:48 am

Joe says-

No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html;jsessionid=F4F7A570586DD6D05FC6CD3BA3E1E006

You are a very naughty boy, Joe. It is bad to lie.

2758. A flea we missed?

Comment #235680 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #235644 by al-rawandi

It's great to have you back.

2759. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #235631 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #235107 by macros_man

You are right. The problem here is terminology. The "multiverse" is fixed.

2760. A flea we missed?

Comment #235628 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 10:02 am

Comment #235624 by JAMCAM87

Being a gay myself, I am motivated!

Don't let me stop you gathering even more evidence.

It does make me realise how slimy David is when he says how reasonable I can be in discussions. I am reasonable, yet wicked, and (apparently) I feel worthless and spread disease. I suspect David feels virtuous because he can actually stomach responding to me.

2761. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235616 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #235615 by BillySands

6. An article by Nicolien den Boer on the Dutch Radio Netherlands web site stated that the Atlas of Creation has stirred up a "deluge" in all of Europe.

Much like garry glitter has.

Nice to know what has caused this recent wet weather.

2762. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235600 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:57 am

No more troll feeding for me for the time being. The feeding seems to have resulted in diarrhea.

2763. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235598 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #235589 by njwong

Freedom of speech involves responsibility.

My view is that if someone has posted a blog entry that has caused understandable offense, but wishes to leave the blog entry there, it would be the decent thing to do to edit the entry and add a note at the top to say that they had changed their mind.

Asking someone to behave like that is not stifling free speech - it isn't compelling them.

2764. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235595 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:50 am

Joe-

Oh dear. You just won't answer will you. Well, next time you talk about Dawkins not providing evidence we know you are lying, as you won't describe what that evidence needs to be.

Isn't lying like that sinful?

2765. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235583 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:45 am

Joe-

Why don't you answer my simple question?

You set up the challenge for transitional fossils. You have to say what the conditions are.

2766. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235578 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #235577 by Joe Morreale

Joe. Don't be a tease. If you are going to criticise someone for not providing acceptable transitional fossils, you are going to have to say what is acceptable.

I am waiting...

If richard believes he has a case what is he worried about?

I can't speak for Richard, but if it were me, I would be worried about a boring waste of time.

2767. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235576 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:37 am

Comment #235568 by Peacebeuponme

The point will not be conceded.

I am taking Joe at his word, and seeing where it leads. He asked Dawkins to provide evidence. That implies he knows what evidence he is asking Dawkins to provide. At least I hope so, otherwise Joe is being just a bit naughty.

2768. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235574 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:35 am

njwong-

I think Meadon has absolute freedom to write whatever he wants on his personal blog, including criticising RD and accusing RD of bad pedagogy (such is this amazing thing called "freedom of speech").

Sure, but to come to Richard's site and try and promote that opinion...

No, I don't agree with Meadon that RD was weak on pedagogy, but I can see Meadon's point of view and where he is coming from (so many students were still not convinced of evolution after the lessons and the field trip with the professor).

How is pointing out that many non-biblical-literalists accept evolution supposed to change the mind of a biblical literalist?

2769. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235569 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:30 am

Joe-

What fossil are you asking Dawkins to bring to the table? What would it look like?

2770. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235564 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:25 am

Comment #235561 by decius

But it's fun! I am dying to learn what a creationist like Joe considers to be a "transitional fossil".

2771. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235563 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:23 am

Comment #235560 by Brian English

This reminds me of discussions with txpiper, in which he claims that the fossil record shows that crocodiles have not changed, so Darwin was wrong. A creationist using the fossil record...

2772. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235558 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:15 am

Comment #235554 by Joe Morreale

If you think that your games will cut any ice me you are deluded.

What game?

You said that Dawkins would not bring a single genuine transitional fossil to the table.

If you use the term "genuine transitional fossil", you presumably must have some idea what it means. I am asking you what you understand by that term.

How can that be a difficult question? How can you ask Dawkins to bring something to the table if you are not prepared to explain what he should bring?

2773. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235551 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:09 am

Comment #235548 by Joe Morreale

No joking can avoid the fact that Dawkins like the true coward that he is cannot bring any or ONE SINGLE GENUINE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL to the table and this is why he avoids the public debate.

What are your criteria for a transitional fossil being genuine?

2774. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235539 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #235538 by Joe Morreale

You surely know the ideological importance of evolution

Please explain.

lies and deceptive scenario of religion and science not being compatable

What predictive power has religion? What testable ideas does it put forward?

2775. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235515 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 7:01 am

Mitchell-

If the children maintain that view then it would be pointless, Steve, but I think that pointing out flaws in their reasoning, and promoting critical thinking, and reason will go along way to softening, if not changing such views. Which is what RD did.

Even if it doesn't work directly, it may help highlight the absurdity of literalist views to the peers of the student, and they may have influence.

2776. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235495 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 6:25 am

What Meadon seems not to realise is that even his "good" pedagogy would fail utterly. What was being demonstrated in that classroom was that there are some students who will simply refuse to accept anything that disagrees with their literalist approach to religion. What good is pointing out to them that others view religion differently? The attitude of those students means that any discussion is, sadly, pointless.

2777. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235479 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 5:59 am

Comment #235474 by Meadon

As I was at pains to point out, I'm not defending creationism or intelligent design creationism.

If you wish teachers in science lessons to point out the views of Ken Ham (as you say in your blog), that is just what you will be doing.

2778. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235469 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 5:32 am

There is no consensus among the relevant experts about the relationship between religion and Darwinism. Therefore, good pedagogical practice requires of teachers, at a minimum, that they inform students about the set of alternatives.

In what context? The history of scientific thought? In Theology? I don't think it is appropriate for Dawkins to promote religion, by saying "don't worry, what I am about to show you should not threaten your beliefs". What he is (I believe) trying to do is to show the vast evidence for what Darwin discovered - evolution by natural selection. If some choose to deny that because of religious dogma, that is their problem. One can put forward the argument that science requires flexibility of thought, but I think that is it. It should not be a requirement for scientists to discuss religion in the context of science classes.

2779. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235462 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 5:13 am

Comment #235460 by Dr Doctor

Plausible?

Indeed.

That is rather like saying that a plausible interpretation of the scene was that Dawkins did not come in dressed as a clown and dance a jig.

2780. A flea we missed?

Comment #235455 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 4:58 am

Some past comments by Robertson regarding homosexuality:

351. Comment #60450 by The Wee Flea on August 2, 2007 at 1:33 am

"On what possible basis can anyone say that a baby is born with a predisposition towards homosexuality/alcoholism/a bad temper/heterosexuality/intelligence?"

(A truly bizarre lack of understanding of biology)

Comment #46649 by The Wee Flea on June 1, 2007 at 2:32 am

"Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting? What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

"Should a Homosexual be head of your church?" obviously you understand neither the Bible nor my church. We do not have a Head. But homosexuals are welcome to be members in the church and even ministers. As are heterosexuals. Providing they live in accordance with the Bible's teaching on sexuality and marriage."

Comment #47290 by The Wee Flea on June 4, 2007 at 2:02 am

"Steve, I've had a look at a significant amount of the literature on the subject. It is not the case that the majority of studies indicate that homosexuality is normal and natural. The most that can be said is that homosexuality occurs in different species."

So, let's review the evidence.

According to David Robertson...

Homosexuality leads to feelings of worthlessness and increases sexual diseases.

Homosexuals are welcome to be members of the church, providing they live in accordance with the Bible's teaching on sexuality and marriage - in other words, not have sex and not get married.

Homosexuality is not normal or natural.

And yet he says he is not a homophobe.

2781. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235432 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 3:55 am

Comment #235430 by DrCogSci

Even though some words have been stricken through, the blog entry contains phrases like this:

Moreover, Dawkins' approach criminally neglects the duty of a teacher to present all sides of an argument when there is no consensus among the relevant experts.

I think that being accused of criminal neglect entitles anyone to get pretty irate. Try as I might, I can't see a charitable way to interpret that. It is a serious accusation.

2782. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235418 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 2:51 am

Comment #235416 by mordacious1

Or he was saying that Richard was awful for not teaching theology in a biology class.

Yes. It is a very strange attitude.

2783. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235396 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 1:24 am

Comment #235389 by mordacious1

I haven't been following this discussion, but I did take a look at Meadon's blog entry, and I was quite baffled. When I watched the scene what I saw Richard doing was what any good teacher would do - attempt to open the students minds to the wonders of evolution. There was not the slightest promotion of atheism. This was about evidence for evolution, and why a correct understanding of scientific issues is not compatible with rigid belief in the the first book you have come across (such as the Bible). It would have been totally inappropriate for Richard to put forward a compatibilist NOMA position. That should be for a theology class, not one on biology. What Meadon seems to be saying is that Richard was awful at teaching theology in a biology class.

2784. A flea we missed?

Comment #235387 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 12:46 am

David wrote-

But again you are missing the point - I never claimed that Davies was a theist (indeed precisely the opposite).

I am puzzled. I never said you were claiming Davies was a theist.

I did state that he made a good case for theism - which he rejects - but nonetheless it was in my view, fair and honest. So please don't accuse me of lying, quote mining etc. Some people are able to put across other points of view. They do not live in the fundie black and white world.

I think I am beginning to understand how you are arguing here. You are equating clear and coherent arguments with living in a "fundie black and white world".

Davies puts across a view of theism and rejects it. He says, and I quote "the concept of 'God' runs into a logical and existential quagmire".

So, David, if you are going to quote Davies in support of theism, you are going to have to deal with the logical and existential quagmire. Otherwise you certainly are quote mining if you say that Davies makes a case for God.

Steve, unfortunately you know wrong. I no more regard as equivalent ot a paedophile than I do a hetrosexual.

Odd then that last year you came on this site and asked why homosexuality should be considered any more acceptable than paedophilia.

2785. A flea we missed?

Comment #235149 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Steve - the trouble is that that is precisely what I did. You left out the part of the quote from my letters in which I state explicitly that Davies is not a theist. Furthermore at the end of The Goldilocks Enigma Davies puts forward a number of options and the cases for and against them. He does not then refute all but the one he likes.

Oh yes he does. He very clearly refutes all but the one he likes including theism.

2786. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235117 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I have to say that anyone who thinks that Libby Purves was at one stage even a half-decent journalist is mistaken. Her interview with Armisted Maupin (a well known gay writer) at the start of the AID crisis is now legendary. She asked "why don't gay men just stop having sex".

She is not known for her intellect.

2787. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #234989 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 10:32 am

Comment #234987 by Diacanu

I will also shamelessly blog-plug:
Diacanu's blog is awesome.

2788. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #234976 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 10:19 am

I am really glad that Paula Kirby mentioned this on another thread and it was put up here. It is a delight to read.

2789. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #234955 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 9:54 am

Comment #234950 by Diacanu

My dear fellow, not everyone knows of the writings of Hume, or the details of Natural Selection. Without such understanding, I think that it is not unreasonable to look around at the world and say "who made this?"

Also, I was a thoroughly convinced theist until my late teens. I am quite happy to accept that you are a far more sensible adult than I was :)

2790. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #234948 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #234947 by kkelly

I would like to apologise to you. Your first posts were a bit shocking, but you have moderated your style to suit this site, and I may have overreacted to some of your posts.

2791. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #234945 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #234942 by EvidenceOnly

Religion makes claims based on no evidence at all and then state that their claims are absolute truths that should be imposed on all of society.

I don't think that is right. Most people require some kind of backing for their views, and, typically, religious people do believe that religion makes claims based on evidence. And it does! The universe, and life does indeed look complex, and it is! People do have feelings that God is talking to them.

What almost all people who are religious don't understand is that this is evidence, but not evidence that supports their religion.

This is why religion needs to be fought with education - so people have a better understanding of how to interpret evidence.

2792. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234943 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 9:34 am

Comment #234938 by hungarianelephant

There is something deeply troubling about a governmental fiat to force changes on people that are likely to trouble their conscience, particularly where the govt is the monopsonist employer. Even if the government is right and the religious are wrong.

You write very thought-provoking posts on this. However, I would like to disagree.

Doctors employed by national institutions are supposed to provide a service required by the public. The service that they are supposed to provide is hopefully decided by democratically elected bodies using good advice from experts. They aren't forced to work against their conciences - they are free to resign from either their jobs, or that area of work. What they should not be free to do is impose their views on others.

2793. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #234927 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 8:52 am

Comment #234925 by dloubet

An excellent summary.

2794. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234900 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #234898 by Ichneumonid

It was a truly fascinating interview. It was rather like some extremely amicable mind probe. It conjoured up for me this vision of Turner saying against his will, through gritted teeth.. "yes! yes! It is just faith. It's all just faith!"

2795. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234899 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 6:56 am

Despite the fact that Dawkins went out of his way to avoid bad-tempered arguments or overt proselytising on atheism, his critics saw only what they wanted to see ï¿½quot; and often that was not what appeared on the screen.

This remind me of something Stephen Fry once wrote. He was being interviewed by a journalist after having motorcycled. He was dressed entirely in bike gear... boots, leathers. Yet, the journalist started the article... "Tweedy Stephen Fry.."

Poor Richard is just stuck with being agressive and nasty, it seems.

2796. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234896 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #234880 by Ichneumonid

I forget the thread, but here is the link:
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTAagcaFN0

2797. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234874 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #234873 by Brian English

I feel so deeply hurt by the reaction of everyone here that I am going to turn to religion....

However, to spite Roberston, I shall worship Quetzalcoatl.

2798. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234870 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 6:07 am

Look... you are ALL wonderful nice people... I was just using Philip as an example. He is typical of the good character and intelligence of posters on this site.

(How was that?)

2799. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234829 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 4:59 am

In any case, on this occasion I've given them a second sentence immediately after the one they might want to read - close enough that even the laziest quote-miner must see it: "It's just that, as you read it, you can't help but see how incredibly shallow, baseless and tortured it is." Now, they're welcome to quote THAT comment about Robertson's horrible little book as much as they like. :-)

"Paula clearly considers this book un-put-downable"..

"read it, you can't help"!

2800. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234823 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 4:47 am

Comment #234819 by clodhopper

It is some hundreds of posts of his since he promised to leave RDnet, but his attention seeking demands that he return time and time again. He is unable to stop.

That sounds a bit like me sometimes :)