Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Steve Zara


251. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199611 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 4:19 am

Comment #199609 by phil rimmer

Further, it occurs to me that we can better pressurize others to change if our own house is fully in order?


Indeed, that was my thinking.

252. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199600 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 4:00 am

You are probably too polite if anything.


That has been pointed out before!

(Yet another failing to deal with :)

253. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199590 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 3:27 am

But I recoil, I denounce and I vomit over such a disgusting proposition as that. That you are unable to see that the disgusting tenets of religion are not to be given even the first time of day - not the slightest fucking nod towards acceptance in any form whatsoever - makes me question your knowledge, experience and thinking.


You are probably going to have a problem with Richard Dawkins' occasional collaborations with the Bishop of Oxford, working to help promote science teaching in the UK.

254. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199587 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 3:23 am

Sorry for the last post or two. I have an allergic reaction to generalisations. I will have to learn to not rise to the bait. I admit suffering from hurt pride when told I am not arguing well in terms of rationality, but pride is a failing!

I have been following issues of equality for some time; both in terms of women's rights and gay rights. I agree that things have progressed significantly. However, I have always thought that it was the bit of inequality that would be hardest to achieve, because of complacency. Equality does not mean having the same roles, or doing precisely the same jobs. But it does mean having the same worth in society, and not being excluded from opportunities, and that goal has not yet been achieved, as I have seen from the experience of friends.

I don't think this is a matter of having issues of relative importance: there is no reason why equality should not be fought for on all fronts.

Anyway... I rose to the bait because I have friends who have experienced this inequality.

255. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199150 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 8:42 am

I am quite calm - that only took a minute ...

however, I have noticed a tendency to put my foot in my mouth in the last few days, so more considered and careful posting may be necessary, after I had a think about things. No offence intended - I thought I was posting quite politely.

I am not saying Al's post was out of line at all. He has taught me a lot, and changed my mind about many things. But sometimes I need to step back and review my thoughts and arguments in order to see that.

So, apologies if my post seemed abrupt or rude. That was not the intention. I just thought it would be rude to simply disappear for a while, even if it is just a few days!

256. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199113 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 7:39 am

Comment #199111 by al-rawandi

Is this the kind of rationalism you promote for making social change?


I always think that when I get that hot-under-the-collar-annoyed feeling when posting, it is time for a short break :) (at the very least I need to consider why my thinking here has been labeled as poor rationalism - this could be correct)

Back sometime soon (you know I can't resist)! No hard feelings to anyone - enjoy your conversations!

257. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199106 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 7:29 am

Thanks for the link. It looks like a conference focusing on Indigenous Australians. However, I think I was talking about American feminism... which I think epeeist addressed.


But that is something to be concerned about, isn't it? This is an international website, and if you use terms like "feminist" and "liberal", then many are going to assume more international interpretations.

This is one of the problems with even well-intentioned generalisations.

Comment #199094 by AllanW

I realise any given set of statistics has to be questioned, but it is illustrative of a general problem. I should have qualified that I was not considering the article necessarily accurate, but indicates an issue that still has to be addressed, in contrast to TOCT's original statement.

There is still considerable work for feminists to do.

258. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199087 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 7:12 am

Comment #199077 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

re: equal pay

As far as I can tell that just isn't true.


Sadly, it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/1968theyearofrevolt.gender1

"Forty years on, many campaigners are asking why it is that men and women are still paid such different rates. The UK is one of the worst in Europe in terms of the gender divide, with women in full-time work being paid, on average, 17 per cent less than their male counterparts. When it comes to part-time work, the figures are much worse. The gap is enormous - a 36 per cent gap between the sexes."

259. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199070 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 6:55 am

No problem. Simply show me one instance where feminists are talking about priorities in the world and are ranking problems like the ones I mentioned ahead of whether they can get together and smoke cigars at the Elks club.



http://www.brisfeministconference08.org.au/

260. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199058 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 6:29 am

I have a problem with language.

I believe strongly in equal rights for women in every respect. I just can't believe that they still get paid less for the same work in many supposedly civilised country.

That makes me a feminist, doesn't it?

It is like my politics. By any standards, I am a "liberal".

I find any phrase that generalises about feminists or liberals difficult. I have to overcome the barrier of the generalisation first.

Perhaps there is a way of being more specific? What to people think?

261. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199039 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 5:37 am

Comment #199035 by decius

Anyone who could recapitulate his story for me?


1. Atheists are nasty.
2. David Robertson's posts are a guilty pleasure.
2. Funny experience (haven't bothered to read, to be honest).
3. Therefore God.

262. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199030 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 5:25 am

Comment #198988 by Richard Morgan

Why would I be interested in a conversion experience?

You know as well as I do about the nature of subjective experience and how it should not be trusted.

Do you have any logical or rational arguments for a belief in the supernatural?

263. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199015 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 3:45 am

The problem is that in everyday use...

"philosophy" = "just finkin', innit?"

264. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #199012 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 3:26 am

Comment #198985 by epeeist

That is fascinating. It always amuses me when people say we only use 10% of our brains, or something like that. Then you see people walk more slowly when they are using a mobile phone!

265. Carlin on Religion

Comment #199011 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #199010 by latsot

I apologise because I did not get the appropriateness of the comment in the context of Carlin.

But also because I could have been offended quietly, and not had the arrogance to post about it.

266. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198881 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Comment #198880 by Goldy

"You lookin' at me?"

Corylus gives wise advice.

267. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198823 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 2:24 pm

But I think there is something to be said for being reminded about what this site's mission is and why I want to contribute *here* and not somewhere else ^_^


I think the site's mission is being accomplished with great success. I see "memes" about how to recognise and deal with irrationality spreading here. I have learned a phenomenal amount from conversations here, and with people I have met here. I hope and believe others have too.

This site clearly must be successful in this respect, as posts here have influence - just look at the recent reaction the Discovery Institute to an article.

268. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198810 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #198805 by Sciros

I have been using the internet since the 80s, and chatting on forums since the early 90s. This is just the way things are. It really isn't going to change. There are people here who may sound strident, but you get used to them, and sometimes you discover they have a very good reason for being strident.

I have to say I do find it rather amusing to see people debating furiously with a combination of passion, strong language and an amazing knowledge of facts (yes, that does include you, Al!)

Each site has its own nature. I think there is generally a good atmosphere here, certainly far better than on some other sites I have visited.

This is what you get with freedom of speech - an open site, with very little moderation. I think it is valuable.

269. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198776 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Comment #198773 by Urim

I don't pick up that meaning. What I read into what she wrote was that faith isn't about thinking (cognition) but feeling (perception). Faith is when you trust feelings over reason. That makes sense to me. Both are neurological.

270. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198758 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #198750 by Urim

She wrote this piece in the Saturday Guardian faith column a few weeks ago which read like warmed over Alister tripe.


Actually, It seems mostly pretty good to me (apart from the assumption that the "selfish gene" idea is teleological). I think it describes the psychology of things pretty reasonably.

What I can't understand is how someone can realise all this, and still believe.

271. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198753 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Comment #198752 by phil rimmer

Sorry. I was kicking a corpse, wasn't it?

272. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198748 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #198747 by clearmind

How does God create things?

273. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198717 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 11:46 am

George was also in
adventures with Bill and Ted
historically

274. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198696 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 11:21 am

The scavenger flies
to the hydrocarbon peak
to show us our doom

275. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198683 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 11:13 am

You have a preconceived bias that colors what you saw and heard.


I did not say who was considered to have won the debate. I simply said that I happened to like Atkins' style most of the time.

This debate illustrates why I think such events are pointless, and why I would not take part in one. You can't get reasoned live debate between people who won't agree the rules about what constitutes reason and evidence.

276. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198664 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 10:56 am

fatalistic wit
bypasses a solo mind
a learning follows

277. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198644 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 10:43 am

Comment #198639 by epeeist

What a good point. He also places himself above theologians and popes.

Just to extend this a little before I go and let people hit me with bits of metal.


Aren't you supposed to... you know.. stop them a bit?

278. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198617 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 10:05 am

Ah well.

Foot in mouth again.

Sorry. Especially to Teratornis.

279. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198612 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #198608 by Teratornis

I am not actually a huge fan of Carlin. I did not know his work that well. This is not about what is sacred. I do know that many were upset by his loss, and to say that "Everyone is replaceable" is just crass, no matter who died.

280. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198596 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comment #198556 by clearmind

(Sorry people, I can't resist just this once)

Hey - how did God make the "art" in the world?

281. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198571 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 9:07 am

Comment #198569 by Teratornis

What an appaling and tasteless comment.

282. Philadelphia Set to Honor Darwin and Evolution

Comment #198560 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 8:58 am

Where DID those other women come from that Adam's and Eve's son married?


There is an answer to that:
http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html

283. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #198552 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 8:44 am

theIdiot-

You do seem to have got things all twisted up.

There aren't just two options - religion or hard rationalism.

We aren't vulcans or robots. We live emotional and lives, and that is good. Our feelings are vital for our interactions with others.

The problem with religion is that it prevents open discussion of certain feelings, and it gives them divine backing.

"I don't like gay people" can be discussed.
"My religion does not approve of homosexuality" becomes protected by both the speaker's own feelings that God is on their side, and also by the taboo against criticising religion.

Religion is a serious problem in a society that desires fairness, as it allows groups to claim privilege.

As for Atran, I am not a fan, I am afraid. I find his denial of the clear evidence of the testimonies of those who commit acts in the name of religion puzzling.

284. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #198520 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #198518 by theIdiot

And next time someone wants to pass this vile rubbish, this dimwitted secular myth, as scientific, or informed, pass me the bucket so I can vomit.


Sorry to upset your stomach, but it is not just scientific, but the only rational way to deal with an understanding of reality.

Belief in God is dangerous because it gives people the feeling of certainty and divine authority. It bypasses conscience and self-analysis.

285. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198515 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #198496 by Am I Evil?

Very nice!

But, you have missed out a section:

"from my experience of kitchen, and the nature of kitchen, and what I see within kitchen, I view the tables and the chairs and having viewed them, I see that I have the understanding - the realisation - that the context of the furniture and all it entails, embodies the very essence of what I feel to be leading up to [and so on for about an hour ...] the feeling of a belief that I would like egg and chips, and so this provides a foundation for my appetite."

286. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198511 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:17 am

I am surprised at the negative comments regarding Atkins. I thought Atkins was great - I like his abrasive personality, and direct statements.

287. Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky?

Comment #198463 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 3:34 am

Comment #198461 by Oystein Elgaroy

I think I vaguely remember something from a Scientific American article a year or two back, which said that black holes produced by the LHC would be unstable even if Hawking Radiation does not occur, and would soon disappear in a burst of particles.

288. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198370 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Do you mind if I contact you in private with some suggestions, so that we don't bother the others? Web design is actually part of my job


Sure. I am also a web designer, but I struggle with the obscure proprietary LiveJournal design language. Advice would be welcome.

289. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198367 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Comment #198328 by Cartomancer

With the combination of wit, sarcasm and polari, it is astonishing that any gay man ever managed to have a bona time with anyone.

290. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198365 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Then it is up to me to post:
http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com/

However, I was serious. I get the impression that blogs, and, increasingly, communities of blogs, are important.

291. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198362 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Comment #198357 by Quine

I am going to suggest a posting policy for the "bloggers". Don't be shy. Those I know about post really fantastic stuff, which is both educational and relevant to debates here. It isn't self-promotion to mention a blog - it is encouraging a wider audience and extending debate.

Finish your posts with your blog address, and encourage others to do so as well.

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/

292. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198351 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Comment #198347 by Quine

Short of the personal blog here is a technique that some may find useful: keep a text file page around on your computer with the links to your longer posts.


I can see how that can be useful for this site, but why limit arguments to just here? Anyone can set up an account on Blogger (I use LiveJournal for historical reasons), and what you write can be discovered and indexed by search engines.

I mean no disrespect to Josh and the excellent work he does here, but one should not trust one's permanent writings to something as transient as comments on threads and forums on a site like this.

If you set up a blog, I have no doubt that I would find it a useful permanent resource.

293. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198301 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Comment #198296 by decius

Probably, ignoring them is the best solution.


It could be, but there is a problem on forums structured like this; a problem I encountered often last year.

Explanations fade into the distance as the length of threads grows, and also as those who come here to promote theist ideas thread-hop.

One can write a very detailed rebuttal than can be lost into the depths of an old thread, and then has to be dug out again and again. This was my experience with a very persistent theist called Dianelos last year.

This is one of the reasons I have started a blog. Not for personal promotion, but as a resource where I (and, I hope, others) can locate and cut-and-paste decent arguments.

If we ignore from the start,, this can give the impression to observers that we have no suitable rebuttals.

294. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198285 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #198276 by Oystein Elgaroy

I think if I reveal that I am a Southern English fellow, and my husband and in-laws are Northern (Yorkshire), the total ineffectiveness of sarcasm in that context will be understood. On the other hand, for dealing with Londoners, sarcasm is vital.

295. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198277 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #198267 by Vaal

It has taken me personally a long time to realise that engaging is pointless unless the terms of engagement are defined.

I think that engaging with such people has the same sort appeal as some kind of computer adventure game. Sooner or later, you will find the secret and crack level one!

One of my thoughts about this has been to do with manners and attitude. If someone comes here and says "you are wrong", I will give them little time. On the other hand, if they say "why are you right?", that is a different matter, at least for a while.

txpiper started off right, with questions about sediment, but then wandered into "that can't be right" territory, and then into the cesspits of "you are all wrong!"

296. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198258 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Comment #198257 by decius

Oh dear. Is that in any way related to:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2761,Sarcasm-Seen-as-Evolutionary-Survival-Skill,Live-Science

Honestly - I just can't tell these days!

297. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198236 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Comment #198211 by phil rimmer

Re-framing the debate in purely political terms licenses it for high profile discussion on the news and news magazine programs.


I think this is the most interesting and constructive suggestion I have heard for a long while. We need to interact with religion where it tries to influence policies - on human rights, treatment of women, education and so on.

298. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198234 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Looking back over the tx posts I get the impression not of one of the abused / exploited but of a would be exploiter.


That is my feeling too. I have been influenced by epeeist's attitude to such situations: don't let them put you on the back foot.

If you are running around refuting them, you are effectively at their beck and call.

If they want to talk to me about science, I first want them to agree to use the rules of science. If one of their axioms is "the bible is true in these matters", I see no point engaging on matters of evidence with them myself. What I have been trying to do instead is address the issue of why they feel in a position to challenge the scientific establishment.

I have this feeling that if we all concentrated on that issue, then we would deal with such people pretty quickly.

On the other hand, some of the rebuttals have been a true pleasure to read.

299. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198176 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #198174 by Quine

You are wise. Do you have any ideas about how to confront this creationist attitude?

300. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198158 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 9:38 am

Oh dear. This seems to suggest fundamentalist religion is a mental disease:

Fundamentalist: "Hey, listen, God made the world 6000 years ago and then flooded it!"
Bystander: "Yeah, right!"
Fundamentalist walks away feeling vindicated.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next