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


301. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197784 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Comment #197781 by TeraBrat

What you are saying has nothing to do with the points I made. The animals are reproductively successful. We have selected them for certain features than means we wish to propogate them.

You seem to be confusing "wellbeing" and "reproductive fitness" as measured by natural selection. They now form a major part of land biomass. How is that not success in terms of evolution?

All that matters to natural selection is - do the genes survive and replicate long-term. Looked at that way, cattle and pets have been phenomenally successful.

302. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197778 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Comment #197775 by TeraBrat

What a puzzling comment. First, I have an allergic reaction to claims that something is absolutely not true.

But, what we do is certainly part of nature, and part of natural selection. We do breed for the wellbeing of our farm animals, our crops, our pets. We breed for their success while living with us (*). No-one can doubt the reproductive fitness of modern cattle - just look how many of them there are.

Daniel Dennett once said: "How clever of sheep to have arranged for there to be shepherds!" They get food, shelter, protection from predators and disease...

* We also evolve for better survival with cattle. We have evolved the ability to digest milk as adults.

303. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197756 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Perhaps it should have been titled:

I CAN HAAS DELUSHUN

304. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197752 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Jethro

Others are dealing with your points well (as is to be expected). This one particularly interests me:

You argue as if reason will always lead to the same conclusion, that would be true only of totally valid reason on the basis of all relevant information.


We are flawed and varied creatures, with incomplete information about reality. Therefore we come to different conclusions.

What you seem to be doing is to be saying that because reason is not perfect, please leave me space for my God.

That isn't really acceptable, as others in society are wanting the space beyond reason for their God. How do we decide which God to put there? If you want us to listen to your God's words, you have to let us listen to what others say that their God thinks. But that leads to absurdities. We can't listen to everyone's imaginary friends, so we have to not listen to any.

You really do seem to be stuck on the idea that evolution has intrinsic values. I am going to write a blog post about this, with some analogies to help address this confusion.

305. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197714 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Comment #197704

You can't prove there is not a God, I can't prove that there is, so at best that is a stalemate.


Personally, I think there is enough evidence and philosophical argument to demonstrate to any reasonable standard that theism is wrong. There are not only no gaps left in which to insert an interventionist God, but a supernatural being isn't even the kind of thing that could provide an explanation of anything that happens in the universe. I believe there are also good reasons to understand why beliefs in gods and spirits could can arise in minds like ours. I freely admit to being more atheist that Dawkins probably is.

However, back to the matter at hand.

If you are going to make any public statement based on something you can't or won't prove, there is no reason for anyone to take that statement seriously or for them to rate your statement above that of someone who speaks of a relationship with an invisible pink unicorn.

In claiming knowledge of the supposed supernatural you are, in effect, claiming to have special abilities to mentally filter out what is eternally beyond rational explanation.

I would be interested if you could describe how you sense the supposed presence of God.

306. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197697 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Comment #197691 by TeraBrat

I would be interested to read it. I have studied many old and new philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and it is fascinating to see how people's mind work to rationalise such things.

(I have recently encountered Alvin Plantinga's ontological "proof". I believe it may be possible to adapt it to demonstrate the existence of pasta of ultimate greatness in all possible worlds..)

307. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197683 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #197672 by Hypoluxa

There is a book which actually does contain an attempt at a scientific and logical proofs that God is a reasonable concept. It is "The Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day. Trouble is, it is just plain trivially wrong in these arguments. The arguments are also buried in so much ad-hominem and vitriol that it is positively painful to read.

Not all flea books are the same - they all seem to be pretty painful reads in different ways.

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

Comment #197655 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 12:39 pm

It's this: Even hinting you might say a small amount of the truth about Islam. That's it.


You seem to be at odds with
Comment #197604 by Barry Pearson

309. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197597 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 11:09 am

Would you accept the distinction that I may have a view on x based on my faith, which I try to commend to others on their terms, without expecting them to accept my source as authoritative.


Of course you are free to commend views to others.

All I can say is that in a modern society we should be deeply embarrassed to attempt to promote views based on faith.

I really don't see how it is appropriate to say, in a public forums of any kind, that you (for example) disagree with stem cell research for religious reasons.

An analogy I often use is that of a courtroom. Would you honestly expect anyone to consider testimony from you to be of value unless you back it with evidence?

310. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197592 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 11:05 am

Comment #197585 by Galactor

Good point. It is perhaps worth noting that Ken Miller in a recent interview on The Colbert Report states that ID is "anti-American". Perhaps he knew of this new tone from the DI.

311. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197589 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment #197587 by TeraBrat

Oh dear the link to "The Delusion Delusion" on his page doesn't work.

That means the link is a Delusion Delusion Delusion.

312. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197583 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 10:52 am

but is it a condition that the interface between my faith and science is a no go area that I'm not allowed to talk to you about?


If you can find a mechanism for making such an interface, I would be impressed. I have never seen one.

I mean do I have to think of it as like a fart, unwelcome in company even if a relief to myself.)


I do admire you for saying this. There is a term called "brainfart" :)

313. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #197581 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 10:50 am

Stacey-

Again, if you have a penis and testicles and produce sperm, you ARE a heterosexual male "designed" (don't hit me) to mate with a female and deliver that payload.


In addition to cartomancer's excellent post....

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality (quite literally). Are recent example as when a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Iris Robinson said:

"Homosexuality is disgusting, nauseating, shameful, wicked and vile," she said. It is "not natural"

Also, her "Christian belief" told her it is "an abomination" and she advised homosexuals to seek psychiatric help.

There is so much wrong here it is truly frightening. Robinson seems to rate herself as qualified to talk about the ethics, biology and psychology of homosexuality based purely on religion.

But what I'd like to concentrate on is the naturalness of homosexuality. It is extremely common in nature, and is clearly a normal and necessary part of the behaviour patterns in some species.

It may seem odd that having a proportion of the population non-reproducing can be selected for, but this can happen. It can occur, for example, in some species when there is above a certain level of population. Breeding as a whole works better if some of the population devote all the time to food-gathering and social help.

I am not saying that this is how it evolved in humans, but it does show that homosexuality is not only natural, but can be, and most likely is, positively selected for.

So, please, no more second-guessing what we are "designed" for by Nature.

314. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197571 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 10:37 am

I've been reading the comments on this forum for the past four days and for the first time in twenty years I'm reconsidering religion.


I assumed that this site was supposed to encourage rationality and clear thinking. Here we see a good example of the lack of it.

1. Generalising - "comments on this forum". If you have something to take up with specific individuals, name them.

2. Either implying that a belief in the supernatural can be fueled by other's supposed agressiveness (?), or using potential conversion as some kind of threat.

If you don't like the tone you find from some posters here, you can simply not read the site, or just ignore them. This is pretty calm and mild considering it is an open and largely unmoderated site.

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

Comment #197566 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 10:30 am

I can't see a "hate crime" prosecution against someone as well-respected as McEwan proceeding. At least I hope not.

316. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197562 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 10:24 am

Comment #197528 by Jethro

How we share the planet is clear. No public statements on issues of significance based on religion. No claiming rights based on your belief of what God wants. No denying others rights based on what you think is in God's mind, and so on.

Religion becomes a personal opinion.

317. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197559 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #197557 by Oystein Elgaroy

I believe it was Chris Hitchens. Sure sounds like him!

318. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197472 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 7:19 am

Comment #197470 by decius

Not the slightest, really. I may be being mean, but my impression is that the idea of "group selection" gives some people a warm fuzzy feeling, a sort of "Nature loves us" idea.

319. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197465 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 6:44 am

Comment #197464 by decius

My point was that no number of discoveries of selection at "lower levels", even truly "selfish" genes will disprove the idea of "higher levels" of selection. There needs to be falsifiability of the ideas of those higher levels.

320. Charles Darwin: 'Is man an ape or an angel?'

Comment #197462 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 6:04 am

I've heard about auto catalytic reactions where chemicals produce more of themselves, but there's no mutation involved I suppose.


We believe that RNA can form by itself. It can catalyse its own reproduction. That reproduction results in mutation.

What else do you need?

321. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197461 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 6:02 am

Comment #197460 by decius

Sloan Wilson does not say there are no selfish genes. He claims that there are "altruistic" ones as well.

322. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197455 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 5:07 am

Comment #197450 by irate_atheist

Interesting but not unexpected news.

I have seen a recent interview with the gay bishop Gene Robinson. The things that other bishops have said to him have been astonishing. They have said that "gays are lower than dogs" (what is wrong with dogs anyway?) and "Satan entered the Church" when he was ordained.

These bishops don't seem to be very good at finding this universal moral compass they keep talking about. I also find it fascinating that they claim not only to know the mind of God, but that of Satan as well.

323. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197444 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 4:01 am

Comment #197438 by irate_atheist

I was hoping we could in some way harness the delusion energy in creationists.

Creationism is a good way to wreck the economy of a country by making students ignorant of science and its principles. Perhaps we could use that. We could threaten to send our creationist nutters to badly behaved countries, as missionaries who will spread ignorance, and turn their currently thriving country into an idiocracy.

324. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197412 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 2:15 am

My initial thoughts are that a life protected from all harm would be very boring and robotic. The last time I came here to comment, the atheist position seemed to be that Christians were missing out by crediting God for the good that they were doing with their lives. If God intercedes in every event of our lives then what would it matter how well we do.

Imagine a race where nobody is allowed the indignity of losing. Doesn't sound like a very appealing event, does it?


This is something that puzzles me about Christianity.

There is all this discussion of theodicy - with justifications of how nastiness is a necessary part of a world with free will etc. But there is also a belief in heaven, which apparently has no nastiness at all, and so, according to you and many others, must be excruciatingly dull, in contrast to hell.

325. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197396 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 12:58 am

Comment #197373 by marshall1

The points that Atheists make are not unique. Christians (at least me) have already considered most of the points that Atheists hang their faith on, but we believe anyway.


I'm fascinated by what you believe.

Could I ask what your definition of "supernatural" is?

326. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197395 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 12:55 am

Morning Mr Irate

A clinical study of this phenomenon would be most interesting.


Perhaps having an occasional deluded narcissistic egomaniac in a group has some past evolutionary advantage. Perhaps that person would be the one who ran fearlessly into the jaws of a tiger, so that the rest of the tribe could kill it when it was too full to move. Perhaps that person would be the one who was willing to test that dodgy river crossing because of their feeling of immortality, and as he drifted downriver, the others could then wander off somewhere longer but safer, and also slightly relieved to be free of he-who-knows-God.

Perhaps what we need is some great challenge for the creationists, something useful to society where their denial of science would make them fearless. Bird flu tester? Here - kiss this chicken....

327. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197390 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 12:38 am

txpiper-

I guess my question for you would be why you don't? [provide evidence to back my claims]


You must be joking, I mean, seriously.

Others have provided all the evidence you could possibly need. But, I believe their efforts are futile, and, if they will forgive me, perhaps over-generous to you.

You are the one making wild claims - that all of biology and geology is wrong and the great txpiper knows why.

I don't need to provide evidence to justify centuries of work when that evidence is in any library or museum near you, when all of Darwin's works are available online.

And anyway, you have revealed yourself immune to evidence.

All that is left that can be constructively done, I feel, is to try and study you. To find out why you have this mental state of denial.

To help that, could you please explain why you feel yourself able to place yourself above all of biology and geology (oh, and bits of physics as well) based on religion.

Thank you.

328. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197188 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 10:07 am

Comment #197183 by TeraBrat

In order to comment on their views, I will need to know if they are Theravada, Mahayana, Pure Land, Zen, Tibetan at least.

329. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197182 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #197179 by rod-the-farmer

You will have to forgive me. I am seeing things from my largely scientific perspective.

I am going to have a think about what you say.. it is an important point, and then I'll post something longer later.

Can I PM you with some initial thoughts first?

330. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197180 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:43 am

You can't be serious? Budhism, Native American beliefs?


I am serious. Buddhism in most forms states that there are supernatural moral absolutes. Of course, the question is what those are. So, yet again, people get to write their own standards and claim that they are the universal ones.

Buddhism is far more questioning that most religions, but still suffers from this fault.

There are no general Native American beliefs. You need to be more specific.

331. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197170 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #197162 by rod-the-farmer

I did not realise the situation at the RDF. That may make me things look at differently.

What I offer is some passion for the subject, extensive experience in public speaking on four continents, plus (brags here) I am one of the minor contributors to the BBC "Have Your Say" program. They have called me four times in the past year and a bit, to appear on their radio show. I am, in their words, 'articulate and thoughtful', and a Canadian.


That is excellent!

I may not be a suitable debate candidate with my current views. If anyone religious starts to talk on scientific matters, I would immediately ask what their scientific qualifications were and why they feel they have the authority to speak on science from a religious position. In fact, if they were to speak about anything religious at all, I would demand that they shut up until they can provide a guaranteed definition and test for the supernatural and how we can know it exists (I have been reading up on my Hume). So, the debates might not be that long.

332. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197166 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #197164 by Quine

What they often then do is (to use a phrase I believe I coined during a long debate with Dianelos) go away, press their "reset" button and reload their religious software free of the virus of rationalism. Then, they come back....

333. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197138 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 7:58 am

Yes you do. Maybe not you personally, but, that's exactly what a lot of these comments sound like.


I think it is absurd to state that requesting that people are sceptical and opened to reasoned debate is equivalent to claiming divine backing.

I think there is a term for such a logical fallacy. Perhaps someone could help me here?

Have you studied all the religions enough to make that broad statement?


I have studied the major religions, yes. If you wish to discuss a particular religion, then let's do it. Religion by definition involves making statements about what is supernatural. Those are evidence-free claims about the fundamental nature of reality. This leads to absurdity, as in the current split in the Anglican church where the Holy Spirit is apparently whispering different things in different people's ears. Each side claims to have the backing of God.

While we give such belief frameworks respect, we will continue to have unchallenged statements from Bishops that "gay people are worse than dogs".

334. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197128 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 7:24 am

A lot of our morality "does" come from religion.


No, it doesn't. Morality comes from people. At its least worst, religion is a framework which takes the moral and ethical ideas that decent people normally have and states that they have divine backing (as in "I was guided by the Holy Spirit").

At its worst, religion is like handing people a blank cheque, signed "God" that allows people to shop for whatever beliefs they like, no matter how nasty.

And then, we are supposed to respect such beliefs "because they are religious".

Religion may allow questioning to a degree within the religious group, but questioning from outsiders is frequently considered either taboo or rude simply because the beliefs are religious.

There are good moral people in every race and faith and bad immoral people in every race and faith and I include Atheism in that.


We aren't arrogant and narcissistic enough to claim that our views are part of the fundamental fabric of reality, and must not be questioned.

You can find good and bad in everything human.


Religion takes that good and bad and gives it ultimate authority.

335. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197124 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #197123 by AtheistJon

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Video blogging debate is fine by me. (Not that I particularly fancy it myself)

I assumed you meant some sort of live debate.

336. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197113 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #197111 by Frankus1122

Not fair. I started much earlier. There was also the Dianelos debate. A detailed statistical analysis is required.

337. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #197108 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #197107 by Barry Pearson

Good letter, but ID supporters and even many Creationists no longer question Natural Selection at some levels. They now tend to question the appearance of new species of "higher" organisms. They would have no problem with the development of pesticide resistance or the appearance of new strains of bird flu, for example.

It may be, however, that such subtleties would be lost on a politician!

338. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197103 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #197102 by AtheistJon

I am pretty much against it. I don't much suffer from stage fright - in past years I have been a regular lecturer and teacher of university students.

Those debates were on specific topics, and time could be taken to respond. Spoken debates are about pace. They aren't usually about exploring issues, but about making the best impression.

It reminds me of Scott Adam's assessment of who usually wins presidential elections - the one who is tallest and with the best hair.

339. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197101 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:54 am

Comment #197098 by AtheistJon

OK then... this:
http://atheistandchristiandialogue.blogspot.com/

340. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197100 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:51 am

Comment #197097 by Apathy personified

On your list of reasons why you post, surely you forgot, 'because it's fun'.


Also naive optimism. I have this dream that someone - even if it is only one person - who comes here supporting creationism or ID will, when it is pointed out that trying to persuade us to abandon the tested work of generations of biologists based on their personal opinion of science and an old book, realises how deeply arrogant and embarrassing that is (I get embarrassed just reading their posts), and they say "Oh dear! I do look a twit, don't it? Terribly sorry to bother you".

Perhaps if those who post here don't, the message may get across to others who don't. Even if they don't change their minds, they may actually realise it is a good idea to shut up.

341. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197096 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:37 am

Comment #197089 by AtheistJon

What's non-supernatural dualism?


That there is some extra factor that makes up our minds, that is more than just the activity of neurons. One example is the ideas of the philosopher David Chalmers.

By the way, have you considered trying your hand at debating theists, publicly and not in writing, i.e. on a stage somewhere? I think I would enjoy seeing that.


I would be very reluctant. Such debate are won by rhetoric, not by facts. It can be about who talks more loudly and faster.

The kind of debate I enjoy is like this:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/135785.html

you against al-Rawandi? Pick a topic. ;-)


I would not stand the slightest chance, either in terms of facts or energy!

342. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197087 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #197086 by AtheistJon

Absolutely. I used to think that non-supernatural dualism was a reasonable idea until I came here.

343. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197083 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:14 am

Steve, I agree with you. But, then this begs the question, why do we continue this way? You're probably the most prolific blogger on this site? Is there anybody who has posted more?


I am nowhere near the volume of others, such as Al-rawandi in full flow.

Also, I would not call this blogging myself. Blogging is when I post on my own site (sorry to be pedantic).

I continue here to rehearse tactics, to exchange ideas. I have learned a lot, and it has been useful. I have publicly (albeit in writing) debated theists elsewhere, and I believe those debates have been successful, because of what I have learned here. This site is also visible. People have come here to try and show that they can "deal" with us "militant atheists", and the consequent interactions here are followed by many, I am sure. There have been important discussions and demonstrations of tactics by epeeist and Brian English recently.

This is where we can "spar" in public and if we do so carefully, we may have an impact.

344. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197077 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 3:38 am

I am a bit cautious about blogging in general being that effective. It reminds me of the Tom Lehrer song "The folk song army":

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.

Blogs can be used to discuss ideas, and to arrange campaigns. They can also be used as a resource, where one can archive thoughts and links.

But unless there is visibility, blogging alone is not a step forward, I think.

345. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197066 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 2:51 am

Comment #197065 by noamzur

I would love to see some SCIENTIFIC arguments against "Darwinism".


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/nice_new_logo.php

346. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197063 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #197057 by phil rimmer

That is my view.

Although excellent and necessary work has been done, the current approach seems partly defensive - waiting for the next place that the creationists will strike, and trying to prepare for their next technique. A push for teaching of critical thinking skills in general would help immunise youngsters against such attacks on their education. It would be pro-active, and would work with the current tactic of creationists against them. It isn't just a possibly useful tactic against ID, it is also a great life skill in itself.

347. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197047 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 1:30 am

Comment #197008 by irate_atheist

Perhaps they want to teach about alternatives to the Theory of Gravity, too.


I wonder if you aren't actually on to something.

How could "teach the controversy" campaigners possibly object to a bill which insisted on the teaching of critical thinking skills in general, including the philosophy of science and reason. Perhaps even add some theories of ethics as well in there. That would, I believe, be far more corrosive of superstition than the creationists fear evolution is, yet could hardly be objected to, as "an understanding of differences of opinion" is what the creationists claim is all they are after. Let the children be taught how to rate different opinions; how to make their minds up, how ethical frameworks have and can be established without any mention of God.

What a positive campaign that might be, and in being so, it might attract more support than "stop the bill" alerts, as important as those are.

Athough such a change in education would be wonderful in itself, the implicit message would be "hands off evolution or we'll philosophize your ass!"

348. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197044 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 1:14 am

What a bizarre claim.

By having an internationally accessible public website, run by a US citizen, where the facts are simply reported and discussed, allowing people to make up their own minds, Richard is apparently personally telling Americans what to do. All he is doing is enabling us to "discuss the controversy"!

Their knowledge of how the internet works is either extremely poor, or they are lying.

349. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196900 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Comment #196896 by alovrin

It seems you have been misjudged.

I wonder if you have ever seen the Rob Newman sketch "Ray - The Man Inflicted With A Sarcastic Tone Of Voice" :)

MPhil's blog post is really worth a read.

350. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196897 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Comment #196893 by Diacanu

I don't mind someone saying "what you have said is crap, and that is why".

If someone is being pissy, then that really isn't my scene. It is too much clearthinker style.

Ah well.

MPhil has a great blog post on issues of religion in a liberal and democratic society:
http://mphil.livejournal.com/3557.html

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