1. Comment #123244 by sarah95 on February 6, 2008 at 5:09 pm

I would recommend PiroNiro's videos to everyone here. She's very smart and entertaining. I found her stuff on youtube, and she really blows all the theist and anti-atheist folks on youtube out of the water.

Other Comments by sarah95

2. Comment #123250 by Macropus on February 6, 2008 at 5:22 pm

A very interesting, relaxed and informative interview. At last an interviewer who asks interesting questions:

"Are you not scared of an entirely rational world?"

instead of the usual devil's advocate stuff.

Bring on the rational world I say, and bring on cameramen who can keep a camera still and focussed. A most annoying and distracting feature of the film.

Other Comments by Macropus

3. Comment #123252 by HourglassMemory on February 6, 2008 at 5:30 pm

I watched this yesterday, after I watched the other Christopher Hitchens debates posted yesterday or the day before that.

It looked more casual. And the camera angles were different.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

4. Comment #123272 by ic0n0clast on February 6, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Haha I love Hitchens.

Other Comments by ic0n0clast

5. Comment #123274 by Slyer on February 6, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Sarah95, the female on some of pironiro's videos is actually named Micki.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpMlCcJdZmc
:) She's great.

Other Comments by Slyer

6. Comment #123281 by LorienRyan on February 6, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I really admire Hitchen's general position of "believe what you want just don't try and make me believe it too", which he makes a point of in his debate with Timothy Jackson. Hitchen's focus on human rights, morality and altruism in most of his dialogue, I believe, is such a positive statement about his atheism, oops sorry Hitch, anti-theism. I, for one, am grateful he speaks for so many of us 'non-persuaded by religion'. Keep up the good work Christopher Hitchens.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

7. Comment #123283 by SmartLX on February 6, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Anyone know anything about the debate he mentions first thing when he, RD and AC Grayling demolished some religious types?

Other Comments by SmartLX

8. Comment #123290 by Aquambulus hirsutus on February 6, 2008 at 9:21 pm

SmartLX,

http://richarddawkins.net/article,861,Wed-be-better-off-without-Religion,Richard-Dawkins-Christopher-Hitchens-AC-Grayling

Other Comments by Aquambulus hirsutus

9. Comment #123292 by Richard Morgan on February 6, 2008 at 9:49 pm

LorienRyan :

I really admire Hitchen's general position of "believe what you want just don't try and make me believe it too"

Why?
Is this not the attitude of any normal person?
What do you find particularly admirable here?


Other Comments by Richard Morgan

10. Comment #123295 by Roland_F on February 6, 2008 at 10:06 pm

"believe what you want just don't try and make me believe it too" --- Is this not the attitude of any normal person?

Unfortunately this is not the attitude of most religious persons who are still building the majority on this planet.

Other Comments by Roland_F

11. Comment #123299 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2008 at 10:51 pm

I really admire Hitchen's general position of "believe what you want just don't try and make me believe it too", which he makes a point of in his debate with Timothy Jackson.

Why?
Is this not the attitude of any normal person?
What do you find particularly admirable here?

You know, I am not sure. People's private beliefs have public effects. Don't we want to change people's private beliefs regarding issues like abortion, the status of women, global warming... (I could go on and on), because people spread these ideas to their children, and they vote based on these ideas, and they live based on these ideas.

If I had a friend or relation who was a global warming skeptic, I would not sit back contentedly in the knowledge that I knew better, providing that if their beliefs are private, all is OK.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #123300 by LorienRyan on February 6, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Richard,

In the context of debating with religious opponents, and IMHO, Hitchens general approach seems more down to earth as opposed to attempting them to accept scientific proofs. Hitchens subtle appeal to this being "the attitude of a normal person" is an effective contrast to most of his opponents evangelistic dispositions. Also, I admire it in the context of Hitchens focus on human decency in his debates, as many of the religious like to bring up the Hitler, Stalin, etc., issue, whereas he himself, and most atheists, are an example that this is not true. Futhermore, I believe that the underlying attitude in the statement "believe what you want just don't try and make me believe it too" is admirable, don't you? Why is it not admirable?

Other Comments by LorienRyan

13. Comment #123302 by Bobington on February 6, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Why is Hitchens so sexy?

Other Comments by Bobington

14. Comment #123303 by LorienRyan on February 6, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Steve,

I hope in the context of people evangelising their own personal experiences you can see my point.

Must go. Thanks for your replies.

Peace.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

15. Comment #123304 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Why is Hitchens so sexy?

He is amazingly well preserved for his age. His voice is just wonderful.

I hope in the context of people evangelising their own personal experiences you can see my point.

I am afraid I am a mildly evangelizing science nut, so people may need to be protected from me.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

16. Comment #123305 by LorienRyan on February 6, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Steve,

Haha, very good. Although your aim is to help people see truth through science and reason not just because of the way you feel about it. And the bonus of scientific truth is that it is wonderful also!

Regards.

*Gone*

Other Comments by LorienRyan

17. Comment #123306 by Richard Morgan on February 6, 2008 at 11:17 pm

LorienRyan :

Futhermore, I believe that the underlying attitude in the statement "believe what you want just don't try and make me believe it too" is admirable, don't you? Why is it not admirable?

As so many have said before me - it depends on the context.
No believer needs Hitchens' or your permission to believe what he wants. And saying "believe what you want just don't try and make me believe it too" is plain nonsense to an Evangelical Fundie.
Think about it.
An integral part of a Fundie's beliefs is that he should spread the "Good news". In other words, he has a moral and spiritual responsibility to try to make other people believe what he believes.
He "believes" this.
So what Hitchens is saying to an evangeligical is:
"Believe what you want (ie that you should try to make me believe the same things as you) just don't try to make me believe it too.
In fact the sentence that you quote from Hitchens that you find so admirable is little more than a feel-good audience-pleaser.
Coming from Hitchens, it "sounds" so reasonable. And at times, Hitchens needs to "sound" reasonable. It's part of his style.
But the case in point is one of his emptier aphorisms.
If you want to take this whole business a little further, think about this :"All forms of communication have one objective in common - to change something in the ideas, the attitude, the opinion or the behaviour of another person."
Don't react too glibly to this, please.
But react, please.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

18. Comment #123308 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Haha, very good. Although your aim is to help people see truth through science and reason not just because of the way you feel about it. And the bonus of scientific truth is that it is wonderful also!

Yes, but to many religious people, that is rather threatening. And change the words "science and religion" to "faith and scripture", and "scientific truth" to "love of God" and see how what you have said reads :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #123312 by Richard Morgan on February 6, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Artcane Viper : Please, please, please try to post your comments without the hieroglyphics. I understand the trick is to start with a plain text version. But I'm not sure.
I'll read your piece when it's been (typographically) cleaned up.
Thank you.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

20. Comment #123314 by Arcane Viper on February 7, 2008 at 12:04 am

I wrote this after seeing Christopher hitchens debate and hearing him say "quite a designer, isn't he?" What do you guys think? There are punctuation errors due to the way I must post the text.

A Well Thought Out Journey

When people ask the question, Is the big bang theory compatible with religion? many theologians answer yes. They believe in a prime mover; a god that created this universe starting with the big bang. There is no divide between science and religion for them. They believe that God designed this universe for us.

Well, I thought about it for a while and was amazed at the journey God had to take to finally realize his dream; to finally create man in his image and reveal himself to us so that we may be saved. What did it take to finally create me, in this room, in Bellingham, today? Well, it all began at a water park

Now, in order to understand the magnitude of this journey, I have decided to contain the 2,000 years of Christianity within one inch. One inch is the goal line for what God wanted to accomplish. It is his space to explore the wonders of his creation. One inch is everything we know about Christianity. This was his goal, but it certainly took a while to arrive here. 13.7 billion years, to be exactly approximate.

13.7 billion years, or rather, 108 miles is how long the journey was to create me. In the beginning, God stood at Wild Waves and Enchanted Park in Federal Way, Washington. That must be what God was doing prior to creating this universe. He was inner tubing and riding the waves before he thought it was a good idea I should exist.

At any rate he started his journey, and by any rate I, of course, mean an excruciatingly slow rate. You see, when an inch takes 2,000 years to travel, after one step, you cant really change your mind and go back home. And who would want to anyway, when you are determined to reach your goal? One things for sure; God is one determined son of a holy spirit?

Inch by inch he continued his trek. One year passed and he had moved 12.7 microns. For comparison, a grain of salt is 70 microns and the smallest particle visible to the human eye is 40 microns. One day stretched for 34.8 nanometers, or a length of ten hydrogen atoms. The journey was getting a little easier.

After 72.5 miles and 9.2 billion years, God reached Milltown, Washington. Fortunately, it was Sunday, and God decided to take a breather after successfully creating our solar system. He attended the Christian Gospel Meeting at Milltown School, which meets every night, except Saturday, at 7:30 p.m.

After another 35.5 miles, 4.5 billion years, and a lot of dinosaurs, God arrived in Bellingham and came to this room. When he reached the door he produced Homo sapiens. Now, he is only 8 feet away from me, but thats 200,000 years. He took a few steps and as the past began to meet the present, God was/is standing an inch in front of my face. He says Hello to Christianity.

Another 2,000 years pass and God is finally able to meet me. Were touching foreheads and hes staring straight into my eyes. At this point, 99% of all the other species he had created on earth had gone extinct. I really was his last hope. I can sense he is looking deep within my soul thinking, Dont **** this up for me!

There is no doubt this was a well thought out journey; worth the distance. So now we wait, because God is supposed to return soon to earth to save us once and for all. I guess it really is about the journey and not the destination. It should be any day now. We arre only a few hydrogen atoms away from the end.


Other Comments by Arcane Viper

21. Comment #123327 by daryll strawberry on February 7, 2008 at 1:30 am

They should fire the camera man.

Other Comments by daryll strawberry

22. Comment #123329 by fergusg on February 7, 2008 at 1:34 am

Richard Morgan: it's a "bug" in the forums - the character set is wrong. Try changing your browser's Character Encoding to UTF-8.

Other Comments by fergusg

23. Comment #123350 by Partisan on February 7, 2008 at 2:42 am

The camera angles made me nauseous, but hearing Hitchens talk made me want to be there drinking and smoking too.

Other Comments by Partisan

24. Comment #123361 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 3:21 am

Richard Morgan - I liked your post about Hitch and his "feel good" statements, but do you think Hitch might be utilizing his strong endorsement, without saying it out loud, of the U.S. Constitution, which in a sense states, "have your freedoms of religion but don't think I have to endorse or believe it".

Hitchens wrote an excellent book on Jefferson that I read a few years back and I wonder if that's his approach. Although Hitchens isn't debating science, I could see him make his arguments stronger with the support of the Constitution. Your thoughts?

I really liked your statement about all forms of communication being directed to an outcome; I add it to my list of sound bites like there are no interests that are not personal interests. Jolly good!

Other Comments by scooternyc

25. Comment #123365 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 3:39 am

Arcane Viper - my question to the "believer" would be: "if god is so perfect and creates all things perfect why did it take so long then? If you say he didn't create things perfect, then how can you claim his omnipotence? If you claim he intended to make things imperfect than why would a god who is perfect seek to make that which is imperfect thereby negating his perfection?"

Of course, you can see the loquacious dialogue of the religious to explain it all away or drop the "free will" statement or the "faith card" to which I reply, "stating something is free will negates the action of free will as you are now conscious of the free will action, it's no longer the natural response; using your faith card just tells me you're not fully committed to your beliefs otherwise you wouldn't need faith, you would just be certain."

On "free will" I analogize the flower concept to dumb it down for the religious: does a flower think 'I have to bend to the sun to get what I need from it' or does it just do it? If it just does it then it acts on its own survival it needs nothing of "free will"; organisms act to survival or not - organisms move toward something or away from it - toward life or toward death - there are no other options.

Other Comments by scooternyc

26. Comment #123366 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 3:41 am

If it just does it then it acts on its own survival it needs nothing of "free will"; organisms act to survival or not - organisms move toward something or away from it - toward life or toward death - there are no other options.

There are plenty of other options. Sometimes I am not in the mood to act to survival, and I just want a nice hot cup of tea instead.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #123369 by LorienRyan on February 7, 2008 at 3:52 am

Richard,

Yes, we are all preaching something to varying degrees. Sometimes it is respectfully presented for listeners to make of it what they will, and sometimes it is an embellished plea to 'see the light'. Although when it's broken down, as you have, it looks glib and fundies really believe it is their God given duty. Speaking from personal experience (now I'm in trouble :)), when I have really been 'preached' at by a fundie it seems to me to be a violation of some sort of social convention. On the glib side, a fundies wide eyed salivating and desperate state of mind is not going to be receptive to a strategically placed jibe, like the Hitchens comment. Although if the audience gets a chuckle not all is lost. By the way - good reply.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

28. Comment #123370 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 3:58 am

LorienRyan - what I also find fascinating is the concept of attempts to control what others think or do.

There is no such thing as it is why societies create laws to enforce consequences for those who make certain choices that we have deemed distasteful or at a cost to others.

Humans can manage things best they can but the idea of controlling another's thoughts or actions seems to be an act of futility, which perhaps is Hitchens process - "think and believe as you wish...just don't try and make me think it, I'm not having it".

Other Comments by scooternyc

29. Comment #123371 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 4:01 am

Humans can manage things best they can but the idea of controlling another's thoughts or actions seems to be an act of futility,

Well, I do hope you don't demonstrate your freedom from control too much, and you stop at traffic lights.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #123372 by LorienRyan on February 7, 2008 at 4:04 am

Steve - "Yes, but to many religious people, that is rather threatening. And change the words "science and religion" to "faith and scripture", and "scientific truth" to "love of God" and see how what you have said reads :)"

You meant "science and reason"? I see your point. Well I guess it's just going to be a good old slug fest between reason and religion.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

31. Comment #123373 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:06 am

Well, that's the point, Steve, people manage these things. However, you cannot control if a person wants to go through the red light or not. I suppose it all depends on what a person defines as "control". If it means getting the person to think or do as I want, then there is no such thing - otherwise that would be manipulation if done through fear, intimidation or limiting of choices.

Other Comments by scooternyc

32. Comment #123374 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 4:09 am

However, you cannot control if a person wants to go through the red light or not.

Of course you can. You say "don't go through the red light or you will get into a crash or possibly get fined."

I suppose it all depends on what a person defines as "control". If it means getting the person to think or do as I want, then there is no such thing - otherwise that would be manipulation if done through fear, intimidation or limiting of choices.

You may not like to think that we live in a society where choices have to be limited for people to get along, but we do. And laws are based on some degree of fear. And they can work.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #123375 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:11 am

LorienRyan - in Michael Shermer's new book, The Mind of the Markets, he uses the analogy of "folklore" regarding religion and it resonates with me and might be an interesting approach for some to utilize as folklore connotes fable, fairy tales, etc. which religion itself is about. Since reason is absent in the face of religion, folklore at least lends an understanding of what religion infers as stories or parables.

Other Comments by scooternyc

34. Comment #123376 by LorienRyan on February 7, 2008 at 4:14 am

Scooter,

Options or choices are often a guise to make one feel as they are exersizing 'freewill', just a wider tunnel leading to the same destination.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

35. Comment #123377 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 4:18 am

Options or choices are often a guise to make one feel as they are exersizing 'freewill', just a wider tunnel leading to the same destination.

Just a thought about free will. It is always justified to believe it exists. If it does exist, then you are right. If it doesn't exist, then you have no choice about what you believe anyway....

(Yes, that gives me a slight headache too)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #123378 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:20 am

Of course you can. You say "don't go through the red light or you will get into a crash or possibly get fined."

Yes, but do you see that the 'fine' is the consequence to the action not the controlling of the action. The individual doesn't want the outcome of a fine, so he/she manages to not go through the red lights. However, if he/she wanted to go through it, you couldn't control him/her NOT going through it if there is a determined action in the mind of the individual; such is the show COPS has pointed out aud-nausim. LOL!

Actually, choices don't need to be limited as inherently they are not except perhaps through regulation which then seeks to limit choice.

All choices are open to all of us at any time, we make a choice as to whether or not we WANT to choose one option over the other, but the options are still there: I can run the red light or not - if I do - then is the result and consequence, if I do not then this is the result and consequence.

Granted, we don't waste such time pondering trivial matters because we've learned the order of a society by such ideas of not running red light, but for larger questions of one's personal freedoms and life, the options and choices before the individual are vital and most important above all else as these choices and options create the life one wants upon reflection in old age{hopefully reaching old age :)}

Other Comments by scooternyc

37. Comment #123381 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:22 am

LorienRyan - well, you and I agree about the 'options' part as we search determinsim, but I find the concept not open to discussion too often because I think it freaks people out and they want to feel superior to the idea that their lives are not hard-wired. But, I do agree with you.

Other Comments by scooternyc

38. Comment #123384 by LorienRyan on February 7, 2008 at 4:29 am

"If it does exist, then you are right. If it doesn't exist, then you have no choice about what you believe anyway...."

And from a purely materialistic point of view all the stuff in between being born and fertilizing the flora doesn't make any difference at all, our precious freewill is as good as mulch. Boy, how pessimistic can you get. On a brighter note...

Other Comments by LorienRyan

39. Comment #123385 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:30 am

If it doesn't exist, then you have no choice about what you believe anyway....

I don't want to stir the pot with others on this subject, but I will add to your statement that, upon further research, perhaps in time we will come to understand through science that even the perceived 'choice' of a person to do differently is deterministic because the organism is developing to a new variation upon itself.

Example: perhaps an individual holds a thought about religion because he/she was born into a family that thinks that way. Deterministically, if the individual makes a 'choice' not to think that way anymore, it might come to be understood that the person was determined to make that choice to develop the lineage to a new and stronger survival as perhaps the other thought process might have lead to death, as in the case of say a jihad's thought process; from one generation to the next the idea is thrown out in order to survive.

Just an thought.

Other Comments by scooternyc

40. Comment #123386 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:33 am

Boy, how pessimistic can you get.

I don't think so at all, in fact, I think it brings greater contemplation to the understanding of how precious an individual's life is to itself and that the moments spent in it's life, however many, should be placed carefully, for enjoyment.

Additionally, I think it helps to relieve the idea of suffering because you understand that your life is made up of an infinite number of choices by which those choices can create enormous happiness; to infinity and beyond!

Other Comments by scooternyc

41. Comment #123387 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 4:36 am

And from a purely materialistic point of view all the stuff in between being born and fertilizing the flora doesn't make any difference at all, our precious freewill is as good as mulch. Boy, how pessimistic can you get. On a brighter note...

I am not pessimistic at all. I disagree with scooter on just about everything (except the non-existence of Gods). I believe in free will.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #123388 by Apemanblues on February 7, 2008 at 4:39 am

At 2:30 did anyone notice the apparition of Jesus at the window?

Other Comments by Apemanblues

43. Comment #123390 by MPhil on February 7, 2008 at 4:48 am

Steve,

I would be interested in reading how you conceive of free will. Do you think that broad determinism is true? (classical and stochastic determinism) Meaning - are you a compatibilist (=there is a conception of "free will" that is compatible with determinism)?

Other Comments by MPhil

44. Comment #123392 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 4:55 am

I would be interested in reading how you conceive of free will.

I had a feeling you would turn up and ask that :)

Do you think that broad determinism is true? (classical and stochastic determinism) Meaning - are you a compatibilist (there is a conception of "free will" that is compatible with determinism)?

I don't believe that broad determinism is true, but, of course, that does not help with the matter of free will.

To be honest, I don't know. The fact that Dennett believes we have "all the free will that really matters" (or words to that effect) is enough for me for now.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #123394 by LorienRyan on February 7, 2008 at 4:59 am

"I am not pessimistic at all. I disagree with scooter on just about everything (except the non-existence of Gods). I believe in free will."

Scooter, I admire your positivism (ducks from Richard). Steve, I think the belief in free will is the very essence of it. Free will just well may be only a mental construct, nonetheless a powerful and necessary one. The last stand of our ignorant bliss, sometimes I just don't wanna know.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

46. Comment #123395 by MPhil on February 7, 2008 at 5:00 am

Damn, am I that predictable? :)

I find it interesting that you don't think that determinism is true. But let's discuss that some other time :)

...just wanted to know, so thanks.

Other Comments by MPhil

47. Comment #123396 by LorienRyan on February 7, 2008 at 5:01 am

MPhil smelt that one from a mile away :)

Other Comments by LorienRyan

48. Comment #123397 by MPhil on February 7, 2008 at 5:03 am

Pragmatically it doesn't matter anyway.
We have the illusion of being the causal origin of our 'choices', our decisions and there's very probably nothing we can do about that, because it's probably "hard-wired".

But, being a compatibilist - I don't really think there is something to fear, or to want to be ignorant of :)

Other Comments by MPhil

49. Comment #123399 by MPhil on February 7, 2008 at 5:05 am

Oh well - being predictable is just one more argument against spontaneous causal-power of the will :)

Other Comments by MPhil

50. Comment #123400 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 5:09 am

But, being a compatibilist - I don't really think there is something to fear, or to want to be ignorant of :)

I think if believed in determinism, I would be a compatibilist.

I am just really not a believer in determinism. As Stephen Hawking put it recently - as a result of quantum mechanics, the past is uncertain too, not just the future.

Other Comments by Steve Zara