1. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108206 by Davee1 on January 6, 2008 at 8:49 am

Summerseale,
Sorry for the late response. Actually, my point in bringing up other religions was specifically to address Mr. Wolpe's claim that the ONLY explanation for certain philosophical or other "non-scientific" questions and phenomena is god. So I asked, how many other ideas, both religious and non-religious does he know about other than god? It seems that one wouldn't make the argument that one claim is the ONLY possible answer if he didn't even know what some of the other answers are.

2. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108002 by Davee1 on January 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Oh , and if god put us all here for a purpose, what is it, and why are we not fulfilling it?

3. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107998 by Davee1 on January 5, 2008 at 7:59 pm

I was a little disappointed that Sam didn't take Wolpe to task on a few more of his ridiculous claims. The very idea that monotheism brought order to a previously unordered civilization is absurd. Sam addressed that issue briefly, but there could be a dissertation written on just how wrong that claim is.

The more disturbing omission from the discussion, was how god is used as a default for any lapse in knowledge, how it's an assumption. Mr. Wolpe kept saying it was a philosophical question not subject to scientific-like examination. I would want to ask him where his original belief came from. Certainly, he did not grow up ignorant to the idea of god and then one day, by revelation come to those beliefs himself, free from outside intervention. More people should realize that when they say they have faith in god, they mean they have (blind) faith in those who taught them that there is a god. They grow up with that ideology, and then just fit all their experience and thought into that context. Mr. Wolpe claims that the only answer to philosophical questions into the nature of existence is god. Why? What about all the other religious claims? What about Buddhism, Shamanism, Hinduism, etc. Don't any of those offer viable alternative hypotheses to monotheism when it comes to those questions? If not, why not?

4. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46138 by Davee1 on May 30, 2007 at 10:43 am

Keith,
Thanks for the discussion.

Yes, I agree with most of your assessment of Hitchens. I know we're getting back to the war, but just to give a few examples.

First, I do not share some Democrats opinions that things were just fine in Iraq. Certainly the sanctions were hurting the people there as someone mentioned. But, David Kay, Hans Blix, and all the weapons inspectors agreed that Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S.. They did not even have the ability to control the northern Kurdish area of Iraq. I read interview after interview with formerly hawkish weapons inspectors who went to Iraq, pre-war, and changed their minds about the threat, or lack of, from Iraq. All the inspectors agree that inspections were doing the job, and that they had unfettered access. because of the random nature of the inspections, Saddam was not able to deceive the inspectors in the way many hawks claimed. Hitchens has consistently misrepresented the facts on this and other issues. (I refer you back to the articles I mentioned earlier).

The point is, there was significant evidence before the war that Iraq was not a threat to us. And as far as human rights violations, most of their atrocities were committed in the 80's (fully supported by the U.S.). There are many countries that would have to come before them if human rights was the issue.

The people responsible for the war, were planning it for a long time (see PNAC - "rebuilding America's defenses, and The Downing Street memos for starters). The motives given to the public were a smokescreen. Unfortunately, Hitchens is one of the people blowing the most smoke. His ideology is the good vs. evil, battle of civilizations one I mentioned earlier. That is my opinion anyway.

One last disclaimer. I certainly would have supported attempts to foster a new government in Iraq, or any country that is oppressed in any way. But the outcome that happened in Iraq WAS predicted. That's why Bush one didn't go in. his advisors told him it would be a disaster.

Sorry for the jumble nature of my post. So much to cover, and I'm also working from home today.

5. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46128 by Davee1 on May 30, 2007 at 9:49 am

Keith,
The absolutism that I refer to is the idea that there are two sides, good and evil. (Hitchens has said this and implied it). All issues, war, religion, the aforementioned sociology are more complex than that.

Yes, I agree that there is right and wrong in many issues. And as long as someone makes an argument based on facts, and isn't unduly influenced by ideology of any kind, I will respect what they have to say, and consider it. In regards to religion, that is just what the atheists/rationalists or whatever title you prefer have done. In regards to the war, it is not. Ideology breeds dishonesty because people tend to omit any facts which don't "fit." I have seen it many times in religious discussions, and I see it all the time on the pro-war side.

6. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46124 by Davee1 on May 30, 2007 at 9:36 am

If you are going to say that this is not the place for a discussion on Iraq, then you can't first make your argument for it, and then tell others they can't respond. I will respect the will of the group, even though it seems the discussion on the debate has run it's course.

As for all your assertions about Iraq, I won't respond directly, but if you seek out the Nation or Slate articles, or even do a google search on the subject, you will see some very informed answers to Hitchens' and your own arguments.

7. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46054 by Davee1 on May 30, 2007 at 4:50 am

(This seems a bit patronising towards Hitchens. He is very smart about Iraq, and knows about the situation there in great detail. He simply has a different opinion from many, that's all.)

Christopher is NOT smart about Iraq. Though he sounds like he knows what he is talking about because of his authoritative tone, he often misrepresents facts, and repeats outright lies. There are some good articles at Slate and the Nation magazine detailing his inaccuracies.

It is also helpful to note that Christopher is good friends with Paul Wolfowitz. From his comments on the matter, it is obvious that his personal relationship colors his opinion.

Lastly, as pointed out in one article (I think the Nation one), Hitchens seems to view Iraq as the struggle of our lifetime, a great epic battle between good and evil. I am disappointed when I hear him talk about it, because it seems like the same kind of absolutism and dichotomous thinking that religious people are often guilty of.