601. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #64954 by scooternyc on August 22, 2007 at 1:31 pm

My support always for these requests; my post was the following:

Greetings,

I don't need to live by faith since I live by the foundations of compassion, responsibility and accountability toward mankind and seek the natural sciences for exploration, inspiration and awe.

I need no superstition, such as god is, which indulges in bigotry, racism and the denial of science, for such precepts do not live within except through the indoctrination of religion itself, which relegates reason to fantasy and logic to fanaticism.

"Faith is believing in something when COMMON SENSE tells you not to" - Maureen O'Hara, Miracle On 34th Street.

Cheers,
Greg Wirth
New York, NY

602. Rational Atheism

Comment #64833 by scooternyc on August 22, 2007 at 2:49 am

I like Michael's writings and enjoy his appearances, etc. but one must point out to him with all honesty:

WE MEET PEOPLE AT THE LEVEL OF THEIR OWN ASSIMILATION

If a religious person sets up the conversation to be argumentative or hostile, they may well be met with that attitude.

If a religious person sets up the conversation as to be indignant or sanctimonious, they may well be met with that attitude.

If a religious person deems the conversation to be rational and respectful they WILL be met with that attitude.

I've never seen those opposing religion start out angry or antagonistic.

The tone of the discussion is most, if not always, set by the religious person with whom the discussion is being had.

Additionally, if a religious person thinks it's okay to just drop a religious subject, term, or inference in a conversation, then it's open to discussion, debate or criticism based on the manner in which it was offered. You opened the door, I just walked through it.

There is no more respect for a religious belief above any other individual opinion.

603. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64526 by scooternyc on August 20, 2007 at 1:22 pm

"sorry, but I must correct you here. this isn't evolution"

Actually, over time science will reveal that indeed, on a quantum physics level we are evolving by the very nature of the affect the world has on us and us on the world within our cellular make up and how those cells change given certain environmental processes over time.

Let's see what happens, but I appreciate your kind correction.

604. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64484 by scooternyc on August 20, 2007 at 8:17 am

"If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them."

Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789),

605. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64478 by scooternyc on August 20, 2007 at 7:44 am

Philip1978 - you make me laugh! Thanks.

Prufrock and irate atheist: best advice is to not victimize yourself by the idiocy of others.

How?

By continuing your education about the subject to the extent that you can speak about it from so many angles and refute the mythology.

This past year alone I've read: God Delusion, Letter To A Christian Nation, End of Faith, The God Hypothesis, god is not great, Mememachine, 40 days and 40 nights, Breaking the Spell and just getting into Why Darwin Matters and Creationism's Trojan Horse(The Wedge of Intelligent Design).

Plus I listen to podcasts, watch youtube/google videos of our "leaders" in debate and read additional posts from some great people here and on other sites who give great information, as well.

Additionally, continue to post and develop your ideas, comments and thoughts because there are others who may not write anything but are reading and learning much from your posts.(It's how I got started on this subject)

Finally, get involved somehow politically to understand the nature of both parties and then make your voice heard.(even if you're just posting on other sites)

Nothing is more satisfying than being able to speak about something without the emotional Molotov-cocktail that gets thrown into the fray so often, just by having facts at your fingertips.

Truly you have a choice - never confuse a difficult choice with no choice at all.

When a person feels like they have no choice they victimize themselves, get emotional and become ineffective.

As long as we have intelligent people continuing to arm themselves with facts and historical references, then speaking clarity to truth does eventually replicate enough that it can silence or quiet an often rabid animal that religion demonstrates to be.

Hope this helps. I'm sure others have ideas, as well.

606. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64406 by scooternyc on August 20, 2007 at 2:34 am

"This experiment still demonstrates the necessity of intelligent involvement in the creation of life."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/


Replication evidence in science is the "lock and key" foundation for a theory standing up to scrutiny. In this case, nothing to do with design and everything to do with falsifiability of evolution through natural selection and variation as observed through environmental pressures.

Besides, the simpler explanation is right in front of you:

Do you not think you've evolved from the age of 8 years old to who you are today?

I hate to break it to you, but THAT'S EVOLUTION.

607. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64296 by scooternyc on August 19, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Yes, the U.N. has been superior in handling issues of this sort for decades.

Surly, you jest.

The fact remains; you lose your sense of instinctual humanity when you condone the genocide of others.

Not making a choice, is making a choice.

My analogy still stands, how many times does the woman whose husband beats her, falls into the street before the neighborhood bands together to stop it.

Perhaps in your view, no one should step in and eventually she'll either figure out to leave or she'll die. Isn't that kind.

It's a silly argument to say that doing nothing is more humane, that's a cowards view. No nation was doing anything for over a decade and it wasn't getting any better.

That would be like saying that giving someone chemotherapy for their cancer is so tortuous toward the greater potential of health, you shouldn't do it.

Right.

However, all that's just a distraction from the position from which you view life.

From your post apparently you're okay with people getting killed in a bullying manner by a dictator rather than accepting that there are casualties in war, you do your best as best you can for the greater good, subjective as that good may well be.

Good for you. Now we know where you stand

It's a tremendous responsible demonstration of humanity to act on behalf of others toward freedom and democracy when a bullying dictator is operating such as Saddam did.

Your distorted polemic of this war being "another genocide" just articulates that you understand nothing about the nature of humanity.

You just reveal your political agenda for which acts of humanity have no place. The greater sacrifice toward the slaughter of innocence is more important for your political goals rather than the accepting of responsibility and action within humanity to encourage freedom and democracy, even if there are mistakes along the way, it's better to do nothing.

Congratulations.

608. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64264 by scooternyc on August 19, 2007 at 4:59 am

Again, the most revealing statements shared only show a lack of humanity as observed in the posts.

War is about killing people and breaking things – that's its nature.

War is not about hugging people and thinking that if we all just love one another everything will be okay – those are ideas rooted in religious dogma, which are absurd.

You don't negotiate with a bully; you put the bully down. It sends a message to other bullies and empowers everyone to not tolerate such behavior.

To negotiate with a bully about containment of his actions within his own nation(we don't care what you do just keep it within your own borders) is to then neglect the humanity of democracy and freedom for which all people are entitled at the very least.

Silence is endorsement of a behavior.

All life is equal across the board. As society deems it necessary to kill life around itself for its own survival, actions are taken.

There are elements in societies, much like rabid dogs, that must be put down due to the level of disease of their own distortion of humanity and the inability to be socialized properly.

Many of you have stated your case about Bush, Blair, the war, incompetence, etc. but you never answer the personal responsibility aspect regarding your own humanity.

Perhaps I don't agree with all the strategies of the war; perhaps I don't agree with all the politics of the new-formed Iraqi government and on and on. There are many issues for which we can seek debate, but the bottom line is:

Where is your own personal level of humanity and responsibility when it comes to the genocide of other human beings?

To say that it's "their problem" or "those people" just places you in an isolationist position, which may well have its roots in racism.

Speak to this and no other distractions:

"Where is your own personal level of humanity and responsibility when it comes to the genocide of other human beings?"

I suspect that you don't address this issue because to do so would compel you to reflect on the premise that, indeed, whether you agree with all aspects of how things have been created and implemented, you know instinctively that it was a proper decision and that action was needed.

609. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64188 by scooternyc on August 18, 2007 at 2:21 pm

steve99, I appreciate your persistence, your posts are a good read.

Instead of so many get caught up in the fray of distraction by detailing to death everything leading up to, what the U.S. did prior, etc. it's worth just asking yourself the question:

"What is your level of humanity at this point in time where you would condone the genocide of a people, a slaughter of innocence within the world in which you live?"

I would rather be responsible in my behavior by taking action against any rule that is predicated on dictatorial or authoritarian precepts by which people are starved, brutalized, raped and killed.

No one thus far on the opposition seems to speak to this idea of humanity and your responsibility - there just continues to be a deflection instead.

Actions create Reactions - when conclusions are observed and outcomes are not as intended, you change the actions to observe new reactions and move toward greater levels of success.

If you let your political dogma get in the way of your humanity then you really are no better than the religious zealots you claim to be in opposition of, you merely wear a different mask of the same idea.

610. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64147 by scooternyc on August 18, 2007 at 3:53 am

"Schubert, too, was suffering from neurosyphylis and died as a result of it."

Love this! What a great retort.

611. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64144 by scooternyc on August 18, 2007 at 3:12 am

"Erm, what? you thing that is comparable to the invasion of iraq?"

It's an analogy about humanity and responsibility, that seems fairly clear.

Certainly lack of success in the past should not hinder the responsibility in the future; things change - aren't we glad science doesn't take that approach.

Anyone can get on the soapbox of the "whys" etc. but frankly it all comes down to the evolution of our humanity and the responsibility we hold as we evolve. Past indiscretions on the U.S. side of providing weapons doesn't negate responsibility in the future of taking responsibility and correcting a situation.

Getting fixated on the "whys" is a distraction - frankly, I don't care why, I'm just glad we did and I desire the best outcome for that nation.

Additionally, I desire the strong message it carries to other dictatorial nations who behave in this manner.

If this is one difficult step toward eliminating the rule of other places like North Korea, certainly we can understand the importance of first steps.

Much like science and the world we live in - the steps are imperfect.

Finally, we can criticize the U.S. for taking action, for standing up for this, but then you must ask yourself: "where were the other nations of our world taking responsibility and leading this issue, then?"

For better or worse whatever your opinion of the U.S., I'm much more inclined to look past certain things when something of such a horrendous magnitude existed and needed to be addressed.

612. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64088 by scooternyc on August 17, 2007 at 3:40 pm

One other point:

It would be nice if people stopped reacting emotionally to their hatred for Bush or Blair, or whomever and reasonably think about the responsibility each of us holds when it comes to a dictator bullying and killing people as was such with Saddam and other dictators.

How many times would you allow the woman whose husband beats her, to run and fall into the street before you and your neighbors band together and let the bully husband know - enough! Get it together or you'll be the one beaten.

613. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64087 by scooternyc on August 17, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Hitchens continued to point out:

1) Iraq had invaded neighboring country

2) Performed genocide on his own people

3) Broke the non-proliferation treaty

4) Aid to terrorists

Hitch would not have made these comments or would have corrected them, if needed.

What I can't understand from anyone's point of view is how anyone could condone a dictator performing genocide on his own people and not be disgusted by that behavior and insist that their government stop it. You'd think that Nazi Germany would have been enough but apparently as a global people we don't seem to get it yet.

Yes, I know there are other places that are doing this behavior, but does it not send a message, on this issue alone, that if or when the Iraq situation concludes at some point, that success would send the message to other nations - "get your house in order or the rest of the responsible nations in the world are coming after you".

I wondered why Clinton signed Public Law 105-338 and then never did anything about it. He signed it in 1998 and still had 2 years of action that could have supported the ending of this brutal dictator.

614. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64073 by scooternyc on August 17, 2007 at 2:01 pm

#64068 - I've always liked Hitchens, I've admired his work for some time now and first heard him on the Hugh Hewitt show(which I find difficult to listen to at times but Hugh has a good grasp of things involving Law which is important to me here in the U.S.)

The questioner on the video who asked what would replace religion and the difficulty having to make your own decisions, being responsible, being accountable – the short answer from Hitch could've been:

Grow up!

Truly, this is the one thing that people of ANY religion refuse to do. They feign that they are adults but the mere fact that they pray, etc. to their "father" is the revelation of a parental figure to whom they are placing the same responsibility from childhood. (Remember the guy on Mike Dickin's show with RD who said, "I must have a guaradian" - surreal)

"But god gives us free will"

Rubbish. There is no such thing.

No one has anymore free will then the flower who leans toward the sun in order to bath itself in the usefulness of doing such an act for which it knows no free will it just does as it should based on its deterministic life.

Such is the case for the species known as human. The idea that you have free will is rooted in religious mythology. Nevertheless, the hard fact is that you behave as you behave because you are hard-wired to do so. Even when you change the behavior, it's because you are hard-wired to make the change as you evolve.

The Free Will charge is humorous. If one needs to say it, then they truly don't have free will as they would have naturally made the choice.

615. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63608 by scooternyc on August 15, 2007 at 4:29 am

I liked the article. I don't know the author, I don't need to; I have no shares in the totality of who he is.

Is it not important in the public forum of debate and discussion that we hear from all sides?

That perhaps an individual with whom we would not engage on any other level, still may have something worthwhile to say which advances our own argument for future debate?

It seems disingenuous to constantly harangue on the "person" and not debate the "statement(s)".

I despise Rosie O'Donnell, but frankly, her statement about radical christianity in correlation with radical islam, suits my position just fine.

While I understood that christianity itself, from its inherent doctrine(albeit many stories wracked with violence) does proclaim itself to be of peace, while islam clearly is subjugate, convert or die, the statement was not lost on me when posting on other religious right websites and making the point about these fanatics in the U.S. attempting to "theocratize" our nation.

Is this not how we formulate opinions, arguments and stances on issues?

Have any of you who denigrated the author even listened to Hithcens "Free Speech" position? It's quite compelling.

616. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63111 by scooternyc on August 13, 2007 at 6:12 am

"I do not think that there is any debate as to whether religious belief has inspired some of the greatest art of all time"


We will never know what art was LOST BECAUSE of religion.

This flies in the face of evolutionary understanding, because if "art" was to exist then at some point it would have developed regardless of religion. Even memes would have encouraged this behavior.

Religion served its purposes a long time ago when people were ignorant of certain precepts in life.

Just recently there have been science articles speaking of amoebas showing altruistic behavior when seeking survival - I guess the amoebas didn't get the memo about hay-zues and all his followers.

It's absurd.

617. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63043 by scooternyc on August 13, 2007 at 2:36 am

The "conversion" to another religion is the type of falsifiable evidence in observation with which to draw conclusions.

You cannot reasonably believe one religion and then abandon it for another. Either the one you're indoctrinated in is the unaltered word of god or it isn't. Conversion is one of the more laughable actions done by the religious.

Aain, using religion for your own objectives in life rooted in the subjective view one holds of how life should be lived.

618. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62737 by scooternyc on August 11, 2007 at 4:44 am

Professor Dawkins, I appreciate that you lend your insight to these articles from time to time and post on the site; it's great to hear your point of view.

"The other significant difference is that religion, at least in its modern manifestations, does not attempt to challenge the scientific method..."

Are not sciences and its conclusions reached THROUGH the scientific method not being challenged when religion attempts to teach intelligent design/creationism as valid science?

619. Interview with Michael Behe

Comment #62497 by scooternyc on August 10, 2007 at 1:49 am

I tried to watch BookTV on Monday when they presented his talk from June 2007, it was so stupid, so ridiculous, both my roomies and I had to turn it off. One of my roommates is a zoologist and knows a LOT about science and he found Behe just so out of it that he left the room.


What I did find interesting is that he spent so much time disavowing Darwin but with no other "theory" by which empirical evidence could be shown from controlled experiments which lead to conclusions, of any kind. Everything is about denouncing Darwin.

Perhaps I'm simplifying it, but the Irreducible Complexity hypothesis(not theory)never states that if all the components were taken out of the bacteria, they would be useful somewhere else.

He used the mousetrap example, but failed to say, "of course, all the parts of the mouse trap are useful for other things" - not as a mouse trap, but they ARE useful - pieces of wood, springs, metal, - you've got to be kidding me!

The perseverating on Darwin is obsessive in every sense of the word, "If I keep saying it loud enough and often enough then you'll start to believe me".

620. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60999 by scooternyc on August 3, 2007 at 9:32 am

"How can we distinguish the truth from fiction?"

The same way we distinguish fact vs. opinion

If something is an opinion (religion) then it's subjective, but not worthy of note except to the individual.

If something is a fact, it has evidence/proof; indeed, falsifiable.

If an opinion is proven then it's no longer an opinion, it's a fact.

Truth is based on fact; fact is based on evidence/proof.

Opinions, like fiction, are mere ideas in the abyss of consciousness and are subjective and existential.

621. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60986 by scooternyc on August 3, 2007 at 8:46 am

Two upcoming programs on BookTV if interested:

Monday, Aug 6th
5:15 AM 1 hr, 5 min 40 Days and 40 Nights
Author: Matthew Chapman

(I read this book and it was really good)

Oddly, this one follows it:

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
Author: Michael Behe

622. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60925 by scooternyc on August 3, 2007 at 6:19 am

j.mills, you are correct:

succour - assistance in time of difficulty; "the contributions provided some relief for the victims"

n. & v. Chiefly British

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/succour


although I used an American spelling of the word, in a sense, to bring understanding to those who are not of British background to understand succour.

I'm so glad you focused on the most important part of my writing.

623. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60885 by scooternyc on August 3, 2007 at 4:29 am

"a dogmatic assertion"

Of all the intelligent things said, this stood out to me and for this reason: a person is either indoctrinated into religion (no choice) or he/she comes into it through some overwhelming emotional situation for which sucker is sought.

Now, just to build upon the meme theory, if a person is "wired" for victimization, then the indoctrination need only be the catalyst for triggering the meme into action – flipping on the switch. Often in childhood – which, I agree with Dawkins, is child abuse and for the very reason I've stated – you've flipped on the switch of victimization, which is a life-long altering paradigm that can take decades to undo.

A person seeking sucker from religion/god when an emotional event of catastrophic proportions occurs in adult life, is again, flipping on the switch, intensified, of the "victimization" meme which already existed; probably played out in other ways but didn't get "intensified" until this triggering event.

The dogmatic assertion is one made without the precepts of personal responsibility and accountability. This reveals the victimized nature of the individual's meme.

Great article. While some criticize Dawkins approach, etc. I tend to favor all levels of discussion because each style can bring to the table something that hasn't yet been revealed and would lend much to the discussion.

624. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60645 by scooternyc on August 2, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Great Hitchens website with much information including video, articles, etc.

http://www.hitchenszone.com/index.html

625. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60490 by scooternyc on August 2, 2007 at 4:24 am

"Since it was used to intimidate a specific religious group"

This statement implies that the act was to intimidate and you have no proof of such a claim unless you speak directly with the culprit.

Additionally, it may as easily be considered a freedom of speech act, "your religion is crap" and no intimidation is heralded.

Your claim of intimidation is purely subjective on your part.

Then what of burning the American Flag, it's considered free speech under law not some sort of intimidation toward anyone who's an American.

Don't be victim to the idea that someone expressing themselves means to intimidate; if someone were standing in front of you brandishing a weapon of any kind and threatening you while hurling racial slurs or epithets at you, then THAT'S a hate crime.

The Nazi symbol emblazoned on the side of store owned by a Jewish man/woman, while racist in its precepts does not necessarily constitute a hate crime. It is, however, destruction of property.

If we deem motive for the behavior as hate, that's one thing; the act itself is not. Then you have the burden of proving motive.

If it were the case of hate crime being so liberal, then all killings, robberies, rapes, et.al. could fall under such scrutiny and be prosecuted as such since quite often the perp does "hate" at some level.

All statements of god hates fags and is an abomination (which in the bible is subject to stoning) then all churches and their congregates should be under arrest.

I don't even find the flushing of the book inappropriate as such; the stealing of it has a consequence, but flushing it….please! Get off your sanctimonious soapbox of feigned piousness.

626. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60279 by scooternyc on August 1, 2007 at 1:05 pm

"I would define this student's actions as a hate crime"

And on what authority would you be defining such actions?

To what end have you subjectively made such a decision?

You clearly don't understand anything on this subject as it was without a doubt stated that Islam is a religion and therefore a "hate crime" is impossible since it's not against a protected entity such as women, gays, ethnicity, etc.

627. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60256 by scooternyc on August 1, 2007 at 11:55 am

If you haven't heard this recently, it's worth listening to again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJExwAQP4Eg

628. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60241 by scooternyc on August 1, 2007 at 11:23 am

Hitchens has said it before and it's true, the very people who are claiming hate speech are the very people who kill others in the name of their free speech and freedom of religion.

"And up go the placards, and up go the yells and the howls and the screams, behead those who cartoon Islam".

629. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59252 by scooternyc on July 28, 2007 at 2:26 pm

These arguments about atheists who have committed genocide are unintelligent in every sense.

To not acknowledge that the pedagogy of religion itself is what creates the obedient child who acts without question in an authoritarian household will be the same adult who will act without question when ordered to kill others toward the final solution.

Religion itself created the very nature of the act of genocide – blind obedience.

630. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57508 by scooternyc on July 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm

I'm starting to equate those who live, speak or believe in god/religion as part of the conspiracy theorists of our society who are delusional and have such a distortion of reality.

Having been hard on this subject for quite a while now, it becomes so absurd, instantaneously, when someone says they believe in god. It's one of THE most ridiculous claims.

Recently a chap at work said he KNOWS that god exists. I told him it was impossible. His little pea brain and mine, could not, if it were, even attempt to assimilate such a thing, as it would have to be so much greater than the universe we live and the ones we do not.

His arrogant nature by making such a contemptible claim left me laughing. Indeed, as it has been said, if he believes his "personal experience" was a validation for authentication then I told him it is no less than the psychopath down in the subway who claims he hears voices that god told him to push someone onto the tracks; nor would it be any less than Andrea Yates killing all her children because she was "told" to do so – is her behavior less than that of Abraham sacrificing his own son?

It's stupid – all of it.

Every chance I get to say so, I do so. I refuse to listen to this tripe spewed onto our society any longer without contempt and accountability.

"Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" – if you've got, bring it.

We're waiting.

631. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56734 by scooternyc on July 17, 2007 at 4:23 am

First, my compliments to the many intelligent posts that are here, it's so refreshing.

Second, to accept the idea of a "moral" act or sentence is to presume there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong". Indeed there is not, which is what is so great about Hitchens question.

The idea of "right" and "wrong" are themselves man-made, when looked upon through the scope of science one realizes that nature cares nothing of these "ideas" that man has created. The simplicity is that of "action – reaction".

For a person to live life easily one need only understand that "if I do this, then this happens". Simple.

Understanding the basics of Responsibility and Accountability stem from the above statement.

Responsibility: personal choices which create one's life

Accountability: the acknowledgment of those choices

No law has ever been created to "prevent" a crime; it's only been established to create a consequence (action – reaction).

No one NEEDS religion unless he/she desires to relegate personal responsibility to a placebo named god.

Many people relegate personal responsibility to others, which creates a self-victimization. You don't need religion for that, either. But oddly, religion does seem to replicate it at a very high frequency.

Cheers everyone!

632. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54409 by scooternyc on July 7, 2007 at 12:46 am

Does anyone know, can you download a video off of youtube? or is there a way to copy a video from a site like youtube?

633. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54087 by scooternyc on July 5, 2007 at 9:27 am

People are entitled to their own opinion, not to their own facts.

I love the language and tactic that Sharpton utilizes when he makes a claim about religion or the war, then when Hitchens combats the false claim with actual FACTS, not OPINION, he then dodges the answer which seeks to clarify and dispell the lie, by then attempting to make the publice "look over here now"..."look over there now"... and not have the testicular fortitude to own the FACT that he just misrepresented the TRUTH about god, the war, etc.

Another easy example:

Hitchens replies to Matthews by saying that he made the comment about what Matthews "assumptions" are, but Matthews language and choice of words, did indeed, assume, by saying "how do people fight for their country without believing in god".

This very choice of words is making the claim that to fight for country without belief in god has no merit, which of course, is untrue. I'd venture to guess that Matthews is religious to some extent.

I detest the cross-talk when someone is speaking and answering a question, it's rude and frankly I want to hear what each person has to say so that he reveals himself for the true nature that is within him so we can all be advised of the distortions by which that individual sees the world.

634. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50795 by scooternyc on June 20, 2007 at 2:32 am

Also, the debate with Hitchens and Hedges has more bite to it since Hitchens doesn't take crap from Hedges....at all!

635. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50794 by scooternyc on June 20, 2007 at 2:32 am

One thing that I found interesting was the debated argument regarding "why" Islam was thrust into their "behavior" of extremism within their religion.

Christianity and other religions ran around the world killing people if they didn't convert, evolved at some point where the behavior ended and was considered inhumane. If Islam is going through the same evolutionary process of rising up, attempting to convert or kill, and then in the decades to come they finally move out of it to a lesser form of "mythology" like Christianity and other religions have done over time, is it not similar to these other religions and their natural process?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Does anyone know off the top of their heads why Christianity stopped killing people if they didn't convert? I'll research a bit and help support info; I think the argument is worth pursuing and having back up to the ridiculous notions of such statements by Hedges.

To blame the United States foreign policy is simply stupid. Christianity went around killing people and the US wasn't even in existence; people of religion kill because they have no rational arguments for their beliefs and anyone who doesn't believe isn't fit for existence in their deranged minds.

When you think about it religion really borders on mental illness.

636. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50789 by scooternyc on June 20, 2007 at 2:12 am

The months on this site and others has brought me much laughter and education with regards to how best to argue these points, I'm grateful for everyone's input.

"YOUR GOD IS NOT IMMUNE TO MY CRITICISM. History shows me that he has a lousy record."

Great statement.

637. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50723 by scooternyc on June 19, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Thanks everyone for the added links when you find them, it's so great that you share these with all of us.

Cheers!
Scooter

638. The Great God Debate

Comment #50051 by scooternyc on June 14, 2007 at 5:57 pm

I've listened to this debate several times over the past week and Roberts really makes a fool of himself with some of these answers.

"If I put on my historian hat….but if I put on my believer hat…"

if this isn't the greatest piece of evidence toward the sham of religion I don't know what is – to actually say that you have to suspend your logic/reason in order to believe in something – you've got to be kidding me.

Roberts didn't come up with one act or utterance that could be made by someone of faith that someone who wasn't of faith, couldn't do.

It occurred to me that god is like living with a dad who's an alcoholic – you can never do anything right, he's nice one moment and angry the next, no matter how great you try to be you'll never measure up, you're responsible for everything that goes wrong, you can never be good enough, everything is his way or the highway(death in hell), you have to feign behavior trying to get in good favor with him, you're responsible for things that you had nothing to with, you get blamed for the brokenness of the world, you'll never be good enough. Oh, I said that, but it was worth saying again.

The other thing I think is hilarious, Roberts says that the world is broken and god wants it back together and he wants humans to take part in that restructure. You're kidding right?

If this god were so amazing to have created the universe then please tell me how he doesn't just clap his hands and it's back to where it should be! Give me a break.

And if this god was all knowing, wouldn't he have already known that Adam was going to eat of the apple and screw it all up?

Hitchens was amazing, as always. I practically worship this guy and his level of intelligence; if there was a god I hope he would be like Hitchens.

639. Atheists: Get off of our country!

Comment #45044 by scooternyc on May 26, 2007 at 2:36 am

The lack of intelligence to the extent that one is able to research our history regarding the founding of this nation never ceases to amaze and astound.

People of this ilk that find themselves on their sanctimonious soap box of self-righteousness quite often are the abusers of hate.

Just how many articles have we read in say, the past 30 years, where it starts out, "Atheists incited violence today in the middle east..." or "Atheists bombed abortion clinics in response to..." or "Atheists gave refuge to Tutsi tribe members only to turn them over to their government for slaughter in Rwanda..." or...

How many you ask?

None.

How many involved relgious types of one sect or another?


All.

The religious are correct, it is all about them.

640. Angry atheists are hot authors

Comment #44496 by scooternyc on May 25, 2007 at 2:12 am

I find the rhetoric of "angry atheists" so entertaining. When for the greater majority of history it's been the religious who have exuded and exampled their anger to those who will not believe as they do.

Truly Islam has much in common with Christians - convert or die. Christians just happen to be killing Americans much more slowly and implicitly than the Islamic nutcases who strap bombs on themselves.

Frankly, I'd rather believe in Santa Claus:

He's always jolly

He values goodness

He doesn't discriminate

He's generous

He laughs a lot



Doesn't Santa sound like a better myth to believe in? : )

641. Prayer can improve physical health

Comment #43779 by scooternyc on May 22, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Unless of course the person is suffering from a severed limb, in which case all the prayers from all the believers in the world are not enough to get God to pay attention.

642. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43472 by scooternyc on May 21, 2007 at 2:57 pm

How do we decide by what criteria we are disallowing evidence on either side?

How do we decide which scientists will not be heard from or considered?

This article points out something I've been saying for months, finally:

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

643. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43261 by scooternyc on May 21, 2007 at 3:05 am

But should it cause us to abandon faith?

644. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43259 by scooternyc on May 21, 2007 at 3:01 am

I find it most interesting that when one sees the world only through a "religous" eye or a "democractic eye" or a "republican eye" virtually everything is distorted to the extent that one cannot see anything else.

This is a fatal flaw of these people who are so polarized in their views and lack the ability to understand science, rooted in facts, not opinion.

Any time your humanity distorts a universal truth this is a limitation and thus a distortion of life.

645. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42959 by scooternyc on May 20, 2007 at 6:33 am

The ONLY hope and truth is science.

646. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42958 by scooternyc on May 20, 2007 at 6:32 am

The jihadists destroy bodies. The Christians destroy minds. Both, the jihadists and the Christians are evil.

Yes, and the Christians aren't so obvious with bombs, they just use their bible as their molotov cocktail, instead.

647. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42939 by scooternyc on May 20, 2007 at 6:02 am

Brian,

Thanks, I think I fixed it, my first time trying it that way. I appreciate the feedback.

Cheers,
Scooter

648. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42938 by scooternyc on May 20, 2007 at 6:01 am

Ryan, I lived in St.Louis, it's no wonder you think this drivel.

649. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42932 by scooternyc on May 20, 2007 at 5:54 am

CLICK HERE

Not sure if I did this correctly.

650. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42922 by scooternyc on May 20, 2007 at 5:40 am

Apart from Hitchens' recklessly sloppy error in lumping Christians with Islamofascists