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 Peacebeuponme


851. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124846 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 11:09 am

The same is true of social issues for which people make sweeping statements, as their beliefs, with no facts or evidence to back it up.
Well, that appears to be your position. We have "Wooterism". We may now also have its cousin, the "Scooterism".

852. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124842 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 11:02 am

It is part of the tradition of what one might call "fundamentalist Buddhists", but not generally.
Where have I heard something like that before?!

btw - Steve, I do think you are making too much of Hichens' position. As I said, he was merely including it in a list of other virgin-birth myths to make a point about the cult of personality. Is that so bad?

853. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124838 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 11:00 am

Sturmunddrang, Steve

i just lost a fairly wordy response and don't have the heart to retype!

The short version is that I agree with most of what Sturmunddrang says. I feel it is down to semantics: "Religion" vs "Dogma" and Buddhism as "religion" or "philosophy". For me religion is dogmatic at its heart. If there are forms of Buddhism that are not dogmatic then I would not call them religious.

Steve

He is oversimplifying to the point of being wrong, I feel. It is equivalent to stating that "Christians believe in Noah's Ark".
You are talking about the birth-myth here not his comments about the Dalai Lama? The chapter in his book dealing with the Dalai Lama and the Tamil Tigers etc is quite specific and not open to your claim I don't think.

What's wrong with saying "Christians believe in Noah's Ark"? Should we preface every religious fantastical claim with the word "some"? So we would have to say "some" christians believe in the virgin birth, "some" Chrstians believe in God? Its up to them to clean up their books so we don't misrepresent them.

I'll concede to you on the extent of Buddhist literature mentioning the birth-myth (because you know far more than me on the subject), but wonder where the cut-off line should be before we do not have to preface our sentences with "some".

854. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124815 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 10:15 am

Scooternyc - I just can't be bothered to spend time searching and pulling out statistics to show you. Especially for something that seems so basic.

855. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124805 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 9:57 am

Your original claim is that free education is what creates more doctors. You have offered nothing to prove this claim.

The cause of more doctors is not correlated to free education unless you have such statistics to provide that speak to this claim.
But all I have to do is show you one doctor who came from a poor family who could not have afforded to pay for education. Then I am 1 up on you. I hoping you would concede there is at least one such example.

856. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124774 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 7:48 am

What is "uuh Oil"?
* fights urge to lower the tone considerably *

857. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124757 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:50 am

You're making an assumption that one causes the other.
I'm doing no such thing. That would be a stupid inference to make as there are obviously other considerations. I'm merely saying that the fact that countries with the highest percentages of populations with access to education are also the ones with ther higher standard of living supports my view and does not support yours.

858. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124751 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:40 am

Fine, where are your statistics to prove such a claim?

You ask nothing less of the religious to provide evidence of their claims of god, why are you beyond the same standard?
Do you honestly believe that every professional existing today would still be so, even if they were denied free education? If their parents could not afford it, they would somehow be able to take a part-time job from 4-years old onwards to fund themselves?

859. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124748 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:36 am

Okay, what evidence are you presenting?
This is tiresome.

That there is a positive correlation between the average standard of living on a country by country basis and the extent of availability of education to the population.

860. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124745 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:31 am

This statement does nothing to prove anything.

It's like saying, because there are more black people in the world, racism doesn't exist.
Again no, sorry, it does nothing of the kind. Your statement makes no sense (except indicating that you see racism in a very one-dimensional way).

I say there exists many doctors, who would not be so unless they were freely educated. How is that analogous to a muddled statement like "More black people equals less racism"?

861. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124742 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:26 am

This is a "god" argument "you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does".
No, its entirely different. I am using evidence, that supports, but does not prove, my view.

862. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124734 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:15 am

Do you have evidence of this claim, as well?
Show me an example of a society where education is not available to all, that has a higher GDP than one which does.

863. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124733 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:14 am

Without state education there wouldn't be enough doctors for you to solicit in the first place.
Do you have evidence to prove this claim?
Yes, the sheer numbers of state educated professionals that exists today. Take them away and see how long you will have to wait on that surgeons list.

864. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124729 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:10 am

So, your doctors, lawyers, teachers all had their educations paid for by you and me? Is that your claim?

Is it further your claim that if something benefits me I should pay for it?
I'm simply saying that free education has proved extremely beneficial and is a cornerstone of modern society. Show me an example of a society where education is not available to all, that has a higher GDP than one which does.

865. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124724 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 6:06 am

Tell me, how does the doctor or the lawyer, for example, benefit me in as much that I get their services for free?
Dealing with the USA you pay for your medical services as well, but my point is simple. Without state education there wouldn't be enough doctors for you to solicit in the first place. You would die where you were injured.

866. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124718 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 5:55 am

Aah, the wonderful world of Scooternyc. One wonders what it would be like to live in his utopia. Everyone who wants eductation must pay for it. So we would have to kiss goodbye to the millions of state educated doctors, scientists, academics, policemen, pilots, politicians, lawyers, journalists and so on who benefit us all to varying degrees.

..and also, who end up paying more taxes back into the system anyway.

867. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124685 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 3:57 am

Wooter

It is quite ironic, right, a web page where it claims that unreasonable E.T is reasonable while it is incompatible with thermo dinomics, biology, math, medicine, logic, and 84 percent world population.
Medicine and Biology would be impossible without knowledge of evolution!

868. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124683 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 3:53 am

I fell a bit like an animal activist who has broken into a research lab, and is about to release an Ebola striken monkey, but here goes:

I am really interested in your reason project. It is quite ironic, right, a web page where it claims that unreasonable E.T is reasonable while it is incompatible with thermo dinomics, biology, math, medicine, logic, and 84 percent world population.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. You need to make some claims about your beliefs and we can deal with them. I make no claims about the metaphysical for you to question.

869. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #124682 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 3:48 am

This would deeply offend me if I were American. How can they possibly justify Atheism with "Hating America"?

The problem here is how forcibly patriotism is pushed in the US: I'm often amused that the word "America" needs need to be added in everything, so "Pop Idol" becomes "American Idol", or you have "The Office: An American Workplace".

The trouble is that then, all you need to do to dicredit someone is to say that they are not a patriot.

870. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124678 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 3:36 am

Take it easy; you know the drill: Just censorship what I write. This is the easiest way to run away.
Ok. How about this then Wooter. You make some claims. We will then counter those claims. If you take on board what we say, and question further based on our response, then we can have a proper discussion. If you just repost the same argument repeatedly as you have done so far with the argument from design, then we can get nowhere.

Can you not see that?

871. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124675 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 3:28 am

I think that the difference is that there are some teachings you can find in various forms of Buddhism (e.g. meditation instruction), which are quite different from teachings in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I do not think that some of the teachings are poisonous.
I am prepared to concede that Buddhism is something of a special case, and in some forms does not deserve to be lumped in with other religions. However, I want to be careful with comments like "some it its teachings are not poisonous", since that claim can be applied to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The distinctions can only be based whether it posits any truth claims requiring faith, or does not keep itself to itself.

872. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124671 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 3:23 am

Regarding Hitchens - I have a problem with simplistic way I have seen him present Buddhism, such as his repeated mention that "Buddhists believe that the Buddha was borne from the side of his mother". Some do. Some don't. This is not "doctrine".
Its more than just a "Some do, some don't" thing isn't it? Its an important part of Buddhist tradition. Anyway, Hitchens has used the example in lists of virgin birth claims attributed to spiritual icons. He is making a valid point about the cult of personality: the Buddha birth myth is a good example of this.

Where Hitchens talks about Buddhism in his book, it is to speak about those examples where it includes hero-worship, prophecy fulfilment, faith (for example, he talks about the claims of the Dalai Lama). These are religious hallmarks and it proper that they are addressed in his book.

873. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124666 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 2:46 am

Please let's just drop this valuable/invaluable stuff. I feel like this topic could be an inflammable one.
Ha. I wanted to say that.

874. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124448 by Peacebeuponme on February 9, 2008 at 1:31 pm

I'm processing it here and seeing what other people's views are. That's all.
This is what I find so refreshing about this site.

If you want to get things going, just mention something about Iraq: "Hitchens is a neo-con hawk", or "Hitchens has once again shown great independence of mind in not parroting the standard liberal opposition to the war." That kind of thing should get people of of the woodwork.

875. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124446 by Peacebeuponme on February 9, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Perhaps I am nit picking. I think it is almost like Michael Shermer said in one of his speeches, it depends on your goal. If your goal is really to reach people who are religious or on the fence regarding religion, then you have to be careful with your strategy.
I think it is fair to consider whether Hitchens' approach is helping 'the cause'. I also think there is room for many approaches. Having a popular book on the shelves that is strident and polemic may just make the odd theist think "Is it all really a load of bollocks?". Of course one book is not likely to do this. But 4 and then more and more, coming from different angles, all add up to a powerful tool.

The other positive with a book like God Is Not Great is that it gives atheists on the ground support and reference for our own arguments locally.
Perhaps I was being an elitist.
I think considering your comment elitist it precisely what bothers me: Hitchens can be regarded as an expert in his particular field. He is an intelligent man, and it would be unfair to regard him as Dawkins lesser because he does not have the same scientific grounding. They are all equally qualified to talk about religion.
Maybe it is something about his personality that bothers me. I know that this is not an argument. I am just exploring critically what it is that bothers me about Hitchens.
Yes well, you are not the first atheist to think that! I actually quite like his style but can see why others don't.

876. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124441 by Peacebeuponme on February 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Hitchens went to great pains to clarify that this was not his position.
Then he should have been more clear about it in his book.
In Chapter 5 of "God is not Great", Hitchens' talks about Occam's Razor and belief in God just being one of many possible options. I think he is clear enough.

877. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124438 by Peacebeuponme on February 9, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Not all religions even involve a belief in a god. So, Dawkins is talking about something specific.
That seems a strange way of differentiating extreme from not extreme. I could say "Christians are all lunatics", which would then be even less extreme than Dawkins because it is even more specific.

As to Buddhism, I take your point, but they still have their "hungry ghosts" and reincarnation. Nevertheless, I think when Hitchens talks about "Religion" it is as generally understood and I think his points are valid on that basis.
I think I am trying to illustrate the difference between Dennett, Harris (philosophically trained), Dawkins (scientifically trained) and Hitchens (a critic, journalist guy).
I think that is grossly unfair. Hitchens' historical and political knowledge far outweighs the other three and that is what he brings to the table in his book. In fact that is what pleases me most about the Four - that they have their own unique areas of expertise, be it Philosophy, Neuroscience, History and Politics or Biology and science generally.

In any case, religion is a general subject affecting us all. Anybody with a certain degree of intelligence should feel comfortably able to debate.

878. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124429 by Peacebeuponme on February 9, 2008 at 12:07 pm

However, for the purposes of this debate, I really don't think his arguments are that important. They don't hold much weight and it was a waste of time in my opinion. Who cares if Martin Luther King Jr. may secretly have been a Humanist?
See, that was the point of my original post: Jackson brought these things up and tried to win small skirmishes far from the main battlefield. Jackson could not defend (and did not really try) against Hitchens'important points about religious truth claims.
I meant "extreme" in that Hitchens makes statements like "How Religion Poisons Everything." This is extreme in the same way that a statement like "There is absolutely NO limit to human free will" would be extreme in the context of a philosophical discussion of free will. Do I think that the title "The God Delusion" or "The End of Faith" are extreme? No. Not in the same sense.
Actually, calling all believers deluded is something Dawkins has had to defend against. It could be seen as more extreme than Hitchens' title. Though in my opinion both are pretty much statements of fact.
To suggest that god has been disproved is just silly.
Hitchens went to great pains to clarify that this was not his position.
You are talking to an atheist who is a life member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Happy to hear that!

879. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124400 by Peacebeuponme on February 9, 2008 at 11:02 am

Timothy Jackson actually made some intelligent, rational points regarding the way in which Christopher Hitchens talks about Martin Luther King Jr. It is indeed dogmatic to claim that I know what someone was really thinking even thought the person is telling me something different.
Except he didn't claim to know the mind of King, but instead made some interesting inferences based on his life and character - it would be fairly uninteresting if our comments on famous characters were limited to what we 100% know about them. Any biography would be pretty worthless.
Extreme statements should be used sparingly. Hitchens pops them out by the dozen.
His comments only seem extreme because of the special pass we give religion.

880. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124388 by Peacebeuponme on February 9, 2008 at 10:07 am

Great, great videos. Hitchens had me laughing out loud in several places.

Jackson didn't even seem to bring any arguments to the table, seeming content to try to find holes in inconsequential parts of Hitchens' book (Martin Luther King was a Christian, therefore God?). Another theist who talks about limits of science, and other forms of truths, without outlining a case for what those truths are or how they may actually tell us anything about the world.

881. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124066 by Peacebeuponme on February 8, 2008 at 9:15 am

Well my view is that religious inequality should be introduced by removing the privileges of religions, not extending them. And, the privileges can be oppressive to others. Same-sex couples can't get married in those venues.
My view is that equality would be best served by getting rid of legal marriage altogether. Anybody should be able to "marry" or profess unity with whoever, and however, they like (and with how many). This is no business of the state.

There should only be legal recourse where there is a break-up and inequalities of the way different parties have made investments in the relationship may lead to destitution of one party.

882. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123993 by Peacebeuponme on February 8, 2008 at 5:57 am

Lost it, shouted "what about people with no faith you stupid bugger" at the radio.
What bothers me is that I dont want religous laws applying to me. I don't really care if Muslims want to agree to abide by Sharia, so long as I don't have to. I don't particuarly want special laws for the "no faith community" since the law of the land should conform to this by default.

Having said that, the big worry with the voluntary application of Muslim courts, the Beth Din and Canon Law is if one faith becomes a majority and imposes on all.

883. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123496 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 9:11 am

irate-atheist

Even more to the point, schizophrenics can discuss their delusions, but the doctor knows they're not real.
Much better analogy. I really do consider religious people to be liars though.

884. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123494 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 9:06 am

those who would deny the existence of the Red Fat Man.
Come on Steve, John Prescott is alive and well.

885. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123482 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 8:51 am

I can dialog with other faiths about our beliefs, but a discussion with Atheists inevitably becomes another episode of "show me some evidence",
I can dialog with liars about the lies we tell, but a discussion with honest people inevitably becomes another eposide of "I don't think you are telling the truth".

886. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123478 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 8:45 am

al-rawandi

I suspected you might come back with counter-examples. I think I pretty much agree with all of your last post. You are right, it is difficult to perfectly apply the same standards to every situation. There may even be times when it is right for a politician to "side" with unsavoury people for the greater good.

I don't think Galloway can justify his comments in such a way though.

And I'm not someone who thinks Churchill is the greatest briton ever, either.

887. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123469 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 8:21 am

al-rawandi. You do have a way of adding a bit of needle to a discussion!

Whether or not he thinks Palestine should have its capital in Jerusalem (I am making the rather large assumption that you understand the quotation you cited), is really irrelevant.
Yes, I have seen the translation (I'm not in the habit of posting foreign language that I do not understand to make a point). In, fact even ignoroing the "until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem" bit, what does it for me is:

- the amount of deference and respect for a genocidal maniac; and
- indicating that others in the west are behind a man responsible for oppression and death.

888. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123459 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 8:06 am

"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds"

That was enough for me.

I did like him sticking it to the US Senate though.

889. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123435 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 6:44 am

Actually, I think you would find that even babies would have been repulsed by REAL dog-poo. Disgust at certain things, particularly smells, is a instinctive response, just as fear can be an instinctive response. It is probably true that MOST of what we are disgusted by or afraid of is learnt, but not all.
Interestingly that is not the case. The programme was a long time ago, and I can't remember the details on things like smell, but defintely disgust appears to be a learned emotion. Small children will not like to pick up a piece of plastic that looks like dog-mess, but toddlers will happily eat chocolate shaped like that.

890. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123353 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 2:48 am

DavidMJH - Go back to masturbating over your Vin Diesel posters and leave the intelligent debate to the grown-ups.

891. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123352 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 2:47 am

Cartomancer - actually I think we are more in agreement than you think. Religion today is a major contributor to continued homophobia. However, just take a look at the UK today. Your typical football yobbo is not wearing a cross, but still shouts "queer" at Sol Campbell.

892. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123214 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 4:00 pm

troyreynolds

I think we are on the same page. I just sometimes want to point out that everything is not all religion's fault, becuase it dilutes our poistion

And, since it comes from a holy book, it remains the most difficult to undo
Absolutely key. That was the thrust of my post (I don't usually get clarity on my first post).
My point was that we have millions of loving couples in this world that are being kept from entering into a legal relationship with each other
Don't care about that. Like Doug Stanhope says, your relationship is no business of the government.
If anything shows that people can be nice and moral without any thought for themselves, it is the way that so many straight people support the rights of us queers.
Most of us are good guys ! Steve, I hope one day that the fact that me and you differ on whether Mark Ruffalo or Evangeline Lily is the most attractive is treated the same way as whether one likes Bjork or Missy Elliot.

893. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123204 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Sorry, I thought it was the nap of their kilt. Or is that scotsmen?

894. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123202 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Galloway's argument against Hitchens is that he used to be red and he likes a whisky now and again. Not very strong is it?

895. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123196 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Oh yeah, because the worst thing a child could see is two people wanting to enter into a monogomous, committed, trusting relationship based upon love and respect. Oh the horror. Why are Christians so damn scared of gays? Could they honestly think that their kid will see a gay couple and catch gay? Could they be that moronic? Wait, just remembered all of their other precious beliefs. In comparison this one is more tame, yet far more sinister.
I think we need to get over this idea the homophobia is a purely religious construct and start attacking religious people on the right grounds. For me it goes like this:

- For some reasons some (actually a lot, too many, whatever) humans don't like homosexuality.
- To ensure fairness, compassion, a good society and just plain learning, investigation and moral education about this unfortunate reaction needs to occur.
- unfortunately religious people enshrined this bad reaction in their holy books.
- religious people now use the holy books to justify their reaction.

This is why shellfish does not cause so much of a concern to the religious - there was no 'original' psychological reaction to begin with.

Thoughts?

896. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek

Comment #123185 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Zejirta - Most people posting here would be right behind you. Seriously, this place is a haven. They were posting without your extra context, for which all you can say is "aah, these things happen".

Let me just say thanks for what you are doing.

897. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek

Comment #123172 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 2:34 pm

This sounds the perfect way to promote the ideas of a scientific hero
As a Welshman (who's footy team just managed a 3 - 0 win!) I am duty bound to note that a "Wallace day" is not being discussed!

898. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123123 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Apparently homosexuality is so repulsive that people don't even want to think about it, yet at the same time it is such fun that straight people can be easily "converted" and become addicted.
I saw an interesting programme a few years ago about how our repulsions are conditioned. Babies are not naturally repulsed by anything - they charted with age learned bevahiours with classics like fake dog-poo.

Sadly many straight people (even those not particularly homophobic) can have such a response, which has been conditioned by family, friends, society.

899. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122970 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 9:51 am

Actually, I think any post that says "I have to go" should generally result in troll-markings for all previous posts, if made after repeatedly ingnoring counter-arguments.

900. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122968 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 9:49 am

We got the usual...

1) Einstein thought there was a god.
2) Pascal's wager.
3) I have to go (at least he threw in the low battery part)

I mean, did anyone not see this coming.
We all saw it coming. You can add

1a) Wooterism (or child-like version of the argument from design)

as well.

More Pages: Previous | 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 | Next