201. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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.

202. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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!

203. Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

Comment #121744 by scooternyc on February 4, 2008 at 4:12 am

I finished John's book on Saturday and it was good. He has some interesting arguments, mostly what we've already heard, but a twist or two worth reading.

Thanks for the link to Point of Inquiry, I look forward to that one.

204. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121414 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 11:24 am

I believe it is heartless even if that suffering is self-inflicted, and as a result of their own choices.

This is a real gem, an idea held by many, I'm sure.

You "believe" it is heartless. Well bully for your beliefs. So what. Do you have a point to make? No you do not, just more spin rooted in religous ideology.

205. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121411 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 11:20 am

if a drug addict wants to abuse and neglect their child, why should we stop them?

We don't. It's when the situation has risen to such an extent that society has an awareness of the situation and intervenes.

Have we stopped them? No, because they've already abused and neglected them. Are we ending their parental rights? Yes, until they can what?

Oh, there are those 2 awful words - show responsibility and accountability to raise them better.

If you think taking children away from abuse and neglect is righteous, then why not the same for those in Iraq, those in Darfur, those in North Korea?

What are you willing to do to end such suffering?

Negotiate?

Why?

You don't negotiate with the drug addict or child abuser, you simply remove the child from the environment. You create an atmosphere of what...opportunity...for what?...freedom and choice to create his or her individual life.

Give me a break.

206. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121408 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 11:13 am

Tell you what steve, when you can answer to the posts I've written and not be distracted off the statements by your own personal agenda, I'll have an adult dialogue with you.

You like to cherry pick, just like the religious, to support your personal interest.

207. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121406 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 11:11 am

That is completely relative and depends on who you ask. Ideally, no. Pratically, yes.

Which then leads to: who decides which life is more valuable?

What are the criteria for deciding?

All life is equal across the board; there is no denying such a statement.

We take life everyday for comfort, survival, ease, destruction, ignorance, denial; all of it justified in one form or another based on personal self-interest.

I have no issue with such; we shouldn't be preached to like a Sunday morning sermon about the "poor children who are starving" by hypocrites who offer nothing more than self-serving platitudes.

208. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121402 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 11:04 am

So, how is it that the “mind reading” of whether or not someone wants to starve and die is within your purview?

How do you know that these people don’t want to starve their children or have they themselves die?

You don’t.

You’re projecting your view of the world onto them, admonishing others, and deciding your world view is righteous.

When, in fact, your views are no less similar to that of the religious in this world who seek to demand their view of the world upon others; how people should live; how people should die; what level of life someone should be able to enjoy.

What frauds.

If freedom and choice were truly inherent within you, then you would only desire for others to have opportunity by which to make these decisions for themselves.

Governments then must be held accountable when they are not allowing their citizens such freedom. In the meantime, each person then must decide, by what limited choice he or she has, what life they will live ?quot; free of my desire for them or yours.

I would enjoy having some of you stop behaving like idiots, doesn’t mean you want to or desire to do so. Fine, you have freedom to be ignorant of life and the reality of choice before you ?quot; some of you are indulging quite regularly in that freedom. All the better for you having the choice.

209. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121329 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 8:29 am

I agree. The value of human life is the central issue.

I don't disagree that we value human life most likely above all other life, which is inherently arrogant, but acceptable in our world, no doubt as humans are self-centered with personal self-interests at their core - survival at all costs - either yours or someone else's.

But is one person's life more important than another's?

How do you decide?

Who gets to decide?

What is the criteria?

Are we going to hold all to that criteria?

If not, why not?

210. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121327 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 8:26 am

I think it is a fair summary when someone is prepared to allow children to die.

Ahhh, more of that mind reading you got going there. We all get it.

211. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121326 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 8:25 am

Tell you what Steve, you answer these two questions and we'll go from there with your hypotheticals that you so like:

What exactly do you think it means to be accountable?

What exactly do you think it means to be responsible?

212. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121316 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 8:12 am

I find it impossible to believe that it was already inevitable even only 1 million years ago.

No, merely within the scope of your own life and the years lived, that's all.

213. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121315 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 8:11 am

Steve:

What exactly do you think it means to be accountable?

What exactly do you think it means to be responsible?

214. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121312 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 8:09 am

Colwyn Abernathy - great point and well said # 204/121307.

My self-interest in you having the same freedoms affords you the same equal opportunity to take advantage of choices before you by which you get to have the life you desire, nothing more.

Is it not true that nations that have more freedoms are less likely to want to have conflict?

Is it not noble to want others to have and enjoy the freedoms you personally enjoy?

The mud starts being flung when one philosophy of living(read: religion) starts imposing its ideology on others, anywhere and everywhere.

One can say freedom and democracy are ideology, but do not these concepts just promote more freedom, choice and opportunity? The very thing that creates stability.

215. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121309 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 8:04 am

In terms of blame it would be better to ask, 'who really stands to gain' (from the oppression).

Which is more of my point regarding self-interest and the personal agenda of the individual.

If we are to ask in regards to those who are able to help, to what degree do we offer that help? To what level are we willing to sacrifice our own lives to provide that help?

If a person were homeless in the U.S., if we placed them on a 6 month program of support whereby they had all opportunity to succeed and then we stop - would it solve the problem and they are on their way? No. We do that already without limits and it doesn't help it just keeps the problem going because the well never runs dry.

216. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121305 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 8:00 am

TonyA - no, there's no point to any statement made by anyone other than their own self-serving interest.

217. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121302 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 7:58 am

And let's not forget the influence of religion keeping contraception out of the picture

Totally agree. Where's the outrage of the religious and pious who keep this suffering happening?

And why are they keeping the suffering happening?

Self-interest.

It all comes down to self interest. There are no interests that are not self-interests.

218. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121301 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 7:56 am

but I can't see how judgement of parents is applicable here

No one is judging the parents, simply pointing out the aspect of choice in the given circumstance and who is making the choice, that person is then responsible.

Poverty is like original sin: you didn't create it, you're made to feel guilty about it; you can't resolve it; you're made to feel responsible about it; you can never escape it until you actually die - then you don't have to hear about it anymore.

219. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121299 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 7:51 am

I think the real issue here is oppressive regimes.

Totally agree, which is the foundation of the problem to begin with; so who's really responsible then? Of course, not easy to look at that component as so many are unwilling.

It's like the religious, it's better to be emotional about it and serve platitudes similar to praying, where it does nothing but it looks like you're doing something. "Look at me, look how great and compassionate I am that I dislike starving children".

220. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121296 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 7:47 am

"Teacher says, every time a bell rings another starving child dies..."

221. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121279 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:43 am

You're happy to see children die because of the 'choices' of their parents

I'm happy? Wow, now who's mind reading?

Giving more food to parents you just create more starving babies.

You stop giving food then you stop reinforcing the behavior. "But some children will die" well, who's responsible for their death, us or the parents who won't stop having children they can't feed or take responsibility for?

If you send a week's worth of food to a country, does this help these people to get up on their feet and figure it out or does it nourish them so they feel better now and then decide to engage in sex again creating a greater problems.

Please, you can't be this naive?

222. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121278 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:36 am

Oh don't worry, as an "uncle", I'll be helping out too. It's part of that fluffy liberal attitude.

So I guess my statement of all interests are self-interests, stands, as well.

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

223. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121277 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:35 am

So would you let the children die?

Steve, you start to sound like the religious - get off your moral soapbox - we let people die everyday for far worse reason.

Come on down off the cross, someone else needs the wood.

224. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121272 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:31 am

They are planning to adopt a disadvantaged child, such as one born of a drug addict or with parents in prison.

So one of many solutions to a greater problem, that's progress.

However, is someone acting responsibly - oh yes, that would be your friends. That dreaded word - responsibility.

225. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121268 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:29 am

Well, Comets, why don't you load up a bag of grocery and get on over there and absolve these folks of their choices, then? What are you hangin out here on the thread for if your goals and ideals are so noble.

In fact, end all poverty, go about handing out food to those who won't help themselves out of their situation.

Oh, that's right, we've done that and it hasn't worked.

Next!

226. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121265 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:25 am

Here we go with the mind-reading again.

It's not mind reading when observation is there - that's the point - no one needs to mind read because the reality of choice is there, right in front of you to observe.

What are their choices:

To have sex without contraception and risk a child

To not have sex and avoid another starving child

The husband to force the wife into submission and have sex without contraception and risk a child

To not have sex and avoid another starving child

So, is it not control and manipulation of a husband to a wife who forces her to have sex without consent or with intimidation/threat?

Yes, it is and my statement previously of control and manipulation when not being given a choice, stands as an observation, not a mind reading.

You apparently don't know the difference

And that's an observation, not a mind reading, since you've displayed it in your writing.

Either you don't understand choice or you don't understand what it means to be manipulated or controlled, or both. All is observed in your writing.

Science of observation - it's always the science of observation, pal.

227. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121261 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:16 am

those who are born into poverty.

Inside the United States poverty is self-inflicted. Outside the United States you can lay that responsibility at the feet of those governments who will not allow freedom to their people.

The precepts of accountability and responsibility are still there Steve, you just don't want to see them.

If a person born outside the U.S. is born into poverty, you don't want to observe the parents who are accountable for having sex in the first place when they are incapable of supporting or feeding their child knowing they have no contraception by which to avoid pregnancy...and the cycle goes on.

228. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121251 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:04 am

Not for me. I just wanted to be sure Lorien knew just what scooters views really are....

Wow! Thanks Steve for "revealing" me to someone who couldn't already figure out my point of view in life by my personal interactions observed on this thread.

You're a real help, I'm sure.

229. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121248 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 6:02 am

In an ideal world we would all seek to gain and give as many opportunities to people, and ourselves, as possible in order to live a rich and happy life.

And this is the greatest reason for endorsing and supporting democracy and freedom in everyone's life and nation. Freedom breeds opportunity for which choice is empowered.

230. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121243 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:57 am

But certainly with scooter who, unless he has changed his mind, seems to want to include parents, quality of local schools, local crime rates and so on all as "choices".

And he's off and running down the road of excuse...

You can justify anything because of "circumstance" but then why not justify everything? Because a person decides this instead of that? Why, that's what the religious do and do so well. This passage and not that one.

There's no need. If one accepts personal accountability for personal choice, in any given circumstance, there's no need for justification, rationalization or excuse.

Remember, one may not like all the choices in front of his or her life, but he or she still has a choice toward or away from his or her own decided existence.

231. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121240 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:55 am

Is there really much of a disagreement here?

The disagreement starts its viral spiral by rationalizing certain choices because of an individual's circumstance(s).

It matters not - the empowerment of freedom is still rooted in personal choice.

This is very difficult for those of either political persuasion to accept because everyone is *special* and *deserves* some sort of pass.

232. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121236 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:51 am

I don't think attempting to isolate oneself from one's responsibility to others is mature

To this, we agree.

To the extent that you give one inch of excuse to another for the choices he/she has made to create his/her life, is a mistake for which we disagree.

No excuse. No pass.

The greatest and most difficult maturity is probably the acceptance of the life created by personal choice.

233. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121230 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:41 am

I disagree with your approach.

Well, good for you.

Once again: Steve said: But then I am one of those soppy liberals trapped in a state of victimhood...

I think you've made it clear why you dislike my "approach".

234. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121228 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:39 am

Yes. It is ironic that a deterministic philosophy seems so essential in breaking down that helpless infantile instinct to cry when one feels a need in order to emancipate onself - but oh isn't irony such a wonderful thing.

Indeed, so much irony and quite a mature outlook when one can laugh at it, too. Bravo to you.

This infantile instinct is what is so amusing when a person claims "I'm offended" as though it means anything.

My response has come to be, "do you have a point to make?".

235. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121226 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:35 am

Steve said: But then I am one of those soppy liberals trapped in a state of victimhood...

Well, at least this much you have come to understand about yourself.

That's progress.

236. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121224 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:31 am

Steve - no one, including me, is telling you to agree with my statement. You need not. In fact, why even respond, you've made yourself clear in the past you don't agree. Good for you.

Logically, my statement if pondered beyond emotion, makes quite a bit of sense.

It's quite scientific in any given observation which shows the outcome.

Some people refuse to evaluate these ideas because it holds them responsible.

I've made the choice to not engage with others who are not willing to place their own lives under the microscope with the goal of becoming better citizens. It's a waste of time, mine and theirs.

I, instead, enjoy making sarcastic statements of the obvious which play into the "boxed" life one has decided to lead and engage in which is of a narrow mindset.

As you can observe from my back/forth with LorienRyan, the mutual respect for another's ideas and placing one's personal life up to scrutiny creates interesting dialogue from which further enrichment of one's life can be achieved for some people.

Again, you don't have to agree nor engage.

This takes maturity and is not in everyone's purview. Understood.

237. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121217 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:23 am

we learn to take the punches, so to speak.

Which is a part of growing up, right?

I made the choice which lead to the outcome for which I now must be able to respond.

Simple and easy.

We may not always like the outcomes to our choices but blaming others for those choices just keeps a person self-inflicted with his or her personal victimization.

238. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121212 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:15 am

Imagine how little government or religion play in your life once each person starts invoking their own personal independence and self-reliance.

Suddenly the world peace people are always tossing platitudes about is realized.

It can only happen when others start holding the "victims" accountable for their choices when the "victims" attempt to abscond their accountability and responsibility at a cost to others.

239. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121210 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:13 am

Even though the 'hard' science based philosophy seems so cold and deterministic it empowers people to make real 'choices.'

Spot on!

240. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121209 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:10 am

Living and learning, it's so much fun!

I couldn't agree more.

Even what is perceived as struggle to others seems like an opportunity of challenge to me to step up and find a solution rooted in my personal philosophy of being accountable and responsible.

Once you apply the formula, life is easy, natural and so much more fun and enjoyable.

I wish you the best on this endeavor for yourself, you won't feel remorse at the time spent in achieving it.

241. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121204 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:07 am

Religion puts people down psychologically in order to manipulate them

Any time a person or situation is limiting your choices it is attempting to manipulate and/or control.

Armed with this information, it would be great if all people would recognize this and start acting for their personal welfare and personal freedom with accountability and responsibility - two words practically disdained on this site and others by some.

242. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121200 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 5:04 am

dependent state of mind, a victim mentality

What's interesting is that politicians and governments do the same thing. Then people start endorsing such an ideal of "my government should take care of me".

All of this, of course, at a cost to others.

Hitchens did state on Wednesday that religion keeps people in a child like state of mind and not encouraging them to grow up.

People find it difficult to accept their insignificance within the big picture.

If they would they would then make personal choices to enjoy their life more; perhaps realize that the cost others place on them they need not place on others; and make healthier decisions for themselves.

243. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121196 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 4:56 am

Carry on like this and you will put philosophers out of a job.

We could only hope. :)

244. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121194 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 4:55 am

Yes, not an easy ideal to intergrate into one's life.

Again, quite difficult at it's inception to dismantle. It took probably a good 5 years of constant self-evaluation to recognize, tell myself "don't go there" and dismantle it until it just became part of the self organism.

It does like to rear its ugly head once in a while but fortunately I can catch it and dispose of it before I act on it or bring cost to others. LOL!

245. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121190 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 4:47 am

"And if it is so justified, then why is not being done?"

Great question and one of many answers is that not everyone accepts that all humans are born with freedom.

Somehow people liken their ownership of others for personal gain or interest. It's rather sick behavior. It's rampant in all societies. Marriage is but one small example. Dictatorship is the extreme of this example.

246. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121188 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 4:43 am

It's not a concept that comforts people or makes them feel *special*

Yes, I think this is why people don't like the idea of "social Darwinism" because if it is random and only traits which are "useful" survive, then it starts to negate their existence.

Better still, if there is random choice, they're afraid they won't be "chosen".

Except the Jews, they already know they are the chosen people. Forgot about them.

It's interesting to observe the many people who have the ID philosophy I Deserve - thereby, they're special - the rules don't apply to them.

Everyone wants to be up front.

247. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121186 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 4:40 am

My control of that victim impulse becomes a juggling act when attempting to make a religious person even try and understand the concept of determinism...

I never try to make a person understand anything but I did struggle with this for a while. I like having moved to the position of non-victim by just stating my personal viewpoint and they do with it what they will.

My action comes when others want their personal viewpoint to be that of one which now costs me personally in some manner of limited freedom of choice.

To them I say, "think all you like of your personal philosophical ideals, but at no cost to myself or others".

248. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121181 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 4:29 am

People confuse the idea of choices before them and the one they "choose" as being something other than determinism of their organism - they chose that choice because they were hard wired to do so.

Even the choosing of something outside the deterministic choice is the determined eventual outcome of the organism evolving.

Of course, all this freaks people out who don't want to admit that their inherent nature which "chooses" certain behaviors is outside their control because so many behaviors have been "moralized" rather than realized.

249. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121179 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 4:24 am

'choice' or 'free will' as simply our ignorance of the determining factors

LOL! Quite!

The idea of "free will" is itself a negation of the understanding, which always makes me laugh when a religious person tries to use this idea.

250. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121177 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 4:22 am

Sue Blackmore wrote a great book, "The Meme-Machine" which I really enjoyed and talks about this subject quite well.

I'm very interested in it, myself.