1. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64111 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Rational_G,

I share your views. I may not agree with Hitchens on the invasion of Iraq, however that's irrelevant where the issue about god and religion is concerned.

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

Comment #64109 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Good article, his writing is very good.

3. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64106 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 6:43 pm

I guess I'm to blame for posing a simple question about Hitchens..

"Quite simply, invading a country (and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and provoking a civil war while you're going about it) is not the way to change the way it is governed - at least if we are purporting to be members of a civilised, 21st century society.

To be honest, I would not have expected so many free-thinkers on this website to have been in favour of (or even ambivalent towards) the invasion - even if the great orator Hitchens is in favour. I can only hope the posters to this article are not representative."

Kinobe I agree with you 100%.

4. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64055 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 12:39 pm

"What I expect is that the facts be honestly represented and that the argument not include logical fallacy."

As do I.

5. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64053 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 12:20 pm

"The problem with Hitchens is that he plays fast and lose with the facts, especially common misconceptions about the facts in order to support his positions --- and for that I consider him a media whore, and nothing more. What a waste of talent."

Ah, I see exactly what you mean. Although I do think that any rational person will soon realize that Hitchens does not give all the facts to an argument, and because of that it is up to the individual to make up his/her own mind about what he says.

If every speaker gave equal weight to an argument, their point wouldn't come across well. I may be wrong about that though, just a thought.

6. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64052 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Limey,

I've read his book and have seen nearly all his interviews, I respect the man for his no-nonesense approach to arguing, it's something that is greatly needed and he does not bow down to 'let's respect everyone's views' etc.

steve99, thanks for answering my question, I know many liberals who did support the war and many conservatives who did not.

What struck me about Hitchens, was when I first heard about him a few months ago and wiki-ed his bio. Wikipedia is notorious for giving you the 'gist' information, if you will, so antrually when I learned that he was a former Marxist and then had supported the War, I was curious as to what had caused the 'shift'. Nevertheless I'm greatful and glad that he's decided to join the fight against religious dogma.

7. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64046 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm

"He's really no friend of people who feel that championing the truth is as important as championing a cause."

I'm assuming you're refering to his support of the war? Or his book?

..I'm confused.

8. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64042 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 11:57 am

"Steve99 I can't believe you fell for Olivers trolling!"


I just jonied this site this week and haven't found anythign about his reasons for supporting the war...lol.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hitchens is great, I was just curious about his supporting the war, afetr all he 'used' to be a Trotskyist..

Sorry for trolling?

9. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64034 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 11:36 am

Hitchy is a good speaker and makes very good points.

But does anyone know why he supported the War in Iraq?

10. India's Internal Partition

Comment #64011 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 9:16 am

Limey,

... or, for an alternative viewpoint, see my post here:

It's an amusing theory.. Certainly imperialism has had its hand in creating the situations within Inida/Pakistan and Isreal/Palestine, however I do believe that religious belief is the main source..

11. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63838 by Oliver Leif on August 16, 2007 at 11:51 am

"So, not only is he in earnest, he's also not inclined to change his mind. It's probably best to give this one up."

Yeah, it becomes an infinite cycle after awhile, and quite frankly I've betetr things to do.

12. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63836 by Oliver Leif on August 16, 2007 at 11:19 am

"No, it's not a piss-take. The gentleman in question is seriously out of his trolley. After he (apparently inadvertently) revealed his real name I did a quick google search and found, among other things, this:"


Ah, he's one of those nut-jobs..-sigh-

13. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63832 by Oliver Leif on August 16, 2007 at 11:04 am

Martha,

What Richard Dawkins is implying when stating that education is key against religion, he means sceptical and critical thinking taught at an early age.

There have many too few cases where the devoutly religious have 'converted' to atheism, and the reason for their conversion have mostly been a 'awakening in conciousness', something which Dawkins writes about in TGD.

The 'inteliigent religious individuals with University degrees, etc' are 99% born into a religious family and thus indoctrinated at a young age when they are still unable to think abstractly about life and the cosmos. There are also thos religious people who go and research other religions but again, 99% of the time they'll conclude that the religion they were introduced to at an young age is the best one for them.

Both Hitchens and Dawkins write about indoctrination of children as child abuse and it is something which I am strongly against. I believe that no parent has the right to instill their personal opinions and beliefs onto a child. It's up to the child, when he or she is older to adopt whatever belief they think suites them best, not their parents'.

So it's education, open-minded, freethought education that's key against religion.

14. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63699 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 1:01 pm

"As I have a DNA and all life forms have a DNA, so does our universe. The energy at the very beginning of the Big Bang was the DNA of our universe out of which every galaxy, star, solar system and all life forms both biological and non-biological evolved."

The Universe does not have DNA, you're using the term incorrectly which leads me to believe you have little or no concept of the universe and how it works.

15. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63681 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 10:51 am

Geno,

"I think I understand you - it's logical because it's logical - good point! ;)"

Have you even actually gone through and read the arguments? Have you taken the time to take in the logic? I don't think you have and as such you dismiss it entirely.

16. After 60 Years, Will Pakistan Be Reborn?

Comment #63666 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 9:08 am

"She is not being serious of course. I think."

Hehe, it's a funny theory..

17. India's Internal Partition

Comment #63663 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 9:03 am

The India-Pakistan situation is rooted in a difference of religion..

It's the same with the Israel and Palestine.

18. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63659 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 8:53 am

Ah yes, Cultural Relativism..I loathe it so.

Dax,

"Turn that last part around: it is not that "religious ideas usually reflect the reality of people's lives", but that the reality of people's lives reflect religious ideas, in all its harmful effects on humanity."

I agree with you 100%. What's more is that there are people living in countries run by religion (such as Iran, Pakistan, etc) who are fed up and sick of the oppression, murder, and sexism. Neither their 'religious governments' or the Cultural Relativist apoloigists of the West represent the interests of the thousands of people subjected to a way of life forced by religion.

19. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63649 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 7:54 am

"This is a false dichotomy. How are the ideas that a scripturally inspired murderer has about the universe _not_ part of his set of circumstances?"

Exactly. When it is written in the Koran, for exmaple, "kill all infidels" is it not this 'idea' that drives the actions?

Or by circumstance does Steel mean that the ideas have been taken 'literally' or 'abused'?

Even so, it is because people take the 'holy' words so seriously and with such dedicated passion which leads them to strap C4 to themselves and blow up a take out a bus.

There is no way to claim that the ideas themselves are harmless when it is written in the text to carry out these ihumane actions.

20. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity ... Thank God.

Comment #63644 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 7:37 am

RobertW: "And I have to be honest here, I'd much rather be known as a POF than a "bright." Whose bright idea was that, anyway?"

www.the-brights.com

21. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63634 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 6:31 am

Geno: "Can you explain to me why anyone should believe this argument to be true? Would you explain how you have tested this to assure it's truthfulness before you posted it?

Also, what makes you comments that follow the list valid?"

The commetns following the step by step claims aren't mine, the whole post was an excerpt from Theadore Drange's article, which I provided the link for.

If actually took the time to work out the logic behind the proposition, and read the comments carefully, you'd realize that it's appliked logic to the god omniscient/free will argument.

Again this goes back to the 'god is outside human logic because he created human logic'. If you're claiming that then there's no use arguing with you because obviously darwin2 and yourself aren't open to any new insight.

22. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63633 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 6:22 am

darwin2:

"That's your subjective opinion. My subjective opinion differs."

It's not a matter of subjectivity, I've made a logically sound argument and you're restorting to 'subjective opinion'-you have nothing left. I'm done with it.

23. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63629 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 6:11 am

hungarianelephant: "This is racism, pure and simple. It assumes that those with the misfortune to be born into such families have fewer rights than every other citizen, and that those responsible are excused because they cannot be expected to conform with the rules of decent society."

Couldn't agree more!

24. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63481 by Oliver Leif on August 14, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Seriously, you toss simple logical arguments and they either tune it out or make exceptions..

25. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63478 by Oliver Leif on August 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm

darwin 2, here's a logical argument proposed by Theadore M. Drange:

"1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exists, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

Some have denied that omniscience entails knowing all about the future. They say that omniscience only entails knowing what there is to know. But the future actions of free persons are open, and not there to be known about. Thus, not even an omniscient being could know about them. This may provide a basis for rejecting premise 3 of the argument.

This sort of objection to 3 can be attacked in many different ways. One way would be to affirm that an omniscient being would indeed need to know all about the future. All propositions about the future are either true or false, and an omniscient being, by definition, must know the truth of any proposition that is in fact true. Furthermore, theists, often following the Bible on this point, commonly attribute unrestricted knowledge of the future to God.10 Indeed, if God does not know the future actions of any free beings, then there is very little, if any, pertaining to the future about which he can be certain. For no matter what the situation may be, there is always a chance that it will be affected by such actions.

Another way to attack the given objection is to maintain that, even if God does not know about the future actions of other free agents, he must know about his own future actions. One reason for this is that God's actions are all based on perfect justice and immutable law. There is never any caprice in them. His purposes and intentions have remained steadfast from all eternity, so anyone who totally understands God's purposes and intentions, as he himself does, would be able to infallibly predict his actions. It follows that God must know what he himself will and will not do in the future, which would establish the truth of premise 3 if it is taken to refer to God.

Premise 4 is a consequence of the definition of knowledge. If a proposition is known to be true, then it must be true and cannot be false. So, if X knows that Y will do Z, then it is impossible for Y not to do Z. And this is so even where X and Y are the same person.

Premise 6 says that a free agent can do what he doesn't do. That may sound odd at first, but when it is understood correctly, it seems correct. Suppose we identify what Y does as "act Z." Then in order for Y to be free, prior to doing Z, it must have been possible for Y to do Z and it must also have been possible for Y not to do Z. If it were not possible for Y not to do Z, then Y's doing of Z could not be regarded as a free act. Free acts are avoidable. You can't be free if you had to do the thing that you did. This seems intuitively right, though some forms of compatibilism might reject it. It is not a totally settled issue in philosophy. I leave it to the reader to ascertain whether or not premise 6 is correct. If it is, then I think the argument goes through." (http://www.philoonline.org/library/drange_1_2.htm)

26. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63464 by Oliver Leif on August 14, 2007 at 12:28 pm

"All I can say is that this is what I truly believe in. I can't imagine a universe existing without a designer. The exception is God because God is the Originator."


Is it that you can't imagine it because you haven't got all the fatcs and information, or is it that you WON'T imagine a universe without a creator?

Again, going back to the logical fallacy which is the Designer argument, you're nullifying your own argument when stating that 'god is the exception' if you also believe that god is the creator.

You can't argue from Intelligent Design, then when it is ripped to bits by evidence, reason, logic and so on, claim that god is now the exception.

27. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63449 by Oliver Leif on August 14, 2007 at 11:53 am

darwin2

"Yes work it as far back as science can and science will say they can't go any further. If they open their minds and go one step further they will find God, The Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all universes that may exist. "

The designer/creator argument being a logical fallacy has nothing to do with science. It has to do with rational human thought, aka logic. If you're claiming that god is outside of logic then you're just using that as a scapegoat and not addressing the argument you first put forth, that of the ID or Creator.

By using the same logic applied to the Intelligent Designer argument, it has been shown that the argument itself, the one theists put forward, is a logical fallacy.

And to this day no theist has been able to come up with a counter to that position without using the "god is outside human logic" trap.

Check and mate.

28. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63435 by Oliver Leif on August 14, 2007 at 6:08 am

"Getting through today's work load just got that little bit harder; given it's all just a pointless simulation and all."

Ditto

29. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63205 by Oliver Leif on August 13, 2007 at 1:37 pm

"The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high."

The question of whether or not god 'exists' has nothing to do with science. While it is true that new discoveries in the field of science can lead to questioning of religious beliefs and supersitions, science is not going to come up with a theory that 'explains god'.

Intelligent Design is not a science, scientific theory, or anything close to it. Bertrand Russell dismissed the Designer argument very adeptly by pointing out that even if the universe was created by some being, then that being must be even more complex, and intricate- thus leading to the question, what/who created the designer?

The god/ID argument is a logical fallacy and it fails to prove anything.

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

Comment #63201 by Oliver Leif on August 13, 2007 at 1:28 pm

"John Lennon's Imagine No Religion...? I didn't like it, but lots of people did... "

That's my favourtie song, actually.

31. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62634 by Oliver Leif on August 10, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Why does every religious argument against atheism include Hitler and Stalin as 'look what atheists did when in power!'...?

Seriously, Both Dawkins and Hitchens has develled on the issue of Stalin and Hitler and their 'atheism'.

32. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #62631 by Oliver Leif on August 10, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Limey,

I read the post on that blog, and well, that's exactly the kind of religious intellectual arrogance I've encountered at my University in Canada, it's absurd!

Ugh.

33. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62108 by Oliver Leif on August 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

"I do not believe all or even most Christians are evil (unless setting up a strawman is evil..), but I believe religion as a whole is a kind of blinkered tribalism that underlies a lot of our modern conflicts and increases their duration and the atrocities commited during the war."

Booya. Generalizing a people of one faith is absurd, and Dawkins, to my knowledge has never claimed that "all Christains are evil".