1301. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65829 by steve99 on August 27, 2007 at 1:39 am

General relativity too.

True but irrelevant. It is specifically special relativity that deals with the issues you describe.

So why should anybody suggest that so weird a beast exists? Because its existence is needed to save naturalism from oblivion.

Absolute tosh. There is not the slightest reason why the underlying mechanisms of reality should be understood by a chimp-descendent. We can't use our sense of strangeness, weirdness or absurdity to rule out what is or is not true - that is the height of arrogance. We have to proceed by experiment.

Of course the falsity of naturalism does not in itself imply that some kind of theism is the correct way to understand reality. But at the very least it makes clear that reality is a more interesting place than naturalism's view that it's just a agglomeration of physical particles following mechanical laws.

As we have repeatedly said, this is just your straw-man definition of naturalism, and is not a definition used by any sensible philosopher or physicist for a long time.

The alternative to your theism is just to get used to a richer and stranger naturalism. This is something that we have had to do since the time of Planck and Einstein.

One really does not have to believe neither the religious fundamentalists on the one hand nor the recent populist atheist authors (Harris, Dawkins, et al) on the other, who all try to convince us that the Bible is central to theism. It obviously isn't, as there is no logical contradiction between theism being true and the Bible being full of errors.

Yet more straw men. Harris, Dawkins et al are certainly not trying to convince anyone that the Bible is central to theism. What they are trying to show is that belief in the content of books like the bible is what can result when you rely on faith, not reason.

1302. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65723 by steve99 on August 26, 2007 at 3:24 am

Assume that reality is non-local and consider an experiment that verifies Bell's inequality. Now, according to general relativity

Special relativity.

two observers in difference frames of reference would experience that experiment differently: One observer would first observe a measurement at point A and then at point B, whereas another observer would first observe a measurement at point B and then at point A. The first observer would then claim that a signal was instantly sent from A to B affecting B's measurement, but the second observer would disagree and claim that in fact a signal was instantly sent from B to A affecting A's measurement. But we all agree that reality is coherent and free of self-contradicting events

That conclusion does not follow. In a universe in which special relativity applies, it is well understood that different observers can disagree about the ordering of events and signals.

1303. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65657 by steve99 on August 25, 2007 at 11:31 am

I think the method of weighing evidence does depend in the metaphysical position.

I don't believe so. All that matters is that you assume an objective reality. In many cases, precisely the same arguments apply no matter what the 'substance' of that reality is. Not understanding this is the perhaps the key flaw in Dianelos' understanding. For example, he assumes that if you select a materialistic viewpoint, then logical arguments have to be somehow instantiated in physical nature. This is is clearly nonsense - even if we were all disembodied spirits and there was no physical world, all of the reasoning of mathematical theory would still hold. Dianelos can't see this. He also assumes that some ideas that he desperately wants to be objective (like morality) actually are, and as his misguided ideas about logic require that all objective things have to have some substance, and he can't see such substance in a material viewpoint, he switches to the idea of a spiritual world.

It is the wierdest combinations of (excuse my terminology) ass-backwards reasoning, hopeless philosophy and wishful thinking I have ever come across. What we are trying to do now, as I understand it, is to show how removing the issue of 'substance', we can reveal some of the flaws in reasoning.

1304. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65636 by steve99 on August 25, 2007 at 8:40 am

The lie is in the assertion, implicit or explicit, that our method of weighing evidence is somehow a function of our favored metaphysical position. When you fight for materialism against idealism, you support this lie insofar as you imply that the argument is relevant to evidential claims for or against certain religious notions.

Beautifully put. The claims that interest me are that somehow problems of conscious experience, of morality and of the weird nature of some of our objective experiences (such as when we observe quantum phenomena) are somehow magically resolved by switching to idealism. However I find the association of the Trinity, Jesus and all that with any viewpoint whatsoever so utterly bizarre and ridiculous, I find it hard to debate.

1305. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #65607 by steve99 on August 25, 2007 at 5:35 am

it's incumbent upon Hitchens to articulate a plausible scenario by which said "secular Iraqi" politicos (wherever they might exist) could have been empowered.

If you read this thread in detail, such a scenario is pretty clear. The secular Baathist infrastructure could have been left at least partly intact during a transition to democracy. Unfortunately (in hindsight), the entire party was considered 'the enemy' and not just Saddam and his family.

I have to say I agree with scooter and what he says. I have found this discussion pretty depressing, although not surprising. There seems to be a shameful inability to accept that others can have arrived at different points of view using reason and intellect; Hitchens must somehow be either selectively stupid or immoral because of his opinions. There also seems to be, as scooter says, a lack of moral courage in some areas, expressed as isolationist views that dictators somehow own countries and human rights end at borders.

1306. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65600 by steve99 on August 25, 2007 at 4:09 am

But all normal persons know of awareness, thought, and will. No conscious being, whether human or not, can exist without that knowledge.

That is an entirely arbitrary division. I can just as easily make up my own division: awareness, thought, will and instinct. Based on this, I now declare that the person of God is a cosmic Foursome, and I am sorry, but this just doesn't fit with the bibilical account of the Trinity, and so it must be false.

What you have to stop doing is working backwards from what you want to believe (Jesus, the resurrection, the Trinity) and retro-fitting unfalsifiable models of reality on that. Because, you see, I can do the same thing: Having decided on the cosmic Foursome, I now declare that God's presence on Earth was the Buddha, together with the Dharma and Sangha, and the Bodhi Tree he sat under represents instinct. I have precisely as much evidence and justification for this worldview as you have for yours. All normal persons know of awareness, thought, will and instinct. No conscious being, whether human or not, can exist without that knowledge.

Naturalists make fun of theists for positing unnecessary hypotheses and believing in magical effects, but in fact it's their worldview that requires such. Quantum mechanics makes as clear as it can possible get that the realist view of physical reality is wrong. Which of course does not mean that reality does not objectively exist :-) Just that physical reality doesn't.

You need to take a deeper look at quantum mechanics. You have a profound misunderstanding. The arguments about the Bell Inequality are not founded on any physical forms. They are about the nature of reality of *any* form. If you assume any reality, then that is what our observations of QM are probing. Also, your dislike of interpretations is your personal problem, and not a problem with QM. Unlike your worldview, QM has actual practical use. (You can't design a computer chip based on spirituality). You are in no position to expect reality to conform to your aesthetic or emotional needs.

So, back to my question:

Either you can have randomness, or you can have total determinism, with no free will. Which is it?

I have spent most of this thread since post 333 explaining precisely these reasons, namely that the hypothesis that reality consists of a single person works better under all imaginable criteria than the hypothesis that reality consist of a physical universe.

No, it doesn't - because there is no reasonable definition of 'a single person'. If you can define clearly what that means, you are doing better than expert philosophers and psychologists.

This means that there is yet another huge gap in your worldview.

I understand you don't agree with the reasons I gave, but that does not imply that they don't exist you know.

And just because you have your reasons, that in no way implies that your worldview is real.

What I mean here is this: When one is confronted with somebody's reasons for believing X and one disagrees with these reasons the proper response is "I don't agree with your reasons for X" but not "There aren't any reasons for X".

No, that is not the proper response at all. There are good reasons for ignorant people to believe that the Earth is flat. But it is not - their understanding is incomplete. There are even reasons for you to believe in your idealistic theism with some sort of Trinity. But we have repeatedly shown beyond reasonable doubt that most if not all these reasons are flawed, and result from ignorance.

What is not proper is to continue to put forward an argument based on reasoning that has been shown to be flawed. This is something that many religious are guilty of. Michael Behe does it with his 'irreducible complexity' ideas, for example. You are guilty of this. If you say 'My reasons for believing X include A,B and C', and people repeatedly describe serious problems with A,B and C, it is not proper to ignore those problems, or simply stop posting about them for a while, and then re-state your original statement of belief.

1307. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65584 by steve99 on August 25, 2007 at 1:43 am

So what evidence do we have for the Trinity? The best evidence there can possibly be: ourselves. Our very own high level structure.

You are just making this up. There is not the slightest reason to believe this. If you had perhaps said that our high level structure was dual, perhaps representing the two lobes of our brain, or two strands of DNA, at least your would have some basis; some sort of (bad) metaphorical content.

Apart from that, there is not the slightest reason to believe that God is structured as a person. In fact, to assume that is the height of arrogance and anthropomorphism - it assumes personhood is the most perfect organization of intelligence. I am sure the compound intelligences of Zarquon 4 (who are far brighter than us) would disagree.

1308. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65517 by steve99 on August 24, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Dianelos.

I am afraid the time has come where many will start to label you as fraud or troll.

Yet again, you ignore any direct questioning of the core faults in your views, and you think that verbose and irrelevant replies to minor problems will suffice.

You have been asked directly how you manage to fit the arbitrary 'magic' of Jesus and the resurrection into your otherwise supposedly 'elegant' idealist theism.

You have shown a very poor understanding of science; and a totally absent understanding of ontology. If you want people to keep responding to you on this thread, you should answer the direct questions, otherwise you will seem like nothing more than yet another irrelevant crank.

1309. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65308 by steve99 on August 23, 2007 at 2:40 pm

In the end, doesn't matter what old farts like me think. Revolutions are decided by the twenty-somethings.

As an old fart myself (a 40-something soon aproaching 50), I have to disagree. Those in power are our generation, or even older. What we think, and do, and how we vote, really matters.

1310. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65166 by steve99 on August 23, 2007 at 4:45 am

what's important is how well their idea works.

No. What is important is to first try and understand what 'works' means. There are many invalid definitions of 'works'. What we try and talk about on this site are ideas that explain our experiences (I would argue both internal and objective) in the simplest possible way. Your idea fails badly at that, because you include 'magic' (such as the resurrection of Jesus). The simplest explanation is that such magic either never happened or was trickery (after all, we have plenty of examples of that).

1311. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65150 by steve99 on August 23, 2007 at 3:00 am

If pressed a naturalist is apt to respond in a way similar to a theist, namely "naturalism is true so there must be a way that matter produces consciousness, and there must be a way for quantum systems to have objective existence even when nobody is observing them".

As we have said over and over again, that is not naturalism. It just the definition of naturalism you use that you think (mistakenly) justifies your idealistic theism.

Of course, it doesn't. Idealistic theism can no more explain the experience of consciousness that this definition of naturalism. And as for quantum mechanics, you have REAL problems if you try and assume that idealistic theism solves the 'reality' issue.

There are only two ways to explain the findings of quantum mechanics: (1) There is true uncertainty, or (2) There is perfect determinism. This is not an issue of naturalism (the foundations of QM are not specified in the argument).

So, you have a choice. You either DO get randomness with QM, in which case you have to deal with 'absurd' interpretations, or you can have perfect determinism, with not the slightest chance of any free will.

So which is it?

1312. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64978 by steve99 on August 22, 2007 at 2:25 pm

The exact same situation exists today except that rather than being burned at the stake, those who doubt evolution are simply ridiculed into silence or risk losing their careers at the hands of bullies such as Dawkins and friends.

If only that were the case. Unfortunately people like Michael Behe continue to spout the same nonsense even in the face of clear evidence that what they say is factually wrong. You share the same trait I am afraid.

Here is an example:

The church also preaches abstinence, which is obviously many times more effective than condoms at reducing one's chance of getting the AIDS virus.

If you look at the facts, you will see that preaching abstinence is a very poor method of controlling AIDS, as people just take no notice.
Sure, abstinence is very good at preventing AIDS, but it is just isn't what people do.

We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-)

Yet another argument from personal experience. Evidently not everyone CAN do it.

1313. Rational Atheism

Comment #64849 by steve99 on August 22, 2007 at 4:44 am

It is very clear that softly softly does not catch monkey. I make no apology for being inyerface about my atheism and will happily confront anyone who tries to push it to me in any way. Even people who say things like 'god be with you', to me get a mouthful now.

And do you have any evidence that this changes anyone's mind? I am interested.

1314. Rational Atheism

Comment #64837 by steve99 on August 22, 2007 at 3:28 am

There isn't a single point listed in this article that isn't demonstrably false and even dishonest.

This is going way too far. Shermer is a very respected guy and deservedly so. He is certainly NOT an idiot. Just because he disagrees with your approach does not make him dishonest.

I think we need to be careful about over-reacting and use of language.

1315. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64617 by steve99 on August 21, 2007 at 2:55 am

Steve, which was to refute the observably false and partisan notion that eschewing military action - even when morally justifiable- is the favored choice of leftists/Democrats/weak-willed, etc.

I had neither missed the purpose of your post (as I discussed that later), or put forward the notion which you are refuting.

1316. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64611 by steve99 on August 21, 2007 at 2:22 am

I find these criticisms neither devastating nor unarguable.

They certainly are, as they wreck your arguments for any God, and you can't refute them:

Behind the creation of our universe and all universes is God, The Supreme Designer and Creator.

That was not your argument. Your argument was that there is a designer and creator because the universe(s) showed complexity. I have clearly shown that they don't, and that they don't need a creator, so your need for a creator here has gone.

Natural selection is the method that God chose to create life forms.

No, that doesn't work. The reason is that we know full well that Natural Selection can create life forms without guidance or interference. Therefore it is just plain silly to introduce the idea of anyone guiding it. An analogy I use is with cars - we all know how car engines work, so to say that invisible elves help push the pistons as well is just plain nuts. The same applies to Natural Selection.

As the end of infinity is unattainable so is intimate knowledge of God unattainable.

Firstly, this is not an argument of any kind. I might just as well say that because you can't reach the speed of light, therefore God is very fast. It is just playing with words. Secondly, you are showing your poor knowledge of maths again. There are certainly mathematical constructs that deal with 'the end of infinity'. I really do suggest you give up on the 'infinity' analogy.

The more you post about this, the more you show your ignorance of science, and allow your views to be demolished, and help to illustrate this a wide audience. So, in contrast to others here, I say keep posting!

1317. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #64546 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 4:05 pm

She's only right concerning extremist. The vast majority of Muslims is not.

It depends what you mean by 'extreme'. In the UK, supposedly moderate Muslim 'leaders' would not condemn the Fatwa against Salham Rushdie. Then there are general Muslim attitudes to homosexuality and the rights of women. I don't see much moderation, I am afraid.

1318. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64545 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I think, Steve, that perhaps you should resist the apparent inclination to affix the political labels to those who doubt the utility of the Iraq war, primarily because of the abundant

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I am (usually) very careful with words. I certainly did not 'affix political labels to those who doubt the utility of the Iraq war'. That is the exact opposite of what I am trying to do; indeed, it is a factor in what I am complaining about. There are many left-wingers who do support the war. I strongly dislike group-think, and I value independence. I think it is sloppy to do what many are doing and to stick a 'right wing' label on Hitchens because of his support for the war.

In that same vein, recognize that the iconic figure of all that's 'right and Republican', Ronald Reagan, observed multiple slaughters of Americans on his watch, without any military response.

Yet again, the appeal to history. Times were very different then. For one thing, we were in a cold war.

My point here is that I think there's a more objective measure for evaluating military action than the tired -and often specious- reasoning of political affiliation.

I agree.

1319. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64544 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 3:40 pm

If you're really interested why don't you look up some of Halliday's and von Sponeck's writing on the subject. Their opinion should carry some weight since they were in a unique position to evaluate the situation in Iraq at the time.

I will do. I suggest you look up Hitchens' writings on the same subject.

1320. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64543 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 3:36 pm

From a strict scientific and objective perspective, is it possible for God to exist and for consciousness to continue after death? It is a simple yes or no answer. Why are so many people at this website so intimidated by this question that they refuse to directly answer it?

Because it is not a simple yes or no answer, and to claim it is shows a profound lack of understanding of philosophy and even of theology.

If something has no detectable influence on the universe (as science has shown is the status of God), then there is no possible mechanism to interact with such an entity, and the idea of its existence becomes unfalsifiable, and so can be abandoned. The idea that God can exist is not so much wrong, as useless. To be honest, there simply aren't any reasonable gaps left for God to exist in. Your attempt to point out such gaps show flaws in your understanding of science.

As for consciousness continuing after death - well, it can be temporarily shut down by even the slightest disturbance, such as the adminstration of anaethesia, so any idea that it could continue in any form we could recognise when the substance of the brain has become worm-food is highly questionable, don't you think?

1321. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64532 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm

I believe I have given new insight on the issues of God and the survivability of consciousness after death to one or more people who post on these threads.

On the contrary, even the briefest review of theology and religious thinking will reveal even to newcomers that your 'insights' are nothing but tedious God-of-the-gaps arguments that were dismissed by serious theologians ages ago.

You have also revealed a profoundly mistaken understanding of all the sciences.

1. You claim that the Universe has a complexity that requires an explanation, when anyone with a knowledge of physics and thermodynamics knows that the Universe at its origin was very simple indeed, and physical complexity can (and does) arise spontaneously.

2. You claim that biological complexity requires explanation, when it has since the time of Darwin and Wallace been easily understood in terms of Natural Selection.

3. You use mathematical and logical terms in way that reveals you have very little idea what they mean, like 'infinity', which you claim is unknowable yet has been, on the contrary, well understood and a central part of mathematics for over a century.

Even worse, you simply ignore these devastating and unarguable criticisms of your views.

Far from converting people, you are helping to show to a wide audience how the tired and unoriginal arguments you use have no basis.

1322. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64491 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 9:04 am

that's a lie, actually it's the USA that starts cold war nonsense over again.

I disagree. It appears to be primarily Putin posturing before the next Russian presidential elections.

1323. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64476 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 7:31 am

Remember: to get from the "is" of God's will to the "ought" of the rules we accept for ourselves, we need a bridge. Your bridge: We ought to act according to God's will.

There is another factor that the religious seem rarely to consider. Why should the intention (if any) behind the creation of the universe have any implications for what we 'ought' to do? Why do we almost always assume a creator is good, or even has any morals at all?

1324. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64431 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 4:02 am

Of course, abiogenesis is bad science anyway, so I imagine that atheists are in a pickle regardless.

I do like these God of the Gaps arguments. I wonder what the attitude of people like Bizarro will be when methods of abiogenesis have been fully worked out? I guess it might be like the Intelligent Design supporters who still talk about irreducible complexity - flat denial of the facts.

1325. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64430 by steve99 on August 20, 2007 at 3:56 am

You don't need a fully developed modern genome to be subject to natural selection

Indeed. Natural selection has been demonstrated even with reasonably simple RNA molecules.

1326. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64294 by steve99 on August 19, 2007 at 12:24 pm

I trust you are aware that the US shares some of the blame for those casualties by being a staunch ally of Iraq at the time and sypplying weapons to both sides in the conflict...

I am indeed aware of that. I am afraid that it has no relevance to the original (false) claim about the relative magnitude of casualties, or about whether or not an invasion was justified.

Why these 'the West has behaved really badly towards the Middle East' statements are supposed to justify doing nothing is, I am afraid, beyond me.

I think the last four years has proven us right.

And I think hindsight is a wonderful thing. Such views can only be justified if correct predictions of exactly what has has happened in Iraq can be shown to have been made. As I have repeatedly described, perhaps just one or two different decisions by the occupying forces could have made all the difference, and you would quite likely have been proven wrong. I would have considerable respect for anyone who had predicted in advance major problems because of (for example) the disbandment of the Ba'athist security forces, or differences in approach between US and UK forces. I would not have a similar respect for someone who just had a vague gut feeling that things might not turn out well. I have no respect at all for what I believe is common in left-wing thinking - a wish that things would turn out badly simply because a Bush-led USA was involved.

There is reason to believe, as former UN humanitarian coordinators in Iraq Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck does, that the population of Iraq would then have been able overthrow Saddam themselves. At the very least they would have been given the oppurtunity to do so.

Please give the reasons to believe this. I would be very interested to know what they are. Saddam had a very tight control on the country. There is little evidence that Iraqis had made any progress in this direction.

1327. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64262 by steve99 on August 19, 2007 at 4:55 am

Let's put it this way. Infinity is beyond our understanding.

Georg Cantor and David Hilbert would argue otherwise.

1328. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64224 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 5:57 pm

American Middle East Scholar Juan Cole: "the US misadventure in Iraq is responsible [in a little over three years] for setting off the killing of twice as many civilians as Saddam managed to polish off in 25 years."
That was one year ago.

Estimates of the casualties of the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980s are around a million. I don't think even the most extreme anti-Iraq war campaigners are claiming that more than 2 million have died in recent years.

1329. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64213 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 5:13 pm

hightrekker: All I can say is that you have posted an awful lot of information, none of which has addressed any of the detailed points that have been raised on this thread, and if you expect anyone on this site to respect anything posted under the category "Religious opposition" to be taken seriously here, I think you have not really understood the nature of this site. If you want to respond to specific points, I suggest you do so. One of the general themes of this site is that what people generally believe is not always to be taken seriously. I don't think you are going to get very far, for example, by quoting the Vatican's opinion.

1330. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64202 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 3:53 pm

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.

Scooter: That is my view as well.

1331. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64201 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Human rights law covers the internal peoples of a country.

And this is where I disagree profoundly with the current laws of the UN. As I said, I am a member of Amnesty International. I think human rights are universal. I don't think people can be left as the possessions of despots because they are within the borders of the country of which that despot happens to be rulers. I think any legal framework that supports such a view is inhuman.

1332. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64183 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 12:02 pm

No you are wrong. The majority of people didnt support the war.

You are still playing with words. You were clearly talking about the opinion of most people before the war. Before the war, it was unclear whether or UN support was possible. At that point, there was a huge majority in support of the war, as your link clearly showed.

However, we aren't going to agree on this, so perhaps further debate on this point is not worthwhile. All I am trying to point out here is that simplistic statements like 'almost everyone was against the war' are just that - simplistic. We have to qualify carefully what we say.

You can attack out of self-defence or you have to go to the international arena and put your case forward. I can see no problem with this. It serves to ensure that no one country can attack another for selfish reasons (such as land, profit, revenge, etc). Can you please put forward your concerns regarding this aspect of international law, I am happy to consider them.

I have already pointed out my concerns several times. You can't just 'put your case forward'. There are legal issues, and those include the definition of terms like 'genocide'. The security council simply can't vote arbitrarily to approve a war just for the hell of it, or because it would be nice to get rid of someone nasty.

And that has been my point all along. International law is founded on some very unpleasant principles: sovereignty is based on who has effective control of a country, and that can be hereditary monarchs or dictators or generals who have taken over in a coup. There is no recognition of the rights of the people within the borders of countries, and no legal procedure to 'rescue' them from tyranny unless the tryant mistreats people in a very specific way - genocide. As an illustration of this, just look at what Mugabe is getting away with in Zimbabwe; yet this is all perfectly legal according to the UN (as I understand things).

And as for greed and other motives, the current situation does not avoid that. I remember claims that some countries opposed the war because they were making good profits from the situation with Saddam in power.

I am happy to be corrected in my understanding of international law, but my reading of things leads me to believe that the current situation is highly problematic.

1333. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64180 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 11:35 am

I believe Chomsky wrote that in response to Hitchens support for the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 which according to several aid agencies put several million afghans at risk of starving to death because of the disruption in food supply.

Before quoting Chomsky on these matters, it is worth reading Nick Cohen's views. I have mentioned Cohen's book 'What's Left?' in this thread. There is an entire chapter devoted to some of the nonsense that has come from Chomsky.

1334. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64177 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 11:08 am

in your last point you say the problem was the mismanagement. now that really is unfair.

No, it is factual.

I say that people predicted the results, but you say those consequences were the result of the aftermath not of the invasion. Can you see how dishonest this is?

No, I am afraid I can't.

The mismanagement is a result of the invasion (which was predicted). There is a direct line of causation here.

Please re-read what I have posted several times. There is not a direct line of causation. The invasion followed by different post-invasion strategy could have led to dramatically different consequences.

The poll results support my view that the majority of the UK public where against the war (if they had of had UN approval, yes, the poll would support your position, but they didnt!). Please supply me with the link as previously requested.

I feel that you are playing with words. You were the one who stated, unqualified, that the public was 'against the war'. Your own link showed otherwise.

Finally as hightrekker's link shows the war has been declared illegal. Since you have previously stated that certain peoples opinions are more informed than others, is it fair to say that the opinion of Kofi Annan is ok to cite?

It is entirely fair, but as I said, opinion is certainly divided. You may be happy with a legal system that is backed by regimes like those in Russia and China...

You may also wish to note that the current post-war occupation of Iraq (still mistakenly called a 'war' by some) is not illegal, and has UN backing. See resolutions 1546, 1637, 1700, 1723 and so on. Those who talk of 'ending the war' are misinformed.

And you have still not addressed my point about whether or not the current foundation of international law on this matter is just. The current situation is a compromise, and is not founded on any fundamental support for human rights. I am astonished how many fellow left-wingers are so vigorously supporting the status quo and aren't pressing for change.

1335. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64172 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 9:37 am

You said that the majority supported the war, please see:

Yes, and that is precisely what your polls show. The problem was not the matter of invasion, but of UN approval, an issue which was serious mishandled by the UK and US governments. There was also the side-issue of anti-Bush feeling in the UK.

I think that this international law dispute is prob not going to go much further. Would just like to end by saying that all law is clearly set down and the implementation of that law is based on previous cases.

No, things have never been clear. There have been many difficult debates about implementation, especially when issues of possible genocide have been raised. This has been a matter of considerable debate during the Bosnian conflict, Rwandan conflict and many others. The letter of the law may be clearly set down, but the implementation has always been a matter of often heated debate.

You are also ignoring what I was saying about the justifications of the letter of the law. It recognises boundaries imposed by all kinds of regime, based more on their ability to control the country rather than their democratic legitimacy.

Finally the 20/20 hindsight thing is unfair. Many people predicted the consequences of the invasion (including white house and downing st. aids) and its unfortunate that they were correct.

It think it is entirely fair. Many of these predictions were not based on the matter of invasion, but on the consequences of mismanagement of the aftermath. As I stated, a single action - the disbandment of the existing Ba'athist-based security services was probably the main cause of current troubles. If that single decision had been different, then we could perhaps have seen a different Iraq right now, and those who predicted dire consequences could have easily been proved wrong.

1336. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64164 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 8:31 am

I'm saying that these facts make highly suspect any claim that the US invaded Iraq in order to remove a brutal dictator.

And my point is - why care?

On the "shambolic" point, I am saying that if the invasion was intended to serve as a warning to others, I just cannot see how it has achieved that.

Well, if you can point to any members of the old regime who are still around to gloat, I would be interested.

1337. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64159 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 6:49 am

The legal position is not unclear. It is very simple.

No, you are wrong here, as on several points.

Just to deal with a couple: In terms of justification, There is also another legal cause, which is genocide. Many think that the treatment of the marsh Arabs was precisely that.

In the UK polls showed that there was a large scale majority opposition to the war

This seems to be a common myth, and I don't know how it got started. At the the start of the war, there was a clear majority in favour, which remained for some time. Of course, when things went wrong, opinion justifiably changed.

This is show by the mass popular demostrations against the war PRIOR to the invasion.

It is hard to know what such demonstrations actually mean. Often they bear no relationship to general opinion. A good recent example of that was a large demonstration in the UK 'for the countryside', in advance of the bill to ban fox-hunting. In spite of propaganda spread by those supporting blood sports, the population of the UK was against fox-hunting by a large majority. You rarely get a true measure of general opinion based on demonstrations.

Look - I don't disagree with you that things are now in a mess in Iraq. I don't disagree with you that the decision to invade was highly questionable. What I do disagree with you about is your sureness about interpretation of international law (greater minds than ours have problems with it) and your 20/20 hindsight about what would happen after the invasion.

I am a member of Amnesty International - I actively support human rights. I am glad to see the back of Saddam, whatever the justification.

1338. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64145 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 3:19 am

Kinobe: Whatever your intention, I believe your post is packed full of straw-men arguments:

I think we need to deal with a very simplistic argument that is being made here. Just because people oppose the invasion of Iraq (me included), does not mean to say that they condone the actions of a brutal dictator.

I see no-one making that argument here.

There are plenty of other countries with brutal dictators (or without democracy) that the US (and its allies) is not invading.

That is no reason to object to removal of a brutal dictator when it does happen.

Indeed, the US supported the Iraqi regime while it was convenient.

See previous comment.

It is hard to see how the shambolic outcome of the Iraq invasion could serve as any kind of a warning to other dictatorships - even if the distant end-result of the invasion is the extremely unlikely scenario of a stable democracy.
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.

Another straw man. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the USA invaded Iraq with the intention that hundreds of thousands would die, or that the outcome would be shambolic!

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.

And I hope that they are. This kind of really independent thinking - not just 'for' or 'against' the war, but a range of views across the spectrum is just what is needed.

1339. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64143 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 3:11 am

His main points were: 1. if you arent an expert in this field then your point of view is less valuable.

That is the point I am trying to make. Hitchens IS an expert in this field.

2. those who were against the war are for Sadam.

This is, again, wildly simplistic. There were all kinds of possible 'war' and intervention, and many, many choices about how things could have been handled afterwards. I think it is now realised that the worst mistake was to disband the existing security and police forces and try and manage things ourselves. If that had not happened, Iraq could be in a very different state, and you (and I) might not be complaining about the outcome.

Legal: is this a legally sound action? Are we going to break, or have to create, laws to jusitify the action?

As I explained, the legal position is unclear. As I also explained, current interpretations of international law seem inhumane.

What about if you (the neighbour) bought the husband the belt that he used to beat his wife.

This is a good example of a rather puzzling and I think rather thoughtless argument that is often put forward: "we gave them weapons and money in the past, therefore we should keep out of things."

I find the logic of this bizarre. If a country has intervened in the past to make things worse in a place like Iraq, surely it has more responsibility to try and sort out the consequences.

There are many examples of successful interventions. The USA and UK in Bosnia is one. The UK in Somalia for a while (if I remember rightly). There are also situations where we should have intervened, like Rwanda.

1340. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64085 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 3:12 pm

sparkie: International law is a very tricky thing. According to Hitchens (and many others) Iraq was already in contravention of many international laws before the resolutions regarding the invasion. There is also the question of whether international law as currently framed is appropriate... what does 'sovereignty' mean when a country is ruled by a dictator? International law implies that the country is effectively owned by that dictator, and we have to forget about the population unless there is a very specific form of mass murder (genocide), or unless they threaten us. To me, this seems hopelessly inadequate, inhumane and outdated - look what international law is allowing in Zimbabwe, for example.

I guess I just have difficulty with anyone who puts forward 'soundbite' views on such matters, such as 'Hitchens wrong, war bad'. Things are very, very complex, and Hitchens is an extremely bright fellow who knows a lot about that area of the world. I am not saying he is right about all this; just that I know I don't know enough to have a view either way about a lot of what he says. I just wish that more fellow liberals took a similar attitude.

1341. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64076 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 2:13 pm

The point is, even if the war were all of these things, even if the war has been bungled beyond belief and despair, the PRINCIPLE of regime change and liberation in Iraq was just and necessary in Hitchens' view. Try getting a liberal to admit even that much.

Hey, yet another generalisation :) I am certainly a 'liberal' according to the American meaning of the term, and you have expressed precisely my view. There are many left-wingers in the UK who were also in favour of regime change. The Labour MP Anne Clwd is a well-known example.

1342. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64048 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 12:09 pm

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

Trolling or not, I felt it needed explanation. I find it depressing the frequency with with simplistic opinions are expressed by supposedly rational people, such as "Hitchens fully supported the Iraq war, therefore he is just as bad as the neo-conservatives and we should not listen to him on anything". We even see it here with an association between being Trotskyist and not supporting military action in Iraq. This is a very complex world, and believe or not, some very right wing people were against the 'War', and some left wing people were for it. Personally, I find it a great relief that there are people like Hitchens who don't conform to the stereotypes, with the usual set of 'tick off on the list' views.

1343. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64037 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 11:43 am

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

My understanding is that his reasons where quite complex, and included well-established and long-term links between Iraqi government ministers and international terrorists, the sheer awfulness of the Iraqi regime, past use of chemical weapons by Saddam and so on. Hitchens is not the simple 'neocon supporter' that many try and make him out to be. He is someone of independent (and often controversial) thought.

1344. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64019 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 10:07 am

To Xtians fundes, Iraqis don't want us to be there.

I do wish people would not come up with some over-simplistic statements. Whether or not Iraqis want foreign troops on their soil depends on which Iraqis you talk to and where they are. This is neither a statement for or against the current actions of US and UK troops - simply a fact.

An important part of rationality and reason is realising that things are complicated, and not reducing this complexity to simplistic slogans.

1345. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64012 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 9:20 am

Veronique: What I find interesting is the possible motives for posting here for someone like darwin2. It is as if they have some doubt about their beliefs and come here desperate for the slightest hint of validation.

1346. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #63969 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 4:52 am

But one implication of Dawkins's book is worth noting: that tolerance of other religions implies acceptance of a relativism that could lead to doubt and is therefore anathema to the true believer.

I wish this were true, but I doubt it. What seems to matter to many, many religious is simply 'faith', and the fact that others have some sort of faith of any kind is a comfort.

1347. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63961 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 3:23 am

You are in an organized religion? I wouldn't have picked that one. Oh well, c'est la vie.

No, I said 'we don't', partly because we aren't in an organised *anything*, especially not a religion.

1348. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63957 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 2:41 am

People in organized religion tend to cut down and disparage those who think differently.

But we don't; only when they have the arrogance to claim that they know things unconditionally. This forum is not for proclaiming your certain beliefs - it is for questioning and testing what you believe. As you have shown little understanding of that process - ignoring key questions, or responding to simple ones with ... poetry? This is a science of science and reason, not wishful thinking.

1349. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63876 by steve99 on August 16, 2007 at 1:36 pm

A finite being can never experience, meet or comprehend that which is infinite.

There you go with your somewhat .... eccentric... understanding of maths. I suggest you read up on the lives and work of Cantor and Hilbert. They seemed to do a pretty good job of handling the infinite.

So let us sum things up so far... you claim God is infinite, but you don't know what infinite means. You claim that no-one can understand infinity, even though it has been a central part of mathematics for a long time.

Can I suggest that you change your wording? Instead of saying "God is infinite", why not try the following:

"Oh Lord...Oooh you are so big... So absolutely huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell you." (Monty Python)

I think that is perhaps a better summary of your views.

1350. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63869 by steve99 on August 16, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Godot. He'll be arriving shortly.

Well, at least Beckett could write decent poetry.