Comments by Peacebeuponme

1701. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125145 by Peacebeuponme on February 11, 2008 at 2:54 am

The young Hari talks a lot of sense, presenting his arguments with clarity and useful information.

I have moaned somewhat about the recent Condell video on this subject, posted on this site. I feel strongly that this is the way to do things: Hari has it right.

Excellent point. Hari's columns in the Independent are always a pleasure to read. Condell makes me cringe more often than not.

1702. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124983 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 3:05 pm

It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific

And it would be so easy to get it into science. Let it make some experimental predictions. Let these predictions be supported by experience, then I will be an ID fanatic.

I'm listening to Nine Inch Nails right now and the line "Dress up this rotten carcass just to make it look alive" seems wonderfully applicable ti ID.

1703. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124973 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm

He's sort of a cross between Batman, Lestat, and Clint Eastwood's the man with no name.

?He looks cool enough.

Tom Cruise fucked up lestat for us all, prefer the vampires in oblivion.

1704. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124969 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 2:16 pm

You are not the first to wonder about this.I would not be so naively arrogant as to think that!
When I feel pain, instead of just experiencing it and letting it pass, seeing it for what it is, I attach all kinds of meanings to it. For instance, I could say "I can't STAND THIS!" or "WHY did this happen to me??? This should not be happening!"
Wow! now you have me interested! Excellent stuff! My question here is: When I feel pain, I think "ow! why did I feel that pain? What it is about me that gets me into these painful situations". A monkey just thinks "Ow, what gave me that pain?" (is that right?) Agency is a big part of our mindset and it makes our thoughts fabulous. Without that, I think people would soon forget about getting raped or beaten without too much anguish.

1705. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124959 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 1:43 pm

diacanu

He's shining you all on.
All he cares about is hearing his own blather.
He's a blackhole of narcissism.
You're not going to get through to some core fleck of human conscience, or whatever you think is going to happen arguing with him.
There's just a bag of self-absorption, ego, bullshit,and greed where a human being used to be.
He's gone.
All Randroids are gone.
They're Borg assimilated.
Lost cause, move along, folks.

You need to be less coy about the word "cunt" It doesnt describe the female genitalia, its describes a few site parasites.

btw - your avatar. explain. witch, samurai, what?

1706. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124954 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 1:25 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1in5dDCGL1E&feature=related

1707. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124947 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm

To reply to your comment on ecstasy: I've tried LOTS of different kinds of illicit drugs. In fact, my first real interest in "spirituality" or altered states of consciousness involved an exploration of psychedelics. I have tried ecstacy, mushrooms, acid, ketamine, dextromethorphan, pot, cocaine, heroin, various pharmaceuticals, jimson weed etc etc. I find meditation to be extremely different. We simply do not have drugs that produce the same state at this point. Granted, on acid, I have had similar kinds of experiences. I have felt a sense of oneness, a loss of "self," a recognition that the self is an illusion etc. I am not against using drugs to explore altered states and "spirituality." I guess in my case, I just went overboard and the exploration became self-destruction.

Fun though!

I don't want to press the drugs thing (your list is impressive, and I've not done quite all on it): they are a good laugh and have their benefits when done properly and not excessively. I brought it up more because I wanted to think about whether even if meditation led to certain wonderful mindstates, elightenment, whatever, it was useful outside of the experience. Whether it was in fact just fun for the meditator. I'm still not sure about that.

You are not developing a skill of concentration and awareness when you take a drug. At least, not in my experience and research with the current drugs available.

I agree. You are just living life.

1708. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124944 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I don't think the unqualified term "Buddhism" is really very useful at all.

Ok. We should should then learn to say "Soto Zen Buddhism" or "Theravaddin Buddhism". We also then need to be careful that this is much more distinct than "Calvinist Christians" and "Anglican Christians".

1709. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124933 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Forgive me, I have lost track :)

What was your point again?

You answered it in the same post. Regarding the cult of personality angle. I have not heard him use the example in another sense, but if he has, I agree it is generalising (with the caveat of the issue over where the "cut-off point" should be when it comes to legitimate generalising).

1710. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124929 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Pure consciousness is difficult to experience. I think it is possible as I have had times when I had small glimpses of a deep level of awareness and peace while meditating. I refuse to claim that I ever experienced anything like enlightenment, though. Those glimpses give me confidence that there is something real there, though. There is a real, different, amazing experience to be had in the practice of meditation.

Though I agree with you I just find talking like this uncomfortable, because its only one slight wrong turn before it gets all religious. If you haven't experienced "enlightenment" and knowing that its impossible to desctibe, how do you know its there?

btw - I would recommend a pile of ecstasy if you want to experiment with consciousness. Not in the most intense stages, but the peace while its wearing off. I doubt its anything like your meditative experiences, but its...interesting.

1711. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124921 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 12:24 pm

There is no "mantle". We all have our talents.

"Some have greatness thrust upon them" ;). But seriously you are appreciated and I wanted to give a shout out to the Doc.

Actually, I could merge our other disussion now - if we started Zaraism, would it be religous or merely a Buddhist philosophy or way of being?

1712. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124917 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Well, fundamentalist islam is flat out incompatible with liberal democracy

But its not flat out incompatible with democracy. Being that democracy is not perfect, we need to make sure that we educuate and lead people away from dogma.

1713. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124912 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Steve Zara is one of the reasons why this site is such a joy to me. His posts are consistently educational and incisive.

What ever happened to Dr Benway by the way? I think she was my first "site hero" back when Steve Zara was Steve99 (I think Benway just shaded Steve back then). Her posts seemed to cut though the shit, being succinct, witty, elegant and insightful. Since he has become Steve Zara he has clearly taken on the mantle, but a good word from the Doc now and again would be brilliant.

1714. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124904 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 12:05 pm

If you want a brief overview of Buddhism, a widely recommended book (recommended by Buddhists and many university East Asian Studies departments), read What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.

Actually I read a book about Buddhism at university (back in the mists of time), which argued strongly from the "non-religious" side, and forcibly for the doctrine of no-soul. For some reason it put me off Buddhism though, possibly because (and this is going to sound terribly childish) I found the Buddha to be quite arrogant. Maybe it is time to investigate more.

If a religion, such as Japanese Soto Zen Buddhism, is at its core not based on dogma, but instead philosophy/exercises and the members happen to start treating it like other religions (e.g. being worshipful of Zen Masters), is it the religion that is the problem or the members of it in that case?

An interesting question, and one I think I'll have to ponder.

the English is bad

It is nothing of the sort. I think you are clear to me.

1715. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124886 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 11:46 am

When a person behaves a particular way, consistently, again and again, then observation, as in science, leads to conclusions of facts that the person has the propensity to do it again and again.

And that's why I'm now wondering whether use of the "troll" button would be fair.

1716. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124876 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

What about George Carlin?

Or Stuart Lee.

1717. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124868 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 11:31 am

This isn't an attack, this is a statement of fact. There's a huge difference.

Let me see if I have this right then, because it sounds to me that you are claiming as "fact" that a man who you only know through this website, who lives several thousand miles away from you, who has a PhD and is generally regarded as highly intelligent by most others on this site, is "not smart". Something you cannot actually know. I might ask you for the back up to your claim (which you are so fond of asking others), but let me see if I can play the game your way:

I claim as fact that you are thick as pigs-shit, but have that horrible affliction of thinking you have a brain. Thats not ad-hom, thats just fact.

1718. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124859 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 11:21 am

that personal attacks become the dujour of the thread

Such as:

Sorry, but you are not smart enough for me to engage in a conversation about determinism. I save those transactions for those with greater capacity.

1719. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124851 by Peacebeuponme on February 10, 2008 at 11:14 am

That is just what some Buddhists have done. The texts of Theravaddin Buddhism are quite different from those of the Mahayana school.

Was actually doing the kiddies-wiki-research ealier today. As I say, I think Buddhism can be classed differently to "religions" and have to agree with what you say there. I feel I must just defend Hitchens though...

It is even more open to the claim of generalising. For example, the Dalai Lama is the leader of only one group of Buddhists - the Tibetans. Theravaddin or Zen Buddhists would not recognise his authority on anything.

But he wasn't making claims about Theravaddin or Zen Buddhists. He was making claims about the Dalia Lama and the Tamil Tigers.

Do you agree with my point about the birth myth?

1720. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

The same is true of social issues for which people make sweeping statements, as their beliefs, with no facts or evidence to back it up.

Well, that appears to be your position. We have "Wooterism". We may now also have its cousin, the "Scooterism".

1721. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

It is part of the tradition of what one might call "fundamentalist Buddhists", but not generally.

Where have I heard something like that before?!

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

1722. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

Sturmunddrang, Steve

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

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

Steve

He is oversimplifying to the point of being wrong, I feel. It is equivalent to stating that "Christians believe in Noah's Ark".

You are talking about the birth-myth here not his comments about the Dalai Lama? The chapter in his book dealing with the Dalai Lama and the Tamil Tigers etc is quite specific and not open to your claim I don't think.

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

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

1723. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

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

1724. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

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

The cause of more doctors is not correlated to free education unless you have such statistics to provide that speak to this claim.

But all I have to do is show you one doctor who came from a poor family who could not have afforded to pay for education. Then I am 1 up on you. I hoping you would concede there is at least one such example.

1725. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

What is "uuh Oil"?

* fights urge to lower the tone considerably *

1726. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

You're making an assumption that one causes the other.

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

1727. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

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

You ask nothing less of the religious to provide evidence of their claims of god, why are you beyond the same standard?

Do you honestly believe that every professional existing today would still be so, even if they were denied free education? If their parents could not afford it, they would somehow be able to take a part-time job from 4-years old onwards to fund themselves?

1728. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

Okay, what evidence are you presenting?

This is tiresome.

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

1729. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

This statement does nothing to prove anything.

It's like saying, because there are more black people in the world, racism doesn't exist.

Again no, sorry, it does nothing of the kind. Your statement makes no sense (except indicating that you see racism in a very one-dimensional way).

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

1730. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

This is a "god" argument "you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does".

No, its entirely different. I am using evidence, that supports, but does not prove, my view.

1731. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

Do you have evidence of this claim, as well?

Show me an example of a society where education is not available to all, that has a higher GDP than one which does.

1732. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

Without state education there wouldn't be enough doctors for you to solicit in the first place.
Do you have evidence to prove this claim?

Yes, the sheer numbers of state educated professionals that exists today. Take them away and see how long you will have to wait on that surgeons list.

1733. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

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

Is it further your claim that if something benefits me I should pay for it?

I'm simply saying that free education has proved extremely beneficial and is a cornerstone of modern society. Show me an example of a society where education is not available to all, that has a higher GDP than one which does.

1734. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

Tell me, how does the doctor or the lawyer, for example, benefit me in as much that I get their services for free?

Dealing with the USA you pay for your medical services as well, but my point is simple. Without state education there wouldn't be enough doctors for you to solicit in the first place. You would die where you were injured.

1735. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

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

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

1736. Why Darwin matters

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

Wooter

It is quite ironic, right, a web page where it claims that unreasonable E.T is reasonable while it is incompatible with thermo dinomics, biology, math, medicine, logic, and 84 percent world population.

Medicine and Biology would be impossible without knowledge of evolution!

1737. Why Darwin matters

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

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

I am really interested in your reason project. It is quite ironic, right, a web page where it claims that unreasonable E.T is reasonable while it is incompatible with thermo dinomics, biology, math, medicine, logic, and 84 percent world population.

I don't think you understand what I was getting at. You need to make some claims about your beliefs and we can deal with them. I make no claims about the metaphysical for you to question.

1738. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

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

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

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

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

1739. Why Darwin matters

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

Take it easy; you know the drill: Just censorship what I write. This is the easiest way to run away.

Ok. How about this then Wooter. You make some claims. We will then counter those claims. If you take on board what we say, and question further based on our response, then we can have a proper discussion. If you just repost the same argument repeatedly as you have done so far with the argument from design, then we can get nowhere.

Can you not see that?

1740. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

I think that the difference is that there are some teachings you can find in various forms of Buddhism (e.g. meditation instruction), which are quite different from teachings in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I do not think that some of the teachings are poisonous.

I am prepared to concede that Buddhism is something of a special case, and in some forms does not deserve to be lumped in with other religions. However, I want to be careful with comments like "some it its teachings are not poisonous", since that claim can be applied to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The distinctions can only be based whether it posits any truth claims requiring faith, or does not keep itself to itself.

1741. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

Regarding Hitchens - I have a problem with simplistic way I have seen him present Buddhism, such as his repeated mention that "Buddhists believe that the Buddha was borne from the side of his mother". Some do. Some don't. This is not "doctrine".

Its more than just a "Some do, some don't" thing isn't it? Its an important part of Buddhist tradition. Anyway, Hitchens has used the example in lists of virgin birth claims attributed to spiritual icons. He is making a valid point about the cult of personality: the Buddha birth myth is a good example of this.

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

1742. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

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

Ha. I wanted to say that.

1743. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

I'm processing it here and seeing what other people's views are. That's all.

This is what I find so refreshing about this site.

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

1744. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

Perhaps I am nit picking. I think it is almost like Michael Shermer said in one of his speeches, it depends on your goal. If your goal is really to reach people who are religious or on the fence regarding religion, then you have to be careful with your strategy.

I think it is fair to consider whether Hitchens' approach is helping 'the cause'. I also think there is room for many approaches. Having a popular book on the shelves that is strident and polemic may just make the odd theist think "Is it all really a load of bollocks?". Of course one book is not likely to do this. But 4 and then more and more, coming from different angles, all add up to a powerful tool.

The other positive with a book like God Is Not Great is that it gives atheists on the ground support and reference for our own arguments locally.

Perhaps I was being an elitist.

I think considering your comment elitist it precisely what bothers me: Hitchens can be regarded as an expert in his particular field. He is an intelligent man, and it would be unfair to regard him as Dawkins lesser because he does not have the same scientific grounding. They are all equally qualified to talk about religion.

Maybe it is something about his personality that bothers me. I know that this is not an argument. I am just exploring critically what it is that bothers me about Hitchens.

Yes well, you are not the first atheist to think that! I actually quite like his style but can see why others don't.

1745. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

Hitchens went to great pains to clarify that this was not his position.
Then he should have been more clear about it in his book.

In Chapter 5 of "God is not Great", Hitchens' talks about Occam's Razor and belief in God just being one of many possible options. I think he is clear enough.

1746. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

Not all religions even involve a belief in a god. So, Dawkins is talking about something specific.

That seems a strange way of differentiating extreme from not extreme. I could say "Christians are all lunatics", which would then be even less extreme than Dawkins because it is even more specific.

As to Buddhism, I take your point, but they still have their "hungry ghosts" and reincarnation. Nevertheless, I think when Hitchens talks about "Religion" it is as generally understood and I think his points are valid on that basis.

I think I am trying to illustrate the difference between Dennett, Harris (philosophically trained), Dawkins (scientifically trained) and Hitchens (a critic, journalist guy).

I think that is grossly unfair. Hitchens' historical and political knowledge far outweighs the other three and that is what he brings to the table in his book. In fact that is what pleases me most about the Four - that they have their own unique areas of expertise, be it Philosophy, Neuroscience, History and Politics or Biology and science generally.

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

1747. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

However, for the purposes of this debate, I really don't think his arguments are that important. They don't hold much weight and it was a waste of time in my opinion. Who cares if Martin Luther King Jr. may secretly have been a Humanist?

See, that was the point of my original post: Jackson brought these things up and tried to win small skirmishes far from the main battlefield. Jackson could not defend (and did not really try) against Hitchens'important points about religious truth claims.

I meant "extreme" in that Hitchens makes statements like "How Religion Poisons Everything." This is extreme in the same way that a statement like "There is absolutely NO limit to human free will" would be extreme in the context of a philosophical discussion of free will. Do I think that the title "The God Delusion" or "The End of Faith" are extreme? No. Not in the same sense.

Actually, calling all believers deluded is something Dawkins has had to defend against. It could be seen as more extreme than Hitchens' title. Though in my opinion both are pretty much statements of fact.

To suggest that god has been disproved is just silly.

Hitchens went to great pains to clarify that this was not his position.

You are talking to an atheist who is a life member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Happy to hear that!

1748. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

Timothy Jackson actually made some intelligent, rational points regarding the way in which Christopher Hitchens talks about Martin Luther King Jr. It is indeed dogmatic to claim that I know what someone was really thinking even thought the person is telling me something different.

Except he didn't claim to know the mind of King, but instead made some interesting inferences based on his life and character - it would be fairly uninteresting if our comments on famous characters were limited to what we 100% know about them. Any biography would be pretty worthless.

Extreme statements should be used sparingly. Hitchens pops them out by the dozen.

His comments only seem extreme because of the special pass we give religion.

1749. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

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

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

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

1750. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

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

Well my view is that religious inequality should be introduced by removing the privileges of religions, not extending them. And, the privileges can be oppressive to others. Same-sex couples can't get married in those venues.

My view is that equality would be best served by getting rid of legal marriage altogether. Anybody should be able to "marry" or profess unity with whoever, and however, they like (and with how many). This is no business of the state.

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