151. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53348 by oxytocin on June 30, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Cyboman, that's a most curious argument. Sadly, he may be perceived by others as not being able to rebut the ridiculous. And I think we might agree that challenging the very existence of the sky daddy might just be an important topic, no? Hitchens may not like to address the "silly" arguments that people make, but people make them, and make them often. They need to be seriously challenged in direct fashion and without evasion.

152. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53329 by oxytocin on June 30, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Not only does the moderator bulldoze the interviewees, but he gave evidence of partisan views...shouldn't this be concealed for the sake of journalism? Do we really care what this chump thinks? Isn't his job simply to oil the main event machine?

Hitchens does indeed need to answer questions more directly without all the preamble. Context is important, but I think his answers are highly abstract and somewhat evasive...one needs to adapt to the audience. He let Sharpton get away with intellectual murder. Hitchens needs to step up to the plate with questions like "where does gravity come from"!! Am I the only one who was jumping out of his skin? Even if he has no idea what the answer might be, perhaps it would be better to refer Sharpton to the people who do know, rather than acting as if the question was never posed in the first place. I think that the strong and positive assertions of science are the most powerful arguments we have against irrational belief systems. The facts are our best tools.

153. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52578 by oxytocin on June 27, 2007 at 10:28 am

Here's what I wrote to him:

Dear Sir,

I don't usually write to people I see on TV, but since you had an email address plastered on the screen, I thought I'd avail myself of the opportunity. If you'll permit me a minor diatribe…

Your recent spot on Fox left me utterly baffled and flabbergasted. You say that you've bought Dawkins' book…but have you read it? From what you said, my guess would be no. You appear to be a Catholic priest by your attire and title, and, having been raised Catholic, I know something of your faith. Although you may not LIKE the answers that science has generated, that doesn't mean that we don't have any. I am having a very difficult time understanding how you can claim to use nature as an explanation for god. First, the logic is terribly faulty. Out of the myriad possible explanations for our world, the claim of certainty of a belief you were likely born into [although that's an assumption I'm making] is suspect. Second, as far as I know, the Catholic church supports evolution. Thus, your poetic waxing on the beauty of design is inconsistent with the pronouncements of your organization. You may opt to read the brilliant works written on the subject by Dawkins himself, the eminent and late Stephen Jay Gould, and others. Intelligent Design fails in every way as an explanation for anything, while evolution is a beautiful, erudite, and elegant explanation for why we perceive the ILLUSION of design. Third, your claim that 90% of Americans agree on something is fallacious. What you agree upon is the nature of magic. My guess is that you would, if pressed, be forced to proclaim that your "peer" in magic is going to hell for the crime of believing in a minor variation of whether a cracker transubstantiates [and let's not even mention believers in Shiva, Allah, or Zeus]. Ninety percent? You have nothing in common with many of them beyond your belief in the supernatural. Fourth, do not make the mistake of condescension. I can promise you that many non-theists live full, productive, enriched, and moral existences without submitting to fairies. We are simply negating your assertions, while simultaneously demanding that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Regards,

154. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52199 by oxytocin on June 26, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Everyone: his email address is displayed on the screen...let's make use of it! I think we should take the opportunity to let him know what we think of his persuasive arguments.

155. The Great God Debate

Comment #50331 by oxytocin on June 16, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Beachbum, although you make like the word "delusion", as a Psychologist, I can tell you that it is being used incorrectly. Your definition of illusion sounds better to me.

"Psychosis" means a severe psychiatric state whereby an individual loses contact with reality. Narrow definitions necessitate prominent hallucinations and/or delusions. I work with patients with psychosis all the time, and religious people look nothing like them, no matter how fundamentalist. There are myriad descriptions of what social and clinical psychologists have labeled "cognitive errors" that might suffice as explanations of religious thinking. Moreover, there are many states and conditions [e.g., eating disorders] that sometimes appear psychotic, but are distinct in important ways. Likewise, the taxonomic system of psychiatric illness excludes cultural-wide beliefs. Sorry, doesn't work if you want the scientific definition used in research. The term "delusion" fails for the same reason. As scientists, we need to be precise in our understanding of words.

156. The Great God Debate

Comment #50213 by oxytocin on June 15, 2007 at 6:31 pm

JRG, let's not get hysterical here. Although I wish that parents wouldn't brainwash their children into believing in the supernatural, it cannot be called "psychotic". I think we need to be mindful of the words we use. It may be nonsense, but it's cultural nonsense, and therefore different from the kind of thinking [even though similar on the surface] to someone who has psychiatric illness. I disagree with RD's use of the word "delusion" in his book as well, preferring Freud's use of the word "illusion" in his amazing monograph "The Future of an Illusion", which I highly recommend to all of you. In sum, let's not just whip up the emotions...let's use our brains and language to the best of our ability.

157. The Great God Debate

Comment #50125 by oxytocin on June 15, 2007 at 7:03 am

I think this was a facinating discussion...well worth the running time. Although Hitchens wiped the floor with his competition overall, I thought he floundered when confronted by the pastor's superior "knowledge", I guess you could say, of the historical evidence for the gospels [and also Bart D. Ehrman's agnosticism]. Naturally, many god-botherers cite the various books within the bible as confirmatory evidence for each other since they were written by different people. This, of course, is a laughable practice that would never be accepted in secular history or science.

As tuibguy wrote in the above comment, I too would like to see Hitchens take on a fundy. I would also like to see a debate which included a Muslim and a Christian. I think it would be very instructive for all to really see just how incompatible their mutually exclusive belief systems really are. All of a sudden, the "evidence" of the phenomenological gets turned on its head when these subjective accounts differ qualitatively.

158. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49521 by oxytocin on June 12, 2007 at 9:00 am

FoundLink, as far as I know, there's no mystical "cold force" that only penetrates godless Canada. The Northen States have pretty close to the exact same weather as Southern Canada. Anyway, any non-theists would be more than welcome here!

159. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49390 by oxytocin on June 11, 2007 at 6:40 pm

torgosPizza,
This show is broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [CBC]. We have a good number of shows in Canada with freedom like this. I am always shocked when I watch American TV...the bias is so overwhelming that it's not even worth watching sometimes.

160. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #44002 by oxytocin on May 23, 2007 at 7:05 am

There is some seriously faulty logic in this article. I think the author is confusing the existence of god [which is a hypothesis that demands testing], and the existence of religion [which does NOT need testing to see if it exists]. If we disprove god's existence, the null hypothesis is the absence of god. One need not say anything more about it. People purporting that the existence of a deity is improbable are not required to provide an
alternative lifestyle for the downtrodden. I think that is a huge problem for people to come to grips with. Atheism is not an ideology any more than a-santa-ism.

Second, I think that we might be better served if we start to refer more broadly to "irrational belief systems" rather than simply religion. This would encompass ideologies like Nazism and Maoism, etc. Clearly, the "rational scientists" who were involved in these endeavors were under duress, and in possession of a faulty set of beliefs to begin with.

161. A meeting of unlike minds

Comment #43724 by oxytocin on May 22, 2007 at 11:08 am

I think it's a shame that Ayaan Hirsi Ali [author of "Infidel"] and Victor J Stenger [author of "God: The Failed Hypothesis"] haven't been mentioned more frequently in the popular media in support of the non-theist position. I find Hirsi Ali's story particularly moving, and her arguments cogent.

162. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42548 by oxytocin on May 18, 2007 at 11:30 am

Bizarro Dawkins continues to display an olympic level hurdle jumping of questions; he'll get the gold medal for his cognitive track and field performance. He refuses to cite his evidence for a belief in god, despite claiming that it is entirely rational. He also perseverates on the fact that if you can't explain how the universe orignates, then the de facto explanation of his surveilance deity must be true. Who says the universe doesn't possess aseity? Again, just because we're ignorant about the answers to important questions doesn't give us carte blanche to abandon all reason.

163. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42445 by oxytocin on May 18, 2007 at 8:04 am

Bizarro Dawkins...ugh. Where does one start?

First off, I would love to know why you're on these message boards. Are you proselytizing? Are you looking for an honest exchange? Are your beliefs shaky?

Second: You've put forth the argument that since you can't believe that the universe may have come from "nothing", it must THEREFORE have a designer is faulty logic. The water isn't draining out of my tub, therefore, there must be a colony of fairies living in the pipes with tiny umbrellas making sure the water doesn't escape. Many scientists have the courage to simply say that they don't know where the universe came from...then they "fight the good fight" to successively approximate the truth over time. To say that you don't like any current theory because it doesn't provide succor to your inner narcissist is irrelevant. You make a completely unwarranted leap of logic. Even if current origin theories prove to be entirely false, that doesn't for one second offer evidence in favor of any supernatural entity.

Third, to suggest that a school that is as biased as yours would offer an education that is equivalent to that offered by a secular institution strains credulity. Naturally, all institutions have agendas, but the agenda of the secular institution should be the promotion of maximally unbiased scientific knowledge rather than contorting science to fit fairy tales. Language is pernicious; even though your profs might technically teach evolution, this could be undermined in subtle ways, making clear that it is a "false" and "misled" ideology. Starting out with the assumption that a vaporous overlord who listens to our every thought and cares what we do in the bedroom is a poor foundation for rational inquiry.

For you, good sir, I would suggest the following:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22330

164. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38252 by oxytocin on May 7, 2007 at 10:26 am

There are neuroimaging data emerging that suggest that there are positive benefits of the meditation routinely done in Buddhism. However, the question of utility is entirely separate from the question of veracity. That is, even if any of the specific practices of any religion are shown to be USEFUL, that does not at all address the issue of whether or not they are TRUE.