151. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124744 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:27 am

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

Okay, what evidence are you presenting?

152. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124740 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:21 am

Like polies not getting speeding fines.

Ah, politicians. Then, yes, I agree.

153. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124739 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:21 am

Yes, the sheer numbers of state educated professionals that exists today.

This statement does nothing to prove anything.

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

It doesn't mean anything.

154. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124737 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:19 am

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

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

No, you made the claim, now you have the burden of evidence. If this is your opinion, fine but you are making statements as though they are facts.

155. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124736 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:17 am

What are polies?

156. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124735 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:16 am

Batboy - money from catholic schools came from those participating in the rituals - voluntarily. Also from the tuition paid - voluntarily.

I'm fine that you prefer to educate everyone, me too, I like the idea of an educated society. However, the burden of payment is to those who have the children and those who continue their education.

How do you know that the unemployable are less likely to kill you or I? Do you have statistics to back this claim up?

157. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124731 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:12 am

I'm simply saying that free education has proved extremely beneficial and is a cornerstone of modern society

Do you have evidence of this claim, as well?

158. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124728 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:09 am

Would you return the favour?

Yes, and I have at many junctures in my life.

Help should not be in the form of forced contribution through taxation to fund a consequence free lifestyle.

If you chose to have a child, then the child is your responsibility, no one else's.

159. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124727 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:07 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?

160. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124721 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:04 am

Steve - you refuse to answer the questions that I place before you time and again, are you in fear of the reveal?

161. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124720 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:01 am

Aah, the wonderful world of Scooternyc. One wonders what it would be like to live in his utopia

LOL! Sadly you'll probably never know which is a shame.

162. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124719 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 6:00 am

Peace - you are negating the facts.

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?

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

163. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124715 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:51 am

Steve - as is your wont to distract, I merely asked you a question:

Tell me, what does it give you when you "help" anyone else?

164. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124714 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:50 am

Is it not in everyone's interest to see that the people are educated? Why shouldn't everyone pay for that as well as paying to make sure everyone is protected?

Without protection nothing of pursuit is possible.

It's not in my interest for someone to have a child and educate that child. I don't ask others to fund my education, why should it be that they ask me to fund theirs or their child's.

My parents paid for catholic school for myself and 5 other siblings. I skipped high school and funded my own education in college, albeit loans, grants and scholarships offered in a free market from those who freely participated, not forcibly so. And for which I was held accountable regarding grades, educational criteria, etc. which I met and was rewarded.

165. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124708 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:41 am

but anything soppy and kindly that might actually help anyone else

Tell me, what does it give you when you "help" anyone else?

166. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124706 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:38 am

Steve, did you grow up religious and then move to this place of non-believer?

167. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124705 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:36 am

And there was me thinking that a school system educated the entire country.

Well, it's okay that you were mistaken.

168. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124704 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:35 am

All that military spending is helping to fund consequence-free lifestyles

Did you have something to present regarding this statement or was it just an emotional molotov cocktail in the mix?

Who's consequence free lifestyles are we funding by having a military?

169. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124702 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:33 am

However, Steve, you missed the most important word in my statement: prioritize

There are priorities in my life for which I'm willing to pay dollars, time, effort, to enjoy the comforts of living.

Republicans have overspent like drunken sailors, as Clint recently said, and it concerns me, as well.

Politics isn't a "party" thing for me any longer, it's about the individuals and what he/she stands for overall in the mix - no person will stand up to another's full criteria.

What issues are most important for me

What aspects must I prioritize over others

Who seeks to limit my choices and freedom of choice

170. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124700 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:29 am

I have no problem paying taxes for the military as we call upon the military to protect the entire United States here and abroad; most other government funded jobs I would not.

Schools should be paid for by those using them.

Fire, police, ambulance services by those using them in their respective communities. I don't need to fund New Jersey's fire department. And so on.

171. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124698 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:21 am

I find it interesting that the very foundations of atheists for dismantling religion, is scientific evidence. It does not seem to carry over into other areas of application in life; this isn't the only subject I've debated on the blogs where facts are facts regardless of "intent".

It would be like saying that evolution had intent to do this but went in this direction instead. We can project all we want but only the facts and evidence are for certain as revealed. Science is objective not subjective. Evidence is objective not subjective.

My example: Scalia is very strong religiously, has spoken out on this topic, and was voted in by 98 Senators, not 70, not 60 or not just enough to get by but 98 out of 100 - that doesn't bode well for the Democrats who claim to corner the market on this issue or so would be the projected conclusion of AU's 100% rating.

What was their criteria? Who gets to decide if the criteria is strong enough or valid?

172. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124697 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:20 am

You state that your position is based on a well-reasoned conclusion but offer no evidence to reach the conclusion other than projection, when instead I've offered factual evidence of votes, which fly in the face of your assumptions.

However, I respect that you have a different opinion, I just disagree with how you reached the conclusion with nothing to show for it BUT your opinion. My position is not an opinion it's a fact thus far in the theory because it has yet to be falsified.

What are the criteria for falsification? ALL DEMOCRATS in the SENATE would have to vote 'nay' for a conservative judicial nominee from a Republican President.

or

A DEMOCRAT President would have to take action to nominate a non-theistic/non-religious judicial nominee.

Saying something or taking action are two different things. Only one can be evidence of reality or falsification.

Intent is meaningless.

Conclusions based on lack of evidence are meaningless.

173. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124696 by scooternyc on February 10, 2008 at 5:20 am

Riley - it would be interesting to know what the "criteria" is for the AU Scoring. What pass is AU giving since these 100% candidates have "got religion" going on.

No one wants to admit that they've backed themselves into a corner on the religion issue being black/white prior to elections because now a person would have to rationalize or justify the negation of their non-religious beliefs and what other reasons they would be voting for their candidate.

It is a black or white issue for me; you either are religious and I consider that a liability or you are not religious. You can't be "a little bit pregnant".

Given this, now I have to prioritize this issue against other issues, in which case a Dem is not my choice as I don't believe in funding others' consequence free lifestyle.

Thanks for your posts.

You make claims for which you have no evidence to support when it comes to "forcing" the houses of power to vote on a nominee. We can project or conjecture all we want but the bottom line is the factual evidence of the votes cast.

174. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124410 by scooternyc on February 9, 2008 at 11:35 am

Lastly, if we were to assert that the Bush Administration was more likely to submit legislation that dismantles church/state separation, then we'd have more evidence to show that, yes, indeed, they have presented quite a bit and their pattern seeks to be the same or increased. Agreed.

But to say that ANY Republican candidate elected WOULD do this is not being honest.

Even if a candidate SAID that he would doesn't mean he would - you still would have to observe the actions to outcomes to prove it correct.

Democrats may have SAID they want to uphold church/state separation but the votes I've presented alone prove this to be untrue.

John McCain recently told John Fund of the Washington Post that Judge Alito wears his "conservatism on his sleeve" and that McCain wouldn't nominate such a person to the high court.

Well, if intent is the criteria as suggested by Eddie's and your assertion, then I would presume that both of you will be voting for McCain if this is your primary concern.

If, on the other hand, it is one of many concerns, then Eddie's position is false as McCain's comments prove that not EVERY Republican candidate would seek to nominate someone of Justice Roberts or Justice Alito's conservative nature.

I have no problem with someone wanting to endorse their candidate of choice, it matters little to me. I do have concern about people who run around yelling "the sky is falling" in order to "fear" people into voting for their candidate of choice.

I appreciate your solid responses and dialogue, it's quite refreshing.

175. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124409 by scooternyc on February 9, 2008 at 11:26 am

Riley - additionally, there would be no way to "prove" such an assertion until it actually happened.

If the "theory" is to be falsified then it would only be through the observation of the administration and it's actions. This can only happen when it happens, all other "projections" are just that, projections, not solid evidence.

We cannot rely on previous behavior as leaning toward one outcome or another outcome because of the actual voting for which I have supplied facts/evidence to those votes as contrary to the "theory" by Eddie.

BTW - I'm a huge fan of Eddie's, I've met him a few times now and I like his endeavor and what he's doing for the movement, I just happen to disagree with him on this issue. He and I have spoken about this so I don't feel like I'm being disrespectful to his efforts or him.

176. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124402 by scooternyc on February 9, 2008 at 11:09 am

Do you deny these assertions: A Republican controlled Congress and White house in 2008 would result in new legislation and new judges that infringe on church/state separation?

Conversely, a Democratic Party controlled Congress and White house in 2008 would NOT result in new legislation and new judges that infringe on church/state separation?

Yes, this "theory" has not been proven as seen by observation of previous elections where both parties are in full or partial power.

Additionally, whether a party introduces the legislation becomes irrelevant if the greater power is in the vote - which has been my premise from the beginning - both parties are seeking to dismantle the separation of church/state through their personal vote

It's like saying that Canadians coming into the country illegally are not contributing to the problem of illegal immigration - illegal immigration is illegal immigration - I don't need to qualify it unless I'm trying to excuse someone from it.

Eddie's stance thus far has not been proven that a Republican WILL behave in a particular way for certain or that a Democrat WILL behave in a particular way as evidenced from previous congressional and senate elections along with Presidential ones.

This is only his "hypothesis" that creates nothing more than a state of fear in those who hold this issue as important in priority. Right now the House/Senate hold a 49-49 balance with 2 additional as Independent.

It's worth noting further that Justice Scalia was nominated by Reagan but 98 Senators voted "yea". Check out the names of the many DEMOCRATS listed.

Justice Scalia Congressional Record

177. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124372 by scooternyc on February 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

Judge Jones flies in the face of the "theory" that only Republicans support religious ideology as his decision in Dover proved.

You're giving too much power to the label. There are fiscal conservatives that are socially liberal.

When you mentioned it's a matter of the issue and not the person, I misspoke as I disagree with this statement. My apologies. The person's ideology says volumes about what he/she will endorse and support.

Whether one side or the other initiates something is a distraction, as the outcome is the primary observation as in the example of Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act; he may not have initiated it but he supported it and signed it into law. He and other Democrats cannot be absolved of their participation in the breaking down of Church/State separation.

"Democrats Launch Site To Reach Out To Christian Voters" a story on Americans United worth reading:

Americans United

Any time ANY Democrat endorses by vote ANY legislation that supports the antithesis of church/state separation is part of the problem. Just because they didn't initiate it doesn't mean they're not complicit in the problem.

178. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124185 by scooternyc on February 8, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Riley: Before you claim someone's motive to be "inherently dishonest", I think you first need to show that their argument is wrong, at a minimum

Actually, I did, using his own information and that which we know from historical evidence. Of course, as is science, I'm open to the falsification of such.

Tabash, himself, stated that Reagan appointed a nominee who was unconfirmed by a senate of Dems/Reps; Tabash, himself, stated that Bush senior appointed a conservative nominee who was confirmed - is this not evidence to facts that then a bipartisan senate committee hearing in fact helped confirm or deny such individuals? The senate voted 52-48 with 11 Democrats who voted to confirm.

This points to the facts that NOT ALL Democrats endorse or support separation of church/state and to imply a state of fear into voters that your secular society will be less secular if you don't vote for a particular candidate of a particular party, is ludicrous and is inherently dishonest as you do not reveal personal interest. Instead fear mongering is invoked.

The balance of power in our nation is what helps to keep this stable, albeit not as much as you and I would hope for, but stable all the same.


It's not a matter of the person, it's a matter of the issue. I completely agree.

the issue of church/state separation shouldn't be a partisan issue, but that's the reality

This is NOT the reality as there are those Democrats who do not believe in church/state separation or do we discount Professor Dawkins laws of probabilities whereby we know not all congress or senators are religious and some must be atheists.

I don't disagree with you that factions of the Republican party wish to seek indoctrination of the bible into our Constitution - I do not doubt this fact given their behavior in observation.

However, Clinton(a Democrat) signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act which is inherently religious in its precepts, there is no secular argument for denying gays or lesbians the right to marry and receive government benefits without religious intervention of ideology. 118 Democrats voted 'yea' to this law.

Moreover, you and I agree it seems, that both parties must be held accountable, but I'm not willing to give credential to the candidate who claims to only be "a little bit pregnant".

179. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124085 by scooternyc on February 8, 2008 at 10:10 am

I share this letter of recent to CFI and their Point of Inquiry interview with Eddie Tabash:

Greetings and Salutations,

If science and reason are nutrition to CFI, then evidence and facts must be like mother's milk.

Listening to Eddie Tabash and your interview from Friday, February 1, 2008, smacks of fear mongering; allow me to state my case.

If in all probability, by such laws that even the admired Richard Dawkins surmises, there must be atheists in congress given their numbers but who reveal no such ideals...

...then there is also reason to believe that if Eddie's hypothesis were to be theory, given the laws of these probabilities, then no Democrat would vote other than for separation of church & state.

However, evidence to the contrary as so stated in your interview:

Reagan supported a right-wing appointee that a Democrat & Republican balance of power Senate, denied confirmation.

Bush senior appointed a right-wing nominee who was approved by a balance of Democrats & Republicans.

Is this not evidence to fact that there then must be some Democrats who:

a) Either espouse separation of church/state but don't practice such ideals when up for a vote

or

b) Who claim no religion but vote otherwise

or

c) Are just as religious as the so stated right-wing Republicans and will endorse such nominees regardless

Can it be further said then that if a Republican candidate was an option, who spoke of separation of church/state, that Eddie and all other's of desire for secular society would then throw their support behind such an individual.

If not, then this speaks more to the political rhetoric and fear mongering in order to elect the self-interested party into power, for reasons other than church/state separation and a secular society.

I have no issue with self-interest, as there is no other interest; I do have issue when such a precept is implicitly endorsing a political party rather than stating: "I'd rather have a Democrat for president" and attempting to distract by using the issue of church/state separation by which to accomplish this desired outcome. It's inherently dishonest.

180. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124084 by scooternyc on February 8, 2008 at 10:05 am

Riley, while I am unfamiliar, perhaps in this post or others for which I have not participated, in your facts vs. facts with Hitchens, I am second to none in advocating the separation of church/state and agree with your points.

My response was adding to your observations that BOTH parties are participating in this drivel to one extent or the other.

The subterfuge is so easily revealed by others on this blog and alike, that their party affiliation is Democrat; I have no issue with this choice. I do find the hypocrisy needing light shed upon it when the affiliation decidedly wants to blame Republicans only for this separation issue.

Those that are responsible must be held to accountability regardless of party affiliation.

My observations at AAI 2007 and CFI 2007 was so extreme in the liberal aspect that no other message of validity was being heard except those who wanted to align themselves with disdain for the oppositional political party.

One individual on a panel sat there excusing Obama's stance on religion in order to justify her desire for his candidacy. There is no excusing ANYONE for ANY REASON if they decidedly indulge in this folklore. She also attempted to make her position one of non-partisanship which was too late as her rhetoric revealed her self-serving interests.

This behavior and language needs to be met head on and exposed for what it is; societies need to encourage the evolution of ideas and the only way to continue to develop is to demand new levels of intellect, reason and logic - this means exposing the emotional rhetoric with factual evidence - nothing less than what every faithless person demands from those who endorse god.

181. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123822 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Or spending a career studying philosophy and calling yourself "Dennett".

Well, it is good to recognize that just because a person like Dennett might say something or some-things that others agree with, doesn't mean that everything that person says is fully developed.

Fortunately for all of us, science and observation continue to seek its own falsification in order to prove itself worth further review, but always understanding that change in life is never ending. We build upon ideas over time.

182. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123820 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Riley, your post is historically accurate, but it cannot be dismissed that Democrats have imbibed in this religiosity to an overwhelming extent, as well.

They may not be the "extremists" that Republicans can be, but their participation is silent endorsement of the beliefs themselves which are inherently dishonest, as we all agree when it comes to "claims of supernatural".

All people who hold these beliefs should be held accountable regardless of political party - otherwise it would be grand observation to say that if a Republican candidate denounced religion would someone then vote for that candidate?

This issue is non-partisan, both parties indulge in this deception of self and of others.

183. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123815 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:59 pm

LorienRyan - Yes, free will is a challenging concept in the wake of everything we
objectively see in this deterministic world bound by cause and effect.

Free will appears to be a delusion arising out of faith and mysticism. How arrogant of humans to believe that the whole world is bound by cause and effect except for humans and a fabricated creator concept.

Does human life require meaning? If human life benefits from a sense of purpose, does experience without affecting the outcome, fit the bill? Without free will, why champion causes? Why ask why?

The answers appear to lie in the realm of our participation in the unfolding of reality. Like playing a game of Mancala, I do not control the outcome but I do participate in revealing the outcome. Self-interests are simply motivations toward an outcome congruent with our own human evolution and ultimately universal laws.

184. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123386 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:33 am

Boy, how pessimistic can you get.

I don't think so at all, in fact, I think it brings greater contemplation to the understanding of how precious an individual's life is to itself and that the moments spent in it's life, however many, should be placed carefully, for enjoyment.

Additionally, I think it helps to relieve the idea of suffering because you understand that your life is made up of an infinite number of choices by which those choices can create enormous happiness; to infinity and beyond!

185. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123385 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:30 am

If it doesn't exist, then you have no choice about what you believe anyway....

I don't want to stir the pot with others on this subject, but I will add to your statement that, upon further research, perhaps in time we will come to understand through science that even the perceived 'choice' of a person to do differently is deterministic because the organism is developing to a new variation upon itself.

Example: perhaps an individual holds a thought about religion because he/she was born into a family that thinks that way. Deterministically, if the individual makes a 'choice' not to think that way anymore, it might come to be understood that the person was determined to make that choice to develop the lineage to a new and stronger survival as perhaps the other thought process might have lead to death, as in the case of say a jihad's thought process; from one generation to the next the idea is thrown out in order to survive.

Just an thought.

186. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123381 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:22 am

LorienRyan - well, you and I agree about the 'options' part as we search determinsim, but I find the concept not open to discussion too often because I think it freaks people out and they want to feel superior to the idea that their lives are not hard-wired. But, I do agree with you.

187. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123378 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:20 am

Of course you can. You say "don't go through the red light or you will get into a crash or possibly get fined."

Yes, but do you see that the 'fine' is the consequence to the action not the controlling of the action. The individual doesn't want the outcome of a fine, so he/she manages to not go through the red lights. However, if he/she wanted to go through it, you couldn't control him/her NOT going through it if there is a determined action in the mind of the individual; such is the show COPS has pointed out aud-nausim. LOL!

Actually, choices don't need to be limited as inherently they are not except perhaps through regulation which then seeks to limit choice.

All choices are open to all of us at any time, we make a choice as to whether or not we WANT to choose one option over the other, but the options are still there: I can run the red light or not - if I do - then is the result and consequence, if I do not then this is the result and consequence.

Granted, we don't waste such time pondering trivial matters because we've learned the order of a society by such ideas of not running red light, but for larger questions of one's personal freedoms and life, the options and choices before the individual are vital and most important above all else as these choices and options create the life one wants upon reflection in old age{hopefully reaching old age :)}

188. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123375 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:11 am

LorienRyan - in Michael Shermer's new book, The Mind of the Markets, he uses the analogy of "folklore" regarding religion and it resonates with me and might be an interesting approach for some to utilize as folklore connotes fable, fairy tales, etc. which religion itself is about. Since reason is absent in the face of religion, folklore at least lends an understanding of what religion infers as stories or parables.

189. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123373 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 4:06 am

Well, that's the point, Steve, people manage these things. However, you cannot control if a person wants to go through the red light or not. I suppose it all depends on what a person defines as "control". If it means getting the person to think or do as I want, then there is no such thing - otherwise that would be manipulation if done through fear, intimidation or limiting of choices.

190. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123370 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 3:58 am

LorienRyan - what I also find fascinating is the concept of attempts to control what others think or do.

There is no such thing as it is why societies create laws to enforce consequences for those who make certain choices that we have deemed distasteful or at a cost to others.

Humans can manage things best they can but the idea of controlling another's thoughts or actions seems to be an act of futility, which perhaps is Hitchens process - "think and believe as you wish...just don't try and make me think it, I'm not having it".

191. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123365 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 3:39 am

Arcane Viper - my question to the "believer" would be: "if god is so perfect and creates all things perfect why did it take so long then? If you say he didn't create things perfect, then how can you claim his omnipotence? If you claim he intended to make things imperfect than why would a god who is perfect seek to make that which is imperfect thereby negating his perfection?"

Of course, you can see the loquacious dialogue of the religious to explain it all away or drop the "free will" statement or the "faith card" to which I reply, "stating something is free will negates the action of free will as you are now conscious of the free will action, it's no longer the natural response; using your faith card just tells me you're not fully committed to your beliefs otherwise you wouldn't need faith, you would just be certain."

On "free will" I analogize the flower concept to dumb it down for the religious: does a flower think 'I have to bend to the sun to get what I need from it' or does it just do it? If it just does it then it acts on its own survival it needs nothing of "free will"; organisms act to survival or not - organisms move toward something or away from it - toward life or toward death - there are no other options.

192. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123361 by scooternyc on February 7, 2008 at 3:21 am

Richard Morgan - I liked your post about Hitch and his "feel good" statements, but do you think Hitch might be utilizing his strong endorsement, without saying it out loud, of the U.S. Constitution, which in a sense states, "have your freedoms of religion but don't think I have to endorse or believe it".

Hitchens wrote an excellent book on Jefferson that I read a few years back and I wonder if that's his approach. Although Hitchens isn't debating science, I could see him make his arguments stronger with the support of the Constitution. Your thoughts?

I really liked your statement about all forms of communication being directed to an outcome; I add it to my list of sound bites like there are no interests that are not personal interests. Jolly good!

193. Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

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

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

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

194. Hitchens V. Boteach

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

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

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

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

195. Hitchens V. Boteach

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are you willing to do to end such suffering?

Negotiate?

Why?

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

Give me a break.

196. Hitchens V. Boteach

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

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

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

197. Hitchens V. Boteach

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

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

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

What are the criteria for deciding?

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

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

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

198. Hitchens V. Boteach

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

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

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

You don’t.

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

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

What frauds.

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

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

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

199. Hitchens V. Boteach

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

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

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

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

How do you decide?

Who gets to decide?

What is the criteria?

Are we going to hold all to that criteria?

If not, why not?

200. Hitchens V. Boteach

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

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

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