Christopher Hitchens, the high priest of error.
omprem
by Christopher Hitchens. Interestingly, he makes the same logical and
factual errors that the Atheists here do, namely reification,
overgeneralization, wishful thinking, trying to read the Bible
literally, argumentum ad nauseum, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum
ad novitatem, converse accident, equivocation, red herring, straw
man, equivocation, argumentum ad populum, and, of course, argumentum.
Hitchens is well-educated and well-read but still manages to rise only
to glibness, superficiality, and negativity. He still has to resort to
red herrings and ridicule to avoid giving the audience too much time
to scrutinize his position, to gain popularity as a clever joke
teller so as to gain audience support for him and by extension, his
agenda. In short, Hitchens is as desparately unable to support his
contentions as any of the Atheists here are and indulges in all the
erroneous and low tactics as do any of the Atheists here.
Jon Skinner
Virgil
<b64cbb90-12c6-411d...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have recently had the opportunity to watch a one hour presentation
> by Christopher Hitchens.
From which, since omprem's mind is so totally closed, omprem learned
nothing.
omprem
> In article
> <b64cbb90-12c6-411d-879a-ec0445997...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have recently had the opportunity to watch a one hour presentation
> > by Christopher Hitchens.
>
> From which, since omprem's mind is so totally closed, omprem learned
> nothing.
Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
errors.
sdm_sax
>
> Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> errors.
Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief that
a god exists that makes atheists.
omprem
> On 6 June, 18:50, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > errors.
>
that a god exists that makes atheists.
Omprem: Idiot. No religion postulates an individualized supreme God.
That is an invention by Atheists who argue only with themselves (and
perhaps a few other fundamentalist wingnuts). For example,
Christianity says that G-d is One, that is, One without a second. G-d
is presented as being everywhere all the time, in other words, there
is nothing that is not G-d. If there is no not-G-d, it cannot be that
G-d is an individual.
Virgil
<cccdc302-2c9b-42e0...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:23�pm, sdm_sax <stev...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > On 6 June, 18:50, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > > errors.
> >
> ss: Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief
> that a god exists that makes atheists.
>
> Omprem: Idiot. No religion postulates an individualized supreme God.
Nor does atheism. What atheism says is that it does not believe any of
the claims religions make about gods, and that is all it says.
So that atheism does not postulate any sorts of gods whatsoever whether
or not individualized or otherwise..
> That is an invention by Atheists.
That is an invention by Omprem!
omprem
>
>
>
> > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > errors.
S: Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief
that a god exists that makes atheists.
Omprem: No religion claims that God, Allah, etc is individuated. But
it is good that you recognize that the belief in a supreme
individuated entity is false. Now go tell all of your little Atheist
playmates to stop claiming that.
omprem
> In article
>
> omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 3:23 pm, sdm_sax <stev...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > On 6 June, 18:50, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > > > errors.
>
> > ss: Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief
> > that a god exists that makes atheists.
>
> > Omprem: Idiot. No religion postulates an individualized supreme God.
>
Omprem: Look at the Atheists here who make just the claim.
V: What atheism says is that it does not believe any of the claims
religions make about gods, and that is all it says.
Omprem: Very disingenuous. Have you not the courage of your of your
convictions? You can bob and weave all you want but it still comes to
those mistaken Atheists beliefs that enable the Atheists to not
believe something.
Virgil
<db344e8d-b2fd-478a...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:23�pm, sdm_sax <stev...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > On 6 June, 18:50, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > > errors.
>
> S: Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief
> that a god exists that makes atheists.
So that OMPREM concedes that there is no such thing as a god.
Seeking Krishna leads to Krishna. Seeking Jesus leads to Jesus.
To seek either of these, or any specific alternative, is to begin
the "investigation" having already chosen the conclusion, based
on no reason, in advance.
Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
Those who are still trying to sell theism are losing market share,
particularly among the more intelligent.
Virgil
<cb3c2b7c-7961-4994...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 6:11 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <cccdc302-2c9b-42e0-b7f4-3e9581308...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 8, 3:23 pm, sdm_sax <stev...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > > On 6 June, 18:50, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > > > > errors.
> >
> > > ss: Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief
> > > that a god exists that makes atheists.
> >
> > > Omprem: Idiot. No religion postulates an individualized supreme God.
> >
> V: Nor does atheism.
>
> Omprem: Look at the Atheists here who make just the claim.
>
> V: What atheism says is that it does not believe any of the claims
> religions make about gods, and that is all it says.
>
> Omprem: Very disingenuous. Have you not the courage of your of your
> convictions?
What convictions? I am not convinced that there is any reason to suppose
any religion have anything right. I merely have doubts about religions,
not convictions.
And whatever OMPREM claims as his religion I am even more dubious about.
> You can bob and weave all you want but it still comes to
> those mistaken Atheists beliefs that enable the Atheists to not
> believe something.
Omprem's convoluted thinking that everything is totally different from
what it seems to be seems to have become his only religion.
It is not mine.
So that in OMPREM's lexicon non-beleif = belief !
omprem
> In article
>
> omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 3:23 pm, sdm_sax <stev...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > On 6 June, 18:50, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > > > errors.
>
> > S: Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief
> > that a god exists that makes atheists.
>
Omprem: Of course, and so does every major religion.
> Seeking Krishna leads to Krishna. Seeking Jesus leads to Jesus.
> To seek either of these, or any specific alternative, is to begin
> the "investigation" having already chosen the conclusion, based
> on no reason, in advance.
>
V: Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist
and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are
openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
Omprem: Evidence???? Your make the logical error of argumentum ad
numerum in mistakenly believing that the truth of a proposition
depends on the number of people who believe it.
V: Those who are still trying to sell theism are losing market
share, particularly among the more intelligent.
Omprem: We first have to define intelligent. It is clear from my
discussions with Atheists that not only are they illogical, negative,
fearful and hopelessly biased, they are also among the dumbest of G-
d's creatures.
omprem
> In article
>
>
>
> omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 6:11 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <cccdc302-2c9b-42e0-b7f4-3e9581308...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 8, 3:23 pm, sdm_sax <stev...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 6 June, 18:50, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > > > > > errors.
>
> > > > ss: Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief
> > > > that a god exists that makes atheists.
>
> > > > Omprem: Idiot. No religion postulates an individualized supreme God.
>
> > V: Nor does atheism.
>
> > Omprem: Look at the Atheists here who make just the claim.
>
> > V: What atheism says is that it does not believe any of the claims
> > religions make about gods, and that is all it says.
>
> > Omprem: Very disingenuous. Have you not the courage of your of your
> > convictions?
>
suppose
any religion have anything right. I merely have doubts about
religions,
not convictions.
Omprem: Yours is the fallback position of Atheists when they can no
longer defend their errors or their ignorance. Your strong language is
ample evidence of your convictions but when pressed you deny your
convictions.
V: And whatever OMPREM claims as his religion I am even more dubious
about.
Omprem: I have not claimed a religion only the commonality of vision
and language at the mystical level of all religions.
> > You can bob and weave all you want but it still comes to
> > those mistaken Atheists beliefs that enable the Atheists to not
> > believe something.
>
V: Omprem's convoluted thinking that everything is totally different
from
what it seems to be seems to have become his only religion.
Omprem: It is not my religion but at least you seem to be
understanding what is being said, so that is an improvement.
> It is not mine.
>
V: So that in OMPREM's lexicon non-beleif = belief !
Omprem: Nope. That is the belief of Atheism.
dom
> V: So that in OMPREM's lexicon non-beleif = belief !
>
> Omprem: Nope. That is the belief of Atheism.
It's good to "see" you again, Omprem. Your departure from other
lists is the kiss of death for them.
Virgil
<627b579e-7efb-43f4...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Omprem: We first have to define intelligent. It is clear from my
> discussions with Atheists that they are among the dumbest of G-
> d's creatures.
Then OMPREM's "intelligent" is science's "dumb" and science's
"intelligent is "OMPRREM's "dumb".
Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
And there is plentiful evidence that there is are negative correlations
between almost every indicator of intelligence versus religiosity.
Virgil
<73faa369-7ed2-4c49...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:57 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <cb3c2b7c-7961-4994-8001-5ba32cb00...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 9, 6:11 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <cccdc302-2c9b-42e0-b7f4-3e9581308...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 8, 3:23 pm, sdm_sax <stev...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 6 June, 18:50, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Nothing to learn other than Atheism is built on factual and logic
> > > > > > > errors.
> >
> > > > > ss: Yes, it's the logical errors of religion and the mistaken belief
> > > > > that a god exists that makes atheists.
> >
> > > > > Omprem: Idiot. No religion postulates an individualized supreme God.
> >
> > > V: Nor does atheism.
> >
> > > Omprem: Look at the Atheists here who make just the claim.
Those whom I recognize as atheists, or more precisely non-theists, make
no claims about gods at all.
I have no idea what those whom OMPREM mislabels "Atheists" claim.
> >
> > > V: What atheism says is that it does not believe any of the claims
> > > religions make about gods, and that is all it says.
> >
> > > Omprem: Very disingenuous. Have you not the courage of your of your
> > > convictions?
> >
> V: What convictions? I am not convinced that there is any reason to
> suppose
> any religion have anything right. I merely have doubts about
> religions,
> not convictions.
>
> Omprem: Yours is the fallback position of Atheists
Who are those alleged "Atheists" who are so clearly not non-theists?
>
> V: And whatever OMPREM claims as his religion I am even more dubious
> about.
>
> Omprem: I have not claimed a religion only the commonality of vision
> and language at the mystical level of all religions.
>
> > > You can bob and weave all you want but it still comes to
> > > those mistaken Atheists beliefs that enable the Atheists to not
> > > believe something.
> >
> V: Omprem's convoluted thinking that everything is totally different
> from
> what it seems to be seems to have become his only religion.
>
> Omprem: It is not my religion but at least you seem to be
> understanding what is being said, so that is an improvement.
>
> > It is not mine.
> >
> V: So that in OMPREM's lexicon non-beleif = belief !
>
> Omprem: Nope. That is the belief of Atheism.
Then OMPREM must be one of them, since with such beliefs they cannot be
non-theists like me.
Virgil
> > V: So that in OMPREM's lexicon non-beleif = belief !
> >
> > Omprem: Nope. That is the belief of Atheism.
Then OMPREM is Atheist, as he is obviously not a non-theist.
omprem
Right back at you. I like your comments on Spiritual Warfare.
My current favourite is alt.philosophy because of the wide variety of
views there and the people seem to be interested in actually
discussing instead of promoting a single agenda.
It was interesting to see how upset people could get just by my
posting 24 comments from religious/spiritual adepts.
omprem
> In article
>
> omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Omprem: We first have to define intelligent. It is clear from my
> > discussions with Atheists that they are among the dumbest of G-
> > d's creatures.
>
> Then OMPREM's "intelligent" is science's "dumb" and science's
> "intelligent is "OMPRREM's "dumb".
>
theist and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are
openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
Omprem: Your logical error is argumentum ad numerum in that you
mistakenly believe that the truth of a statement is determined by the
number of people that believe it. Of course, your samples are drawn
from the group that most determinedly puts obstacles in its way that
prevent it from accessing Divinity, so their embracing non-theism is
merely wishful thinking intended to make them feel better about their
complacency and ignorance.
Virgil: And there is plentiful evidence that there is are negative
correlations between almost every indicator of intelligence versus
religiosity.
Omprem: Care to cite any????
omprem
> In article
'Non-theist' has several meanings - (1) a non-belief in in the
existence of a god or gods and (2) a non-belief in one God as the
creator and ruler of the universe, with rejection of revelation. Which
one are you promoting.
Incidentally, attempting to characterize your belief system as non-
theism instead of atheism is silly: it is a distinction without a
difference.
omprem
Define 'non-theist'.
Virgil
<4bdb43d7-c086-41f9...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 5:40 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <627b579e-7efb-43f4-b89a-5a48788bb...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Omprem: We first have to define intelligent. It is clear from my
> > > discussions with Atheists that they are among the dumbest of G-
> > > d's creatures.
> >
> > Then OMPREM's "intelligent" is science's "dumb" and science's
> > "intelligent is "OMPRREM's "dumb".
> >
> Virgil: Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-
> theist and
> that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are
> openly
> non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
>
> Omprem: Your logical error
Facts may be irrelevancies, but unless so, they are never logical errors.
> Virgil: And there is plentiful evidence that there is are negative
> correlations between almost every indicator of intelligence versus
> religiosity.
Only if you will promise to read them all all the way through.
Virgil
<5c8ee779-b5ed-4abe...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
A non-theist is a person who lacks faith in the religious claims of
religions, but does not claim certainty that those claims are all false.
Jim Hawkins
It is the religiose who make the contentions. Atheists do not deny them,
they simply do not believe them.
Jim Hawkins
"We share half our genome with the banana. This is more evident in some of
my acquaintances than others."
- Sir Robert May, past president of the Royal Society
pg
news:LOudnfDKq54BOM_R...@supernews.com...
> omprem wrote:
>> I have recently had the opportunity to watch a one hour presentation
>> by Christopher Hitchens. Interestingly, he makes the same logical and
>> factual errors that the Atheists here do, namely reification,
>> overgeneralization, wishful thinking, trying to read the Bible
>> literally, argumentum ad nauseum, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum
>> ad novitatem, converse accident, equivocation, red herring, straw
>> man, equivocation, argumentum ad populum, and, of course, argumentum.
>>
>> Hitchens is well-educated and well-read but still manages to rise only
>> to glibness, superficiality, and negativity. He still has to resort to
>> red herrings and ridicule to avoid giving the audience too much time
>> to scrutinize his position, to gain popularity as a clever joke
>> teller so as to gain audience support for him and by extension, his
>> agenda. In short, Hitchens is as desparately unable to support his
>> contentions as any of the Atheists here are and indulges in all the
>> erroneous and low tactics as do any of the Atheists here.
>
> It is the religiose who make the contentions. Atheists do not deny them,
> they simply do not believe them.
>
many years. Incredibly quick mind, I was re-watching the debate (Four
Horsemen) between him, Dennett, Dawkins and Sam Harris only this morning.
(I've been away. Has the debate been won in my absence, and all the
creationists/evangelists etc retreated back to their little bubbles? It
seems dead on upa)...
pg