Sure you can, Obi. First, I'd take my estimate of the probability that the world is not rational, ie there's a God.

I guess that's probably around 1%. Probably lower, but it'll make the math easy.

Now I assign the probability that I think God, given his existence, wants something to pop out of your screen right now. I'm going to assign that probability 0.01%.

Now I'm going to try to think of all the things God could want to pop out of your screen, and the probability that that thing is a Super Mario. I'll (somewhat randomly) assign that 0.0001%.

Multiply those probabilities together, and you get 1*10^-12. A pretty small probability.

Huh, such a backlash agaisnt Hitchens...

Do you have a reason for disliking him as well, largeham?

(Figures, I finally find a New Atheist who doesn't make me irritated 10 seconds into his air time and he's the one folks here seem to dislike...) ;)

(A better way to do this, by the way, would be to define a specific time range and divide that by the total amount of times you have lived and had a computer. And my second probability should probably be waaaaayyy lower, accounting for this.)

Right, this reminds me of when Tolstoy tried to argue that Holocaust minimization wasn't Holocaust denial. Whatever. Using that same standard most people we call "Holocaust deniers" aren't deniers, because they say 1 million died, or maybe 100,000. As I said, Hitchens 'dabbled' in Holocaust denial, and likes to associate with Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers think him a friend, not an enemy. Whereas most everyone else in the world considers Hitchens to be an enemy. Including mothers of dead Iraqi soldiers.

Hitchens dabbling in Holocaust denial is just one piece of a large picture of him being an asshole.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/09/hitchens.htm

Here's where Snitchens craps on Orientalism. Notice the date. Said died in September 2003. I read this article the day after Said died. Said was supposed to visit my school around that time, so I remember this incident quite vividly.

But that's par for the course for him. There's nobody he won't stab in the back.
And despite his professed "atheism", he is quite pro-life. He also has endorsed fundie Supreme Court nominees.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html

I like Hitchens' oratory and his views on religion, but I do not advocate genocide as a solution to anything, much less a to eradicate a belief which many people are brought up believing and who generally have not heard any counter arguements.

I don't see why you like Hitchens, if your complaint is that atheists are too rude and too hostile to the religious. Stylistically Hitchens is by far one of the ruder and more hostile atheists that go around debating. Most "new" atheists are quite polite. Indeed Dan Barker, who is no softie on the religious and himself was a former fundamentalist, goes out of his way to tell jokers like Dinesh D'Souza that they're a "nice guy".

There's also the problem of what you consider irrational, obi. Is running through a wall irrational? The probability of it happening for you is almost zero but it is physically possible. Indeed, if you assume an infinite time interval, many weird things can happen, items materializing seemingly from nothing being one of them. If you flip a coin infinite times, tails will almost surely be flipped at least once. However, you cannot rule out the possibility that you'll flip an infinite sequence of heads. The probability of that happening is zero but it can happen ;)

Well, Mafi, that WAS an absurd video and an absurd Muslim radical...thought that was to be expected (that Dawkins would interview for his promram/special a radical, not that all Muslims are radical.)

And...well, I'll put it this way:

I disliked Dawkins and loathed the Muslim guy, so I guess I came out of that liking Dawkins by comparison...but that's really not saying a lot for him in the end, he's still Richard Dawkins...don't know what more I can say, really...

(Wow, this was started at 9:30 and it's already nearly up to 100 comments...)

@Putin:

"I don't see why you like Hitchens, if your complaint is that atheists are too rude and too hostile to the religious."

First, I don't think atheists are rude as a people.

Secondly, what I like about Hitchens so far, at least, is his debating ability and in particular to seem to be able to knife at the heart of the matter, not be thrown off-course when the person across from him calls him a deragotory name for being an atheist, and still slipping in a few asides while staying focused on winning the debate.

I have not read "God Is Not Great."

I could read it and, for all I know, find him more irritating than I generally find Dawkins.

(I feel like we're missing at least one more big-name New Atheist, can't put my finger on the name...gah...what is the guy's name...we have Dawkin's and Hitchens, who's #3, can't remember...)

Sam Harris

So - this is more about who is a bigger dick, Hitchens or Dawkins? I thought it was about new atheism. It's not like Hitchens or Dawkins is my pope or anything like that.

Sam Harris is much Hitchens in their political views. As for New Atheists, I quite like P.Z. Myers.

"First, I don't think atheists are rude as a people."

You have a knack for missing the point.

Your complaint was that the new atheists are too 'loud', too rude, too hostile, etc. Stop playing these games.

"Secondly, what I like about Hitchens so far, at least, is his debating ability and in particular to seem to be able to knife at the heart of the matter"

Except he goes on silly tangents and wastes time. If you want somebody to get at the heart of matter, listen to Arif Ahmed. Nobody could be more to the point than he is.

"we have Dawkin's and Hitchens, who's #3, can't remember...)"

Dan Dennett. The Santa Claus of the New Atheist movement. Love that guy. Also like Victor Stenger.

I have no use for Sam Harris. For whatever reason people are impressed with him. He's the Dinish D'Souza of the atheists. Endlessly making stupid analogies.

The Moral Lanscape is fantastic, Putin. Can't speak for his other works.

And actually, for an underrated little known new atheist who rebuts some of the fallacious arguments some of the other guys never address, listen to Jeremy Beahan.

I'd rather Jeremy Bentham, but that's just me.

@dexter morgan:

This is NOT about "who the bigger dick is," this is on the movement as a whole, New Artheism, and I suppose we've all started with the leaders of it...

Please, if you want to talk about the actual material of the subject, proceed, I'd love to hear your insights on the matter.

The only way the "personality" of Dawkins or Hitchens matters here is in the context of this being a movement, and someone made the comment that New Atheism is meant to encourage discussion among the masses and a movement that is aimed at the common man--was that you who made the point?--and my response in part was that if this is a movement IS aimed at the common man, the arrogant nature of the leaders of the movement--and here is where I mentioned Dawkins--is not a good selling point.

And lol, +1 for the timely Bentham reference there, Cachimbo

@Putin:

I have no idea who that is, Dan Dennet or Arif Ahmed...

Sam Harris I've heard of, I think he was the #3 I was thinking of, but I've never read him...

Also, Ptuin, harkening back to the Holocaust denial charge earlier...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoV3UWUs3V4&feature=related

He seems furious that Falwell both supported--or feigned support for--Israel and was Anti-Semetic as well, so I don't take Hitchens as an Anti-Semite, and I think this whole "Holocasut denial" bit is blown out of proportion, notice he's markedly upset iwth Israel and his view that its existence has lead to suffering (and while I support ISrael, he's not entirely wrong there.) So I think, again, he's not Anti-Semetic and so not going full-tilt Holocaust Denial, but rather just probably thought alound once that he felt the Briotish might have played it up to justify Israel's existence, and someone overheard him and a stupid comment said in company became an accidental mini-scandal.

Nothing more.

Posted that as that's the first thing of Hitchens' speaking I ever saw--and yes, I find him amazing in it, I suppose you do not, but I completely agree with him here, and just the scathing ferocity of his remarks and his unabashed boldness is astounding and commendable. You remarked that I mentioned I had a disdain for what I perceived as a strain of rudeness or excessive antagonism in the New Atheism movement; I will say this is not what I mean by that at all, THIS is not excessive antagonism. What would be, what is excessive antagonism? Openly mocking the beliefs of those every-day people, I've seen some do that are New Theists, THAT is crossing the line for me; I agree with Mafialligator and dexter morgan and Smiley, it is perfectly acceptable for Dawkins or Hitchens or, now that I've remembered his name, I suppose Harris to go out and blast Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard or the group that ran that Jesus Camp from the documentary of that name or even someone like Mother Teresa, as Hitchens infamously has (my opinion on HIS opinion of that and of her is mixed) is part of their "job" or "position" as leaders of this movement. That's how it works.

Locke attacked Hobbes when he wanted to take on the idea of kingship directly.
Spinoza blasted Descartes when his Pantheism views clashed with Rene's Christianity.
Marx and...well, Marx and quite a FEW others...I'll leave it there, the clash is implied.

It's part of the deal of being the head of a movement to take on other heads.

But the moment you start sniping at the "innocents," or, rather, the people who are not actively promoting their point against you and would be perfectly happy to co-exist wtih you, politely agreeing to disagree, the moment those become the subject of ridicule...THEN it becomes a bit of am problem for me.

I'll give one quick, and rather minor example of this:

The popular--drawing in the six and seven digits, hundreds of thousands and millions, so it's a reasonably big audience by YouTube channel standards--New Atheist YouTube channel TheThinkingAtheist has made some reasonably funny and even informative videos taking shots at religion. (I personally recommend the Top10 and Nexxt Top 10 Favorite Creationist Arguments, as well as the excellent poke at the Noah's Ark fable and their bit on Scientology.)

However, they made on video where the essential premise was to ask, if God is good and cares about his faithful, why do they suffer tragedies?

The rest of the video lsits and pokes fun at several small-town pastors and everyday Christians who died in tornadoes or shootings or were accidentally electrocuted and so on.

THAT, fo me, is indicative of a sort of an undercurrent of a mean streak in the movement towards theists, and towards Christians in particular, which is undertandable given not only their theological clashes but the fact the Christians give as good as they get here, they can be just as cruel.

Nevertheless, it's an aspect I see ion various people, again, even as just an undercurrent, maybe not so overt as the video I mentioned, but just a general feeling of more than opposition towards the everyday Christian on the street, but almost a passionate hatred of them, like they'd be happeir if all believers suddenly died...

And it's THAT kind of mean-spiritedness, among other kinds, I don't like in the movement.

"my response in part was that if this is a movement IS aimed at the common man, the arrogant nature of the leaders of the movement--and here is where I mentioned Dawkins--is not a good selling point."
Agreed. But I simply believe that Dawkins' arrogance has been exaggerated... From what I've seen he is very well spoken, very rational, and very patient often with people who are not being so patient. He makes a handy symbol for the enemies of the atheist movement - due sometimes to his losing his patience but mostly through baiting him and then quote mining him. For his opponents it wouldn't matter much what he was like... he would still be painted as angry and dangerous... the quotes and clips that seemed to support that image would be found and disseminated. The same sort of propaganda machine worked, for example, against Obama - characterizing him as an angry Muslim Communist foreign agent fascist etc. Despite the fact that Obama's level of cool headedness and patience far exceeds Dawkins... and 99.9% of the human population. Is Obama too angry a symbol for the Democratic Party? Or perhaps... anyone in that position would be painted the same way by the right wing forces desperate to cling onto their power. I'm not going to blame the victim here (and am disappointed that you do)... the fact that Dawkins is often mischaracterized is more the fault of the numerous media outlets and public figures who, duh, display the same sort of paranoia and hatred at any atheist who refuses to play the game of playing homage to the existing religious institutions.

As to New Atheists in general... my take is that the most important ideas to come out of it has been to be loud and proud and to work towards a world that embraces rationality and that shifts religion into being more of a private matter and not a policy making machine. Several leading atheists promote ideas such as these... though some still argue for being nicey-nice and still kiss the ring of religion claiming that it's a good thing.

The New Atheism movement is little more than giving religious figures a dose of the medicine they've been serving for millennia and still serve in backwards-ass places of the world like Louisiana, where I've been suffocated by it for 19 years. Fuck niceness.

Eden +1. Except Tennessee instead of Louisiana.

And where in Louisiana, Eden? My entire family is from there.

Baton Rouge. Tennessee is one of about three states of which I'm not envious on this issue... y'all have it about as bad as we do. =P

What's the third state, out of curiosity, Eden?

Well, I said about three, and truthfully it's more like there's five states that are just ugh: Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana. Texas is kinda bad but I could stand the cities. New Orleans is the only haven of sanity when it comes to religion in Louisiana.

Ah. My mom and her two sisters grew up in BR. Aunt still lives there.

And while I agree the religious leaders and boards of education and politicians and the like should be given this medicine, I don't think, quite honestly, that the same vitriol can be hurled at the common schmuck on the street.

Again, as I said earlier, it's by a chance roll of the twin dice of genetics and economics you're able to have this understanding in the first place, you could just as easily habe become as backwards as those you would advocate a theological wr of words against, and while I'm all for at least the educational components of the New Atheist movement--as far as metaphysics and the actual God bit goes, again, I hardly agree 100% with anyone on that issue, the closest I come to a theory which I can altch onto is Spinoza's "God=existence and that's IT, no will, no Eden, nothing more" approach, and politically I know I at least disagree with Hitchens and socialism, so there's that stumbling block--I think it's equally important to be understanding and as much as possible compassionate to the people they--we--seek to educate and build a better world with.

No good was ever achieved in history by someone ripping a book of dogma out of someone's hands, kicking them, saying "You're wrong and I'm rioght," and foisting a new book on them and forcibly making them follow it.

Just educate the youth, and, in time, the facts will speak for themselves...oddly enough, I think I have more, ahem, "faith" in the youth of American than in its elders.