Ah fuck. Christopher Hitchens just Died.

Yuckystuff said:
That's pretty fucking pathetic if the loss of a complete stranger affects you more than the loss of friends and family.

In other news, someones not going to heaven lol. Here's perfect linkbait for anyone that wants it. "Christopher Hitchens bedside conversion to Christianity in his dying moments". CTR = 99%.
Click to expand...

First, how do you know he was a complete stranger.

Second, I didn't realize God was a member of Wicked Fire disguised as someone by the name of Yuckystuff. Last I checked he was the one who makes the call who gets inside the pearly gates and who doesn't. Judgmental, self righteous "Christians" like you need to sit down and take a good look in the mirror and maybe open a Bible before you go spouting off.
 


GreeLee said:
Rest in Peace? Really??

Rest implies an ongoing existence. He did not believe in any existence after death, so there's only 2 possible scenarios. 1 - he was right, and right now all that is left of his former existence is a body that will soon be fertilizer. 2 - he was wrong.

Neither scenario ends in peace.

May the person you call Spaghetti Monster have mercy on your soul...
Click to expand...

I bet you're proud of yourself for that, aren't you?

Take a philosophy class, better yet here, and think before you type next time.

Not everything is shallow simply because you can't comprehend.
 
Can someone point me to an essay in which Hitch logically disproves (or attempts to disprove) the existence of God? If you can, I'd be in your debt.

Here's the reason I ask:

I'm ignorant of Hitch's positions on religion, theism, and atheism (other than him being an atheist, of course). I would like to see his logical approach. A couple friends are loyal fans, but have not been able to produce more than quips and attacks. Good tactics for debate, but I'm not interested in listening to, or watching, a debate.*

If you're aware of an essay that demonstrates his logic (I want to stress this, because I don't want to waste time with emotional fluff), and can be bothered to post a link, thanks in advance.


* I don't appreciate the emotional appeals made to the audience, which is an essential part of debate.
 
Jake, that's impossible because to prove God exists you would have to first define what God is, and most people can't even do that without contradicting themselves. And also, burden of proof lies on the shoulder of people that make the claim etc

Conclusion: I don't think Hitchens ever intended to disprove God because he knew he couldn't.

p/s: I also think most atheists hold the position of "if god exists he wouldn't be the kind of god Christianity/Islam/Judaism describes".
 
clyde said:
Jake, that's impossible because to prove God exists you would have to first define what God is, and most people can't even do that without contradicting themselves. And also, burden of proof lies on the shoulder of people that make the claim etc
Click to expand...

Allow me to clarify.

I'm not interested in Hitch's success toward disproving the existence of God. Rather, I'd like to observe the road he takes to reach his conclusion. In other words, I'm interested in his logical approach to the matter, beginning with the axiom(s) on which he bases his argument.
 
JakeStratham said:
Can someone point me to an essay in which Hitch logically disproves (or attempts to disprove) the existence of God? If you can, I'd be in your debt.

Here's the reason I ask:

I'm ignorant of Hitch's positions on religion, theism, and atheism (other than him being an atheist, of course). I would like to see his logical approach. A couple friends are loyal fans, but have not been able to produce more than quips and attacks. Good tactics for debate, but I'm not interested in listening to, or watching, a debate.*

If you're aware of an essay that demonstrates his logic (I want to stress this, because I don't want to waste time with emotional fluff), and can be bothered to post a link, thanks in advance.


* I don't appreciate the emotional appeals made to the audience, which is an essential part of debate.
Click to expand...

I would like to read the same.
 
I read the title and my stomach immediately dropped. It's been sad to watch his cancer progress but also was great to see it not slow down his speaking.
 
JakeStratham said:
Allow me to clarify.

I'm not interested in Hitch's success toward disproving the existence of God. Rather, I'd like to observe the road he takes to reach his conclusion. In other words, I'm interested in his logical approach to the matter, beginning with the axiom(s) on which he bases his argument.
Click to expand...

I'm still unclear with what you really interested to know about but I think he wrote a whole book about that titled "God is Not Great".

There's also this 3 hour c-span interview:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMbAEKhvDRg]Christopher Hitchens In Depth - YouTube[/ame]
 
clyde said:
I'm still unclear with what you really interested to know about but I think he wrote a whole book about that titled "God is Not Great".

There's also this 3 hour c-span interview:
Christopher Hitchens In Depth - YouTube
Click to expand...

Thanks clyde. I'll check out his book (links to shorter essays are still welcome, of course).

Regarding the video, thank for posting it. I'm more of a reader than watcher. Vids put me to sleep, and I retain less. I blame my slothful mind. :)
 
clyde said:
I'm still unclear with what you really interested to know about but I think he wrote a whole book about that titled "God is Not Great".
Click to expand...

My take from what I've read of his works and about him is the existence of god is immaterial. Bluejammm posted a quote that I think sums up how much effort should go into deciding if there is a god:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Click to expand...

His (primary) beef has always been with how people and societies behave in accordance with their own belief in god and what that notion of god expects from them. If it could be definitively proved that god actually existed he would probably find god to be an asshole and fault him for the endless number of logical inconsistencies that people apply to themselves and others in pursuit of "his will".

Even the title of his book "God is not Great" seems to point out that existence is beside the point. I vaguely remember him psuedo-debating Al Sharpton and Hitchens kept his focus on religion and it's faults as opposed to whether there was no god or if he just sat back while supposed injustices and tragedies occurred.

God does not not exist because of A, B, C... but because of A, B, C... if he does exist his existence is immaterial.

At least that is my take on him.
 
justo_tx said:
His (primary) beef has always been with how people and societies behave in accordance with their own belief in god and what that notion of god expects from them.
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to get a clearer picture (again, I'm starting from ignorance). I know a few learned theologians, and none actually say, "I can prove that God exists."

I had thought Hitchens's position was, "I can prove God doesn't exist, and thus the reason I'm an atheist rather than an agnostic."* Bad assumption it seems. Sorry for the confusion.


* I know there is some overlap between atheism and agnosticism.
 
justo_tx said:
My take from what I've read of his works and about him is the existence of god is immaterial.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's like Hitch has thoughtfully & carefully deduced that God is a mean, irresponsible asshole who is only worthy of our scorn, not worship. How else should we treat someone responsible for the creation and care of such a crappy, evil world?

Of course, all the scientific evidence points to the hypothesis that there is no god. Hitch obviously believed this and he wasn't afraid to say so, but he also never seemed to champion that line of thought... It was secondary to him.

He will be missed. Far more than any christian I know.
 
lukep said:
Agreed. It's like Hitch has thoughtfully & carefully deduced that God is a mean, irresponsible asshole who is only worthy of our scorn, not worship. How else should we treat someone responsible for the creation and care of such a crappy, evil world?
Click to expand...
@Jake, it's atheist populism. He wasn't some rigorous logician.

Everyone likes the material which confirms their beliefs and how they see their position in the world. Hitchens makes some atheists feel intellectually and morally superior, which IMO, is what most atheists are craving.

He had some incredibly statist views and in general, was a pretty bitter person. A partisan version of HL Mencken.
 
I do wish he would have stayed out of politics... But I guess Vanity Fair paid him to go there... I dunno. Obviously he was naive on that front, even siding with Bush that Iraq was a just war. :(

So make no mistake, I'm not pointing to Hitch as a perfect model to follow, but I do aspire to be more like him, especially his mental acuity and advanced logical faculties. Like -God- said above, Hitch was a:

God said:
Great debater, able to cut someone down with little effort and make even the "intelligent" religionists (now that's an oxymoron) look even more stupid. He could hang people with their own words. The word "pwned" was made for use in the comments of his video clips, because it's what he did, verbally and cerebrally battered his opponents into submission.

He's a real loss because although not as decorated as Dawkins, he was a real force to be reckoned with and had the ability to find the right words to be able to make the other person look as stupid as they are. Verbal judoism, I suppose.
Click to expand...
 
guerilla said:
Hitchens makes some atheists feel intellectually and morally superior, which IMO, is what most atheists are craving.
Click to expand...

I've watched every debate Hitchens has ever been in and can't count the hours I've spent studying theism/deism/atheism/anti-theism, and true intellectual "atheists" (I hate labels) do not crave a feeling of superiority. Maybe those on reddit, but anti-theists like Hitchens are "bitter" because of how religion has corrupted and deluded in human history. I'm sure he'd be a happy fellow if you sat down and shared a drink with him.

May I ask your beliefs?

Just to state my own, I certainly don't believe in a material God. If anything I'd acknowledge the existence of Einstein/Spinoza's God based on the scientific demonstration that the more mysteries we solve, the more we uncover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom