The Hitch is dead.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So you hope that a dying cancer patient became so scared of dying and of the possible eternal torture

I wouldn't suppose him fearing possible eternal torture since he didn't believe in God in order to believe in eternal torture. Rather, I'd hope that approaching death would focus his mind on the possibility of something beyond. And if something beyond then possibly a creator and if a creator capable of creating all this then someone who might be able to sidestep the model of God Hitchens had created.

It's not like it was a very sophisticated one.

You must remember the bigger picture. The god Hitchens created was created (it is argued) so that Hitchens could shrug of the call God places on all men. You don't have to believe that in order for it to be so.

If so, then Hitchens wasn't being 'noble'. He was simply plugging his ears shut with this fabricated god of his.

that you think God had waiting for him for simply not believing that he skipped any peaceful, rational transition to Christianity and instead betrayed everything he believed and begged for mercy?

What he believed in was self on the throne. Do what I want when I want. Say what I want when and to whom I want. Unapologetically, Unswervingly, Unyieldingly.

All he would be betraying would be a lie. He doesn't sit on the throne. God does (if God exists). Would you have him cling to a lie?

Arcus Arrow

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've never read him or even seen much of him......

So everything before and after that statement regarding Christopher Hitchens is based on second or third hand impressions, other peoples opinions, supposition, ill-informed conjecture, ignorance and petty insecurity.

Of course that also sums up all the mental ingredients needed to believe in a god thing.

Galvasean

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) There is no such thing as an innocent person. Not Christian, not non-Christian. Your structure wobbles from the get go.

Wow, that tyrant in the sky really has sucked you in with his sicko propaganda hasn't he?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't suppose him fearing possible eternal torture since he didn't believe in God in order to believe in eternal torture. Rather, I'd hope that approaching death would focus his mind on the possibility of something beyond. And if something beyond then possibly a creator and if a creator capable of creating all this then someone who might be able to sidestep the model of God Hitchens had created.

It's not like it was a very sophisticated one.

You must remember the bigger picture. The god Hitchens created was created (it is argued) so that Hitchens could shrug of the call God places on all men. You don't have to believe that in order for it to be so.

If so, then Hitchens wasn't being 'noble'. He was simply plugging his ears shut with this fabricated god of his.

And why would impending death make anything "clearer" exactly?
And what would drive this revaluation?

Of course this is based on your notion that Hitchens was working off a parody of god, while you are saying the crap about it being ok for him to let people die.
It's a wonderful irony.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What he believed in was self on the throne. Do what I want when I want. Say what I want when and to whom I want. Unapologetically, Unswervingly, Unyieldingly.

All he would be betraying would be a lie. He doesn't sit on the throne. God does (if God exists). Would you have him cling to a lie?

I would have him cling to good reasoning and rational thought, not fear and threats as you hoped he caved to.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've never read him or even seen much of him [...] Theologically illiterate [...] to jaw-dropping degree [...] Hitch didn't appear to leave open the chance that a God who was claimed to have created this universe would nigh on certainly be more sophisticated and nuanced that the one he was bent on skewering.

Two things here:

1. Hitchens could not skewer any deity, since no deity was never brave enough to go up against him in public. On the contrary, Hitch was brilliant at showing deistic propaganda for the rubbish it is and was able consistently to pwn religious cheerleaders.

2. If you've never read him or even seen much of him, I'd be intrigued to know exactly how you know he's "theological illiterate"

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) There is no such thing as an innocent person. Not Christian, not non-Christian. Your structure wobbles from the get go.

2) A Christian is a Christian when they meet God's definition of a Christian - not mans. We cannot therefore tell what percentage of the population of the Phillippines are Christian.


3) Genesis 3 “Cursed is the ground because of you". Storms, floods, weeds, disease - is the theological conclusion drawn.

You tell me my "structure wobbles" after saying there is no such thing as an innocent person? Not even a new born baby? What about a fetus?

And then you have the gall to suggest that their may not really be Christian enough - as if that matters when you're talking about arbitrarily snuffing out whole communities.

Lastly quoting the bible does not explain why every man woman and child has to be born guilty and can be wiped out a the whim of the God that created them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hitchens' model of (the presumably Christian) God saw God creating us sick (sinners) and commanding us that we be well (behave ourselves). It's a mis-comprehension seen with monotonous frequency around here.

The actual position is that you are born a sinner and are commanded to let God make you well because you are incapable of behaving yourself.

I don't know which is worse, tbh. Both are rife with a sick, inherent guilt on the part of humans, and an inability on the part of God to control or fix his flawed creation.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

And why would impending death make anything "clearer" exactly? And what would drive this revaluation?

Fear, I imagine.

A house of straw on a summers day is a fine thing. It's when the storm approaches that you begin to wonder if the dwelling you've constructed will be fit for use.

Of course this is based on your notion that Hitchens was working off a parody of god, while you are saying the crap about it being ok for him to let people die.
It's a wonderful irony.

I'm not sure what the irony is supposed to be?

I would have him cling to good reasoning and rational thought, not fear and threats as you hoped he caved to.

Depends on what he truly thought of his wrongdoing. Outwardly he had no regrets. Inwardly it might be another story. And if a sense of having done actually wrong then a sense that a righteous God might have something to say about that. If he exists.


I don't see anything unreasonable about it if he figured he had wrongs on his plate that couldn't be dealt with by 'forgiving' himself or having 'no regrets'

Sarky

Do you not feel even a little ashamed about what you're saying, antiskeptic?

The man lived and died without the god you can't distinguish from reality. Didn't need him, at any point. He's not even a week dead and you're claiming a man you know buggerall about by your own admission probably didn't mean it.

There appear to be enough planks in your eyes to build a small fleet.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

You tell me my "structure wobbles" after saying there is no such thing as an innocent person? Not even a new born baby? What about a fetus?

It would appear not. Sin is in our constitution. I wouldn't conflate God wiping out humanity with God sending all that humanity to hell though.


Everyone dies Dades. God kills us all ultimately.

And then you have the gall to suggest that their may not really be Christian enough - as if that matters when you're talking about arbitrarily snuffing out whole communities.

I don't recognize "Christian enough". It's Christian or not Christian. No in betweens.

Again, I'd point out everyone dying at some point. That a group happen to die in one place at one time is no different ultimately than the a multitude more who died in that same time but were scattered over the globe.

You're making a big deal about death focused at a location. I can't say I see the significance of it given "death at work all the time everywhere".

Lastly quoting the bible does not explain why every man woman and child has to be born guilty and can be wiped out a the whim of the God that created them.

Adam the head of mankind. The head fell, all under his dominion fell. I wouldn't say God kills on a whim. I'd say that he kills when his purpose for giving life to the individual has been met.

Remember, my viewpoint is that this life is a precursor to an eternal event. If I see the second half I don't get as worked up as someone who thinks the first half is the whole game.

I don't know which is worse, tbh. Both are rife with a sick, inherent guilt on the part of humans, and an inability on the part of God to control or fix his flawed creation.

The inherent guilt of humanity isn't a problem for the saved. And so isn't a terminal problem. It's only part of the set up of options: whether you want to cling to that inherent guilt or not.

The eternal realm will consist of a fixed humanity residing with God on a fixed earth. It's only the ones who insisted on retaining their brokenness that are thrown on the scrap heap.

This flawed (rather, fallen) creation isn't at all as flawed as you suppose. It's perfectly suited for ascertaining your response to God's offer. And Hitchens. And mine. Once that's established, it can be rolled up and recreated as new.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fear, I imagine.

A house of straw on a summers day is a fine thing. It's when the storm approaches that you begin to wonder if the dwelling you've constructed will be fit for use.

So my point stands and everything you wrote in between was yet more of you sophistry and waffle.
You hoped a cancer patient got so scared he skipped rational discourse and jumped over to your side.
As I said, that's a sick thing to hope for.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what the irony is supposed to be?

Because you are describing a horrible, uncaring, vicious tyrant who brainwashes people via fear.
While at the same time you are saying that Hitchens was using a strawman of a god.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Depends on what he truly thought of his wrongdoing. Outwardly he had no regrets. Inwardly it might be another story. And if a sense of having done actually wrong then a sense that a righteous God might have something to say about that. If he exists.

And what, pray tell was his "wrongdoing"?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see anything unreasonable about it if he figured he had wrongs on his plate that couldn't be dealt with by 'forgiving' himself or having 'no regrets'

Except it being born out of fear and regret, not enlightenment or rational realisation.
But hey, any victory for the lord, right?

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Do you not feel even a little ashamed about what you're saying, antiskeptic?

The man lived and died without the god you can't distinguish from reality. Didn't need him, at any point. He's not even a week dead

He's not dead. Not in the way you mean.

I don't know (nor do you) whether he died without God or not.

and you're claiming a man you know bugger all about by your own admission probably didn't mean it.

Didn't mean what? I'm looking at a man I know something about and then saw interviewed and giving specific answers to specific questions.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

He's not dead. Not in the way you I mean.

I don't know (nor do you) whether he died without God or not.

FYP

Yahew

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fear, I imagine.

A house of straw on a summers day is a fine thing. It's when the storm approaches that you begin to wonder if the dwelling you've constructed will be fit for use.

I have seen surveys where the non-believers were the most relaxed in death. Since you admit that you cant know what God considers a Christian, you should be more worried, surely? How do you know you are saved, and the problem with not being saved is eternal damnation, not eternal rest.

It would be arrogant to assume you know the mind of God, so you can only reasonably assume that the probability is you are doomed.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So my point stands and everything you wrote in between was yet more of you sophistry ,,,

Do not pass GO, do not collect £200.

:rolleyes:

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do not pass GO, do not collect £200.

:rolleyes:

Whoops, my bad, I thought you might be able to defend your offensive, idiotic points.

But I think you did a great job of showing just how horrible Christian beliefs can get.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

1. Hitchens could not skewer any deity, since no deity was never brave enough to go up against him in public. On the contrary, Hitch was brilliant at showing deistic propaganda for the rubbish it is and was able consistently to pwn religious cheerleaders.

a.k.a skewering a deity.

2. If you've never read him or even seen much of him, I'd be intrigued to know exactly how you know he's "theological illiterate"

If at this point in his life he wasn't aware of that most basic of Christian claims then illiterate (in that system) he most certainly was. Theological literacy stems from root ideas. If the root isn't miscomprehended then the literacy cannot grow.

One would have to wonder how someone of that age managed to maintain a faulty understanding for as long as he did.

antiskeptic

Yahew wrote: »

I have seen surveys where the non-believers were the most relaxed in death.

Yet there are no atheists in foxholes?

I wonder how they manage to survey that since these days, folk are frequently drugged up to the eyeballs during their final descent.

Since you admit that you cant know what God considers a Christian you should be more worried, surely? How do you know you are saved, and the problem with not being saved is eternal damnation, not eternal rest.

It would be arrogant to assume you know the mind of God, so you can only reasonably assume that the probability is you are doomed.

I said that the only Christian was one as defined by God - not men. I can know what that definition is since I can know God. But since I (nor anybody else) can't know in every individuals case whether they meet that definition or not I can't broad brushstroke like Dades does.


I can say my mam is a Christian (because I know she meets the definition) and can say that my sisters likely aren't (because I know they don't appear meet the definition at this moment). I can't comment on the Philippines since I don't know the population there./

anushka

Elliemental wrote: »

This is such sad news, that goes without saying. But, it doesn't do to dwell on his death. Instead, remember his fine life. So, tonight, I'll be pouring a nice glass of Johnnie Walker Black Label, and watching YouTube's fine selection of Hitchslap compillations to relive that ferocious wit and intellect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w

yes, lets celebrate his life.

Standman

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would appear not. Sin is in our constitution. I wouldn't conflate God wiping out humanity with God sending all that humanity to hell though.


Everyone dies Dades. God kills us all ultimately.





I don't recognize "Christian enough". It's Christian or not Christian. No in betweens.

Again, I'd point out everyone dying at some point. That a group happen to die in one place at one time is no different ultimately than the a multitude more who died in that same time but were scattered over the globe.

You're making a big deal about death focused at a location. I can't say I see the significance of it given "death at work all the time everywhere".





Adam the head of mankind. The head fell, all under his dominion fell. I wouldn't say God kills on a whim. I'd say that he kills when his purpose for giving life to the individual has been met.

Remember, my viewpoint is that this life is a precursor to an eternal event. If I see the second half I don't get as worked up as someone who thinks the first half is the whole game.




The inherent guilt of humanity isn't a problem for the saved. And so isn't a terminal problem. It's only part of the set up of options: whether you want to cling to that inherent guilt or not.

The eternal realm will consist of a fixed humanity residing with God on a fixed earth. It's only the ones who insisted on retaining their brokenness that are thrown on the scrap heap.

This flawed (rather, fallen) creation isn't at all as flawed as you suppose. It's perfectly suited for ascertaining your response to God's offer. And Hitchens. And mine. Once that's established, it can be rolled up and recreated as new.

Regarding the sentences in bold, you say that god kills us all in the end once some purpose of his has been met. So it follows from that that god creates us with a specific purpose in mind for each and every person on the planet before we are even born. So what your god has done for the craic, is to create a world inhabited by people of different religions or none at all, kill them at some point in time and send the ones whose purpose it was to believe in him to heaven and all the others to hell. Perhaps the purpose of babies born with fatal birth defects is to punish the parents for their sins? Where exactly does free will come into this?

Yahew

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet there are no atheists in foxholes?

There are no believers at a funeral. In any case the stats are clear on this. Atheists are relaxed. Believers often are not. ( Most people probably have some skelton in their closet).

I said that the only Christian was one as defined by God - not men. I can know what that definition is since I can know God.

I can say my mam is a Christian (because I know she meets the definition)

Presumably you meant to say you can't know what that definition is since you can't know God. If so, how do you know your mam is a Christian, that your sisters aren't, and the Phillipines - mostly Catholic - probably isn't. They think they are.

Unless God told you, you are deciding who is Christian and who isn't based on a series of man made rules. These man made rules will get you and a few members of your sect into heaven, and nobody else,

oceanclub

Yahew wrote: »

I have seen surveys where the non-believers were the most relaxed in death.

Weirdly, I'm far more sanguine about death now than I was when a child and religious, even thought I'm far nearer it now than I was then.

P.

Galvasean

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet there are no atheists in foxholes?

So you keep telling yourself.

Yahew

oceanclub wrote: »

Weirdly, I'm far more sanguine about death now than I was when a child and religious, even thought I'm far nearer it now than I was then.

P.

The reason is that genuine believers genuinely believe in God, and therefore damnation. For certain protestant denominations in particular, good works are not sufficient for salvation, but they are necessary - the elect would do good works because they are elect, other people might do good works but are unelect.

However, the problem is knowing if you are elect or not. Since going against God's law is an symptom of not being Elect, and that can be internal thought, or private acts, the believer has to be nervous on his death bed, unless he really thinks he knows the mind of God, or has lived a perfect life. Since nobody has lived such a life, heoretically every believer should be terrified or, and certain of going to, hell.

( Catholics have it easier with confession).

antiskeptic

Yahew wrote: »

There are no believers at a funeral.

Not many at Catholic ones, true. But then again, Catholicism is a largely cultural affair in this country.

I've been at a view believers funerals and they certainly are different

In any case the stats are clear on this. Atheists are relaxed. Believers often are not. ( Most people probably have some skelton in their closet).

Anyone can be relaxed about dying when they're not face-to-face with it. And when they are face to face with it they're often drugged up
so that no one can tell what they're feeling.

Presumably you meant to say you can't know what that definition is since you can't know God.

You presume in error. Of course I can know God. What's stopping me knowing him? Or more correctly, what's stopping him revealing himself to me?

Unless God told you, you are deciding who is Christian and who isn't based on a series of man made rules. These man made rules will get you and a few members of your sect into heaven, and nobody else,

According to those rules, even folk who've never heard of him have an opportunity to go to heaven. So I couldn't comment on precise numbers

antiskeptic

Galvasean wrote: »

So you keep telling yourself.

I'm sure they turn back into atheists when the shelling stops..

Galvasean

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm sure they turn back into atheists when the shelling stops..

Give some of these guys a few emails. You'd never know you might learn something.
http://www.militaryatheists.org/expaif.html

Or you can dismiss them and presume to know everything about them as you have done with Hitchens already.

Yahew

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not many at Catholic ones, true. But then again, Catholicism is a largely cultural affair in this country.

I've been at a view believers funerals and they certainly are different

Everybody is delighted at those funerals then. The dead man is in heaven, and there is much joy! and laughter! A realisation that we will all be joining him a a tiny spec of time relative to eternity. Its like a child's birthday party?

You presume in error. Of course I can know God. What's stopping me knowing him? Or more correctly, what's stopping him revealing himself to me?

Just you, or through some book, or some interpretation of a book read differently by a different sect?

According to those rules, even folk who've never heard of him have an opportunity to go to heaven. So I couldn't comment on precise numbers

A lot less than 1% I imagine. However, you are saved, so good for you.

( Except the sect down the road, the one which broke away ten years ago, thinks your sect is all damned, and God is revealing that to them too, using the same revealed literature).

If I were Christian I'd go with most mainline Catholics and Protestants being saved, otherwise Jesus popped down in the first century to save nobody until the Protestant revolution, and very few then. Seems a bit unlikely.

Standman

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet there are no atheists in foxholes?
/

That sentence really annoys me. It comes across as so arrogant like saying that a religious person who cries at a funeral mustn't really believe in an afterlife.

Was watching touching the void a while back and this really stood out for me:

'"I was totally convinced I was on my own, that no one was coming to get me. I was brought up as a devout Catholic. I'd long since stopped believing in God. I always wondered if things really hit the fan, whether I would, under pressure, turn round and say a few Hail Marys and say 'Get me out of here'. It never once occurred to me. It meant that I really don't believe and I really do think that when you die, you die, that's it, there's no afterlife." - Joe Simpson.

He was stuck at the bottom of a deep crevasse in a glacier with a broken leg and no where to go but down into the abyss. Instead of lying there praying for a miracle he managed to save him self through absolutely amazing courage and determination.

Sarky

Nah, god saved him really because bible.

MagicMarker

Yahew wrote: »

I have seen surveys where the non-believers were the most relaxed in death. Since you admit that you cant know what God considers a Christian, you should be more worried, surely? How do you know you are saved, and the problem with not being saved is eternal damnation, not eternal rest.

It would be arrogant to assume you know the mind of God, so you can only reasonably assume that the probability is you are doomed.

You're talking to a man who firmly believes he has been saved and therefore guaranteed a place in heaven.

Save yourself the time and turn off the computer.