Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Christopher Hitchens has died

1…1314161819…23

Comments

  • #452
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Deus Ex Machina wrote: »
    Well he's dead. Whether he believed in it or not, he's in heaven now. He was a good, but misguided, man.

    Wherever he's ended up, his belief or non-belief in what would happen after death bears no relation to what has actually happened.


  • #453
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Min wrote: »
    You would have to admit Dawkins is more famous for being an atheist these days than as an evolutionary biologist.
    This is what irritates me about some atheists being lauded as great thinkers.

    I have no doubt but that Richard Dawkins is intelligent, but being an atheist does not make him, nor anybody, particularly smart.

    I don't believe in God, but not believing in God does not require any particular mental stamina. It isn't exactly rocket science, and I don't think any of us deserve special recognition for it any more than we deserve a clap on the back for not believing in Santa anymore.

    I find that some atheists like to wear their atheism on their sleeve in the same way that some people of very unremarkable intelligence like to hark on about having to endure bad spelling.
    Like the ability to spell, atheism is a very easy, accessible intellectual achievement that almost anybody can grasp, and with which the faintly smart sometimes like to use for self congratulations.

    When I was younger, I remember seeing Richard Dawkins on the Late Late Show.

    This was the first I had ever heard of the man, and although already an atheist, I was impressed enough by him to buy his book The God Delusion. I was so disappointed. The man said absolutely nothing of note which would indicate that he is some great thinker. It was full of repetitious tautology and boring, well known logic that was established by other people, and regurgitated by Dawkins.

    I really don't know where the support for pop atheists come from, but I have my suspicions, and it probably isn't very complimentary to some.


  • #454
    ironingbored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,294 ✭✭✭ironingbored


    philologos wrote: »
    Do you think that infants have sinned?

    I certainly don't. If one hasn't sinned, how could God reasonably punish them for it? Jesus came into the world to save us from the weight of our sin.

    Eh...orginal sin?

    Don't we all carry the eternal burden of original sin?

    African babies have original sin so will burn, burn, burn


  • #455
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ironingbored wrote: »
    Eh...orginal sin?

    Don't we all carry the eternal burden of original sin?

    African babies have original sin so will burn, burn, burn

    What about it? - We covered this earlier. There is no term "original sin" in the Bible. Rather what it discusses as far as I can tell from Romans 5:12 is our inclination to sin.

    TL;DR - We are guilty of our own sin.


  • #456
    D1stant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭D1stant


    Weathercheck wrote: »
    your loss. suppose an illustration of modern Ireland. the youth would prefer to spend their time being brainwashed by xfactor and facebook rather than expanding their perspective on life and the world.

    What is this xfactor you speak of o wise one?

    Personally I'd be happier if people stopped talking sh1te on this thread and just posted vids of CH. Is there a way to do that Mod?


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    philologos wrote: »
    TL;DR - We are guilty of our own sin.
    Sin your god apparently created. And no, free will doesn't cut it. If god created a universe, then sin was part of his creation. If not, how else did it come to being? He created sin and "satan" and all of it, "good" and "bad". With full godly foresight. Well it's either that or he doesn't control everything. In that case how is he a god? What's your explanation for that conundrum?

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #458
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    later10 wrote: »
    well known logic that was established by other people, and regurgitated by Dawkins.

    He never claimed they were original thoughts. The purpose of his book was to allow closet atheists to feel more comfortable and confident in their non-belief. In that regard it was massively successful.

    Basically what I'm saying is that your disappointment is irrelevant to everyone.


  • #459
    4zn76tysfajdxp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,944 ✭✭✭✭4zn76tysfajdxp


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Sin your god apparently created. And no, free will doesn't cut it. If god created a universe, then sin was part of his creation. If not, how else did it come to being? He created sin and "satan" and all of it, "good" and "bad". With full godly foresight. Well it's either that or he doesn't control everything. In that case how is he a god? What's your explanation for that conundrum?
    He's fucking with us.


  • #460
    krudler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Jacoby Gigantic Against wrote: »
    He's fucking with us.

    quite the prankster is old god, genocide on a mass scale for the lulz, wiping out cities becuase he felt like it, demanding human sacrifice to appease him, his doings read like the cv of a psychopath yet people feel the need to worship him for his love, which everyone supposedly gets anyway no matter how awful a person they are once the "accept him" ( I never got that concept, like what a facebook friend?) on their deathbed.


  • #461
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    This god sounds a bit of a cad!


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    krudler wrote: »
    quite the prankster is old god, genocide on a mass scale for the lulz, wiping out cities becuase he felt like it, demanding human sacrifice to appease him, his doings read like the cv of a psychopath yet people feel the need to worship him for his love, which everyone supposedly gets anyway no matter how awful a person they are once the "accept him" ( I never got that concept, like what a facebook friend?) on their deathbed.

    You have to put it on your wall and get 20 likes before you pop off.


  • #463
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Min wrote: »
    But isn't that what people like Dawkins and Hitchens fail to see.

    You can have a Godless society but it then ends up being replaced with someother thing or person that is worshipped.

    I don't think they fail to see this and I don't think it's an inevitability.
    Dawkins worships Charles Darwin

    I doubt it.
    and is obsessed by religion.

    Obsessed with the truth perhaps.
    Hitchens to alcohol and cigarettes

    Inconsequential.
    and he too was obsessed by religion.

    Obsessed by the truth you mean.
    If one removes something then something else replaces it.

    Yes but it need not be a worse thing. Indeed it shoudn't be,
    These people didn't want a God, but then they would be no one without God or religion for which they are best known for because of their views. Religion and God made them famous.

    Rejection of widely accepted superstition brought them to the attention of seekers of the truth.

    philologos wrote: »
    What about it? - We covered this earlier. There is no term "original sin" in the Bible. Rather what it discusses as far as I can tell from Romans 5:12 is our inclination to sin.

    TL;DR - We are guilty of our own sin.

    You ignored my question.

    Why did you ignore my question?


  • #464
    ascanbe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭ascanbe


    Hope the man rests in peace.
    Haven't read all that much of what Hitchens wrote, so have no business passing judgement on his overall contribution/legacy, but he always struck me as interesting and he was certainly eloquent, judging by some of the interviews i've seen.
    Regarding a point another poster recently alluded to, i also feel his being deified for his view on religion/athesism is a bit odd; it's good that he spoke his mind on this issue but, from what i've gleaned from the bits of his work i've read and interviews i've seen, his stance, was hardly seminal/groundbreaking.
    Also found his work regarding the war in/invasion of Iraq, that i read, wrong-headed, at best.
    Anyway, RIP.


  • #465
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,822 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    You should not apologise for the belief in a god you have or even if you do teach it to your children.

    As an atheist this is something I really struggle with. I don't intend to have kids but if I did I would try to teach them how to think, how to evaluate evidence and hopefully how to make their own decisions. I think it's wrong to actively try to influence what your child thinks. Even when it comes to simple obvious morals I would suggest it is better to ask questions and allow you child to see the reasons and make a decision than to tell them what is good or bad.
    It's not an easy subject by any means and arguments can be put forward that we will always influence children who see us as role models whether we try to or not but I look at the likes of the westboro baptist church or the Amish community and I just can't agree with the idea that a parent should be free to mould a child's beliefs.
    I'm not limiting this to just religion by the way (it's not some vendetta). Politics is another area and even some more difficult moral topics should be treated similar where you should try to give your child as much information as possible without trying to bias it and let them come to their own conclusions (though obviously we're not speaking about 2 year olds here).
    Anyway that's 2 topics on Hitch I've helped derail and the man deserves better. I will say though I'm glad to see AH have a grown up thread where people can have discussions about our society sparked by the death of a famous figure rather than a gagged RIP fest. I'm sure Mr. Hitchens would have much preferred the former :)


  • #466
    Da Shins Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,047 ✭✭✭Da Shins Kelly


    The absolutely deluded thoughts of Christians never fail to amuse me.


  • #467
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Da Shins Kelly wrote: »
    The absolutely deluded thoughts of Christians never fail to amuse me.

    People who sneer and mock the beliefs of others in supercilious tones tend to irritate me, and tend to give other atheists a bad name.


  • #468
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    I'm no atheist.

    I just don't believe in all that bollocks.


  • #469
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Einhard wrote: »
    People who sneer and mock the beliefs of others in supercilious tones tend to irritate me, and tend to give other atheists a bad name.

    Just religious/spiritual stuff or everything?


  • #470
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Sin your god apparently created. And no, free will doesn't cut it. If god created a universe, then sin was part of his creation. If not, how else did it come to being? He created sin and "satan" and all of it, "good" and "bad". With full godly foresight. Well it's either that or he doesn't control everything. In that case how is he a god? What's your explanation for that conundrum?

    I've dealt with that with Dave! - I believe that God gave us the liberty of the will, and as a result left full accountability for our actions in our hands. Had he not given us free will we would be living as mere automatons and be unable to make choices concerning ourselves. I would conclude that God thought it would be better that we were free willed and that we would be accountable for our actions in His creation.

    To blame God for giving us free will seems to be a pretty grandiose way of copping out of ones own responsibility to Him and to others around you.

    I still don't see how that makes God weak exactly. Your claim seems to be that God would be weak if we were not his puppets.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    That sentence is meaningless.

    What do you mean by

    1. 'it'

    and

    2. 'arises'

    Apologies I didn't see your post:
    1. A decision to follow Jesus.
    2. begins in a person.

    In the vast majority of cases this happened as a result of ones own thinking trying to find out about Christianity for themselves as far as I can tell anecdotally.


  • #471
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Again free will is the "out" theologically, but it's a duff one and still avoids the question of where did sin come from. If it comes from us and our free will, well he created all of that or he didn't. More, he knew the outcome. So knowing the outcome he condemned billions to eternal damnation the second he kicked it all off.

    As for the automatons thing, were Adam and Eve automatons, before they ate the dodgy fruit? Apparently not. Blissfully happy in their garden of eden by all accounts. So why create the tree, or worse the serpent, knowing they'd fail? That's a right sadist that is.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • #472
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How does it avoid where sin came from? -

    We were given standards by God to follow and as a result of our liberty of will we decided that it would be better to reflect ourselves rather than reflect God in terms of His standards. That's pretty much what Christians believe happened at the Fall.

    Apologies if I am missing something, but I don't think this objection is as strong as you are making it out to be. God clearly thought it would be better for us to have freedom of will, so that we could come to know Him freely rather than out of mere coercion.

    Humans were freely willed from the beginning. Eden is as far as I see it, as useful depiction of the human desire to believe that they are in a sense gods of their own rather than acknowledging the true God who created all things. If you look at Genesis chapter 3:
    Genesis 3:1b-5 wrote:
    Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
    He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    Satan causes mankind to doubt whether or not God's word is true, and that God was trying to hide it from them because they themselves will be gods. This is a lie, but it is a lie that a whole lot of us fall into.

    Adam and Eve is a good depiction of human accountability actually. God gives them guidelines to live by, they clearly choose to reject them, ultimately to their detriment. They could have resisted this but they didn't. I don't believe this makes God a sadist in any meaningful form. It simply means that God gave them guidelines to follow, they rejected them and they were punished as a result. It's the same situation that man find themselves in today. We know that we've done wrong and we've broken God's standards, yet if we continue to refuse to repent and accept the mercy of Christ then we will be punished for it.

    C.S Lewis also wrote about this in his Mere Christianity, I may cite that later.


  • #473
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    As Frada said he's fucking with us, (and it's a pretty warped sense of humour).
    Omniscient deity creates entity, gives entity free will to do what it wants but even before it creates the entity she already knows the choices it will make (otherwise he ain't omniscient). Therefore the deity creates the bad as well as the good and the ugly.
    There can be no free will if you are created by an omniscient god.


  • #474
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    As Frada said he's fucking with us, (and it's a pretty warped sense of humour).
    Omniscient deity creates entity, gives entity free will to do what it wants but even before it creates the entity she already knows the choices it will make (otherwise he ain't omniscient). Therefore the deity creates the bad as well as the good and the ugly.

    Again. I don't see the basis for this other than an objection to the existence of free will.

    Secondly, it's not as if we sin and there is no way to repent of it or to turn around. It's just that people are unwilling to consider it for one way or another, or indeed just don't know about it.

    Simply put what I and others say is that people can be transformed by the knowledge of their Creator, but it seems that most people want to live in persistent denial. Bringing this back to Christopher Hitchens, this is why I believe that he was promoting the wrong cause, had he not been, I can only wonder at what it could have been like.
    Da Shins Kelly wrote: »
    The absolutely deluded thoughts of Christians never fail to amuse me.

    If that's all I've done, at least I've done something which could be perceived as positive :)

    We'll agree to disagree on the deluded part: Personally I think the rejection of God is corruption of how things really are.


  • #475
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    philologos wrote: »
    Again. I don't see the basis for this other than an objection to the existence of free will.

    Secondly, it's not as if we sin and there is no way to repent of it or to turn around. It's just that people are unwilling to consider it for one way or another, or indeed just don't know about it.

    Simply put what I and others say is that people can be transformed by the knowledge of their Creator, but it seems that most people want to live in persistent denial. Bringing this back to Christopher Hitchens, this is why I believe that he was promoting the wrong cause, had he been, I can only wonder at what it could have been like.



    If that's all I've done, at least I've done something which could be perceived as positive :)
    Free will and an omniscient deity are incompatible, that's all I am really saying.
    One has to go.


  • #476
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    ironingbored wrote: »
    The boundless compassion of Christians never ceases to amaze me. :rolleyes:

    Hitch would never choose to become a serf in the celestial North Korea.

    I forgive you for that post.


  • #477
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Not at all.

    Simply put, knowing that something is going to happen isn't quite the same thing as determining that it was going to happen.

    For example if you knew that I was going to be in Galway next weekend, that wouldn't be quite the same thing as you determining that I would be in Galway next weekend.

    Foreknowledge doesn't of necessity mean that you are determining things to happen.

    It's also important to know that foreknowledge is different to predestination. It's not quite as simple as the nice dichotomies we like to use in discussions.


  • #478
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    philologos wrote: »
    Not at all.

    Simply put, knowing that something is going to happen isn't quite the same thing as determining that it was going to happen.

    For example if you knew that I was going to be in Galway next weekend, that wouldn't be quite the same thing as you determining that I would be in Galway next weekend.

    Foreknowledge doesn't of necessity mean that you are determining things to happen.

    It's also important to know that foreknowledge is different to predestination. It's not quite as simple as the nice dichotomies we like to use in discussions.
    We are talking about an omniscient deity here, if such a god creates something, even before the creation he knows everything his creation will do, add omnipotence to this and everything that happens is the deity's choice.
    There is no getting away from this and the only options are to remove either omnipotence, omniscience or free will. This is the most basic of logic.
    I remember being taught in school it was a sin not to use the talents that were (supposedly) given us by god, logic is one of these.


  • #479
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Of course I am talking about God as being omniscient, but I'm not quite getting your point that somehow knowing about something is the same thing as causing it. God created a person, but ultimately it is still up to that person as to whether or not they happen to do something. All God knows is that it is going to happen in such a case.

    The argument still stands as far as I see it. It is possible for God to know in advance about freely willed decisions. It's also possible for God to determine things. They are separate things. This is clearly logical as far as I see it.


  • #480
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    later10 wrote: »
    This is what irritates me about some atheists being lauded as great thinkers.

    I have no doubt but that Richard Dawkins is intelligent, but being an atheist does not make him, nor anybody, particularly smart.

    I don't believe in God, but not believing in God does not require any particular mental stamina. It isn't exactly rocket science, and I don't think any of us deserve special recognition for it any more than we deserve a clap on the back for not believing in Santa anymore.

    I find that some atheists like to wear their atheism on their sleeve in the same way that some people of very unremarkable intelligence like to hark on about having to endure bad spelling.
    Like the ability to spell, atheism is a very easy, accessible intellectual achievement that almost anybody can grasp, and with which the faintly smart sometimes like to use for self congratulations.

    When I was younger, I remember seeing Richard Dawkins on the Late Late Show.

    This was the first I had ever heard of the man, and although already an atheist, I was impressed enough by him to buy his book The God Delusion. I was so disappointed. The man said absolutely nothing of note which would indicate that he is some great thinker. It was full of repetitious tautology and boring, well known logic that was established by other people, and regurgitated by Dawkins.

    I really don't know where the support for pop atheists come from, but I have my suspicions, and it probably isn't very complimentary to some.
    If you went and bought The God Delusion to hear some never before heard facts about the non existence of a god then more fool you tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Min wrote: »
    You would have to admit Dawkins is more famous for being an atheist these days than as an evolutionary biologist.

    There you are moving the goalposts again, typical of your kind so I forgive you.

    You said god made them famous, you are wrong.

    The End.


Advertisement
Advertisement