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…1718192123

Comments

  • #602
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    later10 wrote: »
    This is the thing, I'm not, I'm merely pointing them out to you. In fact your denial is only very recent. The last time I put it to you the followinh exchange happened
    Hardly a rebuttal or a denial is it?
    You just accuse others of doing the same thing. You even repeat it thereafter:So I'm sorry but it's a bit late for back-pedaling now.
    Thankfully most educated people do not take this lazy shortcut to appreciation of great minds. This sort of methodology never leads to true appreciation, just mute nodding along while not bothering to see what everybody else can see.
    I never denied nor did I backpedal, more crap from you to pick an argument.
    You are just trolling because you refuse to acknowledge where I said "to research someone" even though I have mentioned it in post after post.
    I am not going to discuss with someone who carries on with that behaviour.


  • #603
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I could name numerous experts in various subjects just by a bit of research and examining the comments and opinions of others qualified in those respective fields.
    Now I think to most people that would be interpreted as "I could name numerous experts in various subjects just by googling and examining the comments and opinions of others", at most what you're saying there is that you would research the comments and opinions of others.

    The reason it would be interpreted that way apart from the prima facie reading of the above sentence, is because you actually clarified it in the same post
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    In fact the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers. Unless you are quite qualified in the subject yourself, just reading one of his/her books won't give you that information.



    Back pedaling.

    Keep at it.


  • #604
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    later10 wrote: »
    Now I think to most people that would be interpreted as "I could name numerous experts in various subjects just by googling and examining the comments and opinions of others", at most what you're saying there is that you would research the comments and opinions of others.
    The reason it would be interpreted that way apart from the prima facie reading of the above sentence, is because you actually clarified it in the same post
    Back pedaling.
    Keep at it.

    later10 wrote: »
    I mean couldn't you even check on the likes of wikipedia to read how they have contributed to their discipline in a unique and pioneering way?
    Trolling.


  • #605
    Jess16
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,176 ✭✭✭Jess16


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I am not going to discuss with someone who carries on with that behaviour.

    Yet you continue to do so, which only reiterates the lack of credibility pertaining to your words.


  • #606
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Trolling.
    Use the report post function.

    This is bizarre, you're ignoring what we can see in black & white.


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Jess16 wrote: »
    Yet you continue to do so, which only reiterates the lack of credibility pertaining to your words.
    Those last posts were the proof, I couldn't resist it. ;)


  • #608
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thread:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAcnDevkTnc


    meant in humour folks, but I think it's a very, very small part of the population that would take any interest in this thread right now.
    99% of the windbaging on this thread could have been conducted by PM.

    Could someone just post up Christy's funeral arrangements?

    If Paddy Power are running a book on it, I am taking a punt on him being buried in one of those trendy basket type coffins.


  • #609
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Great but what about all those countless millions that are likely to be in hell for eternity because they never heard of this book? Never mind today, but in centuries past?

    Good question. This is a grey area in Christianity. It speaks merely of clear rejection of the Gospel, it doesn't speak of not knowing about it. It depends on whether or not one thinks that a wholly just judge would send people to hell for not knowing anything about Him. Personally I don't believe He would, but I can't say anything with certainty.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Like I said this god stacks the deck. He specifically creates a hell. Well... it depends on what you read. In Judaism there's no hell, more a temporary purgatory type gig. Certainly not the Christian one. That came later. Early Christian writers seemed to almost revel in the torment of the "damned" according to them.

    Not really. God is just and merciful. He satisfied His justice by Jesus paying the penalty for our sins on the cross. He gave us His mercy through this act. It is ultimately up to us as to whether or not we're going to be stubborn and reject His word, or accept it. I've been on both sides of the equation.

    The Hebrew Scriptures present Sheol, the underworld where the dead go to. I don't see any mention of it being temporary. Christianity builds on the concept of Sheol and provides a fuller revelation concerning its purpose.

    As for early Christian writers revelling in hell, firstly, as you can probably imagine just because someone wrote a book doesn't make them right. There are two facets to hell:

    Firstly, it is just because it is God standing against evil. One of the realisations that I made when I first became a Christian was the depth that I had rebelled against God and the depth to which I had rejected Him. I realised that I deserved to be in hell as much as anyone else. It was by the saving death of Jesus, that I can start a new relationship with God. This impacted me profoundly, and it is something I long for each and every person to understand.

    Secondly, it is tragic because people who could have very easily lived otherwise chose not to.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    And as I've pointed out to you this avoids the question. Nope it moves it away from this deity of yours, but the same deity created free will knowing it would lead to evil. Further he stacked the decks there too. Go back to the garden of Eden. Two innocents happy out. He created the serpent and the tree, knowing it would tempt them and knowing the outcome. He clearly created the environment for evil to kick off, ergo he created evil.

    As I said to Cú Giobach - I don't think it is reasonable to say that knowing about evil is the same thing as predestining evil. One could in theory know about something in the future without causing that event. The same is true for God once He creates autonomous beings with free will. You might disagree with that hypothesis, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.

    The very fact that we are autonomous beings makes us accountable. If we were mindless drones that were controlled by God ultimately doing evil, then I would understand your point certainly. This doesn't really avoid the question as far as I can understand it.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Look at it another way. Why did he not prevent evil? He could have, but he didn't. He created some people knowing they'd not sin and he created others(the majority it seems) knowing they would. Just as he created Adam and Eve and created the environment knowing full well they'd sin in his eyes. Free will would not be affected. Some people are more easily tempted than others and that inclination has to come from a god who sets all the rules in a universe. If he doesn't set all the rules in the universe then he ain't god.

    I posted on this a few posts ago with about 5 different facets of God's standpoint towards evil. It's better if I don't repeat myself unnecessarily.

    As for the idea that God doesn't set all the rules in the universe, He does. One of the principles in his universe is that we are free willed and accountable for what we do. He clearly set that to be the case. We could have been mindless drones.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Do not get me started on Augustine of hippo. One of the greatest nonces of the post Roman world. His free will explanation/defence of god is equally full of holes.

    This is an ad-hominem unless you bring up something solid about it.


  • #610
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    philologos wrote: »
    Good question. This is a grey area in Christianity. It speaks merely of clear rejection of the Gospel, it doesn't speak of not knowing about it. It depends on whether or not one thinks that a wholly just judge would send people to hell for not knowing anything about Him. Personally I don't believe He would, but I can't say anything with certainty.
    “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
    - John 3:16

    "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."
    - John 3:36

    "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
    - John 14:6

    "And this is eternal life,that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
    - John 17:3

    "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
    - Acts 4:12

    "Admit – that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior"
    - Romans 6:23

    "Abandon – self-effort and realize that you can not be saved by your works or your own efforts"
    - Acts 16:31

    "Acknowledge Jesus Christ as your personal lord and Savior"
    - Acts 4:12


    So heaven is opt-in rather than opt-out.


    "If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire"
    - Revelation 20:5

    "And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
    - Mathew 25:46


    And Heaven and Hell are the only 2 options.


    So we have
    • You must explicitly accept Jesus to get to heaven.
    • Heaven and Hell are the only 2 options after death.

    Therefore, if the premises are correct (and they're direct quotes from the Bible)
    • If you do not explicitly accept Jesus you go to hell.


    The Bible also directly refers to this

    "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse."
    - Romans 1:20


    .


  • #611
    --Kaiser--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    I'll just leave this here, written by Epicurius a couple of hundreds of years before the conjectural birth of JC

    Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.

    Is god able to prevent evil but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.

    Is god both able and willing to prevent evil?
    Then whence commeth evil?

    Is god neither able nor willing to prevent evil?
    Then why call him god?

    QED
    There is no god, get on with your lives.
    To paraphrase Hitchens, the rejection of Abramic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) is a moral necessity


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    philologos wrote: »
    The Hebrew Scriptures present Sheol, the underworld where the dead go to. I don't see any mention of it being temporary. Christianity builds on the concept of Sheol and provides a fuller revelation concerning its purpose.
    Sheol is the grave or that's it's root. The whole notion of an afterlife is variable in the Jewish books. For a lot of the time it's dust to dust, when you're dead you're dead, good or bad. All end up in the same place. When they do think on the afterlife and judgement and all that in the Talmud sheol is a waiting room

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Resurrection
    " Those who have led pristine lives enter immediately into the "Olam Haba" or World to Come. Most do not enter the World to Come immediately, but now experience a period of review of their earthly actions and they are made aware of what they have done wrong. Some view this period as being a "re-schooling", with the soul gaining wisdom as one's errors are reviewed. Others view this period to include punishment for past wrongs. At the end of this period, approximately one year, the soul then takes its place in the World to Come. Although punishments are made part of certain Jewish conceptions of the afterlife, the concept of "eternal damnation", so prevalent in other religions, is not a central tenet of the Jewish afterlife. According to the Talmud, eternal punishment is reserved for a much smaller group of malicious and evil leaders, either whose deeds go way beyond norms, or who lead large groups of people to evil.[12][13] In the Talmud, completed by A.D. 500, non-Jews who are purely evil cease to exist in any realm when they die. However, authorities agree that virtuous gentiles are given a share in the world-to-come."
    Firstly, it is just because it is God standing against evil.
    The evil he created or allowed to rein in the universe he is entirely responsible for.
    As I said to Cú Giobach - I don't think it is reasonable to say that knowing about evil is the same thing as predestining evil. One could in theory know about something in the future without causing that event. The same is true for God once He creates autonomous beings with free will. You might disagree with that hypothesis, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.
    That's thinking on a human scale. A deity if one was to exist would know about everything that would happen and knowing that would decide whether it was allowed to or not.
    The very fact that we are autonomous beings makes us accountable. If we were mindless drones that were controlled by God ultimately doing evil, then I would understand your point certainly. This doesn't really avoid the question as far as I can understand it.
    It really does. As I asked before; Did Adam and Eve have free will, were they autonomous beings. Yes or no?

    If yes why not leave them and the universe that way? Why create a temptation(the tree) and then create a tempter(the serpent). If he didn't who did? This was part and parcel of his "plan" according to the books. The stacking of the decks knowing the outcome and subsequent evil that would haunt humans. If that isn't being sadistic I don't know what is.

    If no, then he specifically created evil to make them autonomous. In which case evil was required.
    This is an ad-hominem unless you bring up something solid about it.
    Last time I checked Augustine of Hippo wasn't a member here, nor is he alive so the dead can't sue. :) In any event for me while I do appreciate his prodigious output IMHO that guy is responsible for some of the more daft aspects of Christianity that trouble us to this day(sexuality for a start). The worst kind of reformed whore, a theological ex smoker who flips at the merest whiff of tobacco.

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



  • #613
    murrayp4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 969 ✭✭✭murrayp4


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    A most vapid expression of ignorance. Be thankful that you have the chance to know his mind even now he's no longer alive.

    RIP.

    Condescend much?


  • #614
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    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 :)
    I watched the Amish documentaries which are on Channel 4 at the moment and I really like the Amish people and the community they have. About sticking together, having traditional values, putting in hard work and living a simple life.

    Yes they are religious but I don't see the problem with that as they come across as very nice people.


  • #615
    psychward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    I watched the Amish documentaries which are on Channel 4 at the moment and I really like the Amish people and the community they have. About sticking together, having traditional values, putting in hard work and living a simple life.

    Yes they are religious but I don't see the problem with that as they come across as very nice people.

    I heard they have a few scandals from time to time though. Human nature creeps into all types of social and religious systems. They tend to leave formal schooling very early ( I think after primary) so their skills at surviving outside of their community could be limited by this.


  • #616
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    psychward wrote: »
    I heard they have a few scandals from time to time though. Human nature creeps into all types of social and religious systems. They tend to leave formal schooling very early ( I think after primary) so their skills are surviving outside of their community could be limited by this.
    Yeah. But then again, you have so many people with great grades and so on but would not know what a days work is like.


  • #617
    EdenHazard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭EdenHazard


    he sounds like a homo


  • #618
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    EdenHazard wrote: »
    he sounds like a homo

    I think football chat is more your pay grade.


  • #619
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    EdenHazard wrote: »
    he sounds like a homo
    A classic closet case.


  • #620
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Found out tonight that he slept with more than one man, apparently 2 of them served in either the last or current Tory government.


    I'm sure KeithAFC will be able to forgive that sin since he was a great patriot!


  • #621
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    amacachi wrote: »
    Found out tonight that he slept with more than one man, apparently 2 of them served in either the last or current Tory government.


    I'm sure KeithAFC will be able to forgive that sin since he was a great patriot!
    Tip of the iceberg, absolutly no morals whatsoever.

    What else would you expect from someone with no pastoral guidance??


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    What else would you expect from someone with no pastoral guidance??

    a virgin arse


  • #623
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    RichieC wrote: »
    a virgin arse

    In Christy's case, that ship sailed some time ago.


  • #624
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    RichieC wrote: »
    a virgin arse

    More of a hope than an expectation really.


  • #625
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Tip of the iceberg, absolutly no morals whatsoever.

    What else would you expect from someone with no pastoral guidance??
    I hear you're a homophobe now father.


  • #626
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I hear you're a homophobe now father.
    Not at all....my child.


  • #627
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    EdenHazard wrote: »
    he sounds like a homo

    Homophobia is usually the best indicator of closet homosexuality.


  • #628
    EdenHazard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭EdenHazard


    meh


  • #629
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    EdenHazard wrote: »
    he sounds like a homo

    Your signature is "100% BELIEBER."


  • #630
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    EdenHazard wrote: »
    he sounds like a homo

    Ahhh

    I was just about to make a great intelligent and enlightened post.

    But I seen this input and i realise the intellects have already got here. Like how could I compete.


  • Advertisement
  • #631
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    later10 wrote: »
    This illustrates the point perfectly.

    The defenders of Dawkins are rarely those most familiar with his academic work.

    Dawkins himself implored his audience that if they were to read any of his books, it ought to be The Extended Phenotype. To date it remains one of his least known books, and ironically, the only of his pop science paperbacks worth reading (everything substantial in The Selfish Gene came from previous journal contributions).

    It's rather typical that you're more familiar with the advocacy books of Dawkins than this.

    Its the reverse for me Im a lot more familiar with the selfish gene and the extended phenotype. Im an agnostic myself but to be honest I think in some ways dawkins comes across as a bit of a troll towards religious people. I can understand him argueing with those who contradict biology but I dont get his need to imply that religious people are stupid.


Advertisement
Advertisement