Christopher Hitchens has died

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

Dawkins to his credit is a wonderful and talented writer, he somehow has the ability to make the complicated interesting and simple. I read all his books and I somehow see him as one of my teachers who I never met.

He has done great work in the public's understanding of evolution. That was his mission and he succeeded.
But now he sees himself (ironically I will add) as an evangelistic atheist, he has popularised that, he preaches. Atheism is cool, it is the new black, all the celebs and comics shout about it.

But in an evolutionary context Dawkins does not understand that religion is part of us. We have genes for it. That does not prove a God exists, it proves nothing. It just suggests religion is part of the human make up, it suggests it wont go even with cultural promotion. Denying religion is akin to denying sexuality.

I myself am a very pure atheist, but unlike one you will meet, a state I don't recommend. It really is hollow and cold in my world.

When I die it is the end of the world and fukc all that I am spiritual, bollox, I am not spiritual. I see spirituality as another cloak for religion, it comes from the same part of the brain.

philologos wrote: »

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:

Um someone wrote the Gospels and you say we must accept them.

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.

Do you not see that this belief structure you have had, first without God and first with, is entirely constructed by your own mind and has nothing to do with God regardless of whether he exists or not ? You have actually just said as much in this quote.

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.

Not always so nice:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-crime-amish-idUSTRE7BK0AH20111221

44leto wrote: »

Dawkins to his credit is a wonderful and talented writer, he somehow has the ability to make the complicated interesting and simple. I read all his books and I somehow see him as one of my teachers who I never met.

You've got to be kidding me. i've only read God delusion but its vapid tripe most of it. The reductionist thinking is absurd. On one page he basically says - Northern Ireland - people killing each other - therefore religion is evil. Frankly thats insultingly vapid reductionist tripe and disrespectful to those who died in the Northern troubles.

I myself am a very pure atheist, but unlike one you will meet, a state I don't recommend. It really is hollow and cold in my world.

When I die it is the end of the world and fukc all that I am spiritual bollox, I am not spiritual.

Much as philologus has made his choice to see the world a certain way this viewpoint it your own choice.

opinion guy wrote: »

Um someone wrote the Gospels and you say we must accept them.

The Gospels were written under God's authority as far as I can understand. I believe this because of the content of what's in there, how honest, realistic, and truthful it is about us as humanity. How historically accurate it is as a text. How authentic the New Testament manuscripts really are. The consistency of the nature of God and of Jesus Christ. The fact that it speaks into the core of humanity and tells us something profound about ourselves is value enough for it's existence. The reality that it tells, the transformation that it produces in peoples lives alone is enough evidence to me that it is God's word. What I would say to others is come and see for yourselves.

opinion guy wrote: »

Do you not see that this belief structure you have had, first without God and first with, is entirely constructed by your own mind and has nothing to do with God regardless of whether he exists or not ? You have actually just said as much in this quote.

I lived as an agnostic before accepting Jesus. I didn't have a clue what to believe until I examined it more closely for myself. How you could claim that the words "first became a Christian" means that I had beliefs that already existed in my mind is a new revelation to me.

opinion guy wrote: »

Not always so nice:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-crime-amish-idUSTRE7BK0AH20111221

opinion guy wrote: »

You've got to be kidding me. i've only read God delusion but its vapid tripe most of it. The reductionist thinking is absurd. On one page he basically says - Northern Ireland - people killing each other - therefore religion is evil. Frankly thats insultingly vapid reductionist tripe and disrespectful to those who died in the Northern troubles.

I read The God Delusion a few years ago, I didn't find it all that convincing in respect to my belief systems. Then again Richard Dawkins didn't promise it would work in my case did he?

Now you're confusing God with fallible human institutions. I'll join you in condemning religious intolerance, because Jesus would have nothing to do with it. I'm pretty confident that sin lies in every human institution. Jesus Christ when he walked the earth noted this in terms of the Pharisees - the Orthodox Jews of his day. Look at the Gospels, Jesus is probably the most thorough critic of institutionalised religion. (An example here)

To claim that Jesus or God is evil as a result would be a gratuitous and illogical leap however.

When I post on boards.ie I'm defending Jesus and God's word. Nothing else. I think that's fair enough as I claim to be a follower of His, even if a follower who more often stumbles clumsily after Him

opinion guy wrote: »

You've got to be kidding me. i've only read God delusion but its vapid tripe most of it. The reductionist thinking is absurd. On one page he basically says - Northern Ireland - people killing each other - therefore religion is evil. Frankly thats insultingly vapid reductionist tripe and disrespectful to those who died in the Northern troubles.


.

That was not his only book, that was a terrible book, it is not so much that it is religion that cause wars, but more the basics. Kin and resources, it is rare religion has being the soul cause of war. I can think of perhaps a controversial 2.

But religion does contribute to feeling of kinship or nationalism. So .......who knows.

But the wars of the last century was not about religion, they were all about politics (which could be interpreted with-in religion) or the ould resources.

philologos wrote: »

Rejection of the Gospel means condemnation at the end of time as far as Biblical Christianity would be concerned. If you choose to reject God's offer of salvation, you've rejected it.

The point has been made to you before, that is exactly like saying "bow down before me or I'll stab you. If you get stabbed it's your own fault." Even in this forum I can't say my full thoughts on that line of thinking because I'd at least get an infraction.

Also how is offering a starving man food and punishing bad guys grounds for being the root of all evil in the world? Lucifer sounds like he's taken being cast out of that petty God's kingdom squarely on the chin.

Hell parties look way more fun anyway.

krudler wrote: »

sin is a man made concept, to think otherwise is just insane.

Sin simply put is living for what is wrong rather than what is right. Again, as I said to the other poster, if you've not done what is wrong ever in your life, I'd be really impressed. You'd be the only mortal to reach that standard.

amacachi wrote: »

The point has been made to you before, that is exactly like saying "bow down before me or I'll stab you. If you get stabbed it's your own fault." Even in this forum I can't say my full thoughts on that line of thinking because I'd at least get an infraction.

Not at all. If we've done what is wrong, we rightfully deserve to be punished for it. Jesus came into the world to spare us from that, so that we could begin a new relationship with God. He rescued us from our sin, essentially from ourselves.

People condemn themselves by being too stubborn to accept God's mercy.

If you want to send your full thoughts do so via PM.

amacachi wrote: »

Also how is offering a starving man food and punishing bad guys grounds for being the root of all evil in the world? Lucifer sounds like he's taken being cast out of that petty God's kingdom squarely on the chin.

Explain this more clearly. I'm interested to understand where you're coming from so I can engage with your position properly.

amacachi wrote: »

Fantastic. I've bookmarked that as well.

Good.

philologos wrote: »

The Gospels were written under God's authority as far as I can understand. I believe this because of the content of what's in there, how honest, realistic, and truthful it is about us as humanity. How historically accurate it is as a text. How authentic the New Testament manuscripts really are. The consistency of the nature of God and of Jesus Christ. The fact that it speaks into the core of humanity and tells us something profound about ourselves is value enough for it's existence. The reality that it tells, the transformation that it produces in peoples lives alone is enough evidence to me that it is God's word. What I would say to others is come and see for yourselves.

But why does that have to be written under God's authority ? Could a man or more likely a collection of writers and editors and translatros working over hundreds of years not have come up with a book that gives an 'honest, realistic, and truthful it is about us as humanity'. I think you have to admit the logically this is possible. Nae is it even not most probable that so much work put in over so many years would result in a quality accurate work ? Do you not have to admit to that possiblity ?
And if so - do you not recognise that your belief that it represents the work of God as a choice you made somewhere along the way ? And as a choice you made it is influenced by your emotional needs ?

I lived as an agnostic before accepting Jesus. I didn't have a clue what to believe until I examined it more closely for myself. How you could claim that the words "first became a Christian" means that I had beliefs that already existed in my mind is a new revelation to me.

Oh thats not what I meant Phil. I meant that you had an agnostic viewpoint, then did some reading, thinking and reflecting etc and then with some time, decided - i.e. made a choice to believe. What I meant is - this process was all internal to you. And as such was driven by the thought processes and emotional flow of you as philologus the person ?
No ?

I read The God Delusion a few years ago, I didn't find it all that convincing in respect to my belief systems. Then again Richard Dawkins didn't promise it would work in my case did he?

Agreed. But I think he wrote it to piss you off, and people who share you're beliefs. And frankly I think that serves noone - except Mr Dawkins bank account - wouldn't you say ?

Now you're confusing God with fallible human institutions.

Hmm I would say that I'm not the on confused on this.

I'll join you in condemning religious intolerance, because Jesus would have nothing to do with it. I'm pretty confident that sin lies in every human institution. Jesus Christ when he walked the earth noted this in terms of the Pharisees - the Orthodox Jews of his day. Look at the Gospels, Jesus is probably the most thorough critic of institutionalised religion. (An example here)

I'll say this Phil - there may have been a guy called Jesus. And if there was I think he was probably the kind of guy we would all like to meet and listen to and with good wisdom for everyone. I think he was probably a bit of an anti-establishment guy i his own way. But I don't think that bears any implications regarding whether there is a God or not.

To claim that Jesus or God is evil as a result would be a gratuitous and illogical leap however.

Well no - suspend your belief for a second for the purposed of follwing this logic - if you believe that these things are made-up by men to influence and hold power over other men, then is it not logical to conlude they are wrong ?

When I post on boards.ie I'm defending Jesus and God's word. Nothing else. I think that's fair enough as I claim to be a follower of His, even if a follower who more often stumbles clumsily after Him

I don't doubt you're sincerity Phil. I don't doubt you are a nice guy.

44leto wrote: »

That was not his only book, that was a terrible book, it is not so much that it is religion that cause wars, but more the basics. Kin and resources, it is rare religion has being the soul cause of war. I can think of perhaps a controversial 2.

I would like to read one of his science books at some point before deciding whether he has anything for me to listen to or not. Which one would you recommend ?

But the wars of the last century was not about religion, they were all about politics (which could be interpreted with-in religion) or the ould resources.

All wars are about politics, or resources, or a despots ego or other reasons. Religion is almost never the reason for violence - it is however an excuse used by people with otherwise violent intent - whether as the purveyors of that violence themselves or as influencers of others.

amacachi wrote: »

Anyway, done with this bit of discussion for now, the drink (damn my human weakness!) makes it hard to concentrate. Didn't seem to affect Hitchens too much though, he must've had some kind of special power like a deity or something.

Well apart from probably being the cause of his eosophageal cancer and all that:rolleyes:

philologos wrote: »

It's not about whether we think about it. It's the truth. Look at the newspaper and read the articles and you'll see what a fallen world we live in. A world that has rejected what God has declared as good and favours evil. A world that has fallen into all kinds of depravity, hatred, discord, violence, injustice, theft, lies, anger, corruption. There are all kinds of things that man has inclined his heart towards. Can you honestly say that you haven't done anything wrong in your life? I certainly can't. (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:10)

We're definitely sinners in so far as we have done what is wrong rather than what is good. This is undeniable. One of the things that struck me the most about the Bible was how deeply honest it is about mankinds nature. One of the things that surprised me was that the Bible told me so much more about who I was than I could ever imagine.

The good news is that the story is not over. God has rescued us, and given us another chance to live for Him in the here and now. God has told me that I'm a new creation through accepting that Jesus died and rose again for me. I can truly and honestly come before Him and say I'm sorry, and I want to live for Him wholeheartedly (1 John 1:7-10).

If there is a God, and if He is the Creator and sustainer of all things. I'm compelled to accept Him as my Lord and as my Saviour. Not only in respect to the Creation which is astounding in and of itself, but the fact that He saved me from the sinful ways that dominated my heart and changed me forever. I am as thankful for the new creation (1 Peter 1:3, 2 Corinthians 5:17) as the old.

Your claim that our problem with sin is a sad one is true, but it isn't the end of the story. God came into the world as a man (Philippians 2:5-8) and He died for us so that we might live through Him (Galatians 2:20-21), that we might be born again by His word (John 3:7). Jesus came into the world not to judge, but to save. The Bible is clear about this, but it also clear that when He returns He's going to judge the world. (John 3:16-18)

This is why I believe that Jesus must be the centre of all things and that Christmas is a useful reminder for me about what the truth is in comparison to the lies often professed in the world. It's this truth that makes me want to tell the world about God and His goodness.

I'd really encourage you to find out more. Grab a Bible if you have one and read about Jesus.

So, just to get this straight. You're saying that society is getting worse, I'd argue that in terms of immorality over the past few millenia, we're far more moral than previous generations. There is of course wars and the likes but that's an inevitability. And awful crimes are committed throughout the years but the world is a better place morally. I'd happily live in this world than a more ancient and religious mankind.

amacachi wrote: »

Orwell would love you, we need to be saved from ourselves.
You still haven't made any point against what I said, you're agreeing with it. I assume you hate the idea of trials by jury, just let God judge them and leave the dirty work of punishment to good old Lucifer.

What is this? - I don't see how that makes your point any more valid. Simply put, God has given us a standard to live by, we can either accept or reject it. The universe and all that is in it is His, therefore He has the right to legislate over it.

As for the political sphere - this exists because God has given us dominion over His creation. Indeed, much in the same way as we were entrusted to deal responsibly with His creation.

As for the idea that Satan punishes anyone - this isn't even Biblical.

amacachi wrote: »

Nah, PMs can be reported as well. :pac:

Go for it, I won't report any PM you send.

amacachi wrote: »

It's basically what I said in the last paragraph. Beelzebub is meant to be the incarnation of all evil yet God likes to have him to carry out the things he doesn't want to do. Well obviously he doesn't want to do it, he's so merciful. Sure he's not literally torturing anyone, he's got an excellent war crimes defence of just allowing something to happen. Something he could stop whenever he wants.

Again, I don't know where you get the idea that God gives Satan work to do. There's nothing in the Bible that gives credence to that idea.

amacachi wrote: »

I'm not bothered getting into a whole theological argument because it means accept a ludicrous premise that is impossible to argue against without 10 years of delusionary study. Again Orwell put it better than I could about making points using complex language and complicating things as much as possible.

If you're not bothered, what are we doing then? - Why not just let other people who are actually bothered get involved in the discussion? Nobody is forcing you to post.

amacachi wrote: »

Anyway, done with this bit of discussion for now, the drink (damn my human weakness!) makes it hard to concentrate. Didn't seem to affect Hitchens too much though, he must've had some kind of special power like a deity or something.

Hope you enjoy the rest of your Christmas.

Corkfeen wrote: »

So, just to get this straight. You're saying that society is getting worse, I'd argue that in terms of immorality over the past few millenia, we're far more moral than previous generations. There is of course wars and the likes but that's an inevitability. And awful crimes are committed throughout the years but the world is a better place morally. I'd happily live in this world than a more ancient and religious mankind.

There's nothing more moral about this generation than any other generation. Sin has affected pretty much every generation. People sin in different ways depending on the particular time and place but none the less people have consistently rebelled against God and His authority in every generation.

I don't long for any previous time any more than the current. I don't even believe that the last generation was any less sinful than this current one. It's a problem that affects mankind, but there is a way by which we can all know and trust in God, and that's through His Son Jesus.

Corkfeen wrote: »

Then we can add to the fact. That if a person remains entirely honest and good natured throughout their lives but rejects the concept of a god that they're doomed to be scorched in Hell.. He really is sounding like great fellow,
I can honestly say that I've done things that are morally questionable however overall I am a person of good character and I treat people well. Of course, I refuse to base my morality on an ancient book that gives a fairly questionable concept of a god (One who'll gladly slaughter societies in his name and doom those don't that believe.). I feel no need to pledge my allegiance to any faith that openly condemns acts such as contraception and homosexuality. I don't think that I should believe in god due to a minute and baseless possibility that he actually exists.

The Bible doesn't condemn contraceptives or homosexuality as a sexual orientation. What the Bible does say is that sexuality should be kept within a marriage, one man, one woman. How much of the Bible have you read, just out of curiosity?

What is good? - Let's engage in a thought experiment. I'll use an extreme example for the sake of the matter. Let's say that I've murdered someone, nobody found out and I got away with it. Say that I lived the rest of my life doing what was good and not doing anything else that was evil. Would I still be guilty of the murder that I had committed? - Absolutely.

The same is true of our sin. If we have sinned against God, we are guilty and deserve His condemnation. However, God in His mercy came into the world to forgive us and to bring us back to Him. We can choose to accept this mercy or reject it.

As far as I can tell - I'm only a good person in so far as Jesus has taken away my sin on the cross and brought me to new life in Him. I've sinned, I'm guilty of that. By accepting Jesus' death on the cross and His resurrection, I've been born again, I.E I have a clean sheet by which to live life anew. That's why Christians view the Gospel as being so important.

You can reject this as hogwash if you will, but as far as I can tell, even if there is the slightest chance of this being true it's probably worth your consideration.

Badgermonkey wrote: »

It's possible a wrongdoer could be a sinner. Of course to soundly label our transgressions as sin would require one to establish the veracity of divine law, as transcribed by middlemen.

Back to square one so.

Not at all. Most people instinctively know what is right and what is wrong. Very often we try to deny this, but ultimately we have a moral compass whether we like it or not. A moral compass that was a key instrument in our creation. Guilt convicts us when we do what is wrong and guides us to do what is right. It's there for a reason. Compassion compels us to do what is right even when it is to our detriment. These things are inherent to the human being, but we can understand these things more fully when we understand the Creator, at least as far as I can tell.

Sin and wrongdoing are interchangeable as far as I see it. Both essentially mean the same thing. You're right that in order for sin to exist there must be a God, but this is no more remarkable than saying that for any form of objective moral system to exist, there must be an objective standard by which it must be compared to. If I am saying that one action is better than another, I must have a standard of what "better" is in that case. If I claim that something is wrong rather than right, there must be some form of standard for what is right and wrong.

In the idea that morality is subjective anything could be right and anything could be wrong depending on whether or not the individual legislator says as much. The problem with this theory is that it is fundamentally problematic, fundamentally unrealistic, and fundamentally lacking as a means of resolving any ethical dispute.

The moral compass doesn't really point to anywhere coherent without some form of standard of ethical behaviour. It may as well be pointing in every direction, or indeed no direction. If I'm trying to find where I should be, or what I should be doing, that compass is worthless to me.

It's not about whether we think about it. It's the truth. Look at the newspaper and read the articles and you'll see what a fallen world we live in. A world that has rejected what God has declared as good and favours evil. A world that has fallen into all kinds of depravity, hatred, discord, violence, injustice, theft, lies, anger, corruption. There are all kinds of things that man has inclined his heart towards. Can you honestly say that you haven't done anything wrong in your life? I certainly can't. (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:10)

Apologies - I initially thought these were your own words. Still a very encouraging talk by Steven Pinker, if a bit off thread ( although I suspect Hitchens might have approved )