/lit/ - Literature

Come back when you're not 14 anymore.

sage

>>1854426
Still never quiet understood my fellow c/lit/s hatred for Hitch. Maybe its because he's a public pseudo-intellectual I guess.

Or that he is used as ammunition by 14 year olds as you have stated.

Did you not just post this? I like Hitchens, though. He is a humorous person and he is a great debater.
I have no reason to read any of his books though.

>>1854430
Posted it yesterday, and really I just wanted an honest discussion as to why the c/lit/s here hate Hitch.

I don't read many living authors (well as long as he has left anyway) and I picked up his Autobiography when it came out to finally buy a book that was recent for once and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

>>1854432
Perhaps that's part of why people here hate the guys, because he's fanboys rave about him day and night, then they cease to be teenagers.

Now to be fair, I haven't read anything by him, and from all this 'popular science' lot, I'l only read the God Delusion by Dawkins, and it was absolutely terrible and a masquerade quite honestly.

For fairness sake once again, I'm traditionalist Muslim, so I disagree with these people on most of their conviction, but I also disagree with many, if not most, of the opinions of the authors whose works I usually read. I even respect many proponents of atheism and other modern doctrines for the sole basis that their arguments are well presented. Examples for those are Schopenhauer and Rousseau.

Since 9/11, Hitchens has been a cheerleader for the aggressive and brutal foreign policy of the United States. His genteel and condescending disdain of Islam has lent ideological justification to otherwise inexcusable crimes.

... That book is seriously called Hitch-22. His name is Christopher Hitchens.

What a horrendous faggot. I am dumbfounded by how retarded that title is.

>>1854443
I personally enjoyed Hitchens book God is Not Great, however my personal favorite works of his are his essays, political essays and historical biography's. His work and efforts into Atheism is good, however not the reason why I have continued to read his work.

I personally hated The God Delusion as well, put rather weakly for an Evolutionary Biologist.

Didn't realize Hitchens had fanboys.

there are actual philosophers who have spent a lot of time on the issue of god

the hitchens/dawkins crowd is really unsophisticated. their arguments were torn apart by philosophers hundreds of years before they were born. in turn, those philosophers were torn apart by other philosophers with better arguments yet. but the fact that these guys have no connection with that dialogue just shows that despite what credulity their opinions may have in other fields, on the issue of atheism their opinions carry no more weight than the teenagers who are in love with them.

agree with them, fine, but if you find them thought provoking it just means you're either dumb or just never spent any time at all thinking about the issue on your own.

>>1854462
I see. In essence intellectual thoughts run by a formatted pattern and never outside of them?

>>1854464
what the hell is this post supposed to mean

seriously you'd think posting on a board about literature you'd be able to form a cogent sentence

Hitchens stole a lot of his arguments against God from the poet and critic William Empson, Read Empson's "Milton's God" and you basically get Hitchens sans the snotty attitude.

>>1854462
True dat. If Dawkins and Hitchens took a time machine back to see Socrates, their ideas would already be old hat.

>>1854465
You really are aggressive when challenged, aren't you?

Unable to respond with a thought response so you try to undermine the integrity of the others intellect I see.

Fallacies all up in this bitch.

>>1854470

>Neo-darwinism
>Old hat

>>1854471
Not the same person, but please drop the faux-elevated intellectual demeanor. You're embarrassing yourself. Cogent arguments go much further than a baroque vocabulary both here in /lit/ as well as the real world.

>>1854467
He also borrows pretty heavily from Bertrand Russell, which kind of explains the snotty attitude.

>>1854462
Indeed. I remember Dawkins saying that he refuse to read theology, yet later in the book (The God Delusions) he tries to refute the cosmological argument for God's being, which he attributes to Aquinas, to comaical effect. He fails to display a basic understanding of the argument. On the other side, if you take an Islamic book of traditional theology, you'd find the argument presented in up to 100 pages of extremely lean argumentation, where the author refutes any objection that might be raised even it's not really raised (e.g. 'I say the world doesn't exist').

>>1854473
If you insist. I'm sure its comforting to state that others are inferior so that you yourself may feel superior.

I have to think the gentleman's current situation dis-ensconces him from the hard-athiestic camp and puts him, at least a little bit, into the agnostic camp.

May he prevail over this travail, but should he not and when he breathes his last, he will not make a final supplication to Darwin.

The beautiful irony is that many Christians are praying for him.

>>1854471
no, no, sorry. If I'm polite will you please explain what the heckaroo your post was supposed to mean

because honestly, I couldn't decipher what you were trying to express

NOT THAT THIS MAKES YOU STUPID

sometimes things we type make sense in our heads but when we type them it just doesn't work for other people

sorry, please explain so I can address your point

I hate the fact that normally intelligent ppls can't look around and realize that this world is far too stupidly arbitrary for there NOT to be higher powers fucking with us at every occasion. Vive Thor.

>>1854491
Viva Odin!

>>1854481
That's funny because I never said that I was superior to you; nor did I ever say you were inferior to me. I just wanted to give you some pointers so that you wouldn't come off as an obnoxious jackhole, and maybe have some nice conversations here at /lit/. But hey, you can make an idiot of yourself if you want. No skin off my back.

Hitchens is the lazy man's intellectual.

His lack of actual knowledge is compensated by his bombastic words and self-assured persona.

Lots of men who think they are ultra intelligent, but just don't have the energy to apply themselves love to act as if they are in arrears with Hitchens.

This has led to a nominal growth in people with little to no knowledge of theology spouting off facts concerning atheism during everyday conversation.

Jon Stewart has done the same thing with politics... Take a decently clever young white male who is susceptible to edgy and biting dialogue, expose him to The Daily Show, and you've got yourself a goddamn expert on International Affairs and the American political machine within two weeks.

It is really pathetic how these hucksters are able to increase their influence by being louder and brasher than the rest of the lot.

>>1854514
Apparenly Hitchens, in his more virile days, would often resort to fisticuffs when his words were insufficient.

>>1854514
Excellent post.

>>1854514
>bombastic words and self-assured persona.
that is just SO perfect.

really, if you're not addressing people who already have been convinced of the opposing position, it seems like you can easily convince people you're right simply by behaving as if it's already a given.

>>1854474

If you think Bertrand Russell is snotty, you've clearly never read his Principles of Mathematics.

Actually, when I watched The Tree of Life, it made me think about Hitchens & Amis. Terence Malick is an adult, scarred somewhat but contextualising his issues in the way only someone with his sensibility & intelligence can. The other two are little boys who never grew up. Amis is the most over-rated writer alive. Hitchens is a cheap polemicist with an inferiority complex.

Reading anti-religious crusades is boring and insecure. Just get on with the facts and scientific advances.

>>1854522
Hitchens seems to be very effective in debates/public appearances due to charisma and not actual knowledge. This is a fine tactic, and he also uses it in his writing.

He always comes across as a man who wants to be much bigger than he is, and in order to be that man he simply conducts himself as if he already is.

This fools most people, but every once in a while you'll see that insecure tubby British boy inside of him, and realize the smallness he must feel inside to overcompensate so greatly and for so long.

Without reflection as to what one's true self is, you can live a lie for entire lifetimes. Sadly, I feel he created a picture of himself in his head that was utterly convincing and only rarely has moments where he slips out of this persona...

Those must be terrible moments for a man who has lived his life in such a manner, and I assume he is having more and more of those these days.

>>1854514
>>1854522
>>1854537
Wow, how clever. You are contrarians amongst contrarians. You are punker THAN rock.

And
>>1854514 , you are using generalizations to bitch about those who have reduced complex issues to generalizations. Good luck with that.

This is now a Kant thread.

>>1854562
I don't need any luck, and I don't have any hatred for Hitchens.

Only calling them as I see them, I could always be wrong. Won't be any sweat off my back.

>>1854530
That Tree Of Life is pure art, most men will never sniff an accomplishment like Malick has produced.

If I were a filmmaker, I would be crushed after seeing that.

BURN IN HELL YOU ATHEIST SCUM OP!!!!!!!!!

>>1854579
Old technique is old. That's not the argument of people who dislike Hitchens' writing, at least not here.

>>1854530
>projection, projection everywhere.

>>1854424

I've never heard of any of those, or the author.

>>1854462

They realized that modern people (well, 99.9% of them) have never read a philosophy text, so all their "ideas" would appear original and people would be floored by their awesome intellect.

The first works on atheism I read were by Dawkins' and Hitchens' hand.
Overall, I enjoyed it, though some of their arguments weren't explained clearly enough.

For those people hating, what books on atheism would you recommend instead?

However, could

hey atheists, if the universe began with the big bang, how did life survive the explosion?
Christians: 1
Atheists: 0

>>1854600

The idea that one should read a book on atheism is just...confusing, to actual atheists.

>>1854569

Pure art indeed.

I'd like to think that if I were a director, I'd be inspired. But yeah, I'd probably just give up.

>>1854601

Seven-year-old detected.

Why?
Read the title of the top book, the guy's a publicity whore and a douche bag.

>>1854601

/b/tard detected

>>1854424
Martin Amis put it best: "He thinks like a child; he writes like a distinguished author; and he speaks like a genius."

I think the only "new atheist" worth reading is Sam Harris. Especially because he pisses off atheists by talking about meditation so much. He actually tried a "mystical" practice and found out that it's not all just bullshit. He's an atheist, but talks about spiritual experience as a fact.

So now, like a scientist, he's trying to cut that practice away from the mystical mumbo-jumbo cultural baggage. He's actually, you know, honest about the fact that most people aren't atheists because they have some sense of spiritual experience.

The other lazy bastards just ignore that and arrogantly throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sam Harris does the humble, honest thing by exploring it like a scientist.

Anyway, awesome article here where Harris argues that if you followed the Buddha's advice, you can't be a Buddhist. So Buddhism (as a cultural structure) needs to be dismantled. We don't talk about "Islamic algebra" anymore, so why "Buddhist meditation"?

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/

ITT: Butthurt magical sky fairy believers

>>1854647

Dawkins' whole kick is making Atheism accessible for the average man. To do that, he has to keep it as basic and un-intimidating as possible. To do that, he has to deal in weak arguments.

>>1854647
Michael Crichton did that as well in "Travels", and everyone thinks he's a wanker.

Why is he dismissed as pseudo-intellectual fodder for 14 year olds?

He's smarter than all of you. Deal with it.

>>1854654

This is what I don't like about Dawkins.

Entirely understandable that you would think that, I do too, but his job is to make science accessible, not atheism.

i dont see why you would need to read these books. do you need to read a book on how to walk?

>>1854790

counter-revolutionary post

>>1854808
pre-revolutionary post

>>1854424

ITT: /lit/-tards who are upset that they will never be able to organise and express their thoughts, in both speech and the written word, as coherently and compentantly as Christopher Hitchens is able to.

the interesting result from all this is that, a properly naturalized metaphysics would also make the world for _religion_ without _superstition_.

the _words_ may differ, but a proper metaphysics should be able to make that distinction.

>>1854530
the principia is dead i don't know why you'd want to read it.

>>1854834

Because it's interesting to know how we got here?

>>1854846
yes, but there is no ground for smug for readinig it

tell me when he writes something unrelated to his smug entitlement to educate sky wizard people

>>1854430
>>1854430
he's a fucking spacker clearly, hitch22? really?

>>1854848

I only mentioned it because someone accused Russell of snottiness, and it's the book where he is at his most humble. I enjoyed this exchange a lot.

ITT: People who haven't read Hitchens.

>>1854834
You're aware Principia Mathematica and The Principles of Mathematics are two different books, right?

Respect, OP. I love Hitchens. May he rest in peace. Oh wait...

/lit/

easiest board to troll

>>1854893
There was very little trolling going on in this thread...

no thanks

Holy fuck is /lit/ stuck up its own ass. I don't know who to despise more, the people mindlessly citing Hitchens with no knowledge on the subjects he talks about or the people using ad hominem to somehow prove that Hitchens is a bad writer.

>>1854537
This. Hitchens carries himself like he's God's gift to logic, yet when he faces down an actual philosopher (and not even a very good one), he is embarrassed badly. Just how heavily his arguments rely on appeals to emotion (and not logic) become painfully obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

>>1856325
>God's gift to logic

iseewhatyoudidthar.jpg

>>1856325

Like I'm really going to watch a 2-hour clip to watch him, as you say, get embarrassed. If the sonbitch really was made a fool of, wouldn't there be clip of it?

Hithchen's (and Dawkins') Atheism is the weak man's heresy. De Sade was a great atheist because he challenged god, rather than hide behind the comforting rhetoric of ''reason'' to assuage the fear of a god one supposedly doesn't believe in. A true atheist is like Ahab to his whale...

>>1856409
Just watch the last few minutes. After Craig gives his closing statement, Hitchens doesn't even bother responding: he yields the balance of his time.

Today's closest living resemblance to Socrates.

Seeing him debate removes my hatred towards the religionistical.

I haven't listened to Dawkins yet (I'ms ure he's a bunk) but William Lane Craig doesn't have strong arguments either.

I'm still agnostic, sorry Mr. Craig

>>1856415
Hithchen's (and Dawkins') Atheism is the strong man's legacy. Calvin was a great theist because he challenged science, rather than hide behind the comforting rhetoric of ''faith'' to assuage the fear of a god one supposedly does believe in. A true theist is like Ahab to his whale...

>>1856325
is hitchens even trying

>>1856543
It's a weird debate. Here is a pre-debate press conference. Hitchens looks spooked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLP248mNRSg

>>1856557
he's not even on the same level as whoever this christian dude is
fuck this is embarrassing

>>1854662

You probably think that of all people who use big words and have a British accent.

>>1856325
>implying Hitchens lost that debate
>implying Craig's argument isn't basically just him saying "You can't prove God doesn't exist." over and over
>implying Hitchens doesn't point out that it can't be expected of him to do it, and yet Craig continues to expect it of him.

>>1856780
All that shows is that Hitchens' argument was so poor, that Craig had to take baby steps.

>>1856784
Doesn't it show the opposite? That Craig's arguments were so poor that he had to resort to something that cannot be proved (or disproved, depending how you look at it).

>>1856806
Not if the arguments of Craig's we're talking about are in response to Hitchens.

>>1856820
They weren't, as far as I can remember. He essentially just ignored Hitchens' arguments and regurgitates: "Mr. Hitchens hasn't been able to prove that God does not exist" over and over.

I watched the debate quite a while ago, but as far as I can remember, Hitchens trounced him. Craig also got outclassed by Sam Harris not too long ago.

>>1856823
You've either not watched it or not understood it.

>>1856825

Okay, I'm about to watch/listen to this debate........how much you want to be that you're full-of-shit? Debating God is like debating anons in a pony thread.........eventually you just give and realized\ that they just fucking like ponies, that you're in thread/world of pony lovers and there's nothing you can fucking do to convince them why they shouldn't love a stupid fucking make-believe pony, especially at the expense of horses.

>>1856825

Okay, I'm about to watch/listen to this debate........how much you want to bet that you're full-of-shit? Debating God is like debating anons in a pony thread.........eventually you just give and realize that they just fucking like ponies, that you're in thread/world of pony lovers and there's nothing you can fucking do to convince them why they shouldn't love a stupid fucking make-believe pony, especially at the expense of horses.

I have now passed the 13-minute mark..........dipshit he is debating is a closet homosexual......Republican, of course.

lmfao at "there must be a God because of morality" other wise we would "rape children" when Mary was 12 when God ghost fucked her Jesus.

>>1856854
>Objective basis for morality
>Hurr durr, morality is what my parents told me was right and wrong

>having a debate about god

is there anything stupider you could do with your time?

>>1856901
Read books?

what

Okay, so I just got trolled. I admit that the guy was a descent orator, confident, especially in the naively small world that he lives in; and that Hitchen's drinks - had been drining - and had fucking cancer at the time which also enhances the effects of cancer or is enhanced by cancer (I know. My mom was a drunk. She died of a malignant brain tumor and simply pretty much just thought that she was always fucked up when she was not). However, if you fucking believe the Christian when he tried to use science - that wasn't available until the last century no thanks to Christian's - then you are a braindead, Christian fool. And just a reminder - the guy that makes you best BELIEVE something is true, is no necessarily the guy telling the truth. We've got all of history to prove that. Hitler?

ITT: Holier than thou people trying to tear down a writer by only referencing his works on philosophy/religion while completely ignoring his essays and political writings.

>>1856839
So, have you watched it yet?

>>1857019

Yeah, I'm the guy that left this>>1856909

>>1857029
>rambling rambling
>feel sorry for me
>retarded comment
>fail to conclude
I particularly liked:
>However, if you fucking believe the Christian when he tried to use science - that wasn't available until the last century no thanks to Christian's - then you are a braindead, Christian fool.
wtfamireading.jpg

>>1857029
Oh, okay. Did you stop watching or are you gonna persevere? I quite enjoyed it, although Craig's babblings get a little tiresome.

>>1857037
The bits where they're actually debating like they're both there are nice, but generally they're talking past each other.

all you people are good for is criticizing people that are smarter than you. seriously stop sucking eachothers dicks.

>>1856939
>his political writings
oh god how can you use that as a defence for the man?

>>1857076
>all you people are good for is criticizing people that are smarter than you
goes double for you

>>1857076
lol

>>1854872
no, i was not. :3

You're missing his best book, "Letters to a Young Contrarian," and his essay collections, which make up the bulk of his work, on far more interesting subjects than "people do bad things because of their religious beliefs, and the whole idea is like North Korea!"

By the way, he exhausts that idea awfully well in just a few pages in /Letters/.

"Quotable" is pretty obviously just a pay-for-my-treatments-and-take-care-of-my-family cash-in, isn't it?

>>1857081
Not the guy you're responding to, but you're probably A) only familiar with his positions and publications regarding Iraq and B) even if you disagree with him there, it doesn't mean it's bad writing or bad argument.

Also note the guy's mention of his essays. Hitchens is a damn good essayist, and he's said before that his basic orientation is that of a literary critic, politics just keeps sucking him back in.

Seriously, anyone whose knowledge of Hitchens comes chiefly from YouTubed religion debates and some pro-regime-change-in-Iraq articles on Slate majorly misunderstands him and his work.

>mfw when the people bashing Hitchens never says why his arguments are wrong, as if it should be obvious to everyone.

>>1857216
His arguments aren't "wrong" because there are no arguments in the first place. They are all appeals to emotion, plain and simple. That's why Hitchens lost the debate against Craig. Craig didn't have especially persuasive arguments. I could have taken them apart. But Hitchens, essentially, can only preach to the choir. Once someone questions Hitchen's assumptions and his logical blind spots, he hurrs and durrs all over himself trying to find a fig leaf to hide his own intellectual nakedness. The emperor is wearing no clothes.

angrier version of dawkins

meh

>>1858163

You're a fucking retard. Pick apart what? He kept saying the same shit. This guy say's this, mathematical fact that, this is 1billlion to the umpteenth power chance and therefore, not Islam for Judaism is the answer, Christianity must be the answer. He doesn't even understand what the fuck he is saying. Just googled some shit and by the process of elimination say's that everything must've been created, designed, by the Christian God.

Anyone that thinks Baptist Boy won is half-witted dicksucker.

Too many fucking Republicans in /lit/ pretending they actually fucking read.

>>1857035

The scientific/mathematical facts(?) that he used to eliminate everything by the process of elimination except Christianity. Those "facts" that would've never been available in a theocratic/non-secular/Republican/redneck/dumbass society....or do you not fucking get that?

>>1858374
>Pretending you know how logic works
kettle black etc

>>1858399

Do me a favor. And tell all your religious Republican friends, too. Kill yourself. Please. Just do me that favor. So I don't have to go prison or have to risk bing referred to as a genocidal maniac. Not the becoming a world hero would be a bad thing, but still.....

>>1858386
>>1858374
>>1858423
HAHAHA! Oh wow! See, this is the problem. Instead of actually appreciating and then answering Craig's arguments (which really isn't that big a feat) you just give the most vile caricature of his arguments and then smugly proclaim yourself rationaler-than-thou. This tactic didn't work for Hitchens and it won't work for you. And trust me, I'm no fan of Dr. Craig's brand of Christianity, but even his detractors have to admit that he came prepared for that debate like he was the Goddamned Batman.

>>1859067

Oh wow! What the fuck was there to appreciate? Please tell me, please? I'm fucking begging you! Eagerly awaiting your response so I can take this to the next step..........

so if hitchens admitted repeatedly that atheists aren't superior to religious people in any way, why does he spend so much time getting mad about them?

>>1859075
Seeing how you basically bastardized every single argument he had into some bullshit jumble of argumentative abortions, I would suggest watching the debate again and answering as a grown-up. We shouldn't have to hold your hand.

lol, litfags are some of the worst elitists. Ever just hate god or enjoy a book for the simple idea of...enjoying it? Of course the liberal-ran school system will have you believe every-fucking-thing needs strict analysis, the conservatives make it worse by making methhead authors like Hitchens needed.

>Of course the liberal-ran school system will have you believe every-fucking-thing needs strict analysis, the conservatives make it worse by making methhead authors like Hitchens needed.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

>>1859182
>>1859179
He's trying to make out he's not out of his depth while simultaneously drowning.

>>1859179
I think he's trying to say that liberals tell you analysis is needed for everything while conservatives promote a point of view that makes analysis of everything necessary, thereby contributing to an elitist/idiot circle-jerk. Admittedly, getting that from the text was like interpreting for Lassie.

>>1859182
>What the fuck are you trying to say?
That liberals make shit too complicated for their own good and thus ruin simple enjoyment. Had the first part of the post you have put 2 and 2 together (equals 4, claps your hands at your newfound knowledge).

>>1859186

You're on the right track but not quite making the connection. I love liberals. Fuckin him, hang them up wet, but they're still stupid as shit.

>>1859188
Yeah, I didn't connect the first two sentences with the last one.

>>1859187
I actually tend to agree with you but the way you write is sort of all over the place and I misunderstood. I don't mean that offensively in any way.

Life has no point, have fun, make people happy and die.

STOP THE AD HOMINIM ATTACKS YOU JERKS IT JUST DISTRACTS FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUEMENT

>>1854864
He did apretty good job with Orwell.

Ignore the haters, he's a brilliant, engaging and thoughtful writer. After you've finished that pile, I'd recommend his Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the public sphere.

>>1858163
>Again, not pointing out what's wrong with what he said, just saying he's wrong in general, about everything apparently.