/lit/ - Literature

>>2257707
don't smoke people

>>2257710
BR smoked everyday for 97 years, yo

>>2257713
BR?
Boner Robin?

>>2257714
bertrand russell....

aka the guy hitch tried really fucking hard to be like.

>>2257714
Byn Rand
Bames Royce
Btephanie Reyer

Fuck Christopher Hitchens.

man i was definitely thinking "i can't believe i'm copying and pasting this fake ass url." surprised by the fact that i feel genuinely bummed - i wasn't a Fan but he was definitely an entertaining character

>>2257730
ha, trolled!

look at the author of the article's name

I'm a little sad, not gonna lie.

>>2257743
Why would anyone lie here? Of course this is sad news. I dislike what you imply there.

one of his final interviews

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Hitchen

>>2257743
>>2257730
Yeah, I'm surprised it's brought me down.

Fuck, I'll miss you Hitch.

I was just browsing around on cnn.com when I saw the breaking news headline.

I'm kind of shocked actually. The Hitch is no longer with us.

>>2257710
don't ever drink either
and try not to be british if you can help it

It was only a matter of time I suppose. Still, I'm pretty upset about this. It's so odd, the amount of influence someone that you've never met can have on you.

He carved a massive presence on my life and I've always aspired to have his erudition and skills as a writer.

More than anything actually I'm upset that he won't be around to write anymore. I always made a beeline to his columns whenever some hefty socio political event was taking place. Now when the next one happens, all we can do is wonder how he'd write about it.

Salute, Hitch.

We all knew it was coming, but goddamn, this is sad.

Man some of you are pathetic. It's yet to be seen how many this pussy is going to take down with him.

>>2257770
Also, try believing in something instead of nothing.

>>2257790
You're so awesome, deriving ambiguity from your edgyness.

And nothing of value was lost... Life goes on again..

>>2257719
No thanks, he's dead now and in no shape for it.

>>2257779
Its a bit ironic that Chomsky is still alive, but its extremely irksome that Kissinger is still free.

>>2257797
Har har. How about believing in oneself?
Why don't you try that.

>>2257807
Although that image is insultingly stupid, I don't give a fuck about Hitchens either. I'm only shocked he died of cancer rather than suffocation after spending living for decades with his head firmly inserted into his own ass.

Loved this part of the article:
> “Cancer victimhood contains a permanent temptation to be self-centered and even solipsistic,” Hitchens wrote nearly a year ago in Vanity Fair, but his own final labors were anything but: in the last 12 months, he produced for this magazine... a series of frank, graceful, and exquisitely written essays in which he chronicled the physical and spiritual effects of his disease.

So writing several essays about yourself somehow ≠ self-centered now! Quick, tell Myspace. Good riddance.

Before I could post this, my dad wandered into the room and asked what I was looking at on Vanityfair; his response on hearing Hitchens was dead was "How, did he bite his tongue?"

Enough said.

>>2257874
Your dad makes a snarky remark and that's 'nuff said'?

I can already see you sitting on your fat asses eating TV dinners and watching shitty yellow journalism.

Clearly too high-brow for you.

>>2257874

dude i dont know shit for hitchens but i read a couple of his pieces on his illness and they were really genuinely affecting and not deserving of this tsunami of smug

>>2257882
It's not like it's going to hurt Hitchen's feelings.

>>2257882
Smugnami?

>>2257887

of course not but i'm saying if you can overlook the dude's own self regard there's some really insightful stuff in those pieces about suffering and coming to terms with impending death or w/e

>>2257889

yes, smugnami

>>2257890
Asking to see past Hitchens' self regard is like asking an ant to see past a fat, bloated mountain.

:'(

>>2257893

well like i said idk his earlier work at all really but when you're finished being angry at a dead guy if you want to read some eloquent reflections on mortality you'll know where to look

>>2257893
jesus christ your figurative language is overwhelming me with vivid imagery, vivigery even, my nipples are now hard as rock and they accidentally scratched my neutral milk hotel cd, good lord you could write for jk rowling herself

>>2257880
There's highbrow and then there's just being a superior asshole that believes their opinions are truths written in stone, and stooping to childish name-calling and provocation of your detractors.

God Is Not Great is a fantastic book, but the fact that he relied on relating personal experiences and then extrapolating conclusions which he held up as fact throughout like 70% of it did a lot more than draw a lot of fire from the butthurt religious crowd. It also turned off a lot of people who agreed and would have otherwise supported him with its sheer volume of self-involved yammering. Same for his infamous "hurr durr women aren't funny (because I secretly find them threatening)" essay.

> In April 2011, Hitchens was forced to cancel a scheduled appearance at the American Atheist Convention, and instead sent a letter that stated, "Nothing would have kept me from joining you except the loss of my voice (at least my speaking voice) which in turn is due to a long argument I am currently having with the specter of death." He closed with "And don't keep the faith."

That last line just literally makes me shake my head. What purpose does that serve other than to stir shit? It's not even clever. Grow the fuck up. Oh wait, never mind! YOU'RE DEAD! (see? it's easy.)

tl;dr: >>2257893

P.S. to Anon: your insults might hold more (read: any) water if you knew that highbrow doesn't contain a hyphen.

The worst part about his death?

/lit/ will never stop sucking his cock.

>>2257937

>God Is Not Great is a fantastic book

I though it was a leaden penned collection of rambling anecdotes and reheated undergraduate philosophy that had obviously been written to jump on the new-atheist bandwagon before it rumbled away down the slopes of middlebrow mountain.

Anyhow, RIP The Hitch. I was not a fan, but you provoked an opinion, a response, and that in itself is noteworthy in this day and age.

>>2257962
>new-atheist
Oh the butt-hurt. Miles and miles of it.

>>2257779

>>2257962

Annnnnd that's a wrap, folks.

>>2257980

I am an atheist. But Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Adams and the like are fighting a propaganda war (and making money into the bargain). We don't have to pretend they are serious intellectuals.

>>2258000
Dawkins is kind of a scientist. I wouldn't give him the title of serious intellectual for his atheistic ramblings but, you know, I would for his contributions to genetics.

>>2257962

It's not like you need undergraduate-grade philosophy to disprove any and all gods. Basic sense of logic will do away with divinities once and for all; entire books written about the subject are just there to cut through the theistic smokescreens of theology and mysticism.

>>2258005
As everybody should. Dawkins is a great biologist. His views on religion are dumb though. Antitheism is dumb in general.

>>2257980
that hottie can uphold my column any time she likes

>>2258005
Dawkins is a very good biologist, but his methods and ideologies are more than grating.

>>2258000
>>2258010
>I am an atheist.
>Antitheism is dumb

You are such a bad liar.

>>2258009

>Basic logic.

You know that to disprove something the burden of proof is on you? How do you disprove something that doesn't exist?

I don't believe in gods, but I can't say that it logically follows that one does not exist.

>>2258009
>Basic sense of logic will do away with divinities once and for all
For fuck's sake, you can't apply logic to religion or deities.

>>2258013
I'm not an atheist though. I am agnostic. The two people you quoted are not the same if that is what you are implying.

>>2258009

No. In a word.

You don't need undergrad philosophy to do away with juvenile, God-is-a-big-man-with-a-beard-on-a-cloud religion. And that's the only kind of relgion the new-atheists are interesting in arguing against. Because beyond that things get exponentially more complicated, subtle and murky and science really does -at least in its present state of devlopment- have fuck all of interest or value to say on the matter.

About time this oxymoronic fool died. What utmost pleasant news to start my day with.

>>2258014
Lots of things don't exist. It shouldn't be acceptable to believe in some utterly ridiculous story and not other equally ridiculous and impossible story.

>>2258031

>It shouldn't be acceptable to believe in some utterly ridiculous story and not other equally ridiculous and impossible story.

Yes. 2000 years on and we've nearly caught up with the Hindus.

>>2258014

>You know that to disprove something the burden of proof is on you? How do you disprove something that doesn't exist?

No. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim of existence. The other way around it would be silly; one would have to believe all the claims men can whip out and then work to disprove them all to discern what's true and what's not.

>I don't believe in gods, but I can't say that it logically follows that one does not exist.

"There is no evidence at all for one." is my logical argument for the non-existance of gods.

>You don't need undergrad philosophy to do away with juvenile, God-is-a-big-man-with-a-beard-on-a-cloud religion. And that's the only kind of relgion the new-atheists are interesting in arguing against. Because beyond that things get exponentially more complicated, subtle and murky and science really does -at least in its present state of devlopment- have fuck all of interest or value to say on the matter.

Science (at least) does not investigate things that do not exist, nor can it because of the lack of observational material. But you seem to be implying that there are "higher religions". Could you elaborate on these, and are these any more true then Michelangelos' visions of the Christian Father being a bearded man on a cloud?

>>2258014
Atheist, or at least the more actively intelligible ones don't outright claim that god doesn't exist, for arguments sake they might, but in speach Dawkins gave he made it clear that his belief was that god was highly unlikely to exist and that he didn't see any reason to believe in him, he defined that as agnostic atheism, but it's more simply known as atheism. So your right, but only if you where to straw man atheism as something it's not.

I'll miss him. Fuck Cancer.

>>2258039
>>2258014
>You don't need undergrad philosophy to do away with juvenile, God-is-a-big-man-with-a-beard-on-a-cloud religion. And that's the only kind of relgion the new-atheists are interesting in arguing against. Because beyond that things get exponentially more complicated, subtle and murky and science really does -at least in its present state of devlopment- have fuck all of interest or value to say on the matter.

What? the only more complex ideas in religion would be Thomas Aquinas's theses, in which case being a philosophy undergrad would be a good thing, though not totally necessary. otherwise Hitchens and his compadres argued many a intellectual theist as well as the crazies, too.

>>2258039

>"There is no evidence at all for one." is my logical argument for the non-existance of gods.

It depends what you accept as evidence. There is no scientific evidence. No experiements than can be performed, etc. But what about testimony? From mystics, prophets, saints, etc. In your book these people are all either frauds or deluded. ie: you know better than they do how to interpret overwhelmng experiences that they experienced and you have not had.

What about my dreams, my intuitions etc.

You are not privvy to these, you cannot test for these.

You have to assume bad faith or delusion on the part of every religious person. If you feel a need for a purely scientific, rationalist weltanschauung (the desire for which is an article of faith, btw) you have to do this. For me, this is would be to sacrifice my instinct for truth and the world on the altar of science. I cannot do this rationally or logically, not to speak of emotionally, artistically or otherwise

>Science (at least) does not investigate things that do not exist, nor can it because of the lack of observational material.

That's the rub - "material" I believe -know- there is more to existence than the material. This cannot be proved scientifically - at least as science stands at present. There is no argument to be had beyond this.

Science pertains to poltics in my view: there is no proof, so don;t use relgion as justfication for making laws. I am secular in that sense. But most of what is intersting in life is beyond this framework.

As to higher relgions... I have admiration for Hinduism and taoism, but there is stuff of value in the literatures of all the great relgions ime. There is certainly a higher religious attitude. It is present in some religious people in all the traditions (and in some atheists - Niezsche had it, I believe) and in many artists.

>>2257937
I made a grammatical error, shit. Quickly someone send me to the salt mines.

Also, the appeal of Hitchens for many (myself included) is his writing, his erudition, his ripostes against detractors. He was an entertaining character on a podium, but people have put far to much emphasis on that at the cost of his writing not being properly noticed for what it is; elevated dialectics in a medium that's dominated pseudo-intellectuals and armchair political analysts.


>>2257979
I declared admiration for a hero of mine. Eat a bag of dicks.

Easily the best debater of our time. RIP Hitch.

>>2258068
>Eat a bag of dicks.

>>2258052
>what about testimony?

Not acceptable. I wouldn't accept testimony on a murder trial, or even a copyrights claim, much less on the world riddle. Humans lie for a variety of reasons, misinterpret things, blow things out of proportion and (often enough) outright hallucinate.

>What about my dreams, my intuitions

Worthless. They mean nothing. You can't intuit your way into real knowledge. You can only reason.

>You have to assume bad faith or delusion on the part of every religious person

Not so. Misguidance, a desire to belong to something greater than yourself, comfort. There are many reasons why someone would choose to believe in such things.

>>2258052

No evidence is no evidence. Testimonies are a different matter - I have not had unnatural visions, I have not been in contact with a god of any sort. Their experiences are theirs, and I cannot share them. But yes, due to the fact I have not experienced what they have and due to the fact they cannot bring objective evidence to the table I think they are either frauds or deluded.

But however, that does not make them "bad people" or somehow inferior to me, or all that much flawed. I appreciate some concepts of some religions and some works of art as much as the believers, and I've even been to Vatican just to see what's it like, and it was rather impressive.

>As to higher relgions... I have admiration for Hinduism and taoism, but there is stuff of value in the literatures of all the great relgions ime. There is certainly a higher religious attitude. It is present in some religious people in all the traditions (and in some atheists - Niezsche had it, I believe) and in many artists.

Not sure if I follow you there. First you said that atheism can refute lower religions and religious ideas rather easily, but now you're saying that even some atheists can have a religious attitude. Let's skip all the philosophy - Which I do consider the best gift from religion to humanity by the way - and let me ask you directly;

What gods do there exist in this reality we both live in, in a sense that they affect this reality we both live in directly, with their own actions?

>>2258052
How come that now there are advanced recording devices we don't see videos of miracles all the time, you'd think they would be some of the most viewed on youtube or something.

>That's the rub - "material" I believe -know- there is more to existence than the material. This cannot be proved scientifically - at least as science stands at present. There is no argument to be had beyond this.

You really should take a philosophy course. The lack of material doesn't mean the existence of something extraordinary. I believe that's a basic axiom.

>>2258077
There is no such thing as 'unnatural', and you can trigger religious experiences pretty much at will. Find some DMT, or do a lot of acid while thinking a lot about god.

>mfw /lit/ debates the god question

>>2258077

>What gods do there exist in this reality we both live in, in a sense that they affect this reality we both live in directly, with their own actions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods

>>2258085
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwyFvIsoAnw

>>2258085

for starters: and wiki also has these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities_in_fiction

and this can be included too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God

>>2258078

Yes, by unnatural I meant those I can not attribute to any natural cause I can conceive of, including drugs, starvation, meditation etc. - visions are easy to be had, but I can't say I've had any of divine origin.

>What gods do there exist in this reality we both live in, in a sense that they affect this reality we both live in directly, with their own actions?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods

That's a cartload of gods. Do you have any objective proof that any of them exist?

>>2258077
>Let's skip all the philosophy - Which I do consider the best gift from religion to humanity by the way

>>2258089
I'm 2 mins in and that wacko is starting to make some sense

>>2258094
>That's a cartload of gods. Do you have any objective proof that any of them exist?

Hold onto to you're rational, ontological argument ahead.

>>2258074

>Not acceptable. I wouldn't accept testimony on a murder trial, or even a copyrights claim, much less on the world riddle.

As for courts and law: I've already said I am secular in that regard.

So by "not acceptable" you mean "not acceptable to me."

OK. Don't accept what you don't want to. Be left behind and have less fun.

>Worthless. They mean nothing.

You haven't even seen my dreams and you are judging them. And you'd call yourself "rational"!

>You can't intuit your way into real knowledge. You can only reason.

Not true. Einstein did not "reason" his way to the theory of relativity.

>>2258094

>Do you have any objective proof that any of them exist?

Not what I imagine you'd accept as objective, of course not.

*skims religious arguments and insults....*

Yes well...

I'm affected by his death. Mainly because someone here on this board posted his article on Nietzsche a couple days ago, and he seemed very powerfully alive in that article...

I guess I thought he was going to be hanging around for at least a couple more years. I was hoping he'd at least outlast Kissinger so I could read his obituary for him...ah well...

I hope Hitchens was at peace with himself when he died. I don't doubt that he remained godless to the end.

>>2258115

>So by "not acceptable" you mean "not acceptable to me."

Yes, of course. When ever a person says not acceptable, by default it means it's not acceptable TO HIM.

>Not true. Einstein did not "reason" his way to the theory of relativity.

Einstein did reason his way to the theory of relativity, he did not use mysticism to explain it. Reason is the path, intuition is the guide, mysticism is fog. To get to a scientific conclusion, you follow the path with your intuition, sometimes you go offtrack and wander into the fog, but your goal is to see where the path ends.

>Not what I imagine you'd accept as objective, of course not.

What proof you'd accept as objective to prove their existence, if your objectively differs from mine? Do you truly think they all "exist in this reality we both live in, in a sense that they affect this reality we both live in directly, with their own actions", and you can somehow interact with them?

>>2258127
>by default it means it's not acceptable TO HIM
Misogynist

>>2257707
>>2257874
>>2257893


This board is always a good laugh. There you sit, on your computer, on 4chan (as do I as well), a board which holds itself in a huge self-regard, on the /lit/ board, which holds itself in an even higher state of self regard as the 'intellectuals' of 4chan, trashing a man who has sold millions of books, contributed articles to a huge amount of major publications and been asked to appear on every major news station in the world to voice an opinion, for his self-regard. Awesome.

Respect to the great man. I will miss his voice.

Who cares, he's not that interesting. My money's on he'll be forgotten in 50 years

>>2258115
>So by "not acceptable" you mean "not acceptable to me."

No shit. If you can only convince those already willing to believe, then you haven't done much of anything, have you?

>You haven't even seen my dreams

It's irrelevant. What you hallucinate during your regularly-scheduled semi-comatose state is of no more interest than the content of any other hallucinations.

> Einstein did not "reason" his way to the theory of relativity.

Yes. he fucking. did. What the fuck do you know of physics or the mathematics of non-euclidean manifolds? You just don't dream your way into the einstein field fucking equations and implying you can is a huge fuck to the entire body of human knowledge. You represent everything wrong with humanity.

>>2258115
I think even Kierkegaard would find your arguments stupid.

If you won't except testimony in a court than why is it acceptable outside of that? Your ideas are based in a pure mystical environment, as if solipsist where a hippy, your experience isn't objective, anymore than anyone else is, the only true form of proof that we have of the universe are are observations, which are by all mean fallible, simply because of Reductionism.

>>2258137

To guess, you're petulant, half-bright teenager. Or possibly a young adult with retarded emotional development.

>>2258164

He is also correct. Which is the most important thing.

>>2258127

>Einstein did reason his way to the theory of relativity, he did not use mysticism to explain it.

OK, scientifically speaking: you said you can intuit a way into true knoweldge.

This is too strong. Intuition plays a role in discovering any knowledge, even in the most rational areas, such as maths and science. I said Eitnstein did not reason his way to relativity. That is also too strong. I meant that reason alone did not get him there. Intuition is essential for knowledge.

>To get to a scientific conclusion, you follow the path with your intuition, sometimes you go offtrack and wander into the fog, but your goal is to see where the path ends.

Yes I agree. And this is only to talk of scientiifc conclusions, which are not the only kind.

>Do you truly think they all "exist in this reality we both live in, in a sense that they affect this reality we both live in directly, with their own actions", and you can somehow interact with them?

Yes, basically. I believe the human mind is immeasurably powerful. That it can create through worship as well as illuminate. And that ontology is endlessly pullulating, infinite.

I'll miss you, C. Hitch. You were the 2nd most tolerable of the "New Atheists" behind Dennett.

Plus, you were a good writer, and I really liked that essay you wrote on abortion.

Plus, you were one of the few people smart enough to see through Chomsky's bullshit.

>>2258173

He just wanted to rage to some. He didn't actually say much. And when you don't say much, being correct is not the most important thing.

>>2258188
>you were one of the few people smart enough to see through Chomsky's bullshit

one of the few people brave or apathetic enough to publicly embarrass themselves, you mean

Discuss.

>>2258221

>>2258221
Classy enough statement. Warren is disgusting otherwise though.

>>2258224

Yeah, but this is just a random guy and possible troll on facebook. The other is a religious con-artist with nearly 500,000 followers on twitter and an enormous readership.

>>2258229

He started out well enough, though I doubt Hitchens would befriend such a tard, but the backhanded comment about him knowing the truth now was utterly classless.

He is a gaping cunt of a man.

>>2258239
hes a cunt but i think you may be taking the knowing the truth comment too harshly

my impression was that hes saying he now knows the truth one way or the other, not that he knows christians were right

>>2258258

well if there is no God to save you from death then how do you retain your ability to 'know' or 'learn' things?

Even if he did mean it in the way you think, it's still extremely stupid.

>>2258221
>>2258239

Well in the Christian perspective, to come to know God, which one can only truly do in death, would be a good thing, perhaps even the best thing. I don't think he meant it in a "hah, I bet his face is red right about now," but more just taking comfort in the idea that his friend is now in Heaven.

this is a sad fucking day.

I was not expecting this at all.

>>2258270

And what would you say about an Atheist who would say of a religious person 'I hope his mind is at rest and free from the grasp of totalitarian religious judgement'?

>>2258276

It's different, because as >>2258262 explained, there would be no experience of that. That would be the equivalent of saying "ah, at least he is free from the tyranny of capitalism!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1VdD7xeD7kc