/lit/ - Literature

memes don't make him wrong

>>7225399

This.

OP is mad.

>>7225399
This. The only significant thing he was wrong about was the war in Iraq. He was right about religion, Kissinger, Maugham, Palestine, and most of the other subjects he wrote about.

>>7225399
You're right. A life of sin and faggotry are what makes him wrong.

A meme so supreme that it made me scream

A joke so provoke that it made me choke

it's strange how he embodied many of the characteristics he seemed to be against in religion.

Authoritarian dictatorial character and approach to discussion, enjoying belittling those who aren't as 'great' as he, more concerned about getting to do what he wants - smoking heavily, drinking heavily - than being responsible for his family.

>>7225433

Oh piss off with your ad hominem, comrade.

>>7225421
>>7225433
Christposters, everyone; so wanting of any kind of plausible argument that they resort to ad hominem attacks against a dead man.

>>7225421
>Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.
>Christopher Hitchens was a sinner and a faggot. I can't wait to laugh as Jesus and I watch him suffer in hell.
There are no Christians on /lit/. Stop pretending.

>God as a celestial tyrant

so he didn't even bother to look into theology to see that God has never been seen by the Church as an anthropomorphic ruler in the sky?

>>7225388
G8 B8 M8

who /tengri/ here?

>>7225421
He's far from the worst. Christfags are just butthurt that he makes them have to work to defend their ideology.

>>7225448
Hitchens' view is based on observing the scriptures and the practical implications of how the church sees God. It shouldn't be a big shock that the church doesn't like to characterize their deity as a tyrant, but in practice that's how they treat him.

If only I'd known that asking a priest if God was real and good could solve this whole conundrum for me without all that messy thinking!

>>7225421
Said the lad supporting the international boyfuckery extravaganza.

>>7225433
Pretty sure he was against thought-crime and eternal punishment.

>>7225442
>>7225443
And this is the problem with people using ad hominem as the end all of discussion. As if in their mind they say 'ah, i can call this ad hominem, now i don't have to think about it'

I'm not saying this observation is a refutation of any of his arguments just that it's strange. Which you would have seen if you weren't so eager to be divisive. Bit like Hitch, eh

>>7225463

You want me to argue that he cared for his family? Fuck off, irrelevant cunt.

>>7225463
How am I supposed to counter-argue with "hurrh durrh Hitchen a faggot"? Where do I take the discussion from there?

>>7225463
>there is nothing strange about the church
This is why you shouldn't roll out ad hom in the first place. People are generally strange and easily contradict themselves, so anyone you like is probably just as susceptible to such pointless nitpicking.

>>7225433
What a fatuous remark. You should be a shamed of yourself.

>>7225463
>. As if in their mind they say 'ah, i can call this ad hominem, now i don't have to think about it'
Wow, upon further contemplation I realised calling Hitchens a fag is indeed an apt refutation of his entire body of work.

>>7225460
I agree. What's your point?

Although skip to 6:40 of this video there seems to be a case where thinking something is seen a crime in his view.

Ironically it's picking up on a minor detail like this and running with it a long and albeit quite interesting way that is something he himself does against the real ten commandments

>>7225466
no, i didn't say that.
>>7225467
you don't because i didn't say that
>>7225476
don't agree
>>7225473
of course this is true but when one professes that religion is in opposition of all this love and wonder and then acts in a way which appears to spit in the face of a loving attitude, not in everything, but in many aspects of life it is interesting and strange. Don't you think?

I agree with Hitchens' basic stance on most subjects (except Iraq which was just a weird mid life crisis thing). But he had nothing new or interesting to say. He was a talentless blowhard who built a career entirely through hackery and self-promotion.

>>7225484
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9weXGtCk7c

link

Christopher Hitchens, like most atheists, never made a single good argument and is fellated simply because his corpse, one belonging to a once-public figure, is currently rotting in the Earth.

>>7225496
It's pretty strange how many people I know who believe Christianity IS all the love and wonder in the world act in a way that spits in the face of a loving attitude, but I don't go around acting like that means anything beyond maybe calling the nature of the Holy Spirit into question.

Sometimes having to struggle with something helps one understand it better. We're only people, here.

>>7225496
>but when one professes that religion is in opposition of all this love and wonder and then acts in a way which appears to spit in the face of a loving attitude, not in everything, but in many aspects of life it is interesting and strange. Don't you think?

Replace religion with secularism and you could say the exact same of the Church. The difference is that Hitchens is an individual (who's personal life you are not in a position to comment on, seeing as you didn't know him beyond his appearances in debates; an atmosphere which evokes mock-hostile behavior from both sides), whereas the Church is an organised body governed by an ideology which has committed atrocities in the name of that ideology.

>>7225388
What makes his observation inaccurate?

Because as stands god is said to:
>read your mind, past, present and future.
>condemn you to an infinitely unjustified punishment for as minor an offense as heresy
>have all the power and knowledge necessary to make this not so.

The concept of infinity is so impossible to grasp that ANY punishment for that duration would be uncalled for unless in similar scope (ie. Somehow inflicted an infinity worth of punishment on an innocent)

How is it that the basic principle of the punishment fitting the crime DOESNT apply to God?

>>7225530
>Caring if punishments fit crimes
Get out, American.

>>7225507
Probably because the best and simplest arguments against religion already occured hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

And have yet to be effectively be disproven.

But go on, provide an argument FOR theism that doesn't devolve to "who made the big bang?" Or some asinine shit like that.

>>7225388
>>7225418
Ah, C. Hitchens. A mediocre journalist who learned that if he said a nun working with the poor is a jerk he could make money off gullible atheists and rode that gravy train to the grave.
Whether it was cribbing from Dawkins so ineptly it demonstrated his lack of intelligence, his Trotskyite background, or the fact he was drunk all the time, almost nothing he said made rational sense, meaning it was gobbled up by people so mad that mommy made them get up on Sunday that they would give money to prove God is a meanie.
The only thing more humorous than people who think he was clever is watching him get annihilated in the few debates he did with actual scholars.

>>7225530
Not a Christian, but in their system the punishment of hell fits every crime because all disobedience to God is infinitely evil because he made everything and has extended mercy to hunankty numerous times, so I'm that view it's a huge deal to continue betraying him.

>>7225530
>minor an offense as heresy
Let me guess;
American, middle class, midwest, studying Communications or English, right?
Heresy is to OPPOSE God. Not deny Him - oppose Him.
Of course you don't get into heaven - you are walking away from it.

>>7225530
stfu retard

>>7225540

So you admit Hitchens has nothing, not even half-assed parroting of these great arguments against religion?

And you've demonstrated how poorly informed you are on arguments for theism. You've got cosmological arguments, teleological arguments and more. Hitchens wouldn't have wanted a piece of William Lane Craig or even Alvin Plantinga.

His debate with WLC was embarrassing. He came off as a bumbling idiot.

>>7225552
Actually, the mechanism of damnation is rather more straightforward.
You *choose* damnation.
Yes, really.
Think of it this way: what does it take to be, oh - on the football team? You have to go to practice, practice on your own, don't eat until you are too fat, don't smoke until you ruin your lungs, and show up for games, right?

Christianity is similar, but it is OK you you can't walk, etc.
All you have to do is pray, be honest, control your appetites, be just, not give into despair, help people who need it, and otherwise live a good, decent, moral life while acknowledging God.
If you decide not to do those things you;re like the guy who never practices, eats too much, and smokes all the time then whines about the football players being soooo lucky.

>>7225571
>>7225552
>>7225555

Great responses!

I won't pretend to be a theologian, I don't know nor have the motivation to distinguish religious terms on 4 chan.

But assuming that heresy is "walking away from god" (ie. Knowingly sinning continually?) How is this "infinitely evil?"

I find this situation analogous:
>a loving father houses his son
>tells his son he cares for him but not to do drugs or sex, etc, etc.
>the kid leaves home to prostitute themselves for drugs and ruins their life.

Having done this is clearly immoral and deserving of punishment. But many might argue that the INABILITY to return home is punishment enough.

Alternatively, what if this "loving" father on hearing of these actions knowingly condemned their kid from every talking to him againNO MATTER WHAT.

Goes clean? Nope.
Had a family? Nope
Donates? Nope.

For all eternity you are shut out. It doesn't make any ethical sense to punish momentary (and often uninformed) actions with UNREDEEMABLE torture.

If god personally told each person these consequences it would be SOMEWHAT warranted.

>>7225577
>cosmological argument
>teleological argument
>not having been refuted over 100 years ago

Nice meme man. Has christposters forwarded anything modern or is it still these fallacious medieval Arguments?>>7225590
Except that this metaphorical football player is not barred from ever entering the team if he changes his ways.

The only ethical way of reconciling eternal torture is by offering a present/continuous moment for redemption. Otherwise you are prescribing infinite pain for transitory infractions

>>7225602
God doesn't "punish", no more than doctors "punish" you when they warn you to not eat rotten meat.

>>7225602
the bible doesn't teach what you're assuming it does

try reading that before forming your ascetic concepts from 4chan and your other secular friends

>>7225616
Except that a person can have face to face personal conversation with a doctor about their condition, can FEEL the effects themselves and can also have their symptoms/actions factually proven to be harmful.

This analogous is even faultier in light of god's omnipotence. God CAN change hell's nature or human nature, a doctor can merely predict and prescribe.

And the consequences are not fitting either.

>>7225590
Jack Chick pls go.

>>7225602
You should study the bible and talk to clergymen if you're curious about this. I don't think you're too far off but it's better to understand in a little more detail.

>>7225616
That's hilariously passive-aggressive from an omnipotent deity.

>>7225418
Muagham ?

>>7225433
That's not an ad hominem.

http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

>>7225619
>find
>assuming

These phrases inherently denote my acknowledged ignorance on the subject, something done as a necessity of putting for a decent argument from my POV.

I get so so m of Christposters shitting up this board that I'm genuinely interested in engaging but allni get is this sophistic slipperiness.

What in my interpretation is wrong? Because I'm still not understanding how you can make someone burn in hell for all eternity if they make any mistakes.

If a man murders an innocent does he deserve a lifetime of torture? How about two? Three? Four hundred? Five thousand?

This sense of morality is twisted unless the truth of free will is assumed. God CAN make this not so, or CAN offer reincarnation for continual attempts at virtue


Why wouldn't he?

>>7225654
>I get so so m of Christposters shitting up this board
I'm not Christian but if you'd prefer an atheist circlejerk you can fuck off back to reddit.

>>7225654
>sophistic slipperiness
I've experienced months-long depressions over the sophistry at the church I grew up in.

>why wouldn't he?
It's made clear in the Bible. Yahweh is a jealous, emotional god who's heavily invested in our world because he made it to satisfy his egotistical urges. When you sin, you insult him and it's only through occasional fits of grace that he doesn't condemn us all to eternal suffering out of sheer vindictiveness. This is not a secret, but Christians take the New Testament and try to construct something a little more palatable without changing the core idea.

>>7225614
>Thinking the quinque viae or the ontological argument was ever refuted
shiggy-do-diggy

>>7225627
>Except that a person can have face to face personal conversation with a doctor about their condition, can FEEL the effects themselves and can also have their symptoms/actions factually proven to be harmful.

Yeah, and people can feel when they've done wrong - guilt. That's God saying: stop doing this, but people do it anyway. And most people live with guilt/shame.

reminder a philosophy and religion board would eliminate this retarded bullshit

>>7225671
Its not that I'm necessarily looking for a circle jerk, but that I want honesty. If someone says they take it on faith then that's fine.

If someone makes a thread for theology that's fine, but if you go make a le fedora tipper meme thread or shitpost ad hominems about secular figures its trash.

And I just get tired of the same cosmic/teleo arguments that have been proven false by many greats centuries ago.

>>7225680
This I have no problem with. If you concede that god can be a dick then there is no contradiction between his actions and benevolence. Thus I have to make a new argument not contingent on internal inconsistancies

>>7225686
>Yeah, and people can feel when they've done wrong - guilt.

Even when they're genociding Canaanites?

>>7225686
But clearly not everyone has the same morality, many serial killers have openly talked or have been known to masterbate or fuck over their victims. There is not guilt, only pleasure.

People don't feel guilt over killing things they don't deem to be human. Genocides simply wouldn't happen as regularly if there was a universal morality or guilt.

>>7225695
Yes pls.

>>7225684
The act of humans imagining god does not make him real, the entire argument is faulty and circular as fuck.

If you can subin any concept there is am infinity of entities that can exist. What makes Christianities god the one god that is real? Why not any of the thousands of others?

Even Aquinas rejected the ontological argument based on the premise that mentally "conceiving" of god in any meaningful way is only possible with full knowledge of god's nature which is impossible to have access to

Anyone else pick up Christianity as a reaction against leftism, feminism, cultural Marxism, etc. here?

>>7225747
this bait deserves to be excommunicated.

>>7225747
>implying you would say it that way if you were sincere

>>7225747

>>7225778
It's New Sincerity.

>>7225783

It's fake sincerity

>>7225798
It's just good 'ol contrarianism.
It will flip once a republican is back in the house.

>>7225779

We have gone full circle on this board. When will society catch up?

>>7225812
The US, at least, is still very religious. The atheism meme is basically confined to degenerates on the internet and in some colleges.

>>7225822

>degenerates