The Death of Christopher Hitchens (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

As a man of faith he misrepresented me as dogmatic, irrational and opposed to science.

Your beliefs are dogmatic, defy pure or analytical logic, and are not scientific.

But that's not all there is to faith, obviously. Why do you think that's such a bad thing, though, to point these things out?

sounds like you agree with mr hitchens

edit: oh and enough with the "ok faith hasn't ALWAYS stood in the way of science". you're not doing yourself any favours. Sure, Hitchens could be provocative, but that's just how he brought the worms out of the woodwork. Don't deride Hitchens for being so militant.

 

[Lentern]

Your beliefs are dogmatic, defy pure or analytical logic, and are not scientific.

But that's not all there is to faith, obviously. Why do you think that's such a bad thing, though, to point these things out?

sounds like you agree with mr hitchens

edit: oh and enough with the "ok faith hasn't ALWAYS stood in the way of science". you're not doing yourself any favours. Sure, Hitchens could be provocative, but that's just how he brought the worms out of the woodwork.

No it isn't a case of "faith" ever doing anything, I'm sure there were many men of faith who thought Darwin was a heretic. The point is that "faith" is not an institution, men and women of faith are diverse and wide ranging and the Hitch liked to imply they were all blind followers.

And you have no idea what my beliefs are, much less enough about them to give them a just description.

 

[evanstroeve]

For example Hitchens liked to portray Christianity as resistant to science, as if it were a prerequisite to the faith. I don't have links to such statements but if you are going to try and deny that, really and truly we must be talking about a different Hitchens. In reality though faith has often propelled along science, one of the most powerful instituions to support Darwin was the COE who embraced origins of the species, they were more than willing to believe that certain aspects of the bible were metaphors etc and that although the original creatures were gods creation that they had evolved over millennia etc. So much so was he backed by the church that it was insisted he be burried in Westminster Abbey, one of four non-royals at the time who had recieved the honour, and who was another one of the four? Isaac Newton. The tension that now exists in some corners of the church and in some corners of the scientific community is not integral to faith as Hitchens liked to imply it was.

Support for Darwin and his theories or not, the belief in an omniscient creator, the capstone of religion, is in conflict with science. Pointing to support for evolution etc isn't enough to dissolve that fundamental conflict. The humanism advocated by Hitchens in place of religion is what I find most inspirational, that we are moral beings by nature, and do not need a God-figure to confirm this.

Oh really? I said my prayers were with him and I was told I was being disgusting.

Not by me. But I'm sure you can see why it was an incendiary comment.

For god sake just read the "Does God exist thread" these have been absolutely debated to death.

Quite right.

 

[funkshen]

And you have no idea what my beliefs are, much less enough about them to give them a just description.

m8 if you consider yourself part of an organised religion your beliefs are dogmatic (unless you're a liberal quaker or an agnostic lutheran, and i know you are neither)
religious beliefs defy analytical logic, see; bertrand russel, leibniz etc.
your beliefs are not scientific.

if you disagree with any of the above please elaborate. but you'd probably just be saving face anyways. but even if the above are true, it doesn't mean you're a fucking idiot, that's just persecutory paranoia.

hitchens never insisted that all religious people, or people with faith, are stupid. this is not a scientific claim. i defy you to prove that he ever maliciously tarred any group of people with the same brush. i mean he believes in tabula rasa for gods sake. his gripe was with institutionalisation of religion and the wholesale corruption and manipulation of populations and personal faith. also protip; the mormons, roman catholics and shi'ites, amongst others, have institutionalised faith. he had nothing against personal faith, in fact he lauded it. you're misrepresenting hitchens, who should be praised for being the gadfly he was, not as the big bad boogie monster you think he is.

in the end hitchens never really said anything that bertrand russel hadn't said previously (and far more gracefully). hitchens is not deserving of any transcendental reverence which is why i think this thread is a big joke anyways.

 

[Lentern]

Support for Darwin and his theories or not, the belief in an omniscient creator, the capstone of religion, is in conflict with science. Pointing to support for evolution etc isn't enough to dissolve that fundamental conflict. The humanism advocated by Hitchens in place of religion is what I find most inspirational, that we are moral beings by nature, and do not need a God-figure to confirm this.

It is not because at its fundamental root science is inadequate. Science is fundamentally a study about cause and effect, that every existance can be logically traced back to a cause and it is a noble pursuit for treating disease, feeding the hungry, developing new technologies etc. It is absolutely inadequate when it comes to explaining the fundamental origins of the universe and the meanings of our existence. Our understanding of scientific laws prohibit any explanation of how the earth ever came into being, even the much lauded big bang theory ultimately falls down. In some interpretations it is merely the earliest traceable point in history, it doesn't actually represent origins, in the other more coming one it is nothing more than a theistic deity, a spontaneous explosion of energy brought about with any inducement is not conducive to science as we consider it. At some point something that is not governed by what we might term fundamental laws of science, came into effect and such a force could only be described as a higher power.

Now I'm the first to admit that the church has no business trying to block scientific research as it did for example with Galileo but in doing so it goes beyond the brief of faith, it is personality not faith that charges people to do that. Faith and science are able to live in perfect harmony alongside each other but the chances of them doing so is less when you have people like Hitchens lampooning doctors, lawyers, engineers, university professors and world leaders as simpletons and fools. To his credit Dawkins has always conducted himself with much more grace than Hitchens and though I obviously disagree with a lot of what he says I do still like him.

 

[evanstroeve]

in the end hitchens never really said anything that bertrand russel hadn't said previously (and far more gracefully).

About religion at least. But even that isn't entirely true.
I liked the guy, but I don't apply to him any transcendental reverence. I was just looking for an informed discussion about him

 

[mirakon]

science concerns itself with physical phenomenon in the real world
religion concerns itself with metaphysics

the onus is on religious people to justify why metaphysics is relevant (i'm not saying it isn't, after all, I am a Muslim, but its an issue that still needs to be addressed)

 

[funkshen]

i'm jumping ship

this thread has already fallen off the edge of the world.

hitchens was a gadfly and you're all just feeding his posthumous ego

 

[SylviaB]

.

 

[Lolsmith]

Like addicts in need of a hit, the disciples of Hitchens respond to his death by desperately scurrying about the internet in search of religious types that they might browbeat them with pathetic insecurity, hopelessly fighting off their existential crisis by filling their gaping void of meaning with hatred.

I'm not sure if you're trolling here

 

[Garygaz]

Like addicts in need of a hit, the disciples of Hitchens respond to his death by desperately scurrying about the internet in search of religious types that they might browbeat them with pathetic insecurity, hopelessly fighting off their existential crisis by filling their gaping void of meaning with hatred.

Google translate: From: 'Self-righteous vocabulary flaunter' To: 'English'

I am going to use a whole bunch of hyperbole to palm off any suggestions that I am following a cult of brain-dead vermin from 2 millenia ago and also to hide the fact that I blatantly can't construct an argument that would even stand close to being worth the scrutiny of a great mind such as Hitchins'


this is all i see

 

[Lentern]

Google translate: From: 'Self-righteous vocabulary flaunter' To: 'English'

I am going to use a whole bunch of hyperbole to palm off any suggestions that I am following a cult of brain-dead vermin from 2 millenia ago and also to hide the fact that I blatantly can't construct an argument that would even stand close to being worth the scrutiny of a great mind such as Hitchins'


this is all i see

Ha! For Hitchens to attack someone else for writing verbose prose with fuck all substance would require a previously unrealised degree of irony.

 

[Lentern]

I feel like watching the Blair/Hitchens debate now, can never get enough of seeing that bombastic fop getting smacked around by a true intellectual.

 

[SylviaB]

Ha! For Hitchens to attack someone else for writing verbose prose with fuck all substance would require a previously unrealised degree of irony.

Although it was four years ago, god is not great was fucking annying to read.

 

[Aquawhite]

This is an awful shame; the world lost a great mind.

 

[Garygaz]

I feel like watching the Blair/Hitchens debate now, can never get enough of seeing that bombastic fop getting smacked around by a true intellectual.

What are you talking about? I haven't had time to watch it but hitchens won the audience vote and the first 5 or so 'intellectual' analysts all say Hitchins easily won the debate

 

[Lentern]

What are you talking about? I haven't had time to watch it but hitchens won the audience vote and the first 5 or so 'intellectual' analysts all say Hitchins easily won the debate

Ofcourse they did, the whole thing was an exercise in Hitchens fangirling but just like his Qanda spar with Waleed Ali he essentially just made brash pronouncement over brash pronouncement and never addressed any point Blair made. Blair comprehensively won the debate.

 

[Garygaz]

Ofcourse they did, the whole thing was an exercise in Hitchens fangirling but just like his Qanda spar with Waleed Ali he essentially just made brash pronouncement over brash pronouncement and never addressed any point Blair made. Blair comprehensively won the debate.

okay sure i'll take your word for it over an entire audience vote and comprehensive analysis from critics

 

[Blastus]

all you need to know/watch to know we've lost someone great

 

[Blastus]

Hitchens dedicated tireless efforts to the missrepresentation of religious men and women who he disliked, delusory is apt.

You defend an institution that was in the business of the mass rape of children.