pcstru Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011. Dawkins called him "a giant of the mind and a model of courage", whereas George Galloway preferred the ephiphet "a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay". Personally, though I didn't always agree with his conclusions, I view him as an outstanding example of someone applying rational thinking to the modern world and not being afraid to deal in uncomfortable truths. He will be missed by many and if there is a God, boy is she in real trouble now. (With the correct thread title this time!)
SteveT Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 If there is a God I reckon it's actually Mr Hitchens who is in trouble!!!!
jinnantonnixx Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) I heard on the radio this morning. Shame. I liked Hitch, his debates were something to savour. There are plenty of his debates on Youtube. A particularly good one is the Intelligence Squared debate with Stephen Fry (as a cohort) Edited December 16, 2011 by jinnantonnixx poor grandma and spulling.
sonofsanta Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 I did wonder at the original title! Immensely saddened by his death as whether you agreed with his arguments or not, he was always entertaining and intelligent. The points he argued were almost moot; it was the way he argued that was so brilliant.
Hightower Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 I must live in a shell. Never heard of the man before today
X-13 Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 I must live in a shell. Never heard of the man before today ^ This.
SYNACK Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Haven't heard of him either but his viewpoint sounds interesting. Even if there is a 'God' I don't think that he would be in trouble, surely a being that created other beings with freewill and curiosity would expect and appreciate people using those qualities to find conclusions. Right or wrong. It is a sad day when anyone is lost that has the ability and courage to truely question and investigate the nature of reality.
jinnantonnixx Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Everyone should watch a few of his Youtube videos to get the measure of the man. An extraordinary lucid debater.
X-13 Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 surely a being that created other beings with freewill and curiosity would expect and appreciate people using those qualities to find conclusions. Nope, it doesn't work like that. Give people freewill, demand they blindly follow you. Eternally torture anyone who dares to think for themselves. #ScumbagGod.
SYNACK Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Nope, it doesn't work like that. Give people freewill, demand they blindly follow you. Eternally torture anyone who dares to think for themselves. #ScumbagGod. I do know the party line but don't put too much 'faith' in the musings of groups of people who historicly have found it in their best interests to control their flock's. If I decided to belive in a higher power of some kind then I'd decide to on my own terms. I'm just saying that its all hearsay and people should draw their own conclusions, much as the OPs subject did.
X-13 Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) Nice, anonymous neg rep "Have some neg rep you heathen." This is why I dislike religous people. No-one is allowed to have an opposing view according to them. Even when the opposing view is what their religion actually is... Le EDIT: WTF anon neg rep here isn't enough... You have to go to a [censored] unrelated post and give MORE anon neg rep. Wow. You're an ass, whoever you are. Edited December 16, 2011 by X-13 2
pooley Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Nice, anonymous neg rep "Have some neg rep you heathen." This is why I dislike religous people. No-one is allowed to have an opposing view according to them. Even when the opposing view is what their religion actually is... Le EDIT: WTF anon neg rep here isn't enough... You have to go to a [censored] unrelated post and give MORE anon neg rep. Wow. You're an ass, whoever you are. Nice to see your making new friends lol. Who cares about the rep stuff? Not like it gives you free money? Unless I have missed something ?
sonofsanta Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 I do know the party line but don't put too much 'faith' in the musings of groups of people who historicly have found it in their best interests to control their flock's. If I decided to belive in a higher power of some kind then I'd decide to on my own terms. I'm just saying that its all hearsay and people should draw their own conclusions, much as the OPs subject did. This is my big problem with religion. I am fine with belief, really, that is an entirely personal matter and you can believe in whatever you like, so long as you respect my right to not-believe in whatever I like. But religion is just a structure put in place to create unnecessary power over others, and maintain the status quo. The King James bible is no more the Word of God than dodgy X-Factor covers of songs are the definitive versions of tracks. It is laced with language to keep the peasantry happy with their lot in life and the meek will inherit the Earth and get on with tilling your field cos you'll get rewarded in heaven, and greed and lust and sloth are deadly sins and yes I know I do them but I'm upper class, so I can just pay the Church some money to get them forgiven. Aren't the turnips due up about now? So God? I don't know. In my experiences, I've not seen anything to suggest he is necessary to existence, and I prefer to believe in the majestic wonder that all this has arisen from chance and coincidence. That's just incredible, that against such all odds, all this has come to be. But you've lived a different life to me, and seen things I've not, so draw your own conclusions. We're all just guessing, after all. The Church, though? Pfft. If anything, controlling access to God's glory seems a little like working for the other team, if anything...
witch Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 #ScumbagGod. Whilst intelligent disagreement is fine, making statements like that are just guaranteed to cause issues - there is no need for religious people to ram it in your face, but equally there is no need for you to be deliberately offensive, is there? We are all entitled to our own opinions but being nasty from either perspective is just unnecessary. It's Chri....um....um...Holiday Time
mwbutler Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Never heard of him either but will listen to him later. RIP. Nice, anonymous neg rep "Have some neg rep you heathen." This is why I dislike religous people. No-one is allowed to have an opposing view according to them. Even when the opposing view is what their religion actually is... Le EDIT: WTF anon neg rep here isn't enough... You have to go to a [censored] unrelated post and give MORE anon neg rep. Wow. You're an ass, whoever you are. Yeah its sad but if you say something slightly controversial or differ on opinions with someone on here it usually ends up with lots of neg rep. Pretty pathetic IMO. I would join in with the religious debate but I know the neg reppers would come out in mass...
sonofsanta Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 It's Chri....um....um...Holiday Time Winterval!
X-13 Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Nice to see your making new friends lol. Who cares about the rep stuff? Not like it gives you free money? Unless I have missed something ? It's not the rep in and of itself. It's the principle. Why should there be a consequence for expressing an opposing view? And why the [censored] was it done anonymously. If you're going to force your beliefs, at least have the courage to put your name to it. I know the neg reppers would come out in mass... I see what you did there. [even if it was unintentional.] 2
pcstru Posted December 16, 2011 Author Posted December 16, 2011 It's not the rep in and of itself. It's the principle. Why should there be a consequence for expressing an opposing view? Ideas have consequences. Even before we reach the very real consequences mere ideas can have (all of almost everything - but an Atom bomb is a good example of the ultimate manifestation of a mere idea). Ideas are information and our brains actually physically change simply by virtue of processing information. You 'passively' reading these words - hey I'm changing you. That makes ideas themselves very important and opinions when expressed are capable of changing people. So there are real consequences for others when you express an opinion. Don't make the mistake of thinking that having an opinion is some kind of harmless activity which you should be able to do with impunity. Express your view by all means but you should fully *expect* consequences when you do that.
X-13 Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 So there are real consequences for others when you express an opinion. Don't make the mistake of thinking that having an opinion is some kind of harmless activity which you should be able to do with impunity. Words cannot describe the expression on my face right now.
SYNACK Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Ideas have consequences. Even before we reach the very real consequences mere ideas can have (all of almost everything - but an Atom bomb is a good example of the ultimate manifestation of a mere idea). Ideas are information and our brains actually physically change simply by virtue of processing information. You 'passively' reading these words - hey I'm changing you. That makes ideas themselves very important and opinions when expressed are capable of changing people. So there are real consequences for others when you express an opinion. Don't make the mistake of thinking that having an opinion is some kind of harmless activity which you should be able to do with impunity. Express your view by all means but you should fully *expect* consequences when you do that. In context, ouch... don't rock the boat becaue the flock may get wise and look elsewhere for answers. Having an opinion is not overtly harmeful. The atomic bomb is a good example, what has it got us; long range space probes (with radiological decay thermal generators), huge amounts of power for realitivly little imediate pollution, peace or at least something close to it in many of the larger areas of the globe. Ideas can be good or bad but if they are hidden away in fear that it may upset someones preconceptions they cannot be either and things cannot progress or even stay the same.
CAM Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 It's not the rep in and of itself. It's the principle. Why should there be a consequence for expressing an opposing view? And why the [censored] was it done anonymously. If you're going to force your beliefs, at least have the courage to put your name to it. I see what you did there. [even if it was unintentional.] TBH, expressing you opposing opinion is fine (even I get the statement and it is a fairly odd concept!) but the hashtag does overstep it a bit.
pcstru Posted December 16, 2011 Author Posted December 16, 2011 In context, ouch... don't rock the boat becaue the flock may get wise and look elsewhere for answers. No. No. No. No. By all means have your opinion and state it, but don't expect it to be devoid of any consequences. My comment was specifically in response to a statement of surprise that merely stating an opinion should have consequences. I'm trying to explain WHY mere ideas have consequences. I'm not standing in judgement on any arbitrary idea.
X-13 Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 The atomic bomb is a good example, what has it got us; long range space probes (with radiological decay thermal generators), huge amounts of power for realitivly little imediate pollution, peace or at least something close to it in many of the larger areas of the globe. Ideas can be good or bad but if they are hidden away in fear that it may upset someones preconceptions they cannot be either and things cannot progress or even stay the same. On the subject of the A-bomb. That isn't even what the preceding idea was about. E=MC2 was intended at a way to generate cheap energy for countries[i think] until the military got wind of it. Einstein wasn't happy with the end result. But bombs were not what Einstein had in mind when he published this equation. Indeed, he considered himself to be a pacifist. In 1929, he publicly declared that if a war broke out he would "unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect... regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged." Although, he changed his mind when [GODWIN'S LAW!] Hitler rose to power.
SYNACK Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 On the subject of the A-bomb. That isn't even what the preceding idea was about. E=MC2 was intended at a way to generate cheap energy for countries[i think] until the military got wind of it. Einstein wasn't happy with the end result. Although, he changed his mind when [GODWIN'S LAW!] Hitler rose to power. It's all part of the same idea though, the work that went into atomic bombs pushed atomic science foward at a hugely accelerated rate by allowing it to use the fastest computers of the time (some of which were built for the task) in order to get a more comprehensive knowledge of the topic. They are not seperate and unrelated, fision bombs evolved into h bombs (fusion) which proved the theory and gave the fusion research a start. You can't pick and choose what leads to what and that is the point. Supressed or even evil seaming ideas can lead to unexpected places. Ideas can and do connect to each other so I guess in that way opinions, if they expose something new can have conciquences but that is more of a subset of opinions than all of them.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now