Christopher Hitchens
Added on October 27th, 2012 by Rotatebilly | Report Post
Tags:Christopher Hitchens, Quotes, Religion
Tags:Christopher Hitchens, Quotes, Religion
-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. – Joseph Campbell
And thus the word “true” lost its meaning.
Snuffaluffagus at least has physical form we can see now, HE IS THE TRUTH AND FUCKING SAVIOR ALLL HAIIIIIIIIIIL.
“right” is a complex issue. Are we talking morally right, historically right or right in their choice of deity?
I think Hitchens is referring to them being factual.
LAME!
“They can’t all be right, so they must all be wrong.”
That is brilliant logic until you apply it to any multiple choice test ever.
Except that it’s reasonable to expect that multiple choice tests pretty much always have an alternative that is correct in them.
Duh.
The logic “All options can’t be right, so it’s reasonable to assume that all options are wrong” is pretty much bollocks. Even in the most simple example: “You and me have a different opinion. We can’t both be right so we must both be wrong.” That’s bollocks.
Britfag.
Don’t confuse opinions with facts, which is what we’re after here..We are allowed one, not the other.
Still, to the observation that not all options can be true the most reasonable conclusion is that not all options are true or rather that some options have to be false. You cannot rule out the possibility that one option might be right just because it is not possible that all of them are right.
IMHO, Hitchens’ line of reasoning doesn’t really apply here.
One thing to consider is that (pretty much) all religions are mutually exclusive.
I think this quote might be a tad longer in its original setting, too.
But yeah, multiple choice tests are based on the premise that one of the options is right, even if it’s D – None of the above.
Because you’ve personally made the choice to dismiss the possibility of a “correct” religion, not only can you not fairly apply Hitchen’s logic, but since you’ve altered the sample size to reach your prejudiced conclusion, you’ve corrupted the test. It then fails and so do you.
Duh.
What’s more logical, to dismiss religions that have not proved that they are “correct” or to believe despite of the lack of evidence?
Thanks for playing.
Disputing this one is kind of egocentric. Get a roundtable going – Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Islamic, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Sikhs, Aboriginal, some of the Folk Tribes, Rastas… maybe some of those New Age folks. Have everyone sit in a circle and ask one at a time: “All those who believe [Single Member] is wrong, say I.” … all-on-one every single time.
Hitchens is speaking with good probability, especially taken into account that we’re not even bringing in the Greek and Roman groups, any of the factions that broke off along the way, etc. — and those were popular back in the days when we claim God made all of these announcements about who was right!
I bet he regretted all his anti religion shit when he was dying lol
From what I understand he remained a proud atheist until the very end
From what you understand? Is that sort of like imagining it or hearsay?
I remember when he wrote a piece apologizing for a previous piece that was so anti Iraq a guy wrote him that it inspired him to join the military and he got killed.
I bet he recanted his anti God views. Everybody always does.
And where do YOU get this nonsense that he recanted ? I went to buy a Book of his a few weeks ago and some nutter at the shop said the same stupidity…Bullshit. He didn’t and I won’t, unless I lose ALL of my mental faculties, which in Hitchens were formidable.
lol you even caps’d book you faggert
You’re a total knob. Go ahead and pat yourself on the ass for thinking you’re smarter than everyone else. Buy the books, pay for the lectures, and laugh at all the money people who are religious spend on their communities…while you do the same with a much smaller, much less informed, MUCH less intelligent, and completely unaware of itself group of pseudo intellectual assholes that have made it their purpose in life to find ego gratification in buying into what is sold to them as intellectual fodder when it’s just snake oil for losers that were never good at anything physical. That’s the best recipe for being a fucking doucherag there is. How to lose friends and annoy people. By: Hey everyone I’m an athiest aren’t I smert?
You would lose that bet.
You really had to go for the trolling 101 comment, didn’t you?
You’re not even trying!
Who is Didn’t You?
LEARN TO GRAMMAR FUCKO
You are actually a retarded person. Die in a ditch. Your mom has AIDS>
Grammar policing is actually a step down. Care to try again, didn’t you?
No… at his last public appearances, when he knew he had no chance for recovery, he didn’t waver at all.
Even if Hitchens, who was so aggressively against any form of religion, really had “recanted” anything, I don’t believe he would have admitted it in public in front of his fans/audience/whatever and put a dent in the image they have of him. It would damage the “cause”.
Would you care about the “cause” if you had found Jesus or would you want to spread the word before you died?
In any case, he was smart enough to understand that unless he came up with a good argument (hint: there are 0 in favor of Yahweh) a conversion wouldn’t have any impact on atheists anyways.
Yeah, I can see that slight flaw in my argument there.
just shut the fuck up retard
So, tell me the completely illogical, smug statement on this poster is supposed to be worth the 35 seconds of someone’s life to make it in Photoshop????
The most reasonable conclusion is to analyse what points align and draw out what the entirely allegorical religious texts reference and point out the lessons taught by those and learn what those lessons did to progress the respective beyond beyond where they were before the texts were written.
That fat stupid fuck was just a fat bag of attention seeking loser. He had his agenda, gained a following for it, and like a typical coward tried to hide behind smirking egotism when called out on his genuine lack of understanding of all things religion related.
Speaking of which, you still haven’t shared what the wisest thing you’ve learned from religion is. Feel free to name one that’s not blatantly obvious even to the common house pet or youtube commenter.
I figure giving you a year to think about it is about as generous as some random stranger on the net is going to get.
Considering that religion is a pretty common thing and that our culture and value are based on it, you won’t find a single teaching of religion that isn’t blatantly obvious.
You’d think that a religion with an omnipotent god behind it would do better than “blatantly obvious.”
Well, back in the day, when it was “the new thing” and not “dull and around for 2000 years”, some of the teachings of christianity were not obvious and quite shocking to some people.
It’s been around for two millennia, you’ve heard everything it has to tell you, so you can’t expect to hear something from it that you haven’t heard a bazillion times before. If you want earthshaking new insights, try neo-paganism, they come up with a new gimmick every day.
What was a new thing back then that wasn’t blatantly obvious at the time?
Not so obvious for Jews: “You don’t have to be a Jew to be saved. You don’t become part of the ‘chosen ones’ by right of birth but by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. It’s okay to eat pork and there’s no need for circumcision.”
Not so obvious for Romans: “The master is not ‘better’ than a slave. To God, all who believe in him and love him are the same. Oh, and the emperor is no God, bring him no sacrifices, no matter how hard they want to force you to do it.”
I’m not sure if I count “wisdom” that only makes sense within the religion because it’s not recognizable as such outside of it, so it’s hard to judge.
Equality is not always practiced, true, but it’s hardly a new concept. Also, Christianity is ambivalent on the subject of slavery at best.
Last person to post ITT wins!!!
FUCK YOU ATHEIST NIGGER COMMIE
I wonder if Maggie trolls up enough extra pageviews that Tiki makes a little more revenue?