Here's an interesting question. What does Sup Forums think of Christopher Hitchens...

Here's an interesting question. What does Sup Forums think of Christopher Hitchens? I've recently heard people say Milo is a right wing version of Hitchens. I don't know that the comparison is accurate. Just curious what Sup Forums thinks in general about him.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SSBHsElmkiA
youtu.be/I7izJggqCoA
youtube.com/watch?v=6RqFXJ00zlk
youtube.com/watch?v=OrynIOLZpKI?t=1h11s
youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU
youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
youtube.com/watch?v=DnpgIFbLgEs
youtube.com/watch?v=PNPRDZzKgQ4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Hitchens was amazing. Even on his bad days he'd mop the floor with anybody.

Hitchens wasn't entirely left. He was anti-Islam for starters.

Hitchens sold out to the neocons after 911 and drummed up the Iraq war like a whore, then tried to clean his image in the atheist debate circuit. The hero lived long enough to become a villain.

May he rot thoroughly.

And Trostkyite hack whose arguments for atheism were terrible (I'm saying that as an atheist). His brother is a lot better, though he has some dumb opinions as well.

Christopher Hitchens was smart but settled for being an atheist rockstar and decided that he didn't really need to think anymore. Now that atheism has been generally accepted as retarded his legacy is kind of dead.

Meanwhile Peter at first seems like a shittier Christopher but he actually went to the Soviet Union when he was young and through work and shitty experience ended up with the more profound insight and understanding of the world.

I feel like when the caner got intense he slowed down quite a bit on stuff other than atheism, which I think may have been because his own face down with mortality.

I think he's slightly right of Bill Maher, who had a fantastic interview with Milo tonight, they agreed on quite a lot.

>Milo a rightwing version of Hitchens

Spoken like a true imbecile.

Milo does not have a hundredth of the appeal, vocabulary, verbose, and charm of Hitchens. That conman faggot opportunist piece of shit does not belong in the same sentence as Hitchens. Hitch may have turned a slimy piece of shit after 911, but his talents remained.

I'm not familiar with what that means. Can you explain a bit? Forgive my ignorance, my education is American public school

He did slow down but the damage had been made. He sold out to the cheney cabal like a whore. Just like sam harris did later.

I don't know enough about either to really have a fully educated opinion. That being said, I will agree, Hitchens seems incredibly more articulated than Milo, also Milo always seems like he just did a line before every interview.

>atheism has been generally accepted as retarded

Sneaky sneaky you fanatical fuck.

Watch some Hitchens debates on youtube. The man was a master of language and exposition. Milo is just an opportunist strident faggot.

Both annoying contrarian degenerates.

Hitchens himself admitted that trying to rally people around atheism is like trying to herd cats. And you can't just leave a void. It's going to get filled one way or another. Better make it a system you know that reinforces values which are generally considered pro-social than some strange foreign shit or some untested new insanity cooked up by an insane demagogue, like Marxism for example.

For the record though I don't actually think Marx was an insane demagogue, his ideas weren't actually evil. They did end up becoming a religion of sorts, in that Marxism was able to fill the role of religion in the minds of its followers on account of its communal nature and the promise of purpose and eventual paradise.

tl;dr why aren't you a Christian Anarchist?

...

Hitchens was a total cuck edgelord. If he didn't such so much cock he wouldn't have died of esophagus cancer.

Herding brain dead religious fanatics is easy. Herding people that think for themselves and dont take shit at face value is hard.

Why arent you a real person instead of bible thumping drone?

the alt-right and White Nationalists fear him b/c he's still BTFOing them from beyond the grave
youtube.com/watch?v=SSBHsElmkiA

...

>Herding people that think for themselves and dont take shit at face value is hard.
I'd argue that most atheists have actually just exchanged one form of bullshit for another and have put about as much thought into the issue as the average 'brain-dead religious fanatic.' The fedora meme exists for a reason, and it's not the Vatican's secret underground Meme-Warfare Army.

Immanuel Kant was a man who thought for himself and didn't take shit at face value. So were Jacques Ellul and Ivan Illych.

The point I'm getting at is that a religious prole feels like he belongs and is motivated to behave himself. An atheist prole (which is all that most atheists are) is a contrarian hedonist.

And I'm not a bible-thumping drone, I've never even attended a non-wedding/baptism church service. But the more I read the more I'm convinced we should have held on to our religion with all we had while we still had the chance. Now the fight is lost and Australia is spiritually rudderless. The result of this is depressing. Social capital would be at just about absolute 0 if it weren't for what's left of our sporting culture and nobody cares about anything worthwhile anymore.

You mean 'Trotskyite'? Followers of Leon Trotsky, one of Lenin's closest associates and one of the main players in the Russian Revolution. He was ousted when Stalin's faction took over after Lenin's death, and Marxist-Leninists basically consider him a good guy who would have brought Real Communism™ to Russia if given the chance.

>atheism has been generally accepted as retarded

Religion may be useful in many ways, but let's not be so dismissive of reality.

Name one use of atheism.

youtu.be/I7izJggqCoA

Christopher Hitchens is fucking based

Femtards BTFO

...

classifying virgins

Embrasure of death as a man, not a coward.

to add:

>The problem with female comedians up till now is they tend to be either dykes or Jews or butch...

I saw his younger doppelganger walking around in Vilnius the other day.

Having an accurate understanding of reality.

The shitty thing is that he achieved the most popularity and success from his atheism, but his best writing was about history, politics, and literature. I read Arguably, and Love, Povery, and War a couple times each and just love it.

God is Not Great is only okay.

He's an actual intellectual. Milo is a commentator without much education or worldly travels to back it up.

I'm against the Iraq war, but reading his arguments in favour of overthrowing Saddam are quite compelling, especially in the context of Clinton's policies in the late 1990s. If we take away the neocons conflating Saddam with the 9/11 hijackers, there was a reasonable case for overthrow (even though I think the US should stay out of the internal affairs of other countries).

science

>Milo is a right wing version of Hitchens
more like a poor man's ALT-RIGHT version

I feel like it's not fair to compare them as they don't seem to operate (or have operated) in the same arenas. They both write and give speeches, but they're talking about different issues.
You could try to say that they both challenged popular public stupidity, but that's way too broad.

Milo cannot replace Hitchens now, and I don't know that he ever could, even as he continues to grow and get better. But Milo isn't trying to replace him. So it's fine. Let him do his own thing.


Fuck off with consolation-prize Hitchens.

[different person]

But if there is no factual or spiritual substance behind a religion, aren't we clinging to a contrived fantasy?

Like, well-established religions are more respected because they're old and widespread. But what if the stupid FSM religion became widespread and adopted rituals and rites and an origin story, would that make society better?

Nigga, get your act together. I'm telling you as an atheist myself, saying there is no factual or spiritual substance to religion means you haven't done your homework, and you're missing out a MASSIVE chunk of anthropology/sociology/history
Religion is a very interesting phenomenon, and you can get massive insight if you can study it from a secular point of view. Don't fall for the atheism-lite of clueless CS/engineering majors, you're doing intellectual auto-censoring

What makes atheism accurate?

Hitch was fucking based.

Great person of history, and one of the rare people who is worth the time to really look into. Fucking wrong on plenty of shit, but often makes the argument in such a way that you need to be informed in order to counteract his lines of argument. If for that reason alone he is a reason to be investigated.

Marxist, who sorta kept the Marxism but dropped the Socialism.

Argued for womens rights, but was morally against abortion(but practically in favor) and argued that women aren't funny and the one's who are funny just happen to be "Dykes, or Jews or Butch".

He hated the Clintons when it was unpopular because he viewed them as Republicans, in Democrats clothing, and couldn't give a single fuck about US domestic policy because all the way in the 80's he knew it was money that mattered, and unless there was a serious push to get money out of politics, only foreign affairs really mattered, as the rich and elite hadn't decided the best course of action.

Wrote a book calling Henry Kissenger a war criminal, and then wrote another calling Bill Clinton a crook and a rapist. Didn't get sued by either person. Fucking legand, who shouldn't ever be dismissed.

youtube.com/watch?v=6RqFXJ00zlk
youtube.com/watch?v=OrynIOLZpKI?t=1h11s

I also like his brother, somehow.
youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU

>I've recently heard people say Milo is a right wing version of Hitchens. I don't know that the comparison is accurate.
It absolutely isn't accurate, Hitchens would never stoop to Milo's clownish behaviour and Milo has no intention of matching Hitchens' intellectual independence, he just wants to trot out marginally more thoughtful right-of-centre talking points.

>Hitchens sold out to the neocons after 911 and drummed up the Iraq war like a whore
He was the only person pro-War who made any sense at all. His strongest arguments were based on liberating the Kurds and his personal hatred of totalitarianism. He didn't sell out and his image didn't need cleaning since so many sensed his arguments were sincere.

OH yeah Milo... err no.
He is as much Hitchens as Douglas Murray is. His style is provocative, and can come at such an angle to challenge contemporary thinking, but that's where the Milo comparison ends. Milo has read a lot less, as have most of the generations following on from the time when print journalism was at large.

>what makes not believing made up bullshit accurate?

You're invoking the anthropology/sociology angle. That's what I'm getting at. Religious belief serves a useful function for a society. It is a stabilizing feature and helps combat the misery and suffering that pervades our existence. Without it, we will continue to slip into nihilism and chaos because nothing will be sacred enough to be saved.

But even with all of that in mind, the truth of the premise is separate from the usefulness of the phenomena.

Atheism comes with far less baggage to sort through in order to more clearly see reality.

>Without it, we will continue to slip into nihilism and chaos because nothing will be sacred enough to be saved.

I don't think you realise that you can have ideological values without religion

Of course you can, but the underlying premise behind them is what defines them. You see people who cling to ideologies about sexuality, philosophy, politics. It never ends. But they all have foundations on which they're based.

I would say the primary foundation on which religions are based is that there is a life beyond our current one; that after we die in this world, we get to continue to experience existence. I don't believe that is true, so I think the ideology that follows is, at best, wrong for society. That doesn't mean it isn't useful to hold, even if you need to suspend your disbelief.

The fact that systems that do not rely on metaphysical reasoning are better at predicting reality than systems that do. But as I said, I don't think religion is inherently a bad thing, quite the contrary.

>But even with all of that in mind, the truth of the premise is separate from the usefulness of the phenomena.

I'd argue that the latter is far more important than the former.

No, you're missing the point. It's not something you can discard as false when every culture on earth has developed a system of belief, independently, regardless of time and location
If you delve into psychoanalysis, you see that religion is an extremely potent psychological phenomenon, it appeals to very deep and primitive human urges, and allows to sublimate many drives in a healthy and socially constructive way

What you mean of course, is that religious cosmogony and explanation of physical reality is bogus, which is absolutely true. But to be frank, I'm pretty sure even the religious folks at the time thought they didn't make a whole lot of sense, but kept them because they were poetic, and served as kind of cultural basis (read Mircea Eliade on the subject)

So yeah, you'll always come to the conclusion religion is false if you look at it from a materialistic point of view, but it's very real from a psychological, societal perspective.. the spiritual part if you will

>Hitchens wasn't entirely left. He was anti-Islam for starters.

He argued for the deposition of Saddam. He's an intellectual and rhetorician; he was capable of taking up any banner and fighting for it as if it were his own.

It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not you must admit he was a great orator

This speech here is brilliant and many cunts could learn a thing or two from it

youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

Atheism was ruined exactly after his death. I wish he was still around.

You're right here. Christianity attempts to retain the purity of your future waifu, while under a hedonistic secular regime she's free to cock-carousel her heart out until she decides she needs your money.

Considering that it's the last thing you'll ever do either way I don't see how it matters.

Most faith-based ideas on the creation of the universe are probably about as spurious as whatever you believe. A Christian came up with the big-bang so you can't claim that as an atheistic concept. What do you believe? If it's the bang then you're on the same ground as the Catholic Church.

Non-euphoric Christopher Hitchens was good I agree. Imagine if he went to the effort of developing his ideas in any direction but the one he did.

bazinga

>consolation-prize Hitchens
I'd take him over Christopher any day. His analysis of British politics is always spot-on. On top of that I agree with him on virtually all of his social points. Practicality and good sense. What does the meme-Hitchens have?

>But if there is no factual or spiritual substance behind a religion, aren't we clinging to a contrived fantasy?
Yes, but since I'm not a Scientologist I don't have to worry about that. Most religions have at least 1000 years worth of foundations at this point in time. A hell of a lot more than most modern ideologies which many assume to be naturally better.

>But even with all of that in mind, the truth of the premise is separate from the usefulness of the phenomena.
Maybe to half-assed analytical spergs like you, but most plebs would riot if you suggested that we throw out all the parts of their faith except for the social norms.

The quicker atheism dies the better. It has to happen before Islam gets too strong a foothold and is in a position to claim a decent amount of them.

In the moment, Christopher Hitchens always seemed to be correct, but time has invariably proven Peter to be the wiser of the two.

>Milo as right-wing Hitchens?
No, absolutely not.

>hurr I worship the jew god

Fuck outta here.

>I don't think you realise that you can have ideological values without religion
They all turn out to be shit (eg liberalism, communism, secular humanism, libertarianism etc)

Stirnerism is the only non-shit atheist "ideology", but only because it admits that values are meaningless without God

budget hitchens could be perfectly right but no one cares because he's just too damn shit to listen to

Do you think that the usefulness of something should cause people to disregard whether it is factually true or not?

Religion itself is, of course, real. But the origins and histories that it, and its texts, claim to be true, are generally not true at all. I think we're in agreement about the important of having a belief in something above/beyond materialism. But I want to talk about your second sentence:

>It's not something you can discard as false when every culture on earth has developed a system of belief, independently, regardless of time and location...you see that religion is an extremely potent psychological phenomenon, it appeals to very deep and primitive human urges...

I appreciate this point: the fact that all cultures over thousands of years, have come to believe some overarching being or entity is responsible for the creation and function of the universe. However, the fact that it exists across all demographics and time lines does not undermine my belief that it is a reflection of our circumstances.

From an evolutionary perspective, humans are experts at pattern recognition and adapting to our environment (the latter of which most animals also have). Coming into existence and immediately attempting to use all of our senses to clarify and survive in the world surrounding us causes assumptions and "rules" which suggest other things.

That we witness women giving birth suggests to us that all creatures were at one time birthed. But the logical progression brings us infinitely back to "Where was the first person birthed?" The theory of evolution regressed all the way back to single-celled organism, and biochemistry even has some explanations for the origin of life itself.

But before we had the capability to deeply explore this on a chemical and biological level, we had the ability to explain it through a different set of principles. It was just another interpretation of the patterns we witnessed around us.

>Bosnia will never go full sharia and hang all atheists and under half a century of atheist communist indoctrination

Tell a Rabbi that his god is the Christian god and see what he thinks. On your actual point though, what's wrong with Christianity? Do you think it's a bad deal?

I like him. He's persistent pessimism is endearing. I don't trust people who sound bright all the time.

>Iraq war made sense

Fuck off

Christopher was in no way bright all the time, I take it you mean bright as in positive?

He could just deliver a hell of a speech and didn't give a shit about offending people

>Using nigger slang
>Calling someone else a kike worshiper
When will everyone under 18 leave Sup Forums?

>Do you think that the usefulness of something should cause people to disregard whether it is factually true or not?
Why are facts so important to you? The world is stupidly big and complicated and we'll never understand all of it and become immortal so what's your end-game here? Yes, I am asking you to tell me your overall plan for humanity. I think everyone should. When you think only in terms of facts and efficiency the only logical conclusion I see on the horizon is that we all eventually become living computers. Is that what you want? If not that, what?

That brightness comment wasn't a dig at Christopher, more just in general I find that bright people tend to be full of shit.

You're a really special type of retard.

Ah wasn't exactly sure what you meant

I'm surprised no one has mentioned he defended the holocaust denier david irvine

Thought that might earn him some points around here

>Most faith-based ideas on the creation of the universe are probably about as spurious as whatever you believe. A Christian came up with the big-bang so you can't claim that as an atheistic concept. What do you believe? If it's the bang then you're on the same ground as the Catholic Church.

I'm not talking about the creation of the universe, since that's a topic that humans, being a part of said universe, can't make meaningful statements about. I'm talking about matters of practical concern (e.g. medicine), where the approach that does not rely on theism consistently outperforms the one that does (e.g., medicine is better at curing disease than prayer).

Religion has various important purposes for society, but you will reach more accurate results overall when you approach life empirically.

Overrated fat fuck, also a kike

>What does Sup Forums think of Christopher Hitchens?

My favorite American intellectual.

The wrong Hitchens died.

I think there is a fundamental importance in searching for the truth to the best of your understanding. This is a useful and inspiring goal not just for individuals, but for humanity in general.

The deeper our understanding of the world, the better we will be able to thrive in it, in theory. I'm not overly concerned about facts and efficiency. I'm deeply uncomfortable with utilitarianism, which I think is what results from a purely materialistic world view.

I do not want us to become living computers (in the sense you're talking about), but in many ways, we already ARE living computers. Our evolutionary programming has essentially made us respond to external and internal stimuli in the same way a computer responds to key strokes and inputs. It is directly analogous.

Artificial intelligence is based on that premise and is proving it essentially true, and will only get closer and closer to recreating something as intelligent as the human brain. Then a singularity happens after which the AI is capable of creating even more intelligent AI. After that, it's out of our hands and there is no turning back. This is a dark future that is all but inevitable.

But when the dust settles, I am just a person. I have feelings and senses and emotions. I take joy from creating and expressing ideas. I take joy from traveling and adventuring. And frankly, that has so far been good enough for me. No children, no religious belief, no spouse. Just ideas and the expression and discussion of them.

How about you?

>Do you think that the usefulness of something should cause people to disregard whether it is factually true or not?

Yes.

I'm consistently disgusted with the treatment Irving has received so I do respect Christopher for that quite strongly. Really all Christopher did that's ever bothered me was the atheism, which I see as more of a waste of intellectual power than a sin.

David Irving and David Cole both got disgustingly bad reps for what would have been completely inane statements if addressed at any other historical event. If I were to say that I think that the Jacobin Vertical Deportations (one particular extreme example of violence out of literally thousands) sound far-fetched would I be imprisoned as a French Revolution denier? That's the real kicker for me, everyone insists on the label 'denier' when 'revisionist' is what they actually are. And other historians more or less agree with most of their statements but are just too scared to speak on the matter because the Holocaust Industry has built up Auschwitz as the prime example of Holocaust, so attack that and you attack a decade worth of anti-Semitic events all in one go now.

Sorry I had to get that out somewhere. It's just bad history how Irving is treated. His trial could have easily gone the other way.

>I'm talking about matters of practical concern (e.g. medicine), where the approach that does not rely on theism consistently outperforms the one that does (e.g., medicine is better at curing disease than prayer).
France had more hospitals under Catholic management in the 18th century than it does now under its secular government. Pretty much the only cases where what you're saying is relevant are places that are so shit that atheism wouldn't go 1/1000 of a step towards solving their problems. Papua New Guinea still burns witches and Central Africans still think their Witch Doctors will protect them from Ebola. Those are the problem, not your local Church.

>Yes, but since I'm not a Scientologist I don't have to worry about that. Most religions have at least 1000 years worth of foundations at this point in time. A hell of a lot more than most modern ideologies which many assume to be naturally better.

Because a belief is older than another says nothing about the evidence that proves or disproves it. Christianity is more ingrained in our society, but it doesn't have much more veracity than scientology because the sources of each of those religions are full of inconsistencies that are contradicted by current human knowledge. I'm not equating the two, but neither has a strong base of evidence to stand on.

>Maybe to half-assed analytical spergs like you, but most plebs would riot if you suggested that we throw out all the parts of their faith except for the social norms.

You don't need to spaz out. We're all individuals who get to explore and assess these things for ourselves. Your believing in Christ or Muhammad or the Buddha doesn't, at this time, take away from my ability to live my life as I please, without religious belief.

>I've recently heard people say Milo is a right wing version of Hitchens.
Those people are fucking stupid. I like both Milo and Hitchens, but Hitchens was in a league of his own.

>time has invariably proven Peter to be the wiser of the two
He's still a Christcuck who is ineffective on Islam and free speech.

I feel his atheism came from his view that religion was just worshiping another form of totalitarianism, it makes sense his arguments would lead there eventually. I liked it but don't care to argue.

>France had more hospitals under Catholic management in the 18th century than it does now under its secular government.

What does that have to do with the question of whether faith-based healing is a better approach to medicine than science?

>Papua New Guinea still burns witches and Central Africans still think their Witch Doctors will protect them from Ebola.

An example of preferring the faith-based approach to the scientific one.

>Those are the problem, not your local Church.

Where did I claim that my local Church is a problem? I explicitly said several times that religion is a good and useful thing.

>I think there is a fundamental importance in searching for the truth to the best of your understanding. This is a useful and inspiring goal not just for individuals, but for humanity in general.
Many Christians would agree, as do I to a large extent.

>The deeper our understanding of the world, the better we will be able to thrive in it
Define thrive. Would you consider 2017 a more thriving time for your country than 1917 for example? If so or if not, why? I would personally take 1917 Australia over 2017 any day. This place is fucked.

>in many ways, we already ARE living computers
YES. Maybe I can get through to you.

>Our evolutionary programming has essentially made us respond to external and internal stimuli in the same way a computer responds to key strokes and inputs. It is directly analogous.
No it isn't though. We don't have set responses to certain inputs. That's what separates us from machines and that's why I'm afraid of efficiency. The more we've relied on machines in our day to day lives the more we've become like them. Once clocks made us aware of the time we started scheduling everything to be more efficient. Our increasing efficiency isn't on account of evolution based on our natural environment. It's soft-evolution in response to shit we come up with for petty reasons which can be undone as easily as it's been done.

>AI
The idea honestly doesn't horrify me. We just have to give it some humanity, which I see as perfectly possible. A machine smart enough to think for itself would surely be smart enough to see the benefit in things other than thinking and producing for their own sake. The concepts of 'ends' and 'means' aren't too complicated. Just give it a good end and we'll be fine.

I honestly don't see where an opposition to religion comes into any of this. You sound more secular than anything.

>How about you?
Lapsed Catholic coming closer to turning back in terror every day. Jacques Ullel was right about everything.

It is of course massively shaped by the environment and, that's how it comes to take a distinctive shape, with its own codes and rules and rites
But the original drive must be something deeper and organic, because of how it always seem to not only appear spontaneously, but draws and attracts people, and even ensures the cohesion or success of a society
The fact that it fails at depicting reality accurately, and usually lies about its roots and true origins seems to be outweighed by how efficient it is at organizing and pacifying a society

>I don't think
That's obvious tbqh

Having in fact read the Chilcot Report, on the Iraq war there were 3 problem area's
1. The Casus Belli was a lie. We all know this, but the intel was given to the American's by the Germans. The Germans had gotten this information off of an Iraqi assylum seeker who bullshitted his role in Iraq's WMD program and described a 90's film that had green nerve agent contained in glass canisters. He later told the Germans he'd lied to get asylum status, the Germans then suspected that the American's were using their intelligence but didn't decide to discredit them, and Iraq 2 went ahead. I mainly mention that because its funny.

2. There was a lack of equipment for the armies. This is army specific, but Britain essentially had the equipment, but lacked logistical capacity and transport planes, leading to a situation where troops didn't have body armour. To this day, this is still our main military weakness(I mean other than relying on France for fucking Aircraft carriers).
For the Americans, you cunts privatized your logistics corps. Turns out, contracting military provision to mercenaries is both more expensive, and they don't deliver all the equipment needed. Compile this with the Pentagon not being audited fully in its lifetime, had led to a massive military fuck up.

Guy sounds pretty based in that quote.

3. There was no occupation plan. The Military was disbanded. The police were disbanded. The fucking civil cunting service was disbanded. The country was in literal anarchy in all occupied area's with the exception of the Kurdish territory. To compile this, no one flew in aid supplies, leading to a very drawn out power shortage(due to shit generators), and shortages of food, medicine and most importantly lack of security.
Combined with a few American organized death squads wandering around militia's formed, and began fighting each other. Initially the Americans fought against some of the militia's and later Al Queda infiltrated many of the militias and would start shit against occupying forces, mainly the US Marine Corp(as they fired the most bullets, increasing the likelihood of collateral).

The reason its important to understand these 3 factors in the failure that became Iraq is to understand that it is not the concept of military intervention that is at fault, but the method in which it was done. The British were a token force, and the American's didn't want to fork out the cost... which sadly the Bush Administration learned the hard way what the role of Government really is in a society, and that if you don't pay for it, the result doesn't look pretty.

Christopher, from what his friend Martin Amis eluded to, said that he decided to argue in favor of the invasion, because no one on the right was making any case at all for the invasion and he both fancied the challenge, and believed in the arguments that he did make, and believed that if he did not make them no one ever would, and that arguing against the war did not require his input. Significantly full of himself, yet naively romantic at the same time.

Wow, savage takedown.

Nice quads. Luckily Bosniaks are cockroaches and we and Serbs could crush them easily if they tried pulling it off.
It wasn't atheist indoctrination though, but it made things worse since religion has become meme for flaming the identity politics.

>proof, evidence, etc
I don't care. It's the ingraining that counts. Social capital. I wouldn't give that up for all the truth in the world. And where are the inconsistencies in Christianity? Christ came, lectured, died and rose again. Even if you doubt his resurrection I challenge you to find fault in his teachings.

Religion can be totalitarian, but I don't think it ever should be. True Christianity is more anarchic in nature than anything else. Islam on the other hand seems to aggressive for my liking.

>What does that have to do with the question of whether faith-based healing is a better approach to medicine than science?
The point is that that's the catholic church's idea of faith-based healing. Lots of dedicated facilities and staff propped up by charitable donations. The only difference now is that the money comes from the government and the staff are bored wage-cucks in it for the money and prestige rather than clergy who have committed their lives to the service of their people.

If churches aren't your problem I can't track what is? How is faith-based healing a problem in your eyes? And by that I mean actually faith-based, snake-oil salesmen claiming to be Christians don't count. That falls under the generic banner of con-artistry.

>Many Christians would agree, as do I to a large extent.

I hope so, even when obnoxious college students tell them that their religious texts are full of untruths.

>Define thrive. Would you consider 2017 a more thriving time for your country than 1917 for example? If so or if not, why? I would personally take 1917 Australia over 2017 any day. This place is fucked.

There are some general metrics for defining "thriving." Health of the population, happiness of the population, comfort/wealth, etc. For example, in 1917, millions died of diseases that are eradicated or treatable today. Many children died in their first five years. Wars killed tens of millions of people. Social mobility was much lower than it is now. All of these things tell me that 2017 is objectively "better" than 1917 for most people.

>No it isn't though. We don't have set responses to certain inputs.

Actually, we do. The reason we think we don't is because the number of inputs and impulses is so high that we can't recognize the amount of computing that goes into our brains making a decision for us. But it does. If a modern computer has 100 million potential outputs, humans have 100 billion. If the computer has 50 million inputs, humans have 50 billion inputs (or combination thereof). Because there are so many, we can't recognize the cause-effect relationship.

>We just have to give it some humanity, which I see as perfectly possible.

And we will instill them with humanity. But like I said, once the machines pass that threshold of intelligence, it is out of our hands. Machines might learn different values than what we have. This could have seriously bad consequences for us.

I find listening to Peter COMFY AF

>when I was an edgelord lolbertarian Atheist-supreme, I thought Peter was retarded
>cheered wildly for Christopher

>find out le big ebil enemy that Hitchens was defeating were just the old Christians who were already on their way out, and just wanted the best for their children

>tfw Peter was the true hero all along

youtube.com/watch?v=DnpgIFbLgEs

A sense of community, and a sense of understanding our worlds, are both intrinsic to humanity. It probably originated long ago when we first started living in groups and needed safety in numbers. At the end of the day, all social phenomena evolved because it served some benefit to our survival and the perpetuation of our genes, in one way or another. That's the driving force behind anything.

>general metrics for defining 'thriving.'
Okay, this is good.

>health
god knows why but autism is fucking everywhere, as well as beatus, obesity, depression, drug abuse and virtually everything else but polio.
>happiness
As I said, depression and social isolation are serious problems. Due to diversity being forced on us despite nobody wanting it as well as shit being far apart and poorly planned here social capital is low as fuck. Everyone's miserable and addicted to their television or the internet.

>comfort/wealth
Baby Boomers live like Kings at the expense of all generations to follow them. I consider this a negative point in Australia, or at best neutral. We aren't that bad now, but I have an awful feeling about our future.

>in 1917, millions died of diseases that are eradicated or treatable today
In Canada or across the whole world? Because in case you haven't realized worldwide suffering on account of disease is actually a shocking problem in the 21st century and possibly even effects more people than it did 100 years ago on account of Africa's unchecked population explosion.
>many died in their first five years
Again, see Africa. For the first world, whatever. Shit happens. Shit still happens just not as much. If it's common you learn to deal with it.
>Wars killed tens of millions of people
Enoch Powell predicted widespread civil wars in the first world and I'm inclined to agree. "We've seen nothing yet."
>Social mobility was much lower than it is now
This was an objectively good thing in my eyes. The blurring of divisions in society lowers social capital. People like being with their own even if they don't know it.
>objectively better
I disagree. And what if I was to say the 50's? Same deal?

>inputs thing
I'm speaking about human beings as a whole. Individuality is my main point. Efficiency eliminates individuality.

>once the machines pass that threshold of intelligence, it is out of our hands
same thing is true every time a human is born

>If churches aren't your problem I can't track what is?

The idea that the value of religion extends beyond its instrumental usefulness of incentivizing good behavior. Religion has its place, it should not extend into areas where the scientific approach provides superior results.

>it should not extend into areas where the scientific approach provides superior results
And which areas are these? Provide specific examples of these fields being ruined by Christianity. And if you try to post Galileo I'll only reply with a silly looking fedora man because it's all that stupid argument deserves.

Im not criticizing Christ's teachings, I'm criticizing the untruths that are sprinkled throughout the bible.

>Social capital. I wouldn't give that up for all the truth in the world.

Unfortunately, this mentality is how totalitarian regimes thrive. People choose economic stability and the perception of security over truth.

Inferior to his brother. Supported a war which lead to the deaths of 1 million people including 167 British soldiers. Wrong about Christianity, wrong about the EU, wrong about immigration, wrong about globalisation, wrong about Blair.

He was a mediocre intellectual who became famous because he told college kids what they wanted to hear in a nice accent.

>I'm criticizing the untruths that are sprinkled throughout the bible.
Really, because I haven't seen you do that yet. You've referred to them but I haven't seen you name any and criticize them. Do that.

>economic stability and the perception of security
No, I'm choosing social capital. Which along with food, water, work and a roof over your head is all you need. And how does truth help anybody? Everyone in Chile knew that Augusto Pinochet was a Sith Lord but that didn't make them any better off. I feel like you need to define truth in this context because I'm having a hard time following you.

>The wrong Hichens died.

You cretinous cunt!
The wrong man died? You think Christopher would have preferred that his brother had taken his place in an early grave?

Spending his life arguing for personal responsibility, for owning ones actions, living ones life, and tirelessly arguing against the vicarious in all its forms, particularly the horrid christian trope of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice, you are of such low moral character that you'd throw the mans words out... betray what his life stood for in the hope that another man die in his stead.

Fuck yourself. With such an excuse for character it is no surprise you lot didn't have the backbone to stand up and prevent or curtail the greatest catastrophe to face Europe in this decade, an event which threatens to tear the European Union asunder.

Best video.

The main problem I have with Peter is that he induces such cognitive dissidence. While I agree with a lot of what he says, I am still conflicted on many matters. Agree on marriage but not extended to homosexuality. Agree on drugs(someone iffy medical arguments), but do not believe prohibition to be the answer.

But here is my personal favorite:
youtube.com/watch?v=PNPRDZzKgQ4
If you want to know how to criticize a party, hear the criticisms from their own political side. The right best criticizes the right, the left best criticizes the left. Consider how much his brother hated the Clinton's its safe to say this ran in the family.

How can you "agree on drugs but do not believe prohibition to be the answer." That's his entire position drugs. Either you don't agree or you don't understand his position.

Communist Jew. Became Neocon Jew. His new Atheist guru act transparent was tone deaf as the Brights movement was largley are reaction to the same Bush-era policies he supported. It also was the precursor to SJW's. Such a typical Jew in the fact that despite it all, he still couldn't bring himself to hate Islam more than Christianity.

The man genuinely, unironically, tried to argue that the Founding Fathers of the United States were all proto-libshits because a few happened to be deists who used some humanist rhetoric. He even regurgitated all of that proposition nation Neocon horseshit.

Just because someone can quote classic literature and chainsmokes like a movie star doesn't mean they have value.

>health, happiness

This is where your point hits home. Wealthier countries with good, democratic governments often survey highest for unhappiness and suicide. I think that is a symptom of a more materialistic, but less meaningful, society. Going back to what I said a while ago, religion is useful because it combats this. It gives people a meaning and purpose beyond their current life. Similarly, as technology makes our lives easier every day, it also takes away another sense of purpose: the ancient connection we've always had between working and fighting, and survival. Through the vast majority of our biological history, we've had to hunt and fight and build and toil to survive our environment. Technology has taken that aspect away. And since it consumed such a large proportion of our time and energy, we're left with our own thoughts, laziness, and obesity. The drive to survive is the most deeply-ingrained instinct in us, and we hardly use it anymore. So we feel that life is meaningless.

>diseases still plague us

It may affect more people (in real numbers), but it doesn't affect the proportion of the population that it affected then. For example, the Spanish flu of 1918-1920 killed almost 5% of the world's population. If something similar happened today (which is possible with superbugs), that would be 350 000 000 people dying in a four year span.

>we've seen nothing yet

Indeed, so until we do, humans can be considered to still be thriving better today.

>If it's common, you learn to deal with it.

Of course. We do. Humans are incredibly good with coping with misery. Religion has been extremely helpful over the centuries in that effort. It helps us rationalize all the suffering and a reason to not give up and kill ourselves to avoid further suffering.

>social mobility isn't good

Those are the words of someone in the middle, or upper-middle class. Being born into poverty from which you could not feasibly escape is a great source of suffering.

>

I think calling himself an ultra-leftist was kind of a smokescreen, in the same way that being gay and preferring black guys is a smokescreen for Milo.

>You cretinous cunt!
>fuck yourself

Must be those Christian values that Peter propagates all the time. Well done.

>human beings as a whole

We're complex organisms, but our thoughts and actions don't come out of thin air. They're a response from our brain as it processed all sorts of inputs from the world around us, and our organs inside, to do what it thinks is best for our survival. That we can't personally fathom the computational power it uses does not mean it is not just a programmed entity.

>same thing is true of humans

Yes, and since we've started with genetic engineering, there isn't really a plausible way of turning back now. We see it now as a way of reducing diseases and in-born illnesses. But it will also be a way to create smarter, stronger humans.

When the AIs begin to do this, they will not have a million years of evolution informing their values and goals. They'll probably just have "efficiency" and security as goals, which might be very different from how we define "efficiency and security".