Which Hitchens brother is better?

Christopher:
>Neo-con who pretended he was a socialist
>Drinks and chain smokes all his life till he dies of cancer
>Le new atheism XD
>moral degenerate

Peter:
>Tried communism, realized it didn't work and changed his ways
>Against drugs of all kind and still completely healthy
>Logically founded belief in God
>Strong moral values

Seems pretty obvious to me

The one who didn't die early as a miserable chain-smoking alcoholic.

The Hitchens are a good case study of what happens when you are a hedonistic atheist versus a religious family man.

That's not really anything to do with neo-liberalism.

Lawful good Hitchens. Chaotic neutral hitchens is inferior.

Christopher was objectively the more successful and skilled write, journalist and public speaker. The rest comes down to subjective personal opinions on their private lives and which one you agree with most.

>Logically founded belief in God

Maybe more skilled, but in what definition of success? Success to me doesn't involve dying of preventable cancer in your 60s because you resort to terrible habits due to how miserable your life is.

existence of god is fundamentally unknowable, making belief a choice.
in that case, why not choose the belief that there is justice here and thereafter, that what you do in your life ultimately has a higher purpose and that the good are saved and the wicked are punished?

>what definition of success?
I said the more successful writer, journalist and public speaker, which has absolutely nothing to do with dying from cancer due to your personal habits.

Obviously success as a writer is a hard thing to measure but, for example, any one of Christopher's more successful books has probably outsold every single one of Peter's books put together.

The existence of the tooth fairy is just as unknowable, making belief a choice.
In that case, why not believe in a good tooth market, that what you do with your teeth has a higher purpose and that the teeth are valued and the plaque punished?
It's not even a far-fetched comparison, and one of the oldest ones in the book.

The one not in hell.

To God, not knowing he exists is inexcusable.

>when your only refutation is playing dumb

>Christopher
>Influental author, journalist

>Peter
>A niche name, books left unsold
>But hey at least he's still alive, that really matters when determining their value decades from now

It's the exact same thing. You can't prove or disprove God's existence - and the same goes for insert mythological creature here.

You can't pick and choose beliefs. What nonsense is this. Something is either convincing to you for one reason or another or it isn't. The logical position derived from your premise would be agnosticism, not theism.

Mind you, I don't give a fuck about Hitchens' or anyone's beliefs. I just don't like you abusing the term "logic".

He wasn't playing dumb, he was telling you that your own premise opens the floodgates for an infinite number of unprovable propositions, even mutually exclusive ones. That's not faux stupidity, that's a problem in your line of reasoning.

>the good are saved and the wicked are punished
expect that's not what Christianity is about.

One of its many failings.

>Christopher's beliefs
>Leads to a degenerate, unfulfilling, and harmful lifestyle ultimately resulting in dying of cancer at 61

>Peter's beliefs
>Leads to a happy and fulfilling life which he gets to experience and enjoy

>Leads to a happy and fulfilling life
He spends most of his days on Twitter.

>happiness is more important than being meaningful
Maybe if you're a shallow idiot.

They're both great for different reasons.

Except Peter seems thoroughly miserable most of the time, in fact (and sometimes I think it is some sort of character act) his entire his entire public persona is based on being miserable and pessimistic and he will probably only get 20 years or so extra in life, which he will spend being as butthurt as possible.

the christopher hitchens documentary is really great.
really well narrated by the man himself.

But we know for a fact those mythological creatures are just that, myth. We know the tooth fairy isn't real, we don't know if God isn't real.

>We know the tooth fairy isn't real
How do you know that?

Did you even read what was said? We don't have enough evidence to prove or disprove God, so it comes down to make a choice: the atheist belief, or the theist belief.

We know that parents are really the ones putting the money under the pillow. And our parents tell us this once we get older.

We don't have any evidence to disprove The Force is real either.

Maybe the real tooth fairy just forsake you and your parents.

We know the force is a fictional invention by George Lucas, not comparable

Oh I see, you don't have an actual argument so you just resort to playing dumb.

We know Yahweh is a fictional invention by Jews.

How do you know that? Prove it

So you have no evidence then to disprove the tooth fairy? I think we can safely say your afairyism is just a belief.

What if the Tooth fairy subconsciously makes our parents put money below our pillows?

Yes I do, we know for a fact that it's really adults who put money under the kids pillow, not a fairy. Please go back to r/atheism

Prove to me that The Force was a literary invention and that Lucas wasn't merely subconsciously inspired by it.

I'm not seeing any evidence offered here.

Why dodge my question?
Well then you're being willfully ignorant because I've provided it

>Why dodge my question?
You dodged mine.

>Well then you're being willfully ignorant because I've provided it
You providing a personal anecdote that your parents told you something is in no sense of the word proof that an entity does not exist.

>You dodged mine
You dodged mine first and replied with another question to avoid answering, Why? Because you couldn't actually prove it?

>You providing a personal anecdote that your parents told you something
1.Not just my parents, have yours not told you yet?
2. The whole point of the tooth fairy is the she leaves money under the pillows of children, but we all know that it's really adults that do that. I don't understand why you can't comprehend that

You're assuming the toothtroll don't make parents lie about their role in leaving money below the pillow.

So what are you saying? You believe the tooth fairy is real? There's video evidence of parents leaving the money under their kids pillows.

>You dodged mine first and replied with another question to avoid answering
You still haven't provided any evidence The Force isn't real. Are you starting to work out how this burden of proof thing works yet?

>The whole point of the tooth fairy is the she leaves money under the pillows of children, but we all know that it's really adults that do that
You know your parents told you that. You don't know that, like the interdimensional being she is, that she just couldn't be arsed with your family any more and only gives money to kids on another planet, now, she used to give money to kids on Earth.

this

>You still haven't provided any evidence The Force isn't real. Are you starting to work out how this burden of proof thing works yet?
Ahh, so you're still avoiding my question. Why do you claim things you can't prove?

>You know your parents told you that. You don't know that, like the interdimensional being she is, that she just couldn't be arsed with your family any more and only gives money to kids on another planet, now, she used to give money to kids on Earth.
Playing dumb isn't an argument, if you don't have a point, why even respond?

As far as writing goes (i.e. their careers) Christopher was so far ahead of Peter it's not even funny.

>Leads to a happy and fulfilling life which he gets to experience and enjoy

I find it hard to believe that man enjoys anything.

>Ahh, so you're still avoiding my question
Nope.

>Playing dumb isn't an argument
You're starting to sound less religious by the second.

>Nope
Yes, you completely dodged it. Pretty typical of atheists who make claims like that

Christopher is a cringe level fedora asking "if God made the universe, THEN WHO MADE GOD? CHECKMATE, THEISTS!"

He really is.

...

You still aren't providing me any evidence for your Aforcist and Afairyist religious beliefs. It's almost like you can't disprove them to my satisfaction.

Fairly exhaustive analyses of mitochondria have been done, and none demonstrate the mitochondria effect its host in ways commensurable with "The Force", a fictional energy invented by a goober in some overhyped sci-fi movies.

that's a legit question.

I suppose I can't since you ignore whatever I post so you can cling to your irrational worldview

>just because humans can't measure it it isn't there

That's not logic.

How do you know Christopher's life was unfulfilling? He's remembered now as a famous journalist, writer, and rhetorician. You don't have to be Nietzsche to see where someone could find that fulfilling.

>I suppose I can't since you ignore whatever I post so you can cling to your irrational worldview

Welcome to my world. Pic related.

The point is that you cannot know for sure that mythological creatures aren't real. You can't disprove any thesis that says 'X is real.' Pragmatically, though, we can say that they aren't real 'coz there's no evidence.
The same goes for God. We can't know for sure that he's not real. But we can still be pragmatic and say he's not real because we lack evidence.

you got btfo hard

is it just me or does it seem like Peter just says the opposite of whatever Chris says

Like it's even a question

>why not knowingly delude yourself so you feel better

pahahaha

If you think so, you're as idiotic as he is. Seriously.

You've never heard God is an eternal, uncreated being. Ever.

>It's real to me, dammit.

By his own worldview, nothing matters and there is no ultimate meaning but what you contrive for yourself while you are alive.

>You are not a tool in the hands of a being greater than you
Oh, woe is me. How horrible.

>samefagging this hard

that's not much different from Christianity

not him, just someone who loves to laugh :)

But you CAN know. We know the force isn't real because we know the guy who invented it as a fictional concept. We know there's no tooth fairy because it's just adults who put money under kids pillows. But we can't know if God isn't real, and since there's no evidence that disproves the existence of God, we have to make a choice. The atheist belief, or the theist belief

>NEETs who will never marry
But this is the ideal state of being. All history up to this point has been for the sole purpose of enabling a glorious lifestyle completely occupied with asinine distractions and mindless pleasure.

He lived his life how he wished.

Alright mate?

No, but you are.

>Deanoposting in Veeky Forums

What a time to be alive

Nah.

I don't get it. Why is the existence of a god the one unreasonable premise otherwise reasonable people are unwilling to even consider seriously challenging? Most of them don't really even sincerely believe in heaven or their seventy-two virgins or whatever. Isn't it more beautiful to think that all this cool shit around us happened by chance and by choice of our own peers than to think some angry wizards on a tall mountain made it all by playing with themselves?

I believe that religion is an intrinsic part of human consciousness, because no living thing shaped by evolution would willingly accept the idea of death.

It's a way to reconcile

>life is all that matters
>you will inevitably die

Without going insane.

...

Obviously the one who agrees with me.

>eh, why not believe it? couldn't hurt.
>"logically founded"

That doesn't make it any less likely to be real.

That's not obviously true to all of us at all, speak for yourself. I know it might boggle your mind but I enjoy reading brilliant prose and arguments from someone that disagrees with me more than I enjoy shit prose and half-baked 'arguments' from someone that 'agrees' with me.

Reminder to this thread that Aristotle proved the existence of a First Mover, aka a creator God unbound by the laws of our universe, more than 2,000 years ago.

Ergo, there is a greater reality than our own, greater than physical reality, and you cannot deny it.

>fundamentally unknowable
sesquipedalian loquaciousness at its finest