Which one was smarter

They are both somewhat smart, no real difference. I used to love Christopher when I was an atheist but now I kinda prefer Peter. But Christopher was the much better writer and debater. He knew how to communicate very effectively but he also had real retarded ideas like on the Middle East.

This is apt. Chris was more of a crowd pleaser and cared much more about how people viewed him, so he occasionally sacrificed substance for style. I'd say their respective strengths and weaknesses balance out and call them intellectual equals. The Hitchens v. Hitchens debate is revealing; it is essentially a tie.

They're both fairly boring tbqh

Noel, but Liam was more the authentic rockstar.

He also loves railways and bicycles, and hats personal motorcars, and yet he's hated by the political left.

Christopher makes me think he fancied himself a bit of a rock star. Sometimes he'd let wit be the argument. I can't remember the exact line, but he was in a debate and challenged his opponent to say whether the spread of Christianity by Constantine was due to politics or the will of God, and when his opponent said (obviously) the will of God Christopher smugly says "I thought so", and the crowd goes wild. Really annoyed me because it was such a cheap non-argument that someone as smart as him shouldn't be lowering himself to make.

Chrissy
>Oxford
Pete
>York

Christopher, obviously

He said "I rest my case" not "I thought so"

>whether the spread of Christianity by Constantine was due to politics or the will of God

Why is there an *or* needed there in the first place? It's entirely possible it could be both. And I don't mean this in a /pol/ deus vult meme way, say hypothetically Constantine did it for purely political reasons and had no interest at all in it as personal faith. That wouldn't preclude God from using his political motive to accomplish what God wanted.

This is what I was about to say, and why the reply ( sorry, I got it wrong, but the point remains the same) was cheap. Even though it was because Constantine made it the state religion, why would this not be because of Revaluation on Constantine's part?

Chris is a former trot who took the usual path of the disgruntled neocon playing the double-game who is most famous for being a celeb militant atheist.

Pete is a former trot who took an incredibly unusual path of becoming a literal reactionary socially, yet retaining some economic reformist/socialists views. He is more famous for being a conservative moralist.

Christopher sounds smarter and is the more traditionally intelectual one, while Peter had more interesting life experiences and ended up with a more insighthful political world view.

they're both memes

underrated

Stop smoking cannabis

neither

makes them sound both totally fascinating, as characters if not necessarily thinkers.

hitchens brothers dramatic biopic followed by wacky tv sitcom when?

chris was a far better atheist than peter is a theist desu

youtube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc

like wtf is this shit

what're you surprised about? Peter's theism is an outgrowth of his traditionalist conservatism. you can certainly disagree with that whole project (I do,) but his argument is exactly the one you'd expect someone like him to make.

I did, been off of it for a month, feel wonderful except I think it gave me an adrenal gland disorder

Peter could talk about shit other than his pet projects. Chris probably got further with his pet projects because of those intellectual blinders. Draw I guess.

Christopher was all style and no substance

Peter is all style and no substance

Before I was a Christian, I thought that Peter was the most pseudo-intellectual muppet that was ever allowed to hold a pen.

Now that I'm a Christian, I'm delighted to say that hasn't changed

Lewis himself is a little unimpressive once you dig into the Inklings and their influences. Tolkien was the better, deeper, firmer thinker. Dorothy Sayers was a bit better too, though she didn't write nearly as much.

Obviously Chris, how is this even a question?

>atheists know that if everyone was an atheist, society would collapse and they'd be at the mercy of criminals!
>which is why they're participating in this debate to try to convince you to be atheists
What did he mean by this?

>implying that defending the war on drugs is intellectually honest
Sorry, but american conservatives/libertarians/whatever such as Buckley and Sowell thinks that the war on drugs is undefendable on purely economical grounds.

Peter is an idiot

>undefendable

the word you're looking for is "indefensible"

Probably talking about the decriminalisation of things that were once crimes. Its worth noting that he also supports hanging and prisons as nothing but dingy cells and a pile of hay in the corner.

The one who is still alive by the grace of God.

Christopher was funnier and better at elucidating his thoughts, but I think Peter is more interesting.

(Me) Would you believe it?

Hitch

KEKEKEKEKEKEK

>Chris
>crowd pleaser
Iraq?

>sacrificed substance for style.
Proof?

You know nothing about him, lad. Please stop.

Never really liked Hitchen's style

Much more of a fan of Ben Stiller
I mean, how can he be so reasonable, calm and polite all the time?

Yeah will smith is great

He really seems to enjoy 'playing the villain' when it came to Iraq though. That's a crowd-pleasing of sorts.

Maybe 'showman' would be a better term?

In many ways, Peter.
He has some retarded opinions on drugs tho