News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by SamReidHughes on Friday December 16, 2011 @03:23AM (#3359985)
No it's not. Why wouldn't an atheist want an afterlife?
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by olavk on Friday December 16, 2011 @07:07AM (#3360462)
The christian concept of heaven is not very attractive if you are not a christian.

While there are different interpretations, the common is that heaven is an eternal non-physical state of being together with God (the god of the Bible), perhaps even "absorbed" by this god.

The god of the Bible is racist, jaloux, blood-thirsty and opposed to critical thinking, and among other things calls for human sacrifice, genocide and killing babies. (Read the Bible if you dont believe me.)

Now, if you are christian you might think this is all justified and fair, but for an atheist, an eternity of being together with this being (without any possibility of rebellion or critical thinking) might seem more like a never ending nightmare.

Furthermore, it is generally agreed that there is no kind of physical pleasure in the heaven - no sex, no sunshine or rain, no books, no Johnny Walker Black Label. The only pleasure is being together with and eternally worshipping the aforementioned god. Who would in good conscience wish this for Hitchens?

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by euroclydon on Friday December 16, 2011 @09:59AM (#3360856)
Has it occurred to you that if God created everything, than the standard by which you're judging heaven might be short sighted?

I like to think there might be little racism and infanticide and much discourse on creating universes.

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by redthrowaway on Saturday December 17, 2011 @03:40AM (#3363829)
No description of the afterlife given by any of the major religions appeals to me, save perhaps Buddhism from a mystical standpoint. If we want to start conjecturing beyond what anyone says the afterlife is like, then why believe in it at all? Without evidence, the only thing any of the religions claim to have going for them is holy books and priests claiming divine knowledge. If you want to ignore those, then you're just pulling ideas out of thin air. It might be nice to imagine some utopic afterlife for each person, but it has precisely the same relationship with fact as my desire to drop into the worlds of books I read and take part in the story.
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by swah on Friday December 16, 2011 @07:54AM (#3360557)
Fuck you (you representing anti-christian trolling in general in HN).
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by Udo on Friday December 16, 2011 @08:22AM (#3360602)
Atheism is a very broad category. It just means you don't believe in any gods. The people who belong to that category, and their philosophies, are wildly different. You can't draw a lot of conclusions just from knowing someone is an atheist.

I'm an atheist myself and I do find the idea of an afterlife extremely compelling. The tragedy here is that I'm also enough of a scientist to know that the odds of there being any kind of afterlife are vastly against us. So there is probably a group of atheists who, like myself, wish for an afterlife but at the same time know that wishing doesn't make it true. The universe doesn't really care whether a couple of carbon-based molecules change their state and it, sadly, doesn't care about the information stored in our brains either.

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by numeromancer on Friday December 16, 2011 @09:21AM (#3360750)
"The tragedy here is that I'm also enough of a scientist to know that the odds of there being any kind of afterlife are vastly against us."

You presume, of course, that these things apply to the dead. But when dead, materially, you can reason about nothing because the bases for reason, perception and memory, no longer exist. Seeing yourself as disanimated material after you die is a trick of the mind, and not one that comes naturally, but that is learned in training as a part of survival in your time and place. But in many ways, to yourself, you are unlike anyone else, and in these ways you can conclude nothing about your dead self from your perception and memory of all others that have died.

In short, you can conclude nothing about yourself when dead. Even the laws of physics and nature are not a help to determining the nature of your dead self; these are artifacts of perception and memory.

I do not claim that we have hope for life after death, whatever that means; I only claim that for the living it is, and will likely always be, the "horror of the shade", the mystery of mysteries, and why music and poetry are as important to human beings as science and reason.

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by jpulgarin on Friday December 16, 2011 @03:26AM (#3359992)
Christopher has stated multiple times that he finds the Christian idea of heaven unappealing.

Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by tspiteri on Friday December 16, 2011 @03:56AM (#3360059)
> Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

If the Christian heaven does exist, it does not imply that all Christian doctrine is true, only that some is true.

And there is a lot of contradictory Christian doctrine. By that, I am not saying that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory, I am only pointing out that several different Christian denominations have doctrines that contradict each other. According to some denominations, Hitchens would indeed be in hell, and according to others, he would be in heaven.

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by jpulgarin on Friday December 16, 2011 @04:14AM (#3360101)
Instead of "which in turn" I should have said, "and further assuming", sorry about that.

I am almost certain that there are some Christian denominations under which Christopher is now believed to be in heaven, although they are in the minority, and not in the mainstream of Christianity that Hitchens usually debated against. Can you name me two Christian denominations according to whom Christopher is now in heaven?

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by tspiteri on Friday December 16, 2011 @04:28AM (#3360131)
I do not know much about different Christian denominations, but I do come from a Catholic background myself, and I guess Catholicism does qualify as mainstream. I think that according to current Catholic doctrine, if someone does his best to find out the truth, and lives according to what he sincerely believes, he goes to heaven, even if he's wrong in the end. And I think Hitchens qualifies for those qualities (to be clear: I am referring to his doing his best to find out the truth and living according to it, not to being wrong in the end).
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by jpulgarin on Friday December 16, 2011 @05:00AM (#3360205)
In Catholic doctrine one who commits a mortal sin without repenting is bound to hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin#Roman_Catholicism

If you look at the three conditions that a sin must meet to be considered a mortal sin, I think there is a very high probability that writing a book titled God Is Not Great is a mortal sin. There are hundreds of things that Christopher did which very likely meet those conditions, and there is also a high probability that he has not repented about them before death.

According to Catholicism people do not get into heaven by living according to what they sincerely believe, and many, many, Catholic scholars would say that Christopher is bound for hell.

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by tspiteri on Friday December 16, 2011 @05:35AM (#3360280)
The three conditions for a mortal sin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.

2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).

3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

The question is about point 2. While Hitchens knew that it would be morally unacceptable according to Catholic doctrine, he considered writing the book as the right thing to do according to his own moral standard, so he would not be doing something he considered as a gravely wrong thing to do. Similarly for other people who live according to what they sincerely believe: they are not committing actions with full knowledge that the actions are the wrong thing to do.

It does leave room for interpretation, and can be argued both ways, but I do not wish to be drawn further into a religious discussion.

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by mattdeboard on Friday December 16, 2011 @07:00AM (#3360447)
Cool thread, I like the new CSS layout of Reddit here.
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by masklinn on Friday December 16, 2011 @04:21AM (#3360116)
> Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

It's much more complex than that as there is no single "Christian doctrine" (each christian sect has its own doctrine, including concepts of hell, and these doctrines evolve over time). Some christian sects promise hell to all non-convers (and sinners), while others consider only acts and make devotion irrelevant to entry in heavens.

I'm not going to make judgement calls on the hitch or these doctrines, but "Christian doctrine" being true absolutely does not translate into "Christopher is most certainly in hell". Let alone "the Christian heaven" existing (the "Christian" heaven being real) translates into this ("Christian heaven" could be true while everything else is false)

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by protomyth on Friday December 16, 2011 @06:38PM (#3362815)
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by michael_dorfman on Friday December 16, 2011 @03:29AM (#3360003)
I can't speak for others, but this atheist doesn't want one.
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by corin_ on Friday December 16, 2011 @05:09AM (#3360223)
I also don't want one, but if someone said "I hope there's a heaven so that he will have gone to it" after I'm dead I wouldn't call that disrespectful in the slightest.
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by borispavlovic on Friday December 16, 2011 @03:31AM (#3360013)
Because we don't need it. Our genes are reproduced and they are carrying the best and the worst parts of us and our experience.
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by emil0r on Friday December 16, 2011 @03:56AM (#3360058)
Your children carries your experiences?
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by jarin on Friday December 16, 2011 @04:02PM (#3362301)
If you raise them.
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by emil0r on Saturday December 17, 2011 @04:40AM (#3363907)
1) The OP made the claim that our genes carry our experiences onto our children. I've never experienced that and AFAIK it doesn't happen.

2) Raising a child doesn't give the child your experiences either. I have no memory of what my father experienced in his life based on him raising me. AFAIK it doesn't happen to other people either.

Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by abdulhaq on Friday December 16, 2011 @07:18AM (#3360483)
I find that a stimulating comment because for me, not one tiny iota of what is good and bad about us comes from our genes. Our genes are the cards we are dealt with when we are born. How good and bad we are is seen in how we respond to that initial start. To say it's our genes that make us good sounds close to the stream of thought that believes in certain races being 'better' than others etc.
Re:In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 by rimantas on Friday December 16, 2011 @08:42AM (#3360640)
Because he sees it as celestial North Korea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nIRJVmZ4K8