Did Vallicella miss all of Hitchens' talking points about not even desiring Christianity to be true? And how people shouldn't want it to be true? How comforting of a thought is it to believe most people are going to burn in hell for all eternity even if you get to go to heaven? Family? Friends? Anyone, really. Maybe it's hard to understand that many atheists think the character of God from the Bible isn't all that likable in many ways. Do you find many people randomly hoping that Saddam Hussein runs the afterlife? I don't think so. So if Hitchens were going to make up some kind of fairy tale to believe in because the truth supposedly doesn't matter if materialism is true, it would at the very least look nothing like Christianity.
And it's amazing that Vallicella still doesn't connect his own dots. If it's all about the "Luciferian intellect" (that bit was hiLAARious, btw), then the truth would be desirable for that very reason, since you don't sound very intelligent when you advocate beliefs that don't correspond to reality.
It is interesting seeing Christian reactions to Hitchens' attitude about his impending death. And it's interesting how they seem to sound more desperate than he is (in the sense that they seem to want their religious sensibilities to be validated in some way). And how they'll avoid like the plague the obvious conclusion: humans can be quite accepting of a life that simply ends.
Apparently you missed the point that, from the perspective of materialism, it really doesn't matter what is true or what anyone wants. It doesn't even matter what anyone else believes, really, unless you derive pleasure from disabusing others of their comforting delusions.
That's alright though, since nothing much really matters from the perspective of materialism. We might as well find what enjoyment we can and do our best to avoid any questions of meaning or purpose. Better not think too much about our amusements either, or we'll find there's no reason to find them enjoyable.
Did Vallicella miss all of Hitchens' talking points about not even desiring Christianity to be true? And how people shouldn't want it to be true? How comforting of a thought is it to believe most people are going to burn in hell for all eternity even if you get to go to heaven? Family? Friends? Anyone, really. Maybe it's hard to understand that many atheists think the character of God from the Bible isn't all that likable in many ways.
1. Ben himself is merely emoting here.
2. Given Ben's view here, it's a matter of personal taste. What's likable and what's not likable. Who's in and who's out. All this as adjudicated by Ben's personal taste which in turn boils down to self-referential incoherence since, if it's a matter of personal taste, then who is Ben to criticize someone else for their personal taste in (say) finding the God of the Bible "likable"?
Did Vallicella miss all of Hitchens' talking points about not even desiring Christianity to be true? And how people shouldn't want it to be true? How comforting of a thought is it to believe most people are going to burn in hell for all eternity even if you get to go to heaven? Family? Friends? Anyone, really. Maybe it's hard to understand that many atheists think the character of God from the Bible isn't all that likable in many ways. Do you find many people randomly hoping that Saddam Hussein runs the afterlife? I don't think so. So if Hitchens were going to make up some kind of fairy tale to believe in because the truth supposedly doesn't matter if materialism is true, it would at the very least look nothing like Christianity.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's amazing that Vallicella still doesn't connect his own dots. If it's all about the "Luciferian intellect" (that bit was hiLAARious, btw), then the truth would be desirable for that very reason, since you don't sound very intelligent when you advocate beliefs that don't correspond to reality.
It is interesting seeing Christian reactions to Hitchens' attitude about his impending death. And it's interesting how they seem to sound more desperate than he is (in the sense that they seem to want their religious sensibilities to be validated in some way). And how they'll avoid like the plague the obvious conclusion: humans can be quite accepting of a life that simply ends.
Oh noes!
Ben
Apparently you missed the point that, from the perspective of materialism, it really doesn't matter what is true or what anyone wants. It doesn't even matter what anyone else believes, really, unless you derive pleasure from disabusing others of their comforting delusions.
ReplyDeleteThat's alright though, since nothing much really matters from the perspective of materialism. We might as well find what enjoyment we can and do our best to avoid any questions of meaning or purpose. Better not think too much about our amusements either, or we'll find there's no reason to find them enjoyable.
WAR_ON_ERROR said (emphasis mine):
ReplyDeleteDid Vallicella miss all of Hitchens' talking points about not even desiring Christianity to be true? And how people shouldn't want it to be true? How comforting of a thought is it to believe most people are going to burn in hell for all eternity even if you get to go to heaven? Family? Friends? Anyone, really. Maybe it's hard to understand that many atheists think the character of God from the Bible isn't all that likable in many ways.
1. Ben himself is merely emoting here.
2. Given Ben's view here, it's a matter of personal taste. What's likable and what's not likable. Who's in and who's out. All this as adjudicated by Ben's personal taste which in turn boils down to self-referential incoherence since, if it's a matter of personal taste, then who is Ben to criticize someone else for their personal taste in (say) finding the God of the Bible "likable"?
Oh noes!