RIP Christopher Hitchens

[89Hen]

Well, that and that he didn't belive in a supreme being.

Primary. Read his shit. His venom was directed at the religious industrial complex and it thieves and criminals.

He was an ATHEIST. Why would he be meeting Jesus?

[Ibanez]

What has he gained by being "right?" On this day, a hallow victory if there ever was one.

I'll remember him in my prayers and ask for mercy, because he might have been wrong, and if he was, he needs our prayers.

Joe, he's already gained a life of not believing in utter bullshit, not forking over 10-20% of his income to shyksters and pedophile factories like the catholic church, the freedom from the guilt the church places on people to keep them subservient, not having to go to fucking church every god damned Sunday, not abusing his children by forcing dangerous dogma on them from birth......and so on.

He won long before today.

BTW, why would he need your prayers? From what I know of him, he should be towards the front of the line at the gates. His primary beef, and that of Jesus' too, was organized religion - the circuses created by tyrants and politicians, (like the catholic church) who abused jesus' life in order to fleece people.

Bet Hitch and JC are drinking scotches and chain smoking Chesterfields right now.

I doubt him and JC are drinking, if true that'd be the greatest " I told you so" ever!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using my mind powers.

[JoltinJoe]

Bet Hitch and JC are drinking scotches and chain smoking Chesterfields right now.

I actually hope you're right.

[Ivytalk]

Hitchens was entertaining and provocative. The form of cancer that killed him is a horrible way to die. That said, I haven't given a second thought to the fate of his immortal soul.

[D1B]

Bet Hitch and JC are drinking scotches and chain smoking Chesterfields right now.

I actually hope you're right.

Joe, you'll be rotting in hell with the rest of the cowards who looked the other way while their church killed and tortured people and raped children.

Sorry, Hitch and I will get in before you do.

[D1B]

Hitchens was entertaining and provocative. The form of cancer that killed him is a horrible way to die. That said, I haven't given a second thought to the fate of his immortal soul.

He was honest and fearless and right.

[JoltinJoe]

Hitchens was entertaining and provocative. The form of cancer that killed him is a horrible way to die. That said, I haven't given a second thought to the fate of his immortal soul.

He was honest and fearless and right.

He was an unhappy, nicotine-addicted alcoholic who used his remarkable wit and sarcasm to mask his weak reasoning and to bully opponents. Without the force of his personality to support his writings, he will soon be forgotten and will leave no lasting mark in any the fields in which he wrote.

[Ivytalk]

He was honest and fearless and right.

He was an unhappy, nicotine-addicted alcoholic who used his remarkable wit and sarcasm to mask his weak reasoning and to bully opponents. Without the force of his personality to support his writings, he will soon be forgotten and will leave no lasting mark in any the fields in which he wrote.

:

[JoltinJoe]

He was an unhappy, nicotine-addicted alcoholic who used his remarkable wit and sarcasm to mask his weak reasoning and to bully opponents. Without the force of his personality to support his writings, he will soon be forgotten and will leave no lasting mark in any the fields in which he wrote.

:

[D1B]

He was honest and fearless and right.

He was an unhappy, nicotine-addicted alcoholic who used his remarkable wit and sarcasm to mask his weak reasoning and to bully opponents. Without the force of his personality to support his writings, he will soon be forgotten and will leave no lasting mark in any the fields in which he wrote.

Yeah, if I were a dumbass catholic, schooled in hilariously stupid dogma from birth - so much so I tolerate my church protecting pedophiles and actively discriminating against gays - I'd hate Hitchens too. I also might hate him if he were a better writer than I and had much more success as a literary figure than I. Anyhoo...

He was also skilled debater who skewered religious morons like Joltin Joe, on and off camera. He was also a good man.

From a Rabbi friend of his......

In his brilliant history of early modern England, “The Ends of Life,” historian Keith Thomas quotes a translator named George Petrie who wrote in 1581, “The only way to win immortality is either to do things worth the writing, or write things worth the reading.” Christopher Hitchens is, by this reckoning, twice immortal.

On the page his words leapt to life. Can you imagine a more subtle, devastating takedown than his famous comments on Jerry Falwell? “If someone gave him an enema you could bury him in a matchbox.” The infuriating thing about debating Hitchens was that such ripostes were not the fruit of long, diligent thought. He thought in epigrams, and even in conversation there were quotable lines expressed in his deep British voice, his “instrument,” as he called it, given heft and tone by years of oratory, scotch and cigarettes.

The difficulty in debating Hitchens was not only the readiness of his wit and the range of his reference. Alongside his learning was an unusually rich experience of life. He was filled in equal measure with adventure and erudition. He had traveled to most of the dangerous (as well as glamorous) spots in the world and could give you pointers not only on the government, but the best bars in every city from Paris to Port au Prince. After a dinner of drinking others under the table, he could rise, knock off a 2,000 word essay on the fiction of James Joyce, and then retire for what remained of the evening. His was a prodigious, unflagging energy sprung from deep gifts.

We had vigorous disagreements, to say the least. Not only in our debates, where we wrestled over the reality of God, the worth of religion and the possibility of an afterlife. I also recall pressing him on his long-standing opposition to Israel. As he got older and became a staunch opponent of militant Islam, his stance toward Israel softened, but Hitchens was not a man for backtracking. Even his late discovery of his own Jewishness (which “delighted” him) did not change his hostility to the one place on earth that otherwise – as I tried to point out to him without effect—embodied the values he held most dear.

But I have wonderful snapshots of his charm and kindness: urging me to drink beer before our debate (“it’s only water…”), warning me before we stepped on stage that he would never compliment me in public, instructing me in a long car ride on the fine points of different scotches, the skill of P.G. Wodehouse, and a steady stream of stories about the famous and infamous. The flow of Hitchens talk was unstinting, and he did not “save” his best stories, since the reservoir had no bottom.

Hitchens won my daughter’s heart with his first introduction to her when she attended the debate in Los Angeles moderated by The Jewish Journal’s editor-in-chief, Rob Eshman. He bent down to greet her (she was then 11), stuck out his hand and said “Hitchens here.” She felt instantly that he was unique. Of course, I, as her father, listening to him proclaim during the debate that the only prayer he ever offered was for an erection, hoped that the introduction – and not the priapic theology—would be her lasting impression.

I have one keen regret. Hitchens and I had planned to visit Concord together after our Boston debate, and it would have been a feast to see the graves of the Transcendentalists, of Emerson, Thoreau, Alcott and the others, with a lover of literature who was at the same time unalterably opposed to the reality of the unseen. He had never visited and was eager to go. But his daughter’s graduation coincided with the only day I could visit, and so I went alone and sent him pictures.

The world was more colorful and better critiqued when we had Hitchens scathing wit to scour our less-careful pronouncements. (I recall watching him once on TV, when a defender of Hillary Clinton said, after a Hitchens assault, “Well that’s your opinion.” Hitchens instantly replied, “Well of course it is. It would be fatuous to invite me on to spout YOUR opinion.” Ouch.) He will be missed.

Rabbi David Wolpe is rabbi of Sinai Temple. You can follow his teachings on facebook.com/RabbiWolpe.

[D1B]

Washington Post

We have lost an irreplaceable person in this age of American unreason. By “we,” I do not mean only atheists (although Hitchens is irreplaceable in that respect too) but everyone who values rationality and the English language.

[JoltinJoe]

Hitchens was certainly not a great writer. His writing suffered from overwrought pretentiousness and terminal big wordiness -- which of course appeals to pseudo-intellectuals, who mistake it for great writing.

Great writing results from using plain expression artfully.

For example, from a recent Slate article:

“OK, that’s it,” said my guest a few nights ago. “That’s what?” “The Perry campaign: It’s officially over. Look, I’ve found the moment.” Together, in mild stupefaction, we watched as a fellow-creature, accoutred with gorgeous mammalian hair that is fully the equivalent of Mitt Romney’s, and fashioned in the very image of god, failed repeatedly to remember the names of the federal agencies that he had sworn to put out of their misery. We watched further, inwardly wincing and cringing, as the awful moment somehow managed to protract itself.



That last sentence is the only one which carries weight, although I'm not sure if he really means "inwardly" wincing and cringing. Like many wordy writers, Hitchens never saw a verb that didn't need an adverb.

[∞∞∞]

Hitchens was certainly not a great writer. His writing suffered from overwrought pretentiousness and terminal big wordiness -- which of course appeals to pseudo-intellectuals, who mistake it for great writing.

Great writing results from using plain expression artfully. Hitchens was a massive fail in that department.

For example, from a recent Slate article:

“OK, that’s it,” said my guest a few nights ago. “That’s what?” “The Perry campaign: It’s officially over. Look, I’ve found the moment.” Together, in mild stupefaction, we watched as a fellow-creature, accoutred with gorgeous mammalian hair that is fully the equivalent of Mitt Romney’s, and fashioned in the very image of god, failed repeatedly to remember the names of the federal agencies that he had sworn to put out of their misery. We watched further, inwardly wincing and cringing, as the awful moment somehow managed to protract itself.



That last sentence is the only one which carries weight.

And that's why Hitchens published critically acclaimed books while you write on a message board with smileys...

[JoltinJoe]

Hitchens was certainly not a great writer. His writing suffered from overwrought pretentiousness and terminal big wordiness -- which of course appeals to pseudo-intellectuals, who mistake it for great writing.

Great writing results from using plain expression artfully. Hitchens was a massive fail in that department.

For example, from a recent Slate article:

“OK, that’s it,” said my guest a few nights ago. “That’s what?” “The Perry campaign: It’s officially over. Look, I’ve found the moment.” Together, in mild stupefaction, we watched as a fellow-creature, accoutred with gorgeous mammalian hair that is fully the equivalent of Mitt Romney’s, and fashioned in the very image of god, failed repeatedly to remember the names of the federal agencies that he had sworn to put out of their misery. We watched further, inwardly wincing and cringing, as the awful moment somehow managed to protract itself.



That last sentence is the only one which carries weight.

And that's why Hitchens published critically acclaimed books while you write on a message board with smileys...

Acclaimed by whom?? Lightweights? I could do what Hitchens did, if I had no conscience. It's easy to take wit, an expansive vocabulary, mix in sarcasm, and act like you are writing with authority on subjects you actually know little about.

FWIW, I am a published writer and I'm regularly invited to speak on panels with people of genuine achievement. In fact, I recently spoke on a panel with a guy named Joseph Stiglitz. I'm sure most people who admire Hitchens have no idea who he is.

[Pwns]

Dude was just a blowhard and a hack. I had pretty much had it with him after his Newsweek piece on the olympics where he basically says anyone who cares anything about sports is a moron. His shilling for the Iraq war (a formerly secular regime which is now going to be a powder-keg of the various Islamo-nut groups he claims we need to extinguish) was really just as trite as those of Sean Hannity or any other neocon talking heads. Oh, and there's all the exaggerations about a great humanitarian like Mother Theresa, also.

[kalm]

And that's why Hitchens published critically acclaimed books while you write on a message board with smileys...

Acclaimed by whom?? Lightweights? I could do what Hitchens did, if I had no conscience. It's easy to take wit, an expansive vocabulary, mix in sarcasm, and act like you are writing with authority on subjects you actually know little about.

FWIW, I am a published writer and I'm regularly invited to speak on panels with people of genuine achievement. In fact, I recently spoke on a panel with a guy named Joseph Stiglitz. I'm sure most people who admire Hitchens have no idea who he is.

Of course not.

[CitadelGrad]

Hitchens was entertaining and provocative. The form of cancer that killed him is a horrible way to die. That said, I haven't given a second thought to the fate of his immortal soul.

Hitchens didn't give it a second thought either.

[travelinman67]

He was honest and fearless and right.

He was an unhappy, nicotine-addicted alcoholic who used his remarkable wit and sarcasm to mask his weak reasoning and to bully opponents. Without the force of his personality to support his writings, he will soon be forgotten and will leave no lasting mark in any the fields in which he wrote.

Spot on. I only read a couple articles he wrote and saw him interviewed a couple of times, but Joe's observation mirror mine. Hitchens was remarkably angry, hostile and aggressive. NO PERSON can function reasonably when their beliefs are rooted in anger. His positions were superficial and, like Joe said, supported with sarcastic attacks.

D, I realize you view people like Hitchens as iconic, but Hitchens was as sick and dysfunctional as the church protected pedophiles you revile.

When people like Hitchens pass, I actually feel a great sense of relief knowing that they finally can see the truth, which resolves their unrest.

[Vidav]

Dude was just a blowhard and a hack. I had pretty much had it with him after his Newsweek piece on the olympics where he basically says anyone who cares anything about sports is a moron. His shilling for the Iraq war (a formerly secular regime which is now going to be a powder-keg of the various Islamo-nut groups he claims we need to extinguish) was really just as trite as those of Sean Hannity or any other neocon talking heads. Oh, and there's all the exaggerations about a great humanitarian like Mother Theresa, also.

Theresa was a sack of shit and you know it.

[D1B]

And that's why Hitchens published critically acclaimed books while you write on a message board with smileys...

Acclaimed by whom?? Lightweights? I could do what Hitchens did, if I had no conscience. It's easy to take wit, an expansive vocabulary, mix in sarcasm, and act like you are writing with authority on subjects you actually know little about.

FWIW, I am a published writer and I'm regularly invited to speak on panels with people of genuine achievement. In fact, I recently spoke on a panel with a guy named Joseph Stiglitz. I'm sure most people who admire Hitchens have no idea who he is.

Yet you'll never achieve anywhere near the acclaim Hitchens did. Jealous fuck.

Joe, outside of your little catholic, barbarshop singer clique of 1960's era Fordham, NOBODY has ever heard of you and no one gives a shit about you or your "writings" that nobody has or ever will read.

Sorry, Joe, you're the hack.


From the New York Times

We have lost an irreplaceable person in this age of American unreason. By “we,” I do not mean only atheists (although Hitchens is irreplaceable in that respect too) but everyone who values rationality and the English language.

[D1B]

Dude was just a blowhard and a hack. I had pretty much had it with him after his Newsweek piece on the olympics where he basically says anyone who cares anything about sports is a moron. His shilling for the Iraq war (a formerly secular regime which is now going to be a powder-keg of the various Islamo-nut groups he claims we need to extinguish) was really just as trite as those of Sean Hannity or any other neocon talking heads. Oh, and there's all the exaggerations about a great humanitarian like Mother Theresa, also.

Mother Theresa was a sadist cunt who mined fame and fortune for the Catholic Church on the pain of suffering of her tens of thousands of "hospice" victims who lived out their days in unbelievable pain, you fuckwad.

[D1B]

He was an unhappy, nicotine-addicted alcoholic who used his remarkable wit and sarcasm to mask his weak reasoning and to bully opponents. Without the force of his personality to support his writings, he will soon be forgotten and will leave no lasting mark in any the fields in which he wrote.

Spot on. I only read a couple articles he wrote and saw him interviewed a couple of times, but Joe's observation mirror mine. .

You're a dumbfuck. Do you actually read the shit you type before you hit send?

[Bronco]

I enjoy watching anyone that is passionate in their beliefs
RIP

[kalm]

I enjoy watching anyone that is passionate in their beliefs
RIP

I agree. Say what you want about his writing style, but after listening to him and Chris Hedges debate whether or not atheism is a religion on the Thom Hartmann show it was obvious that he was anything but a hack. My understanding is that his debate series with Douglas Wilson was much the same.

[Ibanez]

I enjoy watching anyone that is passionate in their beliefs
RIP

My wife and I were talking about this yesterday. If you go to facebook and put that you are an athiest, you will get a slew of people either telling you you are going to hell or that they are "praying for you". If you put up sometihng religious, you probably won't see any athiests say anything. It's a great double standard like fat people ridiculuing skinny people as "unhealthy". (I can't tell you how many time's I've gone down that road with fat assess.) The bottom line, which everyone knows, is that extremists get the press, the moderates(who are probably in the majority) get the bad rap and Religion has become the proverbial, "My God is better than your God", "My Religion is right and your's isn't." If ANY of those people truly knew thier religion and could think with an open mind, things would be different.

There is zero proof, no smoking gun, to back up the claim of any Christian, Jew, Muslim or Athiest. It's all your belief. Some take that "leap of faith," as my father calls is, some don't believe what they don't see.

Spoiler: show

Another thing. There was a show on H2 last night about Jesus and when I turned to it, it was discussing the Shroud of Turin. Some testing on it revelaed that it was from the 13th Century. These "scholars" come on and explain that the pieces used for testing, taken from the shroud, weren't from the original shroud. Being that the existence of Jesus is all based off a religion, and not a historical fact (like Herrod) couldn't the shroud just be some random Jew that was buried? That couldn't possibly be so! And the Gospel of Thomas, the church fathers discount it b/c it doesn't fit what the exact model of Jesus, as they want to describe him. Some "scholar" actually said it can't be trusted b/c we don't know the true author nor do we know how close the author was to the source. Seriously? Those Gospels and the Act weren't written by those poor, illiterate, fisherman "Apostles" or any of the disciples that had zero ability to read. Paul was the only one that might've been able to read (if he existed). Objectively, religion makes no sense. It is an ancient tool to control the masess, explain the unexplainable (uh...the "world" flooded b/c God didn't like your lifestyle) and give people something to believe in.