Christopher Hitchens, R.I.P.

What is false about what has been stated? Are people that are living able to communicate with Hitchens at this present time and receive, in real time, answers from Hitchens? No? Then Hitchens does not exist.

 

Where was the implication that the qualifications were comprehensive? It wasnt there.

I dont mean to speak for her, but Cass didn't just offer the man "praise" because he was dead. Cass offered the man "praise" because he died and she, presumably, respected him.

There's no need to make any comparisons to serial killers.

 

Where is the requirement that a non professional (non-scientist) submit comprehensive criteria? None to be found? Hmmm.

This of course finds you also guilty of attempting to move the goal posts from their preexisting settings. How cute and how disingenuous.

 

Lets see, shall we?

Where did she say those were her only reasons for offering praise? Her reasons are her own, and they are none of your business. Stop critiquing them.

 

look, if you want to pay your respects to ted Bundy, thats your concern, but accusing others of moving the goal posts because you wish to do so is really clutching at straws.

 

It is not clutching at straws when it is plainly in the record of this thread. Now you are projecting by suggesting that I am clutching at straws, when you find that you cannot refute what I have stated.

 

its you who want to pay your respects to ted bundy.

you should go and start your own thread.

 

Who said I was paying respect to Ted Bundy? You are hallucinating. I merely pointed out, that Bundy met the criteria that YOU ESTABLISHED. You set the stage in such a manner that most anyone could meet that criteria.

 

only someone who was ignorant would think that. or someone who had some issues.

in the context of this thread it was obvious I was talking about christopher hitchins, who, whether you liked him or not, contributed to the world of ideas more than most people do.

 

Think what??? Be a little more specific.

Starting a new sentence with the word 'or' is not commonly accepted. . . especially when the first letter of the new sentence is neither capitalized or within quotation marks. What specifically are you attempting to say?

The emphasized text above is yet another attempt at moving the goal posts. Previously (your original statement) made no mention of "more than most people". Keep the conversation consistent with the issues and quit your constant attempts at moving the goal posts by adding new language to the original statement.

 

so ....your into attacking my grammar now ... does that mean you don't really have an argument?

 

I'm glad to see that whether Christopher Hitchens is resting in peace or not, his legacy is not going to rest in peace wherever freethought is in sparse supply.

 

"Argumentation" is not a promotion of peace... therefore, I don't offer arguments. Now considering that you address no other point than the challenge to your grammar, it can be safely presumed that you are acquiescing to those other points that I have made, because you have not successfully refuted any of those other points.

 

But actually cass this thread is a poor epitaph for the Hitch. Firstly it is posted in the Religion section, which might be amusing had it been done so in irony. Secondly it is full of the same superficial wooden drivel that would have bored Hitchens to death.

Watching or reading Hitch was a delight, whether it was in watching him face down a gang of mediocre bullies on Fox News over and over (I've watched a few in his memory today), his brilliant eloquence in demolishing the sanctity of Theresa of Calcutta in his documentary, or just the sheer brilliance and provocativeness in his "contrarian" insights in his writings. I profoundly disagree with Hitchens on religion, but find ninety per cent of his criticisms to be bang on, including his withering contempt for those who would ask him to take Pascal's wager and his masterful denunciation of Jerry Falwell, the fraud and hatemonster, just after he died.

I am moved to create another thread, in tribute to the Hitch, where the great issues he polemicised can be dealt with by serious minds. But I fear that in this cesspit of rightwing ignorance and blockheadednes any discussion of Hitch's ideas will be matched by the deafening sound of an almighty "whoosh", as those of us who look to the heavens to see Hitch's star ( he has one named after him and I am sure he looks down on us from there), have to grub about in the dirt and the dust with the ignorant philistines, dunderheads and bigots that he so rightly despised.

When you listen to the graceful, humble, thoughtful Hitchens of recent times, you see a man who in my view is very probably saved. A loving God requires us all only to act in line with our conscience - there is no other righteousness but that - and in Hitchens I see a man of deep integrity and self reflection. I am as sure he is in Heaven without taking the dishonourable wager from Blaise Pascal. In a recent interview he admitted contemplating a fantasy meeting with his Maker, where he lamented humorously that there would be no jury or right of appeal and he would be denied a lawyer. His defence was that surely He would not have wanted him to have been untrue to his beliefs, inauthentic, a fraud, a shyster. And that if He really was a loving God then that defence would be a good one. And if not...well then...WTF..?

RIP Christopher Hitchens. A fine English intellectual let loose in America.

 

Quite a contrast in character assignment between the excerpts of those two paragraphs.

If Hitchens was as graceful, humble, and thoughtful as you portray, then perhaps you should have paid closer attention to his teaching, as that would have possibly prevented you from displaying such a contrast. Then to top it all off, IF on the other hand Hitchens was a true Atheist then the subject of being "saved" would not even enter the equation.

 

definitely the best post on Hitchens.

 

Use it as the writing on his tombstone.

 

Yes I know it is an unpopular opinion but schadenfrude- I am happy he is dead. I never agreed with his closed-minded opinions.

 

It's me that's the believer. Of course I know what he thinks. I know he's saved though. There's a mighty row going on right now in Heaven. Hitch is castigating God for the appalling injustices carried out in Hell.

 

I wonder if you read anything he ever wrote and if you did if you could cite it and in the improbable event of both those things if you could refute it.

Empty condemnation of your opponents is easy. Argument is hard.

 

Hero, I disagree.

As both a professional warrior and a historian I found the works of Chris Hitchens to be, plainly and bluntly, fraud. His book God is not Great was frankly rediculous. Anyone who has ever engaged in conflict or its resolution knows beyond a doubt that what Hitchens did was essentially a lie of omission. He went through and documented a series of wars in religion played an important role, and then studiously ignored the many conflicts in which religion either played no part or was central to the peaceful resolution of confict.

As someone who has been out in the muck, his over simplistic presentation made has of complex work and fed the drivel of those who utter such contemptuous phrases like, "They've been doing that centuries! We should just nuc 'em, they'll never learn"

Even worse, his treatise against Mother Theresa was a travety of twisted contempt and malign influence. It, like hs work on war, was a deliberte hand wave of complexity and reality, whose sole goal was to malign and disparage. The twists and turns of his logic, his utter failure to examine anything alternate, his failure to deal with the concept like grace (is there anything to be gained from not respected even the worst of us Hitch?) forgiveness, charity, and his insistance on viewing the work of Mother Theresa whose followers took an oath of poverty to ensure maximum utilization of funds and resources for others was little more than, " Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story." Serving others is but disillusion to Chris Hitchens?

And that is the real travesty of Chris Hitchens.

He was gifted with a tremendous intellect and he wasted that gift on maligning others. A man of Chris's intellect had to see the short comings in his own work, but he wrote them anyway. That does not strike me as a man who is following his conscience. That is the fitting epithet to one Chris Hitchens.

 

I rather liked this letter in the Guardian: 'Christopher Hitchens, by common consent the greatest man of the last century and probably in the entire history of the world, has just died. But this fact has been shamefully ignored by the Guardian. So far I have only found half the front page, a double-page news spread, a cartoon, a leader, a full-page obituary and half Simon Hoggart's column. Where are your priorities? Can I look forward to a special supplement soon?' It is signed by Linda Evans. A previous leter compares this obsessive stuff with the ignoring of Vic Finkelstein who . 'made a difference to the lives of untold thousands throughthe pioneering role he played in the disabled people's movement'. That one's by Beter Beresford of Brunel. They speak for me.

 

I've heard that if you die an Atheist or unrepentant sinner that you continue to live that life in Hell. Sure, there's probably going to be varying degrees of torture (especially for serial killers, mass murders, and rapists (and pedos)), but those to go to hell not believing will probably go there likewise, possibly even hating God.

 

I'm afraid that is not a world I can enter mentally or (let's hope!) physically either!

 

Something more epic, is that those same rapists and murderers can accept Jesus as their savior in their last moments, and chill in heaven. On the other side of the coin, you can be a secular humanitarian and suffer for all eternity.

Interesting belief.