Christopher Hitchens Dead At Age 62

[AlbertJ]

That man would have never gotten a job as a sunday school teacher.

[GanjaFreebird]

So many straw men...so little time.

WTF?

I never said it did.

You did imply that thought.

You really believe that his chain-smoking and heavy drinking had nothing at all to do with his overall health, and did not contribute in any way? I don't mind when you and I disagree, but now you're just being intellectually dishonest.

I'm not his doctor and neither are you, so none of us can really answer that. I didn't even know he was a chain-smoker and a heavy drinker, but either way, he didn't die from lung or throat cancer.

Even if his lifestyle DID do damage to his health, what's your point anyways, I never said cigarette smoking or heavy drinking was good.

I'm sure you really believe that.

I don't "believe" that, I KNOW that.

I never claimed to be smart. I just said that it's possible for a person to be smart and not wise, and that Hitchens was a perfect example of that. Obviously you didn't like that, you're being testy and defensive. I think I know why, but I don't have time right now to get into any big debates about religion, God, etc.

I have no idea if he was "wise" or not, maybe he really wasn't, but either way, this has nothing to do with his atheist beliefs nor his drinking and smoking. There are plenty of wise people who drink, smoke and are not religious.

Of course you don't have any anger for the 'god' you've concocted in your mind.

Now you are very disrespectful towards my religoius beliefs. I mean, your "god" is neither "better" nor "more real" than mine, we all are entitled to our own beliefs, and it's time for you to act like a mature person about it.

Why would you, he's the god who doesn't require you to change or grow, or have any sort of spiritual renewal.

Change? Maybe not so much, but grow? Yes, and I'm very spiritual and religious in my beliefs. I'm just not acting like a know-it-all middle school kid about it, nor am I trying to force or even convince others to have the same beliefs, I'm just doing my own thing and everybody else can do whatever. If God really wants me to change, then He will change me, I'm pretty sure He has enough power to do so.

He's as unobtrusive with your "I am own boss" state-of-mind as some joe schmo you see walking down the street. No need for anger towards that 'god.'

I'm not angry towards ANY "god", it's just that I believe in what I believe, just like you believe in whatever you believe, it's as simple as that.

I was talking about anger that I don't think you even realize you have.... but it shows sometimes towards people who have certain beliefs that you hate, and follow a God that you claim to not hate.... or maybe don't realize you hate

I don't hate ANY "gods", I don't even hate Christianity or Islam, nor its followers who are decent people, I just don't beleive in any of that, but will respect anybody's religious views as long as they respect mine. I only dislike assholes and ignorant idiots who are acting superior about their beliefs and are being arrogant towards those who don't believe in what they do.

I didn't say you had to prove anything to anyone. I never said you weren't entitled to your own beliefs. See, this is that anger (at least a hint of it) and defensiveness I was just talking about.

You implied all of the above.

I wasn't really talking about authority in general. I was using an analogy of how certain hardcore atheists are like children who are stubborn and rebellious

No they aren't. They just don't believe in God. I bet that those "hardcore atheists" who are trying to prove their beliefs to others, aren't VERY secure in their beliefs, because a TRUE atheist wouldn't give a shit if anybody else believed in God or not, anymore than he would care about kids believing in Santa.

refuse to trust and submit to their parents, because they want to be their own boss.

I don't "want" to be my own boss, I AM my own boss, and I've ALWAYS had that attitude.

And I probably pissed off at least half the site with that comment, but oh well... this is DA, that happens.

I'm just not sure what's your point about it anyways.

I haven't read his book about Clinton, ("No one left to lie to") But I'm pretty sure that Hitchens wrote a lot about Clinton's corruption, and I know from doing my own years of research (you know I had a site about Clinton) that Hitchens was correct about the corruption. You just don't want to believe it, because you seem to have so much hatred for conservatives - who were mainly the ones who spoke out against Clinton. (Along with a few decent libs who put principle above party.)

I may find most "conservative" arguments against Clinton to be a bunch of BS, but I will criticize both Bill and Hillary when it's appropriate. And everytime Hillary pisses the Israeli gov't off, I take their side 100%. I also gave Bill plenty of hell for the war on drugs and the war on internet pornography, if that counts.

Bigotry is not just about race, or even religion. It's complete intolerance or dislike for ANY group of people or belief

I agree, and I never said I hated Christianity or all/most Christians. I was talking about insane fundementalists only.

And btw... I know I've said this before but I'll say it again... I always think it's ironic when libs talk so much about tolerance, but they usually are the MOST intolerance of all, namely when it comes to conservatives and Christians.

I don't hate either conservatives or Christians in general, and have plenty of friends from both groups, I just hate religious extremism and arrogant assholes who think they/their beliefs are superior.

[lily]

He didn't believe God existed, and wrote some awesome deconstructions of the Abrahamic religions. His whole point is: if the Bible's false (and there isn't a good case for it being true or uncorrupted through the ages, by the way) that means we're wasting time adhering to pointless rules. And handing influence to people who don't deserve it. And causing so many mental health problems through telling people how to behave.

I know, but some say that certain atheists - namely the extremely angry ones - actually *do*, on some level, believe in God... they just have so much anger towards God, for whatever reason. If someone had something horrible happen to them in their childhood (abandonment, abuse, etc), they transfer that anger to God, who they feel didn't care or was evil for letting it happen. Then that anger turns to rejection of God's existence, but the point was, certain atheists seem to believe underneath all the shouting about how God doesn't exist. A "thou dost protest too much" kind of thing.


As far as the rest of what you said... I haven't read all his books, but if that was his main point, I would say I think that's demonstrably untrue. A lot of the basic "rules" of Christianity are things that even non-believers can see the value in. Why, because they're either for our own good, or they're words of wisdom on how to live in harmony with others. Things like don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat others in your business dealings, help the poor, take care of orphans and widows, I could go on and on.

Sure, there are certain rules that people like Hitchens don't like (don't get drunk, etc) but that doesn't mean that - even if he was right and God didn't exist - that we're "wasting our time adhering to pointless rules." That statement just reinforces what I said earlier, about the stubborn child who simply doesn't want to go by the parents' rules.

[Lulu]

I'm not his doctor and neither are you, so none of us can really answer that. I didn't even know he was a chain-smoker and a heavy drinker, but either way, he didn't die from lung or throat cancer.

Even if his lifestyle DID do damage to his health, what's your point anyways, I never said cigarette smoking or heavy drinking was good

Gawd Ganja... he died of esophageal cancer WHICH IS CAUSED BY SMOKING AND ALCOHOL. Other than that, I didn't know who he was when he was alive... I certainly don't care now.

Two main types of esophageal cancer exist: squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. These two types look different from each other under the microscope.

Squamous cell esophageal cancer is linked to smoking and alcohol consumption.

Barrett's esophagus, a complication of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), increases the risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. This is the more common type of esophageal cancer. Other risk factors for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus include:

Male gender

Obesity

Smoking

[GanjaFreebird]

Gawd Ganja... he died of esophageal cancer WHICH IS CAUSED BY SMOKING AND ALCOHOL. Other than that, I didn't know who he was when he was alive... I certainly don't care now.

I admit I don't know much about this type of cancer, so thank you for correcting me. Even if he got it ONLY because of drinking and smoking (and I doubt that's the only reasons anyways), that still doesn't change the fact that lily's comment about it was arrogant and unnecessary.

[Lulu]

Ok, personally I probably wouldn't have used the term "reap what you sow". However, I agree people are accountable for how they've lived and that can mean early death. I've seen the pictures of him, the guy looks like hell for 62.

[lily]

I actually liked him, so as I said, I didn't mean to sound rude or cold-hearted. I was sad to hear the news that he died. My point was just that our actions have consequences (another way of saying we reap what we sow) and that goes for everyone, of course. Even Hitchens alluded to that in an interview.

I know you guys don't agree, but I believe that the 'sowing and reaping' principle applies not just to choices we make about our physical health, but to much more important matters. But don't worry, I'm not going to get into that right now, as it's probably the single most controversial topic of all, and I'm not up for that discussion tonight. And on a site full of non-believers, it's always a sure-fire way to piss 3/4ths of the site off.

[Archaix]

As far as the rest of what you said... I haven't read all his books, but if that was his main point, I would say I think that's demonstrably untrue. A lot of the basic "rules" of Christianity are things that even non-believers can see the value in. Why, because they're either for our own good, or they're words of wisdom on how to live in harmony with others. Things like don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat others in your business dealings, help the poor, take care of orphans and widows, I could go on and on.

I used to think so (and argued as such) until someone else pointed out that the fundamental Christian ideals (against murder, theft, adultery) predate Christianity -they're endemic to humanity. I think it's highly likely that the first Christians took ideals everyone already believed to be just and superimposed their laws on top of that, such as idolatry and blasphemy. Can people be moral without Christianity? Of course they can. In fact, they're probably more sincerely moral because their motivation to respect life, property and monogamy comes from themselves rather than the threat of punishment.

that doesn't mean that - even if he was right and God didn't exist - that we're "wasting our time adhering to pointless rules." That statement just reinforces what I said earlier, about the stubborn child who simply doesn't want to go by the parents' rules.

It might seem that way to you, but by not accepting the premise of God in the first place that doesn't really work for me. A more fitting analogy would be orphans arguing over what their parents might have wanted: you'll never know, and it's futile to speculate.

[lily]

I used to think so (and argued as such) until someone else pointed out that the fundamental Christian ideals (against murder, theft, adultery) predate Christianity -they're endemic to humanity.

First point. The bible talks about how all people have a God-given conscience, which is basically God's law "imprinted on our hearts." So, that explains why people all over the world (unless they are messed up) intuitively know that it is wrong to do things like steal, murder, etc. It's possible to ignore our conscience, or damage it sometimes to the point where it doesn't work anymore, but for the most part, human beings worldwide know, on some level, that there is an objective moral standard, or "natural law" as some people call it.

I think it's highly likely that the first Christians took ideals everyone already believed to be just and superimposed their laws on top of that, such as idolatry and blasphemy. Can people be moral without Christianity? Of course they can.

Yes, there are other religions or cultures that teach those basic moral rules, and possibly some that predated Christianity. But God is eternal, so from a biblical perspective, those rules were not 'born' 3 or 4 thousand years ago, when the old testament books were written. They existed since the beginning of time, they have always been around. I know you don't believe any of this, but I'm just trying to explain that just because some of those rules already existed and were believed prior to Christianity, it doesn't follow that Christianity simply "superimposed" what was already there to the scriptures. As I was saying, the universal moral standard (whether one believes it or follows it or not) has always existed, since that standard is rooted in God Himself, who is eternal. Did that make sense?

That said, there are other religions and cultures that teach things that are VERY contrary to Christianity. Infanticide takes place in places like China (among people who grew up under a godless communist system) and there are tribes in the Amazon that bury children alive, if they are born with defects, and are thought to be "soulless."

So not everyone agrees on those basic rules. But the interesting thing is, I think if you were to look into it, even those tribes in a way acknowledge the standard, they simply don't consider it "murder" or wrong because they (incorrectly) believe those children were soulless. As for the Chinese, I don't know if they have any justification for infanticide, in their case it is probably an example of hardened hearts and years of moral relativism, which can eventually result in an "anything goes" mentality.

In fact, they're probably more sincerely moral because their motivation to respect life, property and monogamy comes from themselves rather than the threat of punishment.

It's true of course that people can be 'moral' without a belief in God or Christianity, but I think the more important question here is, what are they basing it on? Do you believe that each individual decides for himself what is right or wrong? Because if that's the case, then there is no true, objective right or wrong. Relativism boils down to this: there is no 'moral' difference between a heinous act, such as murder or rape, and a beautiful act of compassion or selflessness. Morality becomes completely meaningless, if it relative to the individual or culture. (We've debated this topic countless times on this site over the years, but I don't know if I've ever seen you on those moral relativism threads, so...if you want to discuss this, we can.)

Also, if you think that believers only follow the rules because of "the threat of punishment" then that's a false assumption. I truly agree with and WANT to follow God's rules, because I think it's safe to say that the creator of the universe has a little bit more knowledge and wisdom than me or any ol regular human being. It's because I love and trust God that I agree with and want to obey His rules. (even if it's difficult sometimes.)

It might seem that way to you, but by not accepting the premise of God in the first place that doesn't really work for me. A more fitting analogy would be orphans arguing over what their parents might have wanted: you'll never know, and it's futile to speculate.

Well, we're talking about two different things here. When I used that analogy, I was talking about Hitchens, and others like him, with that much hate/anger towards 'religion.' Your analogy is how you see believers, and that's understandable, if you don't believe in God. I probably would've agreed with you and seen it the same way, if you would've asked me about 15 or so years ago.

[Truth Teller]

When I argued with him about Israel/Palestine, he accused me of permitting misogeny in Islamic societies

Is that a verbaitm quote from me?

I very much doubt it.

First place ,I don't see where you can "permit" or not "permit" it.

and generally of being a fake leftist.

Well, the leftism of the 1960s and 1970s (when I grew up) would not have looked the other way at the misogyny and even the anti-Semitsm that is in way too many Islamic societies (including the Palestinan Authority),so what you (and others) have said does have nothing at all to do with leftism as I knew it when I was a young man.

He was an polemic essayist, and contributed to culture through championing the New Athiesm in a series of bestselling books, and prefaced books like Tom Paine's Rights of Man. I think it's fair to say he was part of the 'arts' and 'literature' even if he never wrote a piece of fiction,

Stretch.

Again,I didn't know about your post because I checked In The News where it belonged.

and most other people seem to agree.

I don't care what they think.

They don't provide a missing link.

Just sayin'.

I also think he deserves more than some ephemeral 'In The News' thread.

It is in the news.

His whole point is: if the Bible's false (and there isn't a good case for it being true or uncorrupted through the ages, by the way) that means we're wasting time adhering to pointless rules. And handing influence to people who don't deserve it. And causing so many mental health problems through telling people how to behave.

The fact is that atheism and theism both come down to belief ,not fact.

Yes ,jerks Rick Warren and Jerry Falwell are/were pig-headed and deceptive,but IMO jerks like Sam Harris and Chrsitopher Hitchens are/were every bit as pig-headed and every bit as deceptive.

That man would have never gotten a job as a sunday school teacher.

LOL.

[Cyclone Ranger]

That man would have never gotten a job as a sunday school teacher.

Maybe in an Sunday school for atheists that educated children in secular humanism.

[Truth Teller]

When I argued with him about Israel/Palestine, he accused me of permitting misogeny in Islamic societies

Is that a verbaitm quote from me?

I very much doubt it.

First place,I don't see where you can "permit" or not "permit" it.

and generally of being a fake leftist.

Well, the leftism of the 1960s and 1970s (when I grew up) would not have looked the other way at the misogyny and even the anti-Semitsm that is in way too many Islamic societies (including the Palestinan Authority),so what you (and others) have said does have nothing at all to do with leftism as I knew it when I was a young man.

He was an polemic essayist, and contributed to culture through championing the New Athiesm in a series of bestselling books, and prefaced books like Tom Paine's Rights of Man. I think it's fair to say he was part of the 'arts' and 'literature' even if he never wrote a piece of fiction,

Stretch.

Again,I didn't know about your post because I checked In The News where it belonged.

and most other people seem to agree.

I don't care what they think.

They don't provide a missing link.

Just sayin'.

I also think he deserves more than some ephemeral 'In The News' thread.

It is in the news.

His whole point is: if the Bible's false (and there isn't a good case for it being true or uncorrupted through the ages, by the way) that means we're wasting time adhering to pointless rules. And handing influence to people who don't deserve it. And causing so many mental health problems through telling people how to behave.

The fact is that atheism and theism both come down to belief ,not fact.

And one doesn't have to believe the Bible is the literal word of God to think there is a God (or Gods and/or Goddesses)

Yes ,jerks Rick Warren and Jerry Falwell are/were pig-headed and deceptive,but IMO jerks like Sam Harris and Chrsitopher Hitchens are/were every bit as pig-headed and every bit as deceptive.

That man would have never gotten a job as a sunday school teacher.

LOL.

[Archaix]

First point. The bible talks about...that standard is rooted in God Himself, who is eternal. Did that make sense?

You're right in that it does explain it, but it only does so in a cover-all-bases kind of way. We now know that humanity emerged from the Palaeolithic about 10,000 years ago and cared for animals, cared for sick members of their own societies and (much later) created the first cities like Ur and Uruk without the merest nod to the Abrahamic God. The Egyptian Empire existed independently for thousands of years until Greeks and the Romans took it over, and lived without reference to Him. They broke pretty much every commandment, yet only suffered punishment at the supposed advent of Moses -and that was for slavery of God's elect.

You could argue quite soundly that every one of these people got their punishment/correction in the afterlife, but it doesn't sound convincing to me that God shows up a million years into the development of one type of primate, to one select group of them to obey Him. Does that also mean that their ancestors are grandfathered into the system, and aren't sent to hell? Or are they sent to hell anyway, for not abiding by something they couldn't possibly know?

That said, there are other religions and cultures that teach things that are VERY contrary to Christianity.

There are, although I think the point still stands that humans are naturally (as in, through the course of evolution) animals that generally only choose one mate, are sociable and band together to form societies, and have a capacity to concieve of abstract things like shame, regret and grief. I think it's more likely that religion is an attempt to canalise/standardise human behaviour, rather than a deity being the instigator of it. For one thing, humans naturally develop religions, but independently never concieve of the same diety.

So not everyone agrees on those basic rules. But the interesting thing is, I think if you were to look into it, even those tribes in a way acknowledge the standard, they simply don't consider it "murder" or wrong because they (incorrectly) believe those children were soulless.

I agree that's interesting, but I think it's significant that these tribes rationalise killing into 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' acts; they've created their own moral code that still places a value on human life, even if that's different from our own. I think this strengthens my own argument, but you might disagree. As for the Chinese -I'm no expert on infantice incidents, but it's by no means the majority of people doing it, and it's more likely to be down to gigantic and awful social, economic and political pressure to do so -I doubt any of them feel 'good' for what they've done. I'm not justifying it, of course, but I do doubt that Chinese infanticide is purely because of a broken moral compass.

Do you believe that each individual decides for himself what is right or wrong? Because if that's the case, then there is no true, objective right or wrong. Relativism boils down to this: there is no 'moral' difference between a heinous act, such as murder or rape, and a beautiful act of compassion or selflessness.

I don't think humans have the capacity for absolute moral relativism, though, and in my opinion tying yourself to something so obvious constructed like Christianity isn't going to help. You can either be afraid of absolute moral relativism or you can acknowledge that it was never really a threat in the first place.

I wasn't ever privy to those moral relativism threads and I doubt I can access them now because of the wipe a month back. Sorry if I'm re-hashing arguments put forward already,

Also, if you think that believers only follow the rules because of "the threat of punishment" then that's a false assumption. I truly agree with and WANT to follow God's rules, because I think it's safe to say that the creator of the universe has a little bit more knowledge and wisdom than me or any ol regular human being. It's because I love and trust God that I agree with and want to obey His rules. (even if it's difficult sometimes.)

That's certainly true, but it's more or less a carrot & stick approach, isn't it? Not to mention the void of moral relativism that awaits if you let go.

But to be clear: if you're sure of your religion that's fine by me (in as much as you would care anyway if it wasn't). There's always a chance that the in-built tendency to be religious, which is prevalent in almost all human societies throughout history, is there for a reason. There's the slimmest chance the Bible's true. In as far as it makes people feel safe, and you don't indoctrinate/declare jihad on others, personal belief is acceptable to me. And that, by the way, is where Hitchens and I differ.

Good debating with you.

[Archaix]

Is that a verbaitm quote from me?

Of course it isn't, but I know you did so. And you're about to do so in this post, too. Let's take a look:

Well, the leftism of the 1960s and 1970s (when I grew up) would not have looked the other way at the misogyny and even the anti-Semitsm that is in way too many Islamic societies (including the Palestinan Authority),so what you (and others) have said does have nothing at all to do with leftism as I knew it when I was a young man.

I tried to tell you before that I never 'look the other way' on issues like misogyny. I just don't think it means Palestinians have any less of a right to return to their homes. I also think you're using it to slander me and marginalise my argument.

Again,I didn't know about your post because I checked In The News where it belonged.

That sentence doesn't make sense, TT.

Yes ,jerks Rick Warren and Jerry Falwell are/were pig-headed and deceptive,but IMO jerks like Sam Harris and Chrsitopher Hitchens are/were every bit as pig-headed and every bit as deceptive.

He was every bit as stubborn, but deceptive? How was he ever deceptive?

[jwreck]

The fact is that atheism and theism both come down to belief ,not fact.

One of the few statements you've ever made that I agree with completely.

[jwreck]

The bible talks about how all people have a God-given conscience, which is basically God's law "imprinted on our hearts."

That said, there are other religions and cultures that teach things that are VERY contrary to Christianity.

Do you not see the contradiction here?

And morality is indeed a social construct.

[lily]

Do you not see the contradiction here?

And morality is indeed a social construct.

No, it's not a contradiction because people can ignore their conscience or mess it up. So a religion or culture that teaches things that aren't in harmony with God's law (or natural law) are religions that fall into that category.

btw- I am working now and have a ton of things to do (going out of town soon) so I wish I could debate more right now but I can't.

[Truth Teller]

I tried to tell you before that I never 'look the other way' on issues like misogyny.

I don't see you or your ilk condemning it.

And you left out the anti-Semitism argument I made.

I just don't think it means Palestinians have any less of a right to return to their homes.

If they don't promise to treat the Israelis right,then they shouldn't have a state.

I also think you're using it to slander me and marginalise my argument.

No,I'm pointing out the hypocrisy that you and others who share your mindset have.

That sentence doesn't make sense, TT.

I'll try to make as simple so a child can undestand it: I looked for a thread on this story In The News because that's where it belongs,I didn't see your post because you put the story where it didn't belong.

You may have unlimited time to look at every thread here,I don't.

He was every bit as stubborn, but deceptive? How was he ever deceptive?

His sensationalism on Bill Clinton and his calling Henry Kissinger a war criminal (and I have absolutely no love whatsoever for Kissinger) were both intellectually dishonest,the blinders he wore to everyone who disagreed with him and his arrogance to everyone who disagreed with him , made him an arrogant asshole as far as I'm concerned.

[Zordar]

I really liked this dude. He was an asshole, but he was his own asshole until the end.

[Powerboss]

As a friend said, if history calls him a liberal, he was among the best.