Ah fuck. Christopher Hitchens just Died.

Religious debate yummy... Even though I don't partake in these anymore always fun to watch.

Christopher Hitchens & Richard Dawkins were about the only two major atheist I knew of.
All human lives loss are a shame.
With that said he lived a fuller than some of us and knew what he stood for.
Cant be mad at that.

"If Jesus could heal a blind person he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness?"
 


ps. sorry if this offends the atheist community.

pss. At least 21% of atheists believe in god. Could be much higher.
Are you kidding?! Do you even know what the word atheist means?! It means 'without god' or against all theistic beliefs so saying a guys who doesn't believe in god believes in god is absurd!
 
I've watched many debates and D'Souza is the only one I've seen come close to being able to debate with Hitchens on this topic.

The God Debate: Hitchens vs. D'Souza - YouTube
I couldn't resist and watched this whole debate... Hadn't seen it before but wanted to hear what someone else thought was a good opponent to Hitch...

Obviously Hitch was sick, coughing and slow throughout the whole debate but I wasn't impressed with D'Souza at all... Just about every point he made was assuming something wrong with science or Atheists... Like how he said that Scientists say there had to be a "god cell" at one point that nothing evolved up to...

Or like when he said that Scientists had exactly 0 explanations for "where are we going, why we are here, and where we are from..." -That's such an absurd pile of crap!

Completely far-out there arguments. Not impressed at all.

Even with a bad cough and highly medicated, Hitch buried that Indian christlover deeeeeeep.

Are you kidding?! Do you even know what the word atheist means?! It means 'without god' or against all theistic beliefs so saying a guys who doesn't believe in god believes in god is absurd!
I think he knows that and was laughing at the source... Kind of a "soft troll." :thumbsup:
 
Religious debate yummy... Even though I don't partake in these anymore always fun to watch.

Christopher Hitchens & Richard Dawkins were about the only two major atheist I knew of.
All human lives loss are a shame.
With that said he lived a fuller than some of us and knew what he stood for.
Cant be mad at that.

"If Jesus could heal a blind person he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness?"
If you're interested in more major athiests check out the Four Horseman.

Even with a bad cough and highly medicated, Hitch buried that Indian christlover deeeeeeep.
Yes, I quite agree. I've never actually seen anyone out debate Hitchens. I just found D'Souza's arguments slightly less obvious them most of the religious types Hitchens debates. Even if D'Souza is asinine.
 
Why the fuck are all these Trolls coming out now?

Someone just Died and people here legitimately are sad about it...

Don't we all make fun of & Hate the Westboro Baptist Church fucktards when they all do the Exact same thing?

Trolls on this thread = Westboro Baptist Church fucktards.

Go play on the sun.

Billy Graham could be passing soon. Few people in modern history could match the volume of disinformation he has spread over multiple generations. I cringe to think of the number of impressionable children that could have contributed more to the advancement of our species that were suppressed by the oratory equivalent of a tribal witch doctor.

I'm curious if the faithful here will start a thread on Mr. Graham's passing. If they do I would like to suggest that we take the moral high road that is embedded in our genome for survival purposes and not post the hate that has been championed by the believers that use the bible as their moral compass.

If you are a free thinker, a humanist, an atheist and you have to say something negative about Billy Graham perhaps consider simply reposting your favorite christian response to Christopher Hitchens passing.

Such as

jesus had enough of his crap and now he is burning in a stew and the next ingredient is richard dawkins

It is easy to dismiss the author of a post who’s reputation is defined by his lying and conning this community about how the police is at his door. (search if you care) It might not be so easy to dismiss a statement from a respected member of this community that you value his advice but still is so ignorant of the social views his arrogance craves. “Hitchens makes some atheists feel intellectually and morally superior, which IMO, is what most atheists are craving.”

I actually respect the liar more.
 
It might not be so easy to dismiss a statement from a respected member of this community that you value his advice but still is so ignorant of the social views his arrogance craves. “Hitchens makes some atheists feel intellectually and morally superior, which IMO, is what most atheists are craving.”

I actually respect the liar more.
Of course you respect the liar more.

He doesn't hold up a mirror to the views of you or your heroes.

You skipped the first part of the quote...

Everyone likes the material which confirms their beliefs and how they see their position in the world. Hitchens makes some atheists feel intellectually and morally superior, which IMO, is what most atheists are craving.
 
I couldn't resist and watched this whole debate... Hadn't seen it before but wanted to hear what someone else thought was a good opponent to Hitch...

Obviously Hitch was sick, coughing and slow throughout the whole debate but I wasn't impressed with D'Souza at all... Just about every point he made was assuming something wrong with science or Atheists... Like how he said that Scientists say there had to be a "god cell" at one point that nothing evolved up to...

Or like when he said that Scientists had exactly 0 explanations for "where are we going, why we are here, and where we are from..." -That's such an absurd pile of crap!

Completely far-out there arguments. Not impressed at all.

Even with a bad cough and highly medicated, Hitch buried that Indian christlover deeeeeeep.


I think he knows that and was laughing at the source... Kind of a "soft troll." :thumbsup:

I too watched the debate quoted above with D'Souza and also, earlier today, watched the debate below. Yes, that's 2-3 hours today on this topic. But it was worth watching both. Start at around minute 12 all before that is wasted intro time. I have no idea the most or least in debates with Hitchens. But the one below, being the first I watched, Hitchen's did not do that well. Craig delivers more direct clarity than D'Souza.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8"]Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist? - YouTube[/ame]
 
Alcohol and cigarette ingredients are seen by the body as poisons and Hitchens' smoking and heavy drinking are likely causes of the type of cancer he came down with. Just sayin'..

I'm sure you're trying to show some irony here, but misquoting me in such a way doesn't make any sense. One part is a subtitle to a book, one is me talking of his debating strength. You then countered by saying he died of fags and booze. Like, uhm, yeah, obviously... :)
 
the Hitch is dead

Well folks, the world’s longest neocon death-watch is over: Christopher Hitchens is finally dead. We ask you to join us in gloating together. For today we have lost Christopher Hitchens, but we have gained an irony: For Hitchens died on the day that his beloved Iraq War Debacle came to an end.
Why, oh, why?!
Or better to ask, “Why, America? Why all the shameful blubbering over this bloodthirsty limey hack? What is wrong with you people?”
I was very afraid he might survive the cancer, but I'm glad to see nature doing its work. Hitch was nothing more than a war-mongering scumbag.
 
Martin Amis Pre-legy for Hitch

Yes folks, we shall miss Chris Hitchens. And so today, here is a reprint of the eXileds Martin Amis “Pre-elegy” to Hitchens that was published 15 months ago, in anticipation of this weeks tragic news. As we explained last September:
Instead of waiting for the throat cancer to take him away, we decided to get proactively involved in the ol’ warmonger’s impending death by generating, through our new technology, The Big Eulogy (or “Pre-legy”) we’re all waiting for: the Martin Amis funeral speech, before it’s written.
Our programmer created a virtual Martin Amis verbiage-generator tool called MartinMate 2.0. Using MartinMate 2.0, we plugged in three key variables– “Hitchens,” “Terror,” and “Throat Cancer”–and ran them through the virtual Amis to generate a eulogy that will have them weeping in the seminar aisles, but in a smart and highly literate weeping sort of way.
 
Martin Amis Pre-legy for Hitch Part 2

The first hiccup of his usurpation was the second bottle. It slithered past the incisors, a Mamba of zooanthropic vengeance, exuding a peaty pathos, a 12-year-old blurt of inhumation, to crash against the pharynx which had held, Cincinattus-esque, against so many lucre-hefted Caledonian tides, but which on this first day of a coming future teetered and fell, a single twin tower, a meat WTC, revealing in its nude Lucretism the weakness of the West. The belch of flame engulfed us all. It was the end of everything. In all the great conurbations of the trembling Occident, we took a step backward, appalled and sickened by that belch of the grave.
The pharynx: une rose en steak, a cellwall sturdy yet preemptively extinguished like Harold’s at Hastings, stood revealed as mere jello against the Cullodenic onslaught of dissolution, literal, Balrogian, galvanic. Its first insolent anthem was a belch of Gehennan digestic juices screaming Jihad. Their chthonic conturbation overwhelmed Oxbridge, Fleet Street, and obliterated the Canary Wharf of his voice.
Yet the loyal were slow to assign verity to the dispersing cloud of thanatos, the radius of Terror, the red circle of total destruction mapped by that hiccup, for more than a pharynx wobbled in the scales. This was the pharynx that, like Lady Gaga’s meat dress, shielded multitudes from the unspeakable. This voicebox shimmered wetly as impassable barrier to the desert hordes, a blood-gorged sahel holding back the sands of the Sahara, each grain incised with Koranic verses promising death. It was as if, in a documentary produced by Elburzian deities for our demoralization, we were watching in slow motion as an infiltrated grain of sand slipped through security, evaded the metal detectors unturned to silicate, however fanatical, and by stearine mimicry of the Western smile, was assigned a seat on that precious pharynx, economy class no doubt but deadly enough for all its demotic parsimony, and once strapped in, the safety video mournfully complete, the seat-belt sign turned off, this alien silicate, this Horda of fundamentalism, left its seat on the pharynx and migrated throatward, recruiting comrades among the notoriously perverted tribes of the lower throat, the upper Nile, the treacherous Nubia of a now utterly vulnerable Egypt: his very head.
(Note to ed. Is this enough? I can do you however much you want but it will be twice the usual rate—close friend, v. shaken up, etc. MA)
 
Farewell to C.H.

In this weekend's Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn provides us with a brilliant take-down of the war-mongering scum-bag known as Chris Hitchens.
Here are some highlights:


"I guess the lowest of a number of low points was when he went to the White House to give a cheerleading speech on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I think he knew long, long before that this is where he would end up, as a right-wing codger. He used to go on, back in the Eighties, about sodden old wrecks like John Braine, who’d ended up more or less where Hitchens got to, trumpeting away about “Islamo-fascism” like a Cheltenham colonel in some ancient Punch cartoon. I used to warn my friends at New Left Review and Verso in the early 90s who were happy to make money off Hitchens’ books on Mother Teresa and the like that they should watch out, but they didn’t and then kept asking ten years later, What happened?
Anyway, between the two of them, my sympathies were always with Mother Teresa. If you were sitting in rags in a gutter in Bombay, who would be more likely to give you a bowl of soup? You’d get one from Mother Teresa. Hitchens was always tight with beggars, just like the snotty Fabians who used to deprecate charity.
One awful piece of opportunism on Hitchens’ part was his decision to attack Edward Said just before his death, and then for good measure again in his obituary. With his attacks on Edward, especially the final post mortem, Hitchens couldn’t even claim the pretense of despising a corrupt presidency, a rapist and liar or any of the other things he called Clinton. That final attack on Said was purely for attention–which fuelled his other attacks but this one most starkly because of the absence of any high principle to invoke. Here he decided both to bask in his former friend’s fame, recalling the little moments that made it clear he was intimate with the man, and to put himself at the center of the spotlight by taking his old friend down a few notches. In a career of awful moves, that was one of the worst. He also rounded on Gore Vidal who had done so much to promote his career as dauphin of contrarianism.
He courted the label “contrarian”, but if the word is to have any muscle, it surely must imply the expression of dangerous opinions. Hitchens never wrote anything truly discommoding to respectable opinion and if he had he would never have enjoyed so long a billet at Vanity Fair. Attacking God? The big battles on that issue were fought one, two, even five hundred years ago when they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in the Campo de’ Fiore. A contrarian these days would be someone who staunchly argued for the existence of a Supreme Being. He was for America’s wars. I thought he was relatively solid on Israel/Palestine, but there too he trimmed. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency put out a friendly obit, noting that “despite his rejection of religious precepts, Hitchens would make a point of telling interviewers that according to halacha, he was Jewish” and noting his suggestion that Walt and Mearsheimer might be anti-Semitic, also his sliming of a boatload of pro-Palestinian activists aiming to breach Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. (His brother Peter and other researchers used to say that in terms of blood lineage, the Hitchens boys’ Jewishness was pretty slim and fell far outside the definitions of the Nuremberg laws. I always liked Noam Chomsky’s crack to me when Christopher announced in Grand Street that he was a Jew: “From anti-Semite to self-hating Jew, all in one day.”)
As a writer his prose was limited in range. In extempore speeches and arguments he was quick on his feet. I remember affectionately many jovial sessions from years ago, in his early days at The Nation. I found the Hitchens cult of recent years entirely mystifying." - - Alexander Cockburn
 
Why the fuck are all these Trolls coming out now?

Someone just Died and people here legitimately are sad about it...

Don't we all make fun of & Hate the Westboro Baptist Church fucktards when they all do the Exact same thing?

Trolls on this thread = Westboro Baptist Church fucktards.

Go play on the sun.

HeMad.jpg

Y'all can dish it out but can't take it.

Hitchens is the only one in this thread who knows without a doubt whether God exists or not.

He might be right... But if he's wrong...........
 
He might be right... But if he's wrong...........

He'll burn in hell right? Pascals wager holds no weight, what's funny about it is that I don't actually have a choice in if I believe in a god or not. You might as well ask me if I believe there is an elephant in front of me, without proof (usually seeing the elephant) I could not possibly believe there was one, no matter how hard I wanted to.
 
He'll burn in hell right? Pascals wager holds no weight, what's funny about it is that I don't actually have a choice in if I believe in a god or not. You might as well ask me if I believe there is an elephant in front of me, without proof (usually seeing the elephant) I could not possibly believe there was one, no matter how hard I wanted to.

Do the basic arguments in the video in Post 89 above starting at around minute 12 hold no weight? I believe at that point he immed. begins his "proofs", not suggesting that you watch the whole video.
 
Hitchens gets waterboarded, withdraws from Iraq in 11 seconds

In memory of our favorite dead warmongering neocon, Christopher Hitchens, The eXiled is reposting Dr. Dolan’s classic review of Hitchens’ fake waterboarding stunt in 2008. Hitchens Gets Waterboarded, Withdraws from Iraq in 11 Seconds by John Dolan
Stop the presses! Christopher Hitchens just noticed that waterboarding is torture!
Hitchens announced the news like he’d brought it down from Mount Sinai, in a Vanity Fair article. “Believe me,” he told a waiting nation, “it’s torture.” Well, yeah. It usually is, when it happens to you. When it happens to somebody else, it’s “extreme interrogation.” I thought everybody over the age of 5 knew that, but as usual, I misoverestimated the media. Hitchens’ tame little torture session is the biggest S&M video on the web since “9½ Weeks.”
Hitchens's video is totally fake — there’s even soft-rock background music playing on the video, better music than you usually get at the dentist’s office, and his “interrogators” treat him more like a client getting a mud pack at a spa than a real suspect in Iraq. That makes it even more disgusting that Hitch caved in after only 11 seconds of having water poured over a towel on his face. Eleven seconds! Think about the timeline here: For five long years he supported this stuff when it was happening to other people. Once it happened to him, he needed exactly 11 seconds to see the light.
Of course if Hitchens had been a real Iraqi suspect, they’d never have had to waterboard him at all. They do that to tough suspects, not wimps like him. In a real torture cell, everything would be a lot tougher from the start. For example, Chris wouldn’t be in the nice dress shirt and slacks he’s wearing on the video. He’d be naked — a gross image, what a lifetime of booze and lying does to the body, but we have to be hard-nosed here — because keeping the prisoner naked is basic interrogation strategy, especially with a culture as horrified of gettin’ nekkid as Arabs are. You’ll recall that in those Abu Ghraib pictures, the prisoners were naked.
So that’s fake already, and the video gets faker as it goes. The guys “interrogating” him are fat, middle-aged, mild-mannered dudes. They don’t even yell at him. A real suspect in Iraq would be snatched off the street, smacked around until he passes out, stripped and dumped into a cell with a hood over his head. He wouldn’t be able to sleep off his misery, either, because sleep deprivation is one of the oldest, most effective tortures. The interrogators would maintain this schedule for hours, days, weeks, depending on how well and how soon the victim breaks down. When they think he’s ready — like, they notice with satisfaction that he screams like a steam whistle every time he hears footsteps in the corridor — they drag him out of his cell and strap him onto that waterboarding table.
Well, Chris is a busy man and didn’t have time for all that background research, so what you see in this video is a guy who hasn’t been so much as slapped or yelled at. Who probably just finished a 10-martini lunch at some upscale restaurant. That’s ridiculous enough, but the interrogators make it even more ridiculous with their little introduction to the torture session. One guy says, “All right, listen up, I’m going to give you some instructions …” Then he tells the fat man on the table, “We’re going to place metal objects in each of your hands,” and if he feels “unbearable stress” at any time, all he has to do is drop the objects and they’ll stop.
I’ve had dentists who did root canals on me without being that nice; they stuck to “this is going to hurt.” More to the point here, putting the victim in “unbearable stress” is, uh, the whole point of torture, or “extreme interrogation,” or whatever you want to call it. The last thing you’d ever do is give the victim a sense of power, like he can stop the process by dropping a “metal object” on the floor.
That kind of etiquette is what you get from those expensive dominatrixes English dudes like to get whipped by, or those nerf BDSM sites that talk about “consensual power exchanges.” What reminded me most of those BDSM sites is the “code word” they tell Hitchens he can use to stop the waterboarding: “That word is red, R-E-D.” They ask him if he understands and he says, “Yes, sir.” That “sir” only added to the ridiculous porn feel here, like Hitchens was paying a hundred pounds an hour to have Baron Whipsong or Lady Cruella, whichever way he likes it, wear out their riding crop on his eager little bum.
The real thing isn’t nearly so nice. After you’ve been beaten on bruises (which hurt more each time) for a few days, they slam the cell door open, screaming abuse at you, kick you to your feet and take you down the corridor, slamming your head into the walls as often as they feel like it, and strap you down. And all the time they’re screaming: “OK, you worthless (Arabic obscenity here) — We’re through with you! We don’t even want you any more! Ever drown before, (obscenity)? Ever go swimming head-first, (obscenity)?”
If you remember “The Big Lebowski,” you can get a better idea of what waterboarding is like by remembering the scene where the Dude walks into his bungalow, where Jackie Treehorn’s yuppie thugs are waiting for him. The blond one grabs the Dude’s hair and runs him headfirst into the toilet, screaming, “Where’s the money, Lebowski? Where’s the money, shithead?” See, the point is to show overwhelming, terrifying power over the suspect, not give him little safety words.
But all that niceness doesn’t matter once the torturer’s helper takes a plastic milk container full of water and pours it, bit by bit, over a towel covering Hitch’s face. The “metal object,” whatever it is, drops after 11 seconds. And of course these fake interrogators are all over Hitch, making sure he’s OK. That’s also totally fake, but why bother listing any more fake features of this nonsense? The truth is that anybody who’s been through as much dentistry as I have knows that nobody holds out under torture. It’s not just the pain, it’s the fear of the pain. I used to try to be a hero like the ones in my war books every time I went to have a root canal from the mean old Armenian who did our dental work. He scrimped on the Novocain, so I had plenty of scope to practice. And I learned the same thing any sane person knows by the time they grow up: Nobody can resist torture. Just like anybody knows what having water poured over a towel on your face is like: It’s like drowning. Duh. Anybody who wanted to know that already knew it.
So why does Hitchens make such a big show of just realizing it now, after five years of supporting it? To me, the answer’s easy: He’s withdrawing from Iraq, making a big Jesus-on-the-cross demonstration, like a public punishment, for supporting the war all this time. By getting himself tortured in this half-assed way, he gives himself a reason to see the light, desert from the Neocon forces before it’s too late. Karl Rove won’t be happy, though, because the last thing the GOP wants is for people to start realizing what we’re actually doing in Iraq. Reminds me of the debate about abolishing flogging with the cat-o’-nine-tails in the British Navy. The first time the bill was introduced, everybody laughed at how ridiculous a notion that was. Then somebody thought of having a real cat-o’-nine-tails introduced to the House of Commons, a bloody old Exhibit A. Nobody said a thing; they just voted unanimously to forbid it.
That’s all it takes to change anybody’s mind about torture, getting one little 11-second whiff of it, even if it’s nowhere close to the real thing. The interesting thing is not that Hitchens changed his mind; it’s the strategic thinking that made him decide to do it now. The timing of this little martyr is the key here, and what it tells you is that Hitchens is declaring martyrdom and getting out. He just unilaterally withdrew from Iraq, and in only 11 seconds.
 
Do the basic arguments in the video in Post 89 above starting at around minute 12 hold no weight? I believe at that point he immed. begins his "proofs", not suggesting that you watch the whole video.

Ok, well I'm watching through it now, and most of the arguments I've seen so far are: scientists can't explain x therefore god must exist. Now I'm not sure where you stand on that idea, but for me it just means that we can't explain x yet, once we can, then we can have an opinion on it. To say 'god did it' is just a joke. Oh, and then he starts going through 'facts' that are taken from the bible.....

So, no, nothing of weight in there so far.
 
I wonder how many minutes before dying did he pray to God.. it happens to everyone trust me.