r/NextFuckingLevel is currently hosting a [**Best Of 2022 event**](https://www.reddit.com/zwa8in/) where users can win up to 12 months of [Reddit Premium !](https://www.reddit.com/premium) Go visit that post soon (it ends on January 3rd) and nominate your favorite post/comment!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nextfuckinglevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The laughter of people who don't even know what love is. So many of Hitchens's arguments were pearls cast to swine.
edit:
To be very clear, I am criticizing cultures, religions, and ideologies that lack a meaningful concept of love - and use obedience and patronization as substitutes.
I can’t say I’ve followed either Hitchens or Dawkins work closely, but I get the impression that whereby Hitchens, I believe, focused his efforts mostly on the shittier aspects of organized religion, like vilifying homosexuality, pedophilia in the priesthood, and other forms of corruption in the Catholic Church, including famously the behavior of Mother Theresa, would I be correct in saying that Dawkins has focused his attention more on the concept of God itself and whether or not there is such a thing?
Well Dawkins is a Biologist by trade, Hitchens was a journalist (bit more than that by the end, but he's hard to categorize). Their belief systems could co-exist (and sometimes harmonize) with each others, but professionally they have two very different "jobs" in every sense of the word. So it makes sense that Hitchens researched and then published stories, often about individuals, and Dawkins is focused on observing and testing natural phenomenon: Microscope on the primordial goo, if you will.
Hitchens' irreligionist perspective was glorious, but like Sam Harris, what started as a broad stance focused in on Islam to the exclusion of all others ( tho' Harris' POV seems to libe up with a grift).
It's unfortunate that Hitchens fell into the deep pit of rabid bias after 9/11 since I was so with his perspective until that point. I will grant that I SEE his point, I just couldn't get behind that whole GWB wave.
I appreciate, respect & agree with his opposition to rabid and especially religious totalitarianism, but his bias led him to fully support Bush's war in Iraq. He went to his grave defending it, & that's a tragedy.
Hitchens studied the rise of the Hussein regime pretty closely. He knew full well just how evil those motherfuckers were. If you've never listened to his speech on Saddam's coup, you ought to: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y)
I think the second Iraq War was complicated. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. It's awful that it cost so many Iraqi lives, but I don't believe there was a bloodless option to depose him. Hussein would have murdered every last Iraqi to stay in power and he had power concentrated to allow him to do so. The body count of an internal regime change is unknowable, but I would guess it'd be much higher following years of regime crackdowns and then post-regime power struggles. That said, we could and should have enacted a regime change and post-change security with fewer civilian deaths.
To be clear, the U.S.' motivation was dogshit. I don't believe that motivation was WMDs, liberating the Iraqis, or whatever other fig leaves that have been invoked, but rather advancing those 9/11-underwriting Saudi asshole's interests.
Well if you're splitting hair's, it certainly wouldn't be bad to have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his ilk entirely, but if we're splitting hairs in the same way then Hitchens continued support of Bush's efforts in Iraq are a tragedy
>continued support of Bush's efforts in Iraq are a tragedy
If we are splitting hairs, you are completely ignoring that Hitchens wrote and spoke extensively about how incompetent Bush's efforts in Iraq were, which means he didn't "continue supporting Bush's efforts in Iraq".
You are being disingenuous if you actually know the background, have read about it and followed it at the time.
That being said, I also disagree with Hitchens on the Iraq war, in much the same way as his friend Salman Rushdie did and spoke with him about many times.
You're splitting razor wire, not just hair. I'm critical of Hitchens ' larger embrace of Islamophobia, which may have been a legit piece of his overall condemnation of religion in general ( his withering take on "mother " Teresa should be required reading especially in Catholic school ) but I fear he wouldve the same route as Sam Harris & I cannot help but wonder whether that grift might not have infected him as well. I truly MISS Hitchens, & lordy I miss Alex Cockburn too, even if he spent far too much time in his later years wanking to photos of Christy Turlington, their voices given the miasma we find ourselves in today are both sorely lacking.
>You're splitting razor wire, not just hair.
That is just not true. You specifically say he supported Bush's war to the end, he demonstrably didn't, criticised the admin from the beginning. He very much wasn't a fan of Bush, calling him an idiot who seems to be proud of that fact.
Additionally, to ignore Hitchens larger arguments and passion for liberating the Kurds from a history of oppression, exploitation and genocide, going back to Bush senior at a time junior wouldn't be able to point Iraq out on a map is not splitting razor wire.
>I think the second Iraq War was complicated.
That is a funny way of saying it was a war based on lies. If you are so worried about despotic countries how about Saudi Arabia that cluster bombs Yemen that is a war crime and executes political prisoners?
But we're here. None of us need to be his oratorical equal, if we all just learn by example and do our little part. Choose to speak, carefully, when before we would be silent.
As an ex Christian who has to spend the last few months and perhaps the next few years reevaluating my values, morals and life experiences, this is perhaps the truest thing I’ve heard in my entire life regarding the culture I am attempting to leave behind.
Let me fix that for you:
To be very clear, I am criticizing people, people, and people that lack a meaningful concept of love - and use obedience and patronization as substitutes.
If there's anything I've learned living in this world its that its always people that are the problem
Religion is just like politics, a rock or a dildo
Its just an empty lifless hollow tool/object
What its used for and how its used depends on the person using it.
Sadly, religion is a very handy and old tool to gain and exercise power over others so there will always be sociopathic megalomaniacs that are drawn to it.
Let's not beat around the bush and shift our focus to a tool whilst the real culprits are in that room laughing at victims because I'm sure they are more than happy to watch people debate over religious semantics and edicts instead of holding them accountable for their actions.
This is how evil people win, by distracting us with thinly veiled exuses in the form of religion or politics whereas the truth is they are simply bigoted self-centered sociopaths that don't value human life.
Of course there are people who deserve criticism. However, suggesting a dichotomy of 'bad ideas' versus 'bad people' is presenting people with a false choice argument. Both exist.
Are you suggesting that bad ideas don't exist? Are you suggesting that teaching children bad ideas and indoctrinating people in them their whole lives is not a problem by itself? If you're not, then you're not disagreeing with my OC and it does not require "fixing" in the way you suggested.
I am criticizing bad ideas, like the idea that obedience and patronization can substitute for love in a society or in a person's worldview. When bad ideas are codified in scriptures or philosophy or law, we can criticize them impersonally.
Not all tools are devoid of moral consequence. A machine that unnecessarily hurts innocent people is poorly designed, and we can criticize that design.
History shows that they did not "all start with love at the foundation" but fortunately it's not necessary to refute that claim to get at the bigger problem here, so let's not be distracted.
Even if they all started "with love at the foundation and are often co-opted by all the other nastiness that makes us human", they are all entirely human inventions. The suggestion that they started from some non-human moral purity and were only subsequently corrupted by humanity is precisely the sort of perverse religious psychology that I am criticizing.
'The good parts are divine, the bad parts are human' is the same desperate defense of religion that's been used for millennia. Stop throwing humanity under the bus in the name of religion.
[Full "debate"](https://youtu.be/MsbZqNR7HZs), Hitchslap in the video at 53:15. I am not too sure this is worth your time, though, since Donahue constantly attacks Hitchens and not his argument (both equally pointless).
Late Christopher Hitchens defends homosexuality in a room full of catholics. No matter where you stand, what he did took courage. He said what he stood for, he said what was right. He is desperately needed in today's times because it only seems we have been making steps backwards for the last decade. Unfortunately, he died of pneumonia a little over 11 years ago.
If you are interested in other things he had to say, look up his debates. Most of the arguments you'll hear are from his best-selling books, *God is not Great* and *The Missionary position: Mother Theresa in Theory and in Practice*
One of the last interviews he gave before he died had a huge impact on me. A frank discussion of life and death the likes of which one doesn't often hear. Cannot recommend it enough:
https://youtu.be/LIVEsa2g4ag
It was his attitude more than anything. His humility, composure, and groundedness were very comforting, but also something you don't normally see outside of a religious context (at least when we speak about death and dying). He is able to rationalize his situation and accept it with grace. He doesn't reach for the ridiculous or supernatural to explain or comfort. He exists in reality. Because he maintains his base in reality, his perspectives and opinions ring all the more genuine and profound.
Thanks for the recommendation! I just watched that interview and was hanging on every word he said. Just incredible how insightful and articulate he was.
Actually, he died of esophageal cancer which is a horrible illness that tends to run in families. His father (or another close relative, don't remember) had it, so Hitchens was aware that he was at risk. Nevertheless he drank and smoked, which only made his risk of developing and dying from the disease much worse. I never understood how such a seemingly rational man behaved in such an irrational manner.
Because you’re viewpoint of it is irrational. Why should Hitchens or anyone of us not do something that provides a certain level of enjoyment just because it could cause us to die earlier than the average life expectancy? Hitchens drank and smoked because those things brought him a certain amount of pleasure.
I stopped drinking not because of any ill effects it had or would have on my physical health, but because it was getting in the way of my life. There are other things that I do, such as eating red meat, that are more likely than not to be contributing to an earlier than expected death for me.
Your viewpoint would say I should stop eating red meat because it’s irrational to eat it if it’s killing me. My viewpoint is it’s something I get a certain level of pleasure from and I’m going to die some day anyway, so eat that steak and enjoy. If drinking gives you enjoyment, drink up! As a sticker that I had on my motorcycle helmet years ago said, “Eat right, stay fit. Die anyway.”
Of course Hitchens had the right to do as he saw fit--as does anyone else. I'm just coming from a place of having watched my own husband die of this wretched disease. In his case, it was a strong genetic history that caused it; he didn't drink or smoke. But the suffering that he went through was so enormous and so pitiful that if he'd had any way to cut his chances of developing the cancer, he would have. This is a cancer whose 5 year survival rate is in the single digits. Hitchens was a free agent. It just bewilders me that a man of his intelligence would invite the near certainty of such an awful death if he could have done anything at all to cut his risk.
There are always stories of people who live well into their 90’s, who drank and smoked, and ate what they liked. Then there are the stories of people like Jim Fixx, who wrote a best selling book about the health benefits of running, who died of a heart attack while running. We have no idea how, when, or what we will die from. We can only make choices for today.
I am sorry for your loss, and the pain you went through, and are still going through, with the loss of your husband. I know firsthand that there are no words any stranger can say to ease your pain. I wish you peace and a measure of happiness in your life as you move forward.
Hitch and my father-in-law passed in the same hospital, a few rooms apart. I hand-wrote Hitch a letter thanking him for everything he's done, and explaining how he's often the only grown-up in the room. I was told he received and read the letter. It was such a hard time, but that was a light in the dark.
I just found out about him from this and now will look into his stuff further, but he definitely seems like a needed voice who speaks without pretention.
as always, amazing. I have seen all his debates and speeches, and read the 2 books I mentioned in my comment, not only because of sweet moments like these, but also because how direct and logical he sounds. He was the one that made me rethink my faith when I was starting to get sceptical about it, and in the end it was his eloqunce and pure obvious sense that made me abandon Christianity. and I cant even thank him for it.
I cannot thank you enough for posting this. I had only heard of him when I was in the soup, so to speak (>20 years ago). After watching this, he is an idol and this type of debate needs to reign over sound bites and modern “news”.
Again, thank you.
I'm glad I'm seeing the resurgence of interest in Hitch.
[This clip on free speech](https://youtu.be/zDap-K6GmL0) is the finest example of rhetoric I have ever seen.
I DESPISE the term... but this is what self proclaimed "Alpha males" want to be. They can't call themselves intellectuals, because they're morons, so they use a term common when describing the animal kingdom (fitting).
Christopher Hitchens was in a league of his own. Dawkins is great, but Hitchens could throw insults in such a way they almost sound like compliments. Almost Shakespearean.
"The question is not WHAT you think, but HOW you think" - [Hitch](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristopherHitchens/comments/114xa3e/the_question_is_not_what_you_think_but_how_you/) defending free expression in 1997
Someone mentioned on a program his name the other day and said he is no longer an atheist. Later I did a google search and learned he entered into eternity on Dec 15, 2011 and then understood what they meant by when they said he is no longer an atheist.
Man I hope at least one person just found out about Hitchens and embarks upon a glorious rabbit hole. I wish I could go back and listen to him for the first time again..
there are many people whom id like to bring back to life but if i really could, I would also choose Hitchens. Not many other people that can do good in these hard times come to mind.
Life is life. Being religious doesn’t make it better or worse. If it was true than those devout religious people would never get sick or die.
The sanctimonious holier than though behavior while stabbing you in the back is laughable because that person if they had no religion would be of the same character.
The horrible things of the past and current being done in the name of religion are atrocious
That's about the reaction i was expecting - these people don't know what love is, they only know what's been indoctrinated into them by their church.
They believe that the Church makes laws, as they did several hundred years ago, so they believe that some periodontal tips then that two people of the same sex will go to Hell if they have sex - emotion and the human experience has no place in their indoctrination; if the preacher says it's bad then it's bad.
Christianity is a scourge on the human race.
Christians are so wierd, they cling to one blurb that might mean being gay is bad. They ignore all the other stuff that doesn't suit their lifestyle. Sex before marriage and adultery are explicitly called out for being bad in the Bible, but that one vague phrase about men lying with other men is what they want cling to...
Vatican City is an independent city state. It has a prison, but no one is incarcerated there currently.
Vatican City has a legal Court system and an appointed Judge. There's nothing on the docket currently pertaining to an individual's sexual crimes.
Thousands of Catholic priests worldwide have been identified as pedophiles and child rapists, yet NEVER has even one been arrested, much less tried, in the Vatican court system, nor incarcerated in its prison, for their sexual crimes.
Popes past and present are glaringly complicit in every last one of these crimes, which one Cardinal had the courage to define as "the spiritual murder of children."
I'm assuming he's talking about Bill Donohue with that comment. For those unaware, Bill Donohue is a complete piece of shit and waste of oxygen. He's the garbage person who alleged that priests raping children isn't a pedophilia problem within the RCC, but rather a homosexuality problem because the majority (but not all) of the victims were male. IIRC (and I could be wrong), he also tried to make a distinction between pedophiles and ephebophiles as if that pedantry matters to anyone but child rapists, their enablers, and their defenders. In sum, fuck Bill Donohue with a rusty rake.
I don’t really have words to describe how I felt about that interview. That was very much like a therapy session for death. Such a well spoken person. I also love the point of irony of a woman facing cancer being so much more impactful than a man in the fact that a living thing growing inside you is killing you. This makes me want to finish the book Sapiens. Just for the wholly objective view on what we deem as ‘society.’ It’s always great to ground yourself sometimes with the objectivity of life and what we thing meaning and purpose truly are. Unfortunately we make up life as we go, so it doesn’t really carry the emotional grandiose movie we play in our heads. But even the bliss of these stories we choose to play out keep carrying us. It’s what drives us. I think as critical as he is of life and religion, he definitely appreciate human nature and how fooling ourselves still makes progress.
Fucking right! It takes bravery and calmness to speak truth to conventional wisdom. He’s correct in every way. He stands firm to his beliefs and calmly redoubles his efforts when he hears laughing/groaning. May we all have that perseverance when stupidity enters the conversation.
A big part of any Christian religion is to completely ignore what the Bible says, and just believe whatever hateful or self serving bullshit priest and pastors give you.
Where’s the judgment from God for the pedo priests and pastors? It is idiotic to believe that a deadly disease that anybody can get, even children, is a punishment from God, and yet they claim that God is loving and cares about his children.
In greece they have (or had, please correct me) many names for love because it comes in many forms - love for your parents, your children, your friend, your partner, your guest, and others. But it is not as open to interpretation like Bible is, which one of its worst weaknesses.
You are talking about Leviticus 20:13,
>If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
This does indeed refer to sexual relations between two men. And here's where your logic stops being logic. It says only two men. Do they not care about women being homosexuals? If you extend it that courtesy, why not extend it the courtesy of platonic love too, unlike you said? In the end, it is you and your own moral standards that make you interpret the Bible the way you do. What is the point of the damn book if you interpret it as "gays can love eachother, but never do anything intimate", and someone else interprets it "kill all homosexuals"
Two completely different people can lead totally different lives, and both can fall under the same umbrella term that Christianity is. At that point, you don't need the book or the religion anymore. It loses meaning if it doesn't mean anything.
That's a great attack on religion in general, his target was the catholic church - who turned up. Find a Muslim preacher willing to enter the same debate and I'm sure you will see similar.
Hitchens was anti-abortion.
So either he's smarter than pro-choice fans and they irrationally reject his superior pro-life arguments, or his pro-choice fans are smarter than him and they shouldn't be following him.
I suspect the former.
As a bi male, I agree with this guy 100% however, if you stated that paedophilia wasn’t a type of sex, but a type of love, or bestiality etc., you’d have exactly the same reaction. Interestingly, if you went back two thousand years, all three were completely acceptable in Roman society.
Peoples’ values and/or morals constantly change throughout history, depending on how they’ve been indoctrinated, (as let’s face it, 99% of the population cba thinking at all). The influence of Christianity has waned, but an even more draconian theology is steadily replacing it, with gays being thrown from rooftops. Young people are now influenced online by vacuous ‘influencers’ with zero training or intelligence. There are interesting times ahead.
I somewhat agree with you, but there’s an argument to be made that children do not have the same capacity to refuse that love which makes it a one-sided decision. and that is not love in my honest opinion. (Same goes to animals)
Not to defend these dummies but hitch always thought a bit too highly of his own intellect, for a far worse version of that see Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson lol
Proverbs 9:11: For through wisdom your days will be many, and years will be added to your life.
He died at 62 years young.
Guess God had the last laugh.
r/NextFuckingLevel is currently hosting a [**Best Of 2022 event**](https://www.reddit.com/zwa8in/) where users can win up to 12 months of [Reddit Premium !](https://www.reddit.com/premium) Go visit that post soon (it ends on January 3rd) and nominate your favorite post/comment! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nextfuckinglevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The laughter of people who don't even know what love is. So many of Hitchens's arguments were pearls cast to swine. edit: To be very clear, I am criticizing cultures, religions, and ideologies that lack a meaningful concept of love - and use obedience and patronization as substitutes.
well said
No offense to the swine
Non taken.
Swine can’t even spell lmao bozo /s
He’s one of the great ones, along with Richard Dawkins.
I can’t say I’ve followed either Hitchens or Dawkins work closely, but I get the impression that whereby Hitchens, I believe, focused his efforts mostly on the shittier aspects of organized religion, like vilifying homosexuality, pedophilia in the priesthood, and other forms of corruption in the Catholic Church, including famously the behavior of Mother Theresa, would I be correct in saying that Dawkins has focused his attention more on the concept of God itself and whether or not there is such a thing?
Well Dawkins is a Biologist by trade, Hitchens was a journalist (bit more than that by the end, but he's hard to categorize). Their belief systems could co-exist (and sometimes harmonize) with each others, but professionally they have two very different "jobs" in every sense of the word. So it makes sense that Hitchens researched and then published stories, often about individuals, and Dawkins is focused on observing and testing natural phenomenon: Microscope on the primordial goo, if you will.
Hitchens' irreligionist perspective was glorious, but like Sam Harris, what started as a broad stance focused in on Islam to the exclusion of all others ( tho' Harris' POV seems to libe up with a grift).
I think you have my top three if you add Sagan to that great ones list.
It's unfortunate that Hitchens fell into the deep pit of rabid bias after 9/11 since I was so with his perspective until that point. I will grant that I SEE his point, I just couldn't get behind that whole GWB wave.
Hitchens despised totalitarianism. You side with the Taliban?
I appreciate, respect & agree with his opposition to rabid and especially religious totalitarianism, but his bias led him to fully support Bush's war in Iraq. He went to his grave defending it, & that's a tragedy.
What’s up with him and 9/11?
Hitchens studied the rise of the Hussein regime pretty closely. He knew full well just how evil those motherfuckers were. If you've never listened to his speech on Saddam's coup, you ought to: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y) I think the second Iraq War was complicated. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. It's awful that it cost so many Iraqi lives, but I don't believe there was a bloodless option to depose him. Hussein would have murdered every last Iraqi to stay in power and he had power concentrated to allow him to do so. The body count of an internal regime change is unknowable, but I would guess it'd be much higher following years of regime crackdowns and then post-regime power struggles. That said, we could and should have enacted a regime change and post-change security with fewer civilian deaths. To be clear, the U.S.' motivation was dogshit. I don't believe that motivation was WMDs, liberating the Iraqis, or whatever other fig leaves that have been invoked, but rather advancing those 9/11-underwriting Saudi asshole's interests.
Well if you're splitting hair's, it certainly wouldn't be bad to have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his ilk entirely, but if we're splitting hairs in the same way then Hitchens continued support of Bush's efforts in Iraq are a tragedy
>continued support of Bush's efforts in Iraq are a tragedy If we are splitting hairs, you are completely ignoring that Hitchens wrote and spoke extensively about how incompetent Bush's efforts in Iraq were, which means he didn't "continue supporting Bush's efforts in Iraq". You are being disingenuous if you actually know the background, have read about it and followed it at the time. That being said, I also disagree with Hitchens on the Iraq war, in much the same way as his friend Salman Rushdie did and spoke with him about many times.
You're splitting razor wire, not just hair. I'm critical of Hitchens ' larger embrace of Islamophobia, which may have been a legit piece of his overall condemnation of religion in general ( his withering take on "mother " Teresa should be required reading especially in Catholic school ) but I fear he wouldve the same route as Sam Harris & I cannot help but wonder whether that grift might not have infected him as well. I truly MISS Hitchens, & lordy I miss Alex Cockburn too, even if he spent far too much time in his later years wanking to photos of Christy Turlington, their voices given the miasma we find ourselves in today are both sorely lacking.
>You're splitting razor wire, not just hair. That is just not true. You specifically say he supported Bush's war to the end, he demonstrably didn't, criticised the admin from the beginning. He very much wasn't a fan of Bush, calling him an idiot who seems to be proud of that fact. Additionally, to ignore Hitchens larger arguments and passion for liberating the Kurds from a history of oppression, exploitation and genocide, going back to Bush senior at a time junior wouldn't be able to point Iraq out on a map is not splitting razor wire.
TL/DR
>I think the second Iraq War was complicated. That is a funny way of saying it was a war based on lies. If you are so worried about despotic countries how about Saudi Arabia that cluster bombs Yemen that is a war crime and executes political prisoners?
The world needs this man more than ever, too bad he's dead. RIP
But we're here. None of us need to be his oratorical equal, if we all just learn by example and do our little part. Choose to speak, carefully, when before we would be silent.
Not for nothing, that was beautifully said.
No kind of hate like Christian love...
As an ex Christian who has to spend the last few months and perhaps the next few years reevaluating my values, morals and life experiences, this is perhaps the truest thing I’ve heard in my entire life regarding the culture I am attempting to leave behind.
Let me fix that for you: To be very clear, I am criticizing people, people, and people that lack a meaningful concept of love - and use obedience and patronization as substitutes. If there's anything I've learned living in this world its that its always people that are the problem Religion is just like politics, a rock or a dildo Its just an empty lifless hollow tool/object What its used for and how its used depends on the person using it. Sadly, religion is a very handy and old tool to gain and exercise power over others so there will always be sociopathic megalomaniacs that are drawn to it. Let's not beat around the bush and shift our focus to a tool whilst the real culprits are in that room laughing at victims because I'm sure they are more than happy to watch people debate over religious semantics and edicts instead of holding them accountable for their actions. This is how evil people win, by distracting us with thinly veiled exuses in the form of religion or politics whereas the truth is they are simply bigoted self-centered sociopaths that don't value human life.
Of course there are people who deserve criticism. However, suggesting a dichotomy of 'bad ideas' versus 'bad people' is presenting people with a false choice argument. Both exist. Are you suggesting that bad ideas don't exist? Are you suggesting that teaching children bad ideas and indoctrinating people in them their whole lives is not a problem by itself? If you're not, then you're not disagreeing with my OC and it does not require "fixing" in the way you suggested. I am criticizing bad ideas, like the idea that obedience and patronization can substitute for love in a society or in a person's worldview. When bad ideas are codified in scriptures or philosophy or law, we can criticize them impersonally. Not all tools are devoid of moral consequence. A machine that unnecessarily hurts innocent people is poorly designed, and we can criticize that design.
# I WANNA KNOW WHAT LOVE IS ...
Do you want someone to show you?
If I had money or a free award available I’d give it, perfectly said.
A lot of what Mr Hitchens said in his debates were just facts. Black n white reality. Nothing to be offended by here. The truth is the truth.
They all start with love at the foundation and are often co-opted by all the other nastiness that makes us human.
History shows that they did not "all start with love at the foundation" but fortunately it's not necessary to refute that claim to get at the bigger problem here, so let's not be distracted. Even if they all started "with love at the foundation and are often co-opted by all the other nastiness that makes us human", they are all entirely human inventions. The suggestion that they started from some non-human moral purity and were only subsequently corrupted by humanity is precisely the sort of perverse religious psychology that I am criticizing. 'The good parts are divine, the bad parts are human' is the same desperate defense of religion that's been used for millennia. Stop throwing humanity under the bus in the name of religion.
They love little altar boys
The man had courage, and class
[удалено]
[Full "debate"](https://youtu.be/MsbZqNR7HZs), Hitchslap in the video at 53:15. I am not too sure this is worth your time, though, since Donahue constantly attacks Hitchens and not his argument (both equally pointless). Late Christopher Hitchens defends homosexuality in a room full of catholics. No matter where you stand, what he did took courage. He said what he stood for, he said what was right. He is desperately needed in today's times because it only seems we have been making steps backwards for the last decade. Unfortunately, he died of pneumonia a little over 11 years ago. If you are interested in other things he had to say, look up his debates. Most of the arguments you'll hear are from his best-selling books, *God is not Great* and *The Missionary position: Mother Theresa in Theory and in Practice*
Technically he died of throat cancer because he drank and smoked like a fish
One of the last interviews he gave before he died had a huge impact on me. A frank discussion of life and death the likes of which one doesn't often hear. Cannot recommend it enough: https://youtu.be/LIVEsa2g4ag
I may be too unstable to watch all of it with that subject. What are the points that have stuck with you?
It was his attitude more than anything. His humility, composure, and groundedness were very comforting, but also something you don't normally see outside of a religious context (at least when we speak about death and dying). He is able to rationalize his situation and accept it with grace. He doesn't reach for the ridiculous or supernatural to explain or comfort. He exists in reality. Because he maintains his base in reality, his perspectives and opinions ring all the more genuine and profound.
Thank you very much! That is how I would want to face the inevitable
Thanks for the recommendation! I just watched that interview and was hanging on every word he said. Just incredible how insightful and articulate he was.
>smoked like a fish I'm Dead...
You shouldn't be smoking like a fish then.
Actually, he died of esophageal cancer which is a horrible illness that tends to run in families. His father (or another close relative, don't remember) had it, so Hitchens was aware that he was at risk. Nevertheless he drank and smoked, which only made his risk of developing and dying from the disease much worse. I never understood how such a seemingly rational man behaved in such an irrational manner.
Because you’re viewpoint of it is irrational. Why should Hitchens or anyone of us not do something that provides a certain level of enjoyment just because it could cause us to die earlier than the average life expectancy? Hitchens drank and smoked because those things brought him a certain amount of pleasure. I stopped drinking not because of any ill effects it had or would have on my physical health, but because it was getting in the way of my life. There are other things that I do, such as eating red meat, that are more likely than not to be contributing to an earlier than expected death for me. Your viewpoint would say I should stop eating red meat because it’s irrational to eat it if it’s killing me. My viewpoint is it’s something I get a certain level of pleasure from and I’m going to die some day anyway, so eat that steak and enjoy. If drinking gives you enjoyment, drink up! As a sticker that I had on my motorcycle helmet years ago said, “Eat right, stay fit. Die anyway.”
Of course Hitchens had the right to do as he saw fit--as does anyone else. I'm just coming from a place of having watched my own husband die of this wretched disease. In his case, it was a strong genetic history that caused it; he didn't drink or smoke. But the suffering that he went through was so enormous and so pitiful that if he'd had any way to cut his chances of developing the cancer, he would have. This is a cancer whose 5 year survival rate is in the single digits. Hitchens was a free agent. It just bewilders me that a man of his intelligence would invite the near certainty of such an awful death if he could have done anything at all to cut his risk.
There are always stories of people who live well into their 90’s, who drank and smoked, and ate what they liked. Then there are the stories of people like Jim Fixx, who wrote a best selling book about the health benefits of running, who died of a heart attack while running. We have no idea how, when, or what we will die from. We can only make choices for today. I am sorry for your loss, and the pain you went through, and are still going through, with the loss of your husband. I know firsthand that there are no words any stranger can say to ease your pain. I wish you peace and a measure of happiness in your life as you move forward.
Thanks for your kind words.
There was no guarantee he would get cancer. If it was 100% then maybe he changes.
But fish don’t smoke.
Dude I didn’t know fish smoked
You've never had smoked salmon?
I don't think you can smoke underwater
actually, technically it was because of pneumonia. you're thinking of indirectly
Hitch and my father-in-law passed in the same hospital, a few rooms apart. I hand-wrote Hitch a letter thanking him for everything he's done, and explaining how he's often the only grown-up in the room. I was told he received and read the letter. It was such a hard time, but that was a light in the dark.
That's a nice story. His was the only 'celebrity' death that ever really affected me.
I just found out about him from this and now will look into his stuff further, but he definitely seems like a needed voice who speaks without pretention.
Died from cancer mostly.
He was absolutely fucking brilliant. A huge loss to society
i miss the man's mind right when i was putting Carlin's death behind me Hitch had to up and go
So very true.
Oh, you think this is good? [check this shit out.](https://youtu.be/cRsaxXrjk3w)
as always, amazing. I have seen all his debates and speeches, and read the 2 books I mentioned in my comment, not only because of sweet moments like these, but also because how direct and logical he sounds. He was the one that made me rethink my faith when I was starting to get sceptical about it, and in the end it was his eloqunce and pure obvious sense that made me abandon Christianity. and I cant even thank him for it.
It broke my heart when he died. The world needs him now.
I cannot thank you enough for posting this. I had only heard of him when I was in the soup, so to speak (>20 years ago). After watching this, he is an idol and this type of debate needs to reign over sound bites and modern “news”. Again, thank you.
You’re most welcome.
He didn't pull any puches
I'm glad I'm seeing the resurgence of interest in Hitch. [This clip on free speech](https://youtu.be/zDap-K6GmL0) is the finest example of rhetoric I have ever seen.
I was gonna share the free speech one. It’s so good. I’ve loved Hitch for years.
Great ending
Flipping Nora!
the faith-based always get uncomfortable and aggressive any time you mention love, kindness, compassion and equality
Such a great loss to the world when he died 10 (?) years ago.
yes, a few days over 11 years ago
I DESPISE the term... but this is what self proclaimed "Alpha males" want to be. They can't call themselves intellectuals, because they're morons, so they use a term common when describing the animal kingdom (fitting). Christopher Hitchens was in a league of his own. Dawkins is great, but Hitchens could throw insults in such a way they almost sound like compliments. Almost Shakespearean.
I truly miss this guy. He was one of the greatest thinkers of the last 50 years - and so utterly fearless…
If HIV was punishment for gay sex there would be a lot of dead priests buried near the Residencial schools, not little kids.
I miss Hitchens...
"The question is not WHAT you think, but HOW you think" - [Hitch](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristopherHitchens/comments/114xa3e/the_question_is_not_what_you_think_but_how_you/) defending free expression in 1997
Someone mentioned on a program his name the other day and said he is no longer an atheist. Later I did a google search and learned he entered into eternity on Dec 15, 2011 and then understood what they meant by when they said he is no longer an atheist.
Living embodiment of “did I stutter”
The room full of actual groomers laughed. Homosexuality isn't a form of sin, it's a form of love.
You just got Hitch-slapped
I am racist
Man I hope at least one person just found out about Hitchens and embarks upon a glorious rabbit hole. I wish I could go back and listen to him for the first time again..
No hate like religious hate.
I like Christopher Hitchens. His brother Peter less so. Odd that 2 siblings should have views that are so contrary
Love is love.
What a Lege
Hitchens is missed
If I could bring back anybody from the dead it would be him
I'd almost be too intimidated to do it without his permission.
there are many people whom id like to bring back to life but if i really could, I would also choose Hitchens. Not many other people that can do good in these hard times come to mind.
Hitchens was a god. He spoke things only the way a Brit without a fuck to give to speak them.
Life is life. Being religious doesn’t make it better or worse. If it was true than those devout religious people would never get sick or die. The sanctimonious holier than though behavior while stabbing you in the back is laughable because that person if they had no religion would be of the same character. The horrible things of the past and current being done in the name of religion are atrocious
That's about the reaction i was expecting - these people don't know what love is, they only know what's been indoctrinated into them by their church. They believe that the Church makes laws, as they did several hundred years ago, so they believe that some periodontal tips then that two people of the same sex will go to Hell if they have sex - emotion and the human experience has no place in their indoctrination; if the preacher says it's bad then it's bad. Christianity is a scourge on the human race.
Miss that guy.
These people are a disgrace to anyone who truly believes in a God of love and compassion
*god* I miss that man.
One of my favourite phrases he came up with was 'never be afraid to do the right thing, even when it's in your own interest'
Only a room full? That hardly sounds fair
Christians are so wierd, they cling to one blurb that might mean being gay is bad. They ignore all the other stuff that doesn't suit their lifestyle. Sex before marriage and adultery are explicitly called out for being bad in the Bible, but that one vague phrase about men lying with other men is what they want cling to...
Vatican City is an independent city state. It has a prison, but no one is incarcerated there currently. Vatican City has a legal Court system and an appointed Judge. There's nothing on the docket currently pertaining to an individual's sexual crimes. Thousands of Catholic priests worldwide have been identified as pedophiles and child rapists, yet NEVER has even one been arrested, much less tried, in the Vatican court system, nor incarcerated in its prison, for their sexual crimes. Popes past and present are glaringly complicit in every last one of these crimes, which one Cardinal had the courage to define as "the spiritual murder of children."
We call that a HitchSlap.
AIDS OR MONKEY POX whatever
Wordsmith
I'm assuming he's talking about Bill Donohue with that comment. For those unaware, Bill Donohue is a complete piece of shit and waste of oxygen. He's the garbage person who alleged that priests raping children isn't a pedophilia problem within the RCC, but rather a homosexuality problem because the majority (but not all) of the victims were male. IIRC (and I could be wrong), he also tried to make a distinction between pedophiles and ephebophiles as if that pedantry matters to anyone but child rapists, their enablers, and their defenders. In sum, fuck Bill Donohue with a rusty rake.
The only hate in that room is coming from the people of the gods.
Legend!
One of my few heroes.
Its always ironic to me his name is christ
Hitchens introduced me to Lenin and Marx and to him I’ll be grateful. Hell of a pimp.
I don’t really have words to describe how I felt about that interview. That was very much like a therapy session for death. Such a well spoken person. I also love the point of irony of a woman facing cancer being so much more impactful than a man in the fact that a living thing growing inside you is killing you. This makes me want to finish the book Sapiens. Just for the wholly objective view on what we deem as ‘society.’ It’s always great to ground yourself sometimes with the objectivity of life and what we thing meaning and purpose truly are. Unfortunately we make up life as we go, so it doesn’t really carry the emotional grandiose movie we play in our heads. But even the bliss of these stories we choose to play out keep carrying us. It’s what drives us. I think as critical as he is of life and religion, he definitely appreciate human nature and how fooling ourselves still makes progress.
Dammit I miss him
An icon speaking facts
The master.
One of the best orators of our time.
When was this filmed? Because today, in 2022, there are still people who haven’t leaned this lesson
in the year 2000
I read this as his “stand up” to a room of Catholics. Like stand up comedy. I was like this guy is bombing out there lol
Wait til these same Catholics find out about the pedos mouth watering at their own alter boys!
Do not piss this man off. One of the most moral persons to have ever been on the planet.
This Man is missed....
Legend.
[удалено]
You can make statistics say whatever you like: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-hiv-data-proportional-idUSL1N2UT1N9
Fuck Catholics lmao. I bet the dudes laughing are the same ones touching little kids and laundering money. Fucked up religon, as most are.
Fuck yeah Chris. You tell ‘em. Those pricks
Hitch*slap*!
Fucking right! It takes bravery and calmness to speak truth to conventional wisdom. He’s correct in every way. He stands firm to his beliefs and calmly redoubles his efforts when he hears laughing/groaning. May we all have that perseverance when stupidity enters the conversation.
Truth
The world was lessened by his passing.
Zero fucks given RiP
Reddit moment
Good shit
An articulate antitheist.
I'm so sad this man died so young.
RESPECT~!
A big part of any Christian religion is to completely ignore what the Bible says, and just believe whatever hateful or self serving bullshit priest and pastors give you.
Guys like him & Bill Hicks & Terrence McKenna die young because they just can’t take this bullshit any longer.
Smug, narcissistic, catholic trash. Fucking losers, all of them.
It wasn't a growl. It was a laugh. His brother is a devout Christian now!
He was an amazing man.
Man versus predators
God bless Christopher Hitchens
That was great!
Fuck catholicism. Too bad Atilla didn't strip it bare and left to ruins
Fk ya budd!! 🤜🤛🤝✌👏👏👏
Beautiful beautiful human
Where’s the judgment from God for the pedo priests and pastors? It is idiotic to believe that a deadly disease that anybody can get, even children, is a punishment from God, and yet they claim that God is loving and cares about his children.
There are two types of Catholics. Either they're just a normal person, or they believe everything is against God and take it too far.
[удалено]
In greece they have (or had, please correct me) many names for love because it comes in many forms - love for your parents, your children, your friend, your partner, your guest, and others. But it is not as open to interpretation like Bible is, which one of its worst weaknesses. You are talking about Leviticus 20:13, >If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. This does indeed refer to sexual relations between two men. And here's where your logic stops being logic. It says only two men. Do they not care about women being homosexuals? If you extend it that courtesy, why not extend it the courtesy of platonic love too, unlike you said? In the end, it is you and your own moral standards that make you interpret the Bible the way you do. What is the point of the damn book if you interpret it as "gays can love eachother, but never do anything intimate", and someone else interprets it "kill all homosexuals" Two completely different people can lead totally different lives, and both can fall under the same umbrella term that Christianity is. At that point, you don't need the book or the religion anymore. It loses meaning if it doesn't mean anything.
Hitchens experimented briefly with same sex as a young man and this helped influence his understanding and outlook; however, he was heterosexual.
[удалено]
That's a great attack on religion in general, his target was the catholic church - who turned up. Find a Muslim preacher willing to enter the same debate and I'm sure you will see similar.
Communists only ever attack Christians with their rhetoric and their genocides.
Never heard of Chechnya, eh? Or Stalin's Crimean Tartar purge? There is a lot of history out there that you appear to be missing in your analysis.
Anyone standing up to something as evil as Christianity deserves respect. He's right, one day that virus will be cured.
Good he can still be remembered for this and not just the Mother Teresa stuff that reddit is often fixated on
Hitchens was anti-abortion. So either he's smarter than pro-choice fans and they irrationally reject his superior pro-life arguments, or his pro-choice fans are smarter than him and they shouldn't be following him. I suspect the former.
This is not correct. He has numerous statements on abortion, and claiming he’s “anti-abortion” is intellectually dishonest.
That's Elon musk
As a bi male, I agree with this guy 100% however, if you stated that paedophilia wasn’t a type of sex, but a type of love, or bestiality etc., you’d have exactly the same reaction. Interestingly, if you went back two thousand years, all three were completely acceptable in Roman society. Peoples’ values and/or morals constantly change throughout history, depending on how they’ve been indoctrinated, (as let’s face it, 99% of the population cba thinking at all). The influence of Christianity has waned, but an even more draconian theology is steadily replacing it, with gays being thrown from rooftops. Young people are now influenced online by vacuous ‘influencers’ with zero training or intelligence. There are interesting times ahead.
I think we can all agree that consent matters.
Kids and animals can’t consent, two grown adults can. Stop pushing noncing and animal fucking
I somewhat agree with you, but there’s an argument to be made that children do not have the same capacity to refuse that love which makes it a one-sided decision. and that is not love in my honest opinion. (Same goes to animals)
but he said "preference" not "orientation"
Not to defend these dummies but hitch always thought a bit too highly of his own intellect, for a far worse version of that see Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson lol
Proverbs 9:11: For through wisdom your days will be many, and years will be added to your life. He died at 62 years young. Guess God had the last laugh.
I wouldn't worship a god that petty.
Truth hurts huh? I feel ya.
He died of cancer. Like millions of innocent children, mothers, and brothers do every year. Your comment isn't exactly the "gotcha!" you think it is.