A Warm Memory: Chris Hitchens Flips Off Maher's Audience: 'None of You Is Smarter Than' George W. Bush
The death of Christopher Hitchens hits like the 2008 death of Tim Russert. Both were men you really wanted to hear from during a looming presidential election.
The word being tossed about in reference to the passing of Hitchens is “contrarian,” and that strikes me as a little unfair. Hitchens could be infuriating and even wrong, but there was nothing dishonest or insincere about the man. Though it’s not the perfect definition of contrarian, I don’t believe for a second that Hitchens ever once took a stand simply to be provocative or contrary.
Hitchens was a truth-teller. Whether it was the war in Iraq, Mother Teresa, or Bill Maher’s trained seal audience, Hitchens always told what he believed to be the truth.
It was never as simple as opinion with Hitchens. What he was for or against rose above opinion. Again, he wasn’t always right (especially when it came to Mother Teresa), but his arguments never failed to be so beautifully designed that even when he was wrong, you had to respect the fact that so much study and thought and reasoning went into them.
Hitchens was incapable of lying and of insincerity, which is more complicated than being a contrarian, and that’s why I both admired and respected him.
Besides his battle with cancer, during his final years, Hitchens became most famous for his atheism; going so far as to take the act on the road with a series of highly publicized and very engaging debates. There was something different about Hitchens’ atheism, though. His lack of belief wasn’t a pose, but at the same time I always felt that his being so open and public and willing to engage on the subject said something more. It wasn’t so much that Hitchens was trying to prove believers wrong as much as he wanted believers to prove him wrong.
‘Seek and you will find.”
In his own incomparable way, Hitchens did seek. And if he was wrong about the existence of God (and I believe and hope he was), I’m guessing that counted for something and that we haven’t heard the last from him.
Cross-posted from Big Hollywood.
- John Nolte's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I respected Hitchens
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:13pm.
He was an avowed Marxist, and although I often disagreed with his political positions, I respected the fact that he spoke out against the ridiculously fact-deficient ravings of both Left and Right.
I think John summed him up rather well.
I will miss him in the political discourse.
I'm jealous.
Submitted by NeoKong on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:14pm.
How good it must have felt to give Bill Maher's audience the finger.
RIP Mr. Hitchens.
Yeah, and the look on ol'
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:07pm.
Yeah, and the look on ol' Donkeyface's stupid mug was pretty telling also - he was basically speechless, and couldn't come up with any kind of response to having himself and his audience smacked down so eloquently.
Well
Submitted by KornKing on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:51pm.
Of course, he's used to other morons playing along with him.
My respect for Hitchens just
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:22pm.
My respect for Hitchens just went up tremendously. I didn't know about this because I don't watch Maher's sorry excuse for a show.
May Mr. Hitchens rest in peace. For some reason, his death makes me tremendously sad...
My respect for Hitchens just
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:22pm.
My respect for Hitchens just went up tremendously. I didn't know about this because I don't watch Maher's sorry excuse for a show.
May Mr. Hitchens rest in peace. For some reason, his death makes me tremendously sad...
Well, well put
Submitted by Tomorama on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:28pm.
John, outstanding summation on Hitchens.
SPOT BLEEPIN' ON.
The only person I agree with a 100 percent IS ME...........
Even if I thought all his ideals were not those of mine, I could totally GET where he was coming from and at the end of a debate with HE versus anyone a small part of me would say damn - HE MAKES YOU THINK.
Isn't that what he was all about?
I have always loved ANYONE that can stimulate one's mind and NOT just anger as a stimulant, ACTUAL LUCID THOUGHT.
RIP Mr. Hitchens and tell Mr. Russert I said hello..........................
Sad part is he leaves and we still have that a-----------e Maher.
He is now in the hands of an
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:33pm.
He is now in the hands of an angry God whom he did not believe in. You can bet he believes now. The fool has said in his heart there is no God. He was a fool.
amen
Submitted by ladeflippinda on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:38pm.
Amen
A Just and Mercyful God. Not
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:40pm.
A Just and Mercyful God. Not merely Angry. Just because you disagree with him it does not mean that any of us know where he went, Heaven or Hell.
I pray for Hitchens and I hope God has shown him Mercy and may Hitchens be in Heaven.
Not even my worst enemies will I ever wish that they end up in Hell.
We must pray for all human beings, family, friends and foes alike! It is, as Christ said, what makes us different from the pagans, from the non-believers, praying that good comes to our enemies!
Indeed! As per Ez 33:11, God
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:57pm.
Indeed!
As per Ez 33:11, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
You're both right!
Submitted by stage9 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 9:13pm.
A dear old preacher once said: "If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified."
An obvious rebuke of the "appeasement Gospel" which seeks to be "all-inclusive" at the expense of the full Gospel truth.
Nonetheless...
The scripture you quoted above: "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked," along with 2 Peter 3:9 which says: "The Lord...is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance," are both emphatically true!
1) God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
WHY?
2) Because He is not wanting anyone to perish...AND He knows what awaits the perishing...(Can you imagine?)
However, His Word also says in John 3:36:
"Whoever believes (put ones trust) in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, BUT THE WRATH OF GOD REMAINS ON HIM." (emphasis mine)
Wrath is anger.
That scripture (John 3:36) was written in the exact same chapter as John 3:16 -- the greatest scripture of all!:
"“For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
But interestingly, two verses after the promise of John 3:16 is John 3:18 which reads:
"Whoever believes (puts one's trust) in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe (puts one's trust in Him) is condemned already, because he has not believed (puts one's trust) in the name of the only Son of God."
To sum up:
1) He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked nor does He want anyone to perish, because He knows their end.
2) He warns that we should put our trust in Him.
3) If we do, He offers eternal life.
4) For those who don't put their trust in Him, they are under His wrath and they are condemned already.
So, you're both right.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
No stage9
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:35pm.
They are NOT both right.
You failed to address Liberallies statement that he prays (present tense) for Hitchens. I simply don't believe you can pray a deceased person out of (or into) condemnation.
For all the good it does
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:27pm.
Pray for Hitchens if it makes you feel better.
Your efforts would be better founded, Scripturally, praying for somebody who's still alive.
So, in other words, in your
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:32am.
So, in other words, in your world view, God is limited by time and other human limiations.
I pray for Hitchens and all the deceased that they may rest in peace and be in Heaven.
God has no limiations, my prayers for the dead work as well as my prayers for the living.
So, don't pray for the dead if it makes you feel better, but our God has no human limitations.
and praying for the dead IS Scriptural.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm
⇒ Nonsense
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:23am.
Wow! y'all sure had to make up a bunch, didn't you?
And even in that twisted bit of convoluted logic you churned up from your encyclopedia, you still cannot claim the right to pray a soul out of hell.
You might offer up a "just in case, but you have no authority to pray into history that which did not happen.
I'm assuming Adolph and Osama are on your list of people you continue to pray for?
Cool Arrow, Yes, I know
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:38am.
Cool Arrow,
Yes, I know because you are the final authority of the Bible and God's Laws. I forgot that in your mind God appointed you as the sole interpreter of the Bible.
Cool Arrow=Nonsense
Tell me, Cool Arrow, what authority do you have over any other human being that you believe that your warped and evil interpretation of the Bible is the one that other Christians must be follow?
You are wrong, as always. Just admit as much and move along. You've never won any of these arguments, but you keep on coming back for more punishment. You are certainly a glutton for pain.
Just a reminder, though. It is an NB policy that no member shall demean or attack the religion of another NB member. If you do so, NB rules say that you shall be banned. Don't say I didn't warn you before you once again go after the RCC and Her Teachings. My one and only warning. I have sent you PMs telling you this before, but this time, I am doing it in public.
Sorry, Lily Libber
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 3:51am.
You're right. Those are the teachings of the Catholic Church, because it isn't mentioned until almost 200 years after the Resurrection.
"Waaaaa Waaaa My name is Lily Libber and I'm a crybaby and a tattle-tale. I do that because I'm too stupid to argue logically. I'm gonna' go tattle on you!"
Go for it, crybaby.
Cooly boy, What's with your
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 4:12am.
Cooly boy,
What's with your hypocrisy. You were all up a poster just a few days ago because you were adament that they follow NB policy when it comes to language used in the forums. You mean to tell me that you are the type of individual who demands that others follow NB policies, but when it suits your needs you won't follow them?
Thanks for making my point for me. That certain fellow Conservatives here feel that others, not them, must abide by NB rules. Tell me, where can I find the Bible passage that exempts you from NB policies?
oh and by the way, you never did answer...
Tell me, Cool Arrow, what authority do you have over any other human being that you believe that your warped and evil interpretation of the Bible is the one that other Christians must be follow?
(don't worry, I know, this question backs up to a wall all nut jobs like you?) Who is your authority? what authority do you have to tell anyone that your interpretation of the Bible is God's? Did God appoint you the sole interpreter and teacher of the Bible? If so, what passage in the Bible states as much?
POWAŻNIE.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 4:22am.
Proszę. Dają miłości do liberallies. Liberallies nie ma przyjaciół.
The Vet is off his meds. I
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 4:25am.
The Vet is off his meds. I have him speaking in Polish.
Sorry The Vet, I am sorry that you are confusing your life with mine.
Please everyone, give The Vet some love. He feels he has no friends.
Tru dat, Vet
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 4:30am.
He needs much of it, but still he will have so few.
Cool Arrow, Please read your
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 5:03am.
Cool Arrow,
Please read your PMs Inbox. As you will read, I emailed Mr. Matthew Sheffield about your constant breaking of standing NB rules and policies. I am not looking for you to get banned, but that NB gives you a friendly reminder that NB policy states that none of us are allowed to go after the theology and validity of any religion. A policy that came about after the debacle with Trach.
Thanks and good luck.
Powiedz władzy.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 5:13am.
Jestem bad zbyt. Wołając łóżeczka.
Vet, my Polish is a little rusty, but
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 8:05am.
Moje kaczka stopy są płaskie
Crybaby
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:07am.
You need to quit trying to tell people how to believe. You don't have all the answers.
Cool Arrow, I am just using
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:37pm.
Cool Arrow,
I am just using Cajun2's and your standard. Please stop having double standards.
And you are kidding, right? It is me the one telling others how to believe? your hypocrisy has no limit, does it.
I am not the one who has spent forum after forum, post after post telling Roman Catholics how our religion is false, a lie, how the RCC teachings are wrong and twisting of the Bible. I am not the one who takes every opportunity in an RCC forum to tell Roman Catholics how evil their religion is because .001% of their members committed a horrific crime.
I am not the one who is calling someone else a pedophile because he can't stand that he defends the RCC. You, on the other hand, via PM and in public, have called me a pedophile.
But it is me the one who pretends to have all the answers, right? You just can't help yourself.
Cool Arrow, you need to quit trying to tell people how to believe. You don't have all the answers.
Please stop projecting.
And please do what you have demanded others do, but you have refused to do. Follow NB rules and policies.
Thanks.
Come on Liberal lies
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 4:08am.
You opened up this with a statement that is false in just about everybody's religion but your own. In fact, it's an insult to my religion.
But don't worry. I'm not a crybaby tattle-tale like you are. I won't go crying to the admins that you're attacking the foundation of my religion.
Like I said, crybaby. Go for it.
Cool Arrow, Stop dodging.
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 5:00am.
Cool Arrow,
stop dodging.
What is your authority to claim that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one and the one that should be taught to everyone else? Did God appoint you His personal interpreter here on Earth? If so, where can I find this in the Bible?
you still have not answered the question. What is your authority to claim that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one and the one that should be taught to everyone else?
and yes, I know, you and your fellow Merry Men and Woman can break NB rules and policies, but if someone else does it, you will run to NB and tell them.
What is your authority to claim that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one and the one that should be taught to everyone else?
And I know, Cajun2 and you have the right, as you did, to report an NB poster to NB because he/she broke the rules, but if anyone dares reports you, he she is a crybaby and a tattle-tale, hypocrites.
Liberallies
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 5:42am.
i have no dog in this fight and no skin in the game. But i read these threads and see that,IMO, you continue to disagree with anyone and everyone with a religious belief other than what you have.
I am in no way attacking, please dont get me wrong, but you do seem to be "stuck" or "convinced" in your way of seeing and relating and worshiping God.
You yourself said "What is your authority to claim that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one and the one that should be taught to everyone else?"
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/52461/1612420#ixzz1gmbrs6iJ
The most important word i took from that statement was "interpretation". I dont know how you would presume to argue what some ones "interpretation" is.
We as humans and conservatives will never ever ever agree 100% (i hope) on anything. If we all agreed on everything we would cease to exist as a human race i believe, because dissent and different views stimulate thought and without thought we would be zombie like.
I was once told by my late 'papa' (grandfather) "never discuss politics or religion." i failed him, I do talk politics and rarely discuss religion because everyone has a different view of it.
Prisondog, Thank you for
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:55pm.
Prisondog,
Thank you for your input.
And you made my point for me. As you can read from the exchange above. Cool Arrow was unable to address the very important question of why he is correct in his interpretation of the Bible, an interpretation which he wants to shove down my throat, but the RCC is wrong in Her interpretation of the Bible. This is the crux of the problem, who has the Right, True and God's intended meaning of the Bible.
Read how he said that his interpretation of the Bible shows that we can't pray for the dead and that the RCC teaching, through the Bible, that we can pray to the dead, is wrong and twisted.
I just asked him, what authority does he have to claim this. He has no authority to make such a claim. A fact he failed to address because as I found out years ago with Cool Arrow, he is not looking for an honest exchange. He is looking to pound and spit on the RCC.
Your point is well taken and excellent.
I have had countless upon countless of political and religious debates on NB and real life that have ended very well and I have made friends for life thanks to these debate.
Unless God made a human being infalliable when it comes to telling other humans the meaning and teachings behind the Bible, your interpretation of the Bible is as good as mine. And individuals like Cool Arrow can't claim that anyone elses interpretaton is wrong and twisted. Of course, this lack of belief in an infallible human being, the argument of authority, when it comes to interpreting the Bible is what has led to countless upon countless Christian sects. If everyone and anyone has the power to interpret the Bible it logically follows that there will be countless of Christian sects.
Of course, Roman Catholics know that infallability was given to someone, St. Peter, which is passed on to all Popes. This of course, I am more than willing to discuss in a respectful and peaceful manner with whom ever is seeking the Truth and merely looking to attack.
Anyway, thank you for your input. Cool Arrow constant and vicious attacks on the RCC have been going on at NB for well over 5 years.
As have your attacks, lately, Liberallies, on all who---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 8:56pm.
disagree with you.
Your shrill attempts at machismo don't track well in a print format.
You merely come across as a loudmouthed ass.
Especially when condemning others for doing exactly what you do - denying that someone else's beliefs might have an inside track to the truth if they in any way contradict what you are ranting and raving about.
MD
Matthewdean, Thanks for your
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 4:01am.
Matthewdean,
Thanks for your personal opinion. I completely disagree with you and I know that you are wrong. Of course, you think the opposite.
However, let us leave it at, let's agree to disagree.
I hope you are doing well and that you have a great and Merry Christmas.
Liberallies---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 5:37am.
Thanks for your opinion.
Though I don't necessarily agree with you, I have learned that my opinion is not infallible.
I am most happy to leave it, as you suggest, with agreeing to disagree.
I. too, hope you and yours are well, and that you share a Merry Christmas with family and friends; and have a most successful and Happy New Year.
MD
Souls never die
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 12:28pm.
When you pray for salvation for someone, you pray for the salvation their soul, which never dies. So, praying for the salvation for the soul of a dead man isn't a waste of time, as you seem to believe.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
You are the fool
Submitted by DC2280 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:33am.
for making such a ridiculous comment. You have have no idea where Mr. Hitchen's is now or at any time.
The Hitchens' family is
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:44pm.
The Hitchens' family is contrarian.
His brother Peter Hitchens is a famous conservative intellectual writer in England -- and an avowed Christian (Church of England).
Yet he didn't think that much of Bush, and opposed the war in Iraq. It's almost as if they took opposing views to each other out of sheer cussedness. Families huh?
I hope he was with his brother Chris at the end, and I am sure he is praying for him right now.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Hitchens supported the Iraq War . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:23pm.
. . . and departed the staff of The Nation, whom he accused of believing that Attorney General John Ashcroft was a bigger threat than bin Laden. Hitchens even battled Chomsky and the Left for excusing Islamic terrorism.
Galv -- and as I said, his
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 9:01am.
Galv -- and as I said, his actual conservative brother Peter was vehemently opposed to the Iraq war.
The opposite of what you might think. It shows that both were independent thinkers.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
RIP, even if he is an Atheist and Marxist.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:59pm.
He sided with conservatives on the very issues that mattered most in the 9/11 world, that being the radical Islamist threat and the liberal idiocy of appeasement. For that alone, I will light a candle for him on Saturday in his honor. Granted he might not appreciate the act if he were still alive, at least it is a small thing I can do to recognize his willingness to point out the stupidity of Maher and his pre-selected audience of idiotic liberal parrots.
So true, he didn't allow his
Submitted by amyshulk on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:15pm.
So true, he didn't allow his ideology blind him to reality. I read his opeds and saw him on Maher {back when I still watched it} and while I didn't always agree with him, I respected him!
Ronald Reagan
Wow! really?
Submitted by stage9 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:37pm.
"Hitchens was incapable of lying and of insincerity, which is more complicated than being a contrarian, and that’s why I both admired and respected him."
He lied about the fact that there is no God. He made a living lying. He claimed in no uncertain terms that there was no God -- God did not exist.
But atheism itself is a self-deceiving lie. How can you affirm a negative in the absolute?
In order to say that there is no God one would have to have infinite knowledge of the universe. You would have to suggest that nowhere in the universe or beyond the vast expanses of space and time that God exists. That is arrogance at its best!
How could Hitchens claim to have infinite knowledge of the universe when he was no more than a speck on a speck in the middle of a vast universe like the rest of us? He certainly held no infinite perspective! At best he could only claim to be uncertain whether or not there was a God or that he could find no PERSONAL compelling reason to believe there was a God. But to simply dismiss, out of hand, the possibility of God without an infinite perspective was a lie he told himself and his audiences everyday!
In the words of Ravi Zacharias:
"To affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating because what you are saying is, "I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you there is nobody with infinite knowledge."
Hitchens' life and death are a tragedy because three minutes after he died he knew how he should've lived.
'If there were no God, there would be no atheists." -- GK Chesterton
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
hitchens
Submitted by ladeflippinda on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:42pm.
He was intelligent. The first time I heard him was a talk with Andrew Sullivan after 9/11. I thought both were conservatives, but since I have learned neither was.
Hitchens was a confessed atheist, communist and was in favor of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because it helped rescue leftists.
but he also got smacked down in the debates
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:01pm.
he was great on Maher, but look at the comparison, he is against a failed comedian.
On a debate with a true deep thinker on Christianity vs Humanism, he did bad. really bad.
most of them are on youtube.com, and i am taking a break from painting, so i don't have time to look for them.
if someone wants to paint for me, i will look them up in exchange :)
OuttaMyWay, I have to agree
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:00pm.
OuttaMyWay,
I have to agree with you. I saw and heard quite a few of Hitchen's debate and he never did well when it came to defending his position.
I remember one particular debate I heard over the radio. Hitchens being his usual self was describing how Crhistians are a burden on society, how Christianity has led people to kill in the name of Christ, etc.
The radio host, of course, pointed out correctly how Atheist nations and atheist have mass murdered many more millions of human beings than Christans have. And the radio host backed it up well. But then, the radio host asked a very pertinant question to Hitchens. He asked Hitchens to name all of the Atheist humanitarian organizations which have giving food to the poor, which have clothed the poor, which have taught individuals to read, write, do math. Hitchens was asked to name all of the Atheist Charitable organizations. Hitchens named some 20. Then the radio host gave him a list, which Hitchens admitted was too large to count, of Christian charitable organizations. Hitchens attempted to run away from this point, but the radio host did not let him.
Of course, the radio host also informed Hitchens how it was Christians who invented univeristies, the scientific method, etc, etc, etc.
Hitchens went back to his talking points, as the radio host pointed out to him and Hitchens refused to address the fact that for every one Atheist charitable organization, there are countless upon countless of Christian charitable organizations.
The fact is that Atheist governments, atheists, atheist revolutions have mass murdered many more millions of human beings than any other group of individuals on planet Earth.
While radical Islam is a real and very dangerous problem, Secular Humanism/Atheism is a much bigger danger to humanity.
To Hitchens' defense . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:22pm.
. . . I never heard or read him "claim to have infinite knowledge of the universe."
He was an avowed atheist; he did not believe in a supreme being. He wasn't lying to anyone; he was quite frank about it, actually.
Give me a break
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:31pm.
According your argument/logic, it is a lie to say unicorns don't exist, and ironically, it is also a lie to say God does exist, because you have no more "infinite knowledge of the universe" than he did.
The man didn't believe in God. That doesn't make him a liar any more than those who do believe in God are liars. It means one side is wrong. And when it comes to believers and non-believers, one side IS wrong. But being wrong doesn't mean you're a liar, it simply means.....you're wrong.
SHould I assume that Maher never invited him back?
Submitted by Lipton on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:48pm.
So classic. I think I'll go put on some black.
Hitcher
Submitted by Kleenex on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:33pm.
He knew death was coming so I have to wonder if he ever renounced his atheism (but never admitted it). Physicists support a multi-universe and higher dimensions so even a scientist should believe that this physical world isn't all there is to existence. Energy can't be created or destroyed (at least not by man) so clearly we are all going somewhere, science and the bible are closer than people think but you'll never hear that from lefties.
Indeed - I will miss The Chris Hitchens
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:38pm.
Actually, it was a bit spooky when I saw the news yesterday.
Shortly after it became rather obvious that he was on his way out, I'd remember to check in often enough, both to rejoice in his brilliant mind and to see how he was handling the affairs of his fate -- his own writings on his personal journey here, were tough ones. Then, as there is so a target rich environment around us these days, it skipped me for a while. Just a couple of days ago, he came back into my mind - and I felt his passing was eminent.
My wife and I enjoyed reading Hitchens together.
A force has left us.
Very well laid out, John Nolte.
(;~> gary
PS: I only wished he flown out of his seat, leaped over the table (FED Ex ad) and bit off Maher's little pathetic head.
I've read his books including
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:37pm.
I've read his books including his personal tome. Hitchens was massively self-absorbed and considered himself the smartest guy in every room. I had trouble getting through Hitch-22 because he was so pleased with himself, it gets old quickly. But, I really enjoyed his exchange with Maher and birding the Maher boot-lickers. A truly delicious moment to watch Maher squirm in his chair as he hunts for an active retort... and finds - nothing. He couldn't rely on his usual anti-religion rants, and his audience is dumbstruck because (horrors of horrors) a fellow atheist considers Maher a panting jackass, and thinks his sycophants to be mouth breathing tools. And, ultimately, he's right - Maher audience is likely composed mostly of Starbucks baristas and clowns of similar ilk. They are not smarter than Bush, and I think that fact reeeallllly bugs them.
JPTSO3, Isn't that the case,
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:45pm.
JPTSO3,
Isn't that the case, though, with the vast majority of Atheist and a good number of Agnostics? Self-absorved, consider themselves the smartest individuals in every room? Every Atheist and most agnostics I have ever debated about God act this way.
But as you said, I love how he took on Bill Maher and Maher's minions.
I would say that his spirit
Submitted by Thoreau on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:31pm.
I would say that his spirit will live on, but since he's dead, he'd probably insist that he never existed in the first place.
I have always had a problem
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:37pm.
I have always had a problem with Hitchens for the very degrading and terrible thins that Hitchens always said about Mother Theresa. However, I love how he took on Bill Maher, made look like an idiot and how he took the mindless Bill Maher audience. I had never seen that before!
May he Rest In Peace. No doubt that he is no longer an Atheist. I honestly hope and I pray that he is in Heaven sharing a cup of tea with Mother Theresa and having very deep and intellectual conversations with our Lord.
One of the greatest qualities about Hitchens is that he was honest.
Hitchens was a pro-abortion socialist who called religion
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:11pm.
the greatest source of hate and tyranny in the world and Ronald Reagan a "stupid and cruel lizard" and a "liar who should have been impeached". If Hitchens had posted anonymously at Newsbusters on any topics other than Islamofacism and Nolte's 'warm memory', he would have been awash in a sea of invective and then promptly dispatched.
Jer
And Rightly So
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:18pm.
At least Hitchens would most likely have answered questions directly without non-sequiturs or obfuscations and done so without whining or playing the victim card.
Stratman, Well said.
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:57pm.
Stratman,
Well said.
Speaking of non sequiturs...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:03pm.
Geez...what next? Dredging up your tedious whines from a year ago? Wait, you've already answered that question. Never mind.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:56am.
I would disagree. Hitchens, I think, would have likened himself to George Orwell - another atheist and polemicist. Orwell is, in my opinion, one of the greatest writers of the 20th century.
Although I oppose most of what Hitchens has said, especially as it concerned religion, I would welcome anything he has written. He was a brilliant character.
Furthermore, he clearly demonstrated what abject failures Maher and his audience of howling apes are.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Nothing like being mean just for meaness sake.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:15am.
The blog post acknowledged we would not always agree with him. Why the need to be vindictive and petty? The man ain't even in the ground yet. Did you miss this above?
Hitchens could be infuriating and even wrong, but there was nothing dishonest or insincere about the man.
Yes. We did not always agree with him. But we still respected him. So the meanness in your post is confusing.
Now you found his opinion on President Reagan. What really turned you off on Hitchens? Was it his thoughts on your favorite President as well?
Bill Clinton
Then the big white whale, Clinton. What about someone who is a war criminal, a taker of bribes from foreign dictatorships, almost certainly a rapist [plausibly accused, anyway, by three believable women, of rape], executed a black man [Ricky Ray Rector] who was so mentally retarded that he was unable to plead or to understand the charges — You’re against all that, right? But you’re for it when it’s someone who you think is a ‘New Democrat’.
There. Now we know Hitchens took equal opportunity shots. Happy? Was that the purpose of your post? To get that pointed out? Done.
You're right, Jer
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 8:46pm.
I think I speak for at least a few of the NB posters when I say that while we disagreed with him on most tissues, we respect his calling out some of the BS from his side.
Jer, maybe he was against overturning Roe v. Wade
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 9:03pm.
But pro-abortion is a little strong. As evidenced by the article linked here, he agreed that fetuses are alive embryologically, and biologically.
And anyone who flips off maher's audience while telling them and maher just what dumbasses they are, has my eternal gratitude.
RESTLESS...I tend to agree with you, but despite the nuancing
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 9:28pm.
of his views, Hitchens, by virtue of his continuing support for Roe v. Wade, clearly remains pro-choice. And I have seen far too many comments here over the years insisting that "pro-choice" is just a weak, deceptive, and cowardly euphemism for what should be appropriately characterized as "pro-abortion" that I am confident Hitchens employment of "choice" terminology would be met with similar derision.
Jer
Context again Jer, context.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 1:07am.
Hitchens acknowledged his views on Roe v. Wade, but in the context of hoping that medical science would come up with a better solution than the existing abortion procedure. Rightfully, he also acknowledged that he had witnessed abortion and never had a desire to do so again. He was pro-choice in the context of his desire to see science come up with better contraception. His own hypothesis was that better reproductive choice meant better and more reliable contraception so abortion would be unnecessary. In the context that you contend he was pro-choice, it was only to a limited extent. That hardly makes him the next spokesman for NARAL or Planned Parenthood.
In his later years, he also reconciled with his brother Peter who is a very well known Christian conservative and writer. While he may have been an atheist, he still viewed life as being the preferable choice based solely on the known process of where babies come from--a very rare departure intellectually from most of the visceral invective on either side. I consider his position to be a reasoned one given that his faith was in science to find better alternatives to a procedure that he felt to be barbaric. At the same time, his Marxism would not allow him to be against the freedom of choice. Again the context that he was somehow pro-choice in the same vein as the NARAL or NOW movements is simply not true.
I remember one of his columns talking about how his reconciliation with his brother and his delight at meeting his nephew for the first time. Somehow, these observations do not strike this psychiatrist as being fully for abortion simply as a contraceptive measure. Instead, it seemed he was hoping that either science or conscience would prevail, but in most cases neither does.
I like how the audience booed him again
Submitted by Lipton on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:12pm.
after he baited them too.
Sort of like trained monkeys. Yes this is about the 10th time I have watched this clip today.