In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 • Hacker News Board

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#111

Post by sgaither » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 12:32 PM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #16

Hitchens was essentially a Marxist (by his own admission) who was also in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the foreign policy it represented. So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate. I'd literally scan right wing talk radio schedules for his name because you just knew it would be a great show. In a world where s…

"So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate."

Thank you for this -- too many people value protecting their own beliefs/friends more than they value critical thought and challenging ones own beliefs. R.I.P. Chris

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#112

Post by StavrosK » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 12:43 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #74

vacri wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think that guy has a place in heaven" is much less disrespectful to an atheist than "fuck that guy, he's a bastard". It's an acknowledgement of a noble opponent.

No, it's peddling your beliefs disguised as a noble statement. I cannot and do not want to speak for Hitchens so I will only speak for myself. My view is that believing in an afterlife is crazy and absurd. (Don't get me wrong: I would love there to be some sort of way for my existence to continue after death. I'm terrified of death. Just wishing for there to be an afterlife doesn't make it happen, though.) I think it…

Wait, you just said you hope there's an afterlife, and so did the GP. Where's the objection?

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#113

Post by bravura » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 12:48 PM UTC

gbog wrote: post #98

bravura wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read Hitchens's letter and the reply. Hitchens is eloquent and direct in his criticisms. Leys, in his reply, is vague and does not answer any of Hitchens's criticisms with any specificity. Leys demurs and says he has no space for a reply. He then devotes one-third of his letter to joking about Hitchens questioning the use of the word "obscene". His response includes grating ad hominem, with a snide remark that Hitc…

You seem to split hairs here. For me, using a reference to a sexual position as a title of a book about a respectable worldwide admired nun /is/ "Disgusting or repulsive", which is definition number 3 in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obscene NB: I am all but a puritan, I like some disgusting things sometime. I don't care how Hitchens title his books. I just deeply dislike bad faith, a more traditional way to describe…

I'm not splitting hairs about my main point, which is that Leys doesn't actually respond to Hitchens's main criticism.

But let me respond about "obscenity":

You call Mother Theresa "respectiable". Hitchens's whole book advances the argument that she is nothing but, and is in fact contemptible. His argument is not germane to your point, so I won't delve into it.

Hitchens, in a video (you can find it on youtube, can't remember the title), argues that laughing at religious authority is important, and that religion should be mock, because mockery is one of the first steps towards overthrowing an oppressor. So the argument that we can't talk about a "respectable nun" in profane and coarse terms, and instead must treat her with ignorant reverance, is poisonous and cuts to the foundation of Hitchens's argument.

"It (the title) is actually a perfect triple entendre: the book is about the politics of missionaries and the position of those who feel they can enlighten by divine warrant and presume to instruct the rest of us not just in morality but in day-to-day conduct. It was a title I couldn’t not use."

[edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t4VhQX5Ckk "Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things because to demystify supposedly 'holy text dictated by god' and show that they are man made and what you have to show [is] there internal inconsistencies and absurdities. One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority..."]

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#114

Post by swah » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 12:54 PM UTC

olavk wrote: post #107

SamReidHughes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Why wouldn't an atheist want an afterlife?

The christian concept of heaven is not very attractive if you are not a christian. While there are different interpretations, the common is that heaven is an eternal non-physical state of being together with God (the god of the Bible), perhaps even "absorbed" by this god. The god of the Bible is racist, jaloux, blood-thirsty and opposed to critical thinking, and among other things calls for human sacrifice, genocide…

Fuck you (you representing anti-christian trolling in general in HN).

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#115

Post by bravura » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 12:55 PM UTC

adriand wrote: post #100

bravura wrote: post #88

Christoper Hitchens. Rest in Peace. One of the most articulate people, always incisive, even when I disagreed with him. I saw Hitchens speak at the New York Public Library, as part of their Live! series. Everyone retired to the garden afterwards, to take drinks. I spoke with Hitchens briefly. He called Mother Theresa "a bitch". I criticized his diction and argued that bitch was the wrong epithet. I don't recall my ex…

That's actually an interesting anecdote, because it demonstrates a willingness to admit when he was wrong, something that is often uncommon among so-called "great thinkers" - especially when they're engaging with a member of the "ordinary public". (My apologies if you're actually quite extraordinary.)

I think it's one of his most admirable qualities, namely that he will admit fault, change his position, and correct himself when he overspeaks.

My apologies if you're actually quite extraordinary.

None taken.

[edit: A question I asked him at the NYPL, 55:30 in the video http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/god-not-great-debate-between-...

Q: In the beginning of the talk you expressed antipathy towards deism in principle, predicated along this particular interpretation of God as a supreme dictator and judge. Is that correct?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: That would be correct, yes.

Q: Now, if I could play devil’s advocate for God for a moment. Could you appreciate a God who watches us and our actions eagerly and with great interest because he created a world where everything is permitted?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Yes, I can picture it, but I’m not without horror. (laughter) ]

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#116

Post by JeremyBanks » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 12:56 PM UTC

joske2 wrote: post #110

Tloewald wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go further and suggest that a lot of atheists would echo the hope that there is some kind of fabulous immortality beyond the grave, it's just that the concept is, upon examination, absurd.

Honestly, I hope there isn't immortality in heaven beyond the grave. Forever is a really long time. The first 1000 years in heaven might be interesting. The billion years after that? meh

Heaven does seems rather boring. However if we allow ourselves more creativity than scripture, we don't need to assume that eternal life must be dull.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#117

Post by khafra » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 12:58 PM UTC

konstruktor wrote: post #56

TomOfTTB wrote: post #16

Hitchens was essentially a Marxist (by his own admission) who was also in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the foreign policy it represented. So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate. I'd literally scan right wing talk radio schedules for his name because you just knew it would be a great show. In a world where s…

"So, with all due respect, I hope he is wrong in his beliefs about the after life because if there is a heaven he's surely earned his place in it." "all due respect" cannot change the fact that this is the most disrespectful thing you can write at the death of an atheist.

Isaac is up in heaven now.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#118

Post by pflats » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 1:10 PM UTC

Above all, I really respect him for his piece on waterboarding. For those of you who didn't see it/hear about it, he wanted to try to settle the debate on whether waterboarding is torture or not.

So he let himself be waterboarded.

VF Article (site's getting hit hard): http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens...

Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E

The title of the article? "Believe Me, It's Torture".

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#119

Post by super_mario » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 1:13 PM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #16

Hitchens was essentially a Marxist (by his own admission) who was also in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the foreign policy it represented. So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate. I'd literally scan right wing talk radio schedules for his name because you just knew it would be a great show. In a world where s…

Anyone who knew Hitchens knows that "heaven" as depicted by cristianity is a "celestial North Korea, where the sole purpose is to praise the dear leader incessantly, compelled to love someone you fear (essence of sadomasochism). You'd think the Lord himself would get bored of this after a couple of billion years"...

So, wishing him in heaven from another atheist as you say you are is really saying you don't know much of his work and life.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#120

Post by Udo » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 1:22 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #59

konstruktor wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So, with all due respect, I hope he is wrong in his beliefs about the after life because if there is a heaven he's surely earned his place in it." "all due respect" cannot change the fact that this is the most disrespectful thing you can write at the death of an atheist.

No it's not. Why wouldn't an atheist want an afterlife?

Atheism is a very broad category. It just means you don't believe in any gods. The people who belong to that category, and their philosophies, are wildly different. You can't draw a lot of conclusions just from knowing someone is an atheist.

I'm an atheist myself and I do find the idea of an afterlife extremely compelling. The tragedy here is that I'm also enough of a scientist to know that the odds of there being any kind of afterlife are vastly against us. So there is probably a group of atheists who, like myself, wish for an afterlife but at the same time know that wishing doesn't make it true. The universe doesn't really care whether a couple of carbon-based molecules change their state and it, sadly, doesn't care about the information stored in our brains either.