Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 228 posts

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#71

Post by tspiteri »

jpulgarin wrote: post #60
SamReidHughes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Christopher has stated multiple times that he finds the Christian idea of heaven unappealing. Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

> Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

If the Christian heaven does exist, it does not imply that all Christian doctrine is true, only that some is true.

And there is a lot of contradictory Christian doctrine. By that, I am not saying that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory, I am only pointing out that several different Christian denominations have doctrines that contradict each other. According to some denominations, Hitchens would indeed be in hell, and according to others, he would be in heaven.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#72

Post by lsb »

sriram_sun wrote: post #34
ddw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's so incredibly succinct and persuasive in his points when it comes to religion and I always love to hear these debates. His memoir 'Hitch-22' is well worth the read, especially now (the opening in particular).

Here is Hitchens on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-8-2010/christophe... - just delightful.

The interview starts "How's it going? / It's too early to tell.", which is superficially referring to how late of a partier he was, but deeply referring to how (that afternoon) he'd checked himself out of the hospital that diagnosed him with esophageal cancer.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#73

Post by sriram_sun »

Stormbringer wrote: post #61
spindritf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one is visible outside of the US. Though maybe not everywhere.

Canada doesn't count! ;-p edit (since it won't let me reply) - sorry, I meant Canada doesn't count as 'Outside the US'. Bad humour, no biscuit.

Wow! No Canada eh?! Mind == Blown! I just pasted this gem from Louis C.K in a different post and saw your comment. I'm sure Viacom as a perfectly good reason for blocking off Canada, but read on...

"...I have a profit around $200,000 (after taxes $75.58). This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video. They would have given you an encrypted and regionally restricted video of limited value, and they would have owned your private information for their own use. They would have withheld international availability indefinitely. This way, you only paid $5, you can use the video any way you want, and you can watch it in Dublin, whatever the city is in Belgium, or Dubai. I got paid nice, and I still own the video (as do you). You never have to join anything, and you never have to hear from us again."

Does this link work? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/christopher-hitchen...

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#74

Post by ugh »

vacri wrote: post #63
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.

"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 is very much distepectful to say things you know the person would have thought of as crazy and absurd when commenting their death.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#75

Post by jpulgarin »

tspiteri wrote: post #71
jpulgarin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christopher has stated multiple times that he finds the Christian idea of heaven unappealing. Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

> Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell. If the Christian heaven does exist, it does not imply that all Christian doctrine is true, only that some is true. And there is a lot of contradictory Christian doctrine. By that, I am not saying that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory, I am only pointing out that sev…

Instead of "which in turn" I should have said, "and further assuming", sorry about that.

I am almost certain that there are some Christian denominations under which Christopher is now believed to be in heaven, although they are in the minority, and not in the mainstream of Christianity that Hitchens usually debated against. Can you name me two Christian denominations according to whom Christopher is now in heaven?

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#76

Post by maximusprime »

numair wrote: post #41

Okay, really. With all due respect to the passing of a fellow human, this story has absolutely nothing to do with hackers, with software development, with the startup business... I know people are going to reply to this with some reference to "but it is of intellectual interest!" -- but really, there are lots of different places on the Internet (thousands, maybe millions!) to discuss lots of different things. If you…

HN used to be about hacking. It's now largely about politics and lolcats. It's "Reddit lite" if you like.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#77

Post by masklinn »

jpulgarin wrote: post #60
SamReidHughes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Christopher has stated multiple times that he finds the Christian idea of heaven unappealing. Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

> Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

It's much more complex than that as there is no single "Christian doctrine" (each christian sect has its own doctrine, including concepts of hell, and these doctrines evolve over time). Some christian sects promise hell to all non-convers (and sinners), while others consider only acts and make devotion irrelevant to entry in heavens.

I'm not going to make judgement calls on the hitch or these doctrines, but "Christian doctrine" being true absolutely does not translate into "Christopher is most certainly in hell". Let alone "the Christian heaven" existing (the "Christian" heaven being real) translates into this ("Christian heaven" could be true while everything else is false)

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#79

Post by tspiteri »

jpulgarin wrote: post #75
tspiteri wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell. If the Christian heaven does exist, it does not imply that all Christian doctrine is true, only that some is true. And there is a lot of contradictory Christian doctrine. By that, I am not saying that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory, I am only pointing out that sev…

Instead of "which in turn" I should have said, "and further assuming", sorry about that. I am almost certain that there are some Christian denominations under which Christopher is now believed to be in heaven, although they are in the minority, and not in the mainstream of Christianity that Hitchens usually debated against. Can you name me two Christian denominations according to whom Christopher is now in heaven?

I do not know much about different Christian denominations, but I do come from a Catholic background myself, and I guess Catholicism does qualify as mainstream. I think that according to current Catholic doctrine, if someone does his best to find out the truth, and lives according to what he sincerely believes, he goes to heaven, even if he's wrong in the end. And I think Hitchens qualifies for those qualities (to be clear: I am referring to his doing his best to find out the truth and living according to it, not to being wrong in the end).

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#80

Post by paganel »

127 wrote: post #48
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…

Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.

> Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ > It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.

Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist". And as a guy who swears by his Hayek and Lord Acton, I wonder how come when someone in the former Western block countries calls you a "marxist" or as a follower of Marx supposedly it is something bad, very bad?

Post reply on HN