Farewell Hitch

In the early 90s i was dazzled by a collection of his essays, 'For the Sake of Argument' (including one of his customary broadsides against Mother Teresa). Much more recently i read an interview in the Jerusalem Post, in which he spoke of learning only in adulthood of his Jewish identity; his mother had kept it hidden, for the sake of social advancement. Then he had to contend with his mother's suicide, which would surely put a strain on anyone's ability to believe in a benevolent God.

Let's hope God is great enough to make one or two allowances.

Here is a man who will be sorely missed for his compassion and reason of thought. As anAtheist he spoke for me very eloquently. God or gods are imaginary so if people use this to say bad things about this great man they should be ashamed of themselves.
Read his Memoirs and God is Not Great so that those with religion who hate others of different religions come together to honour a great man.

I've never been as upset over the death of someone I never knew. It was only in the past couple of days that I read his last piece for Vanity Fair. I'd kept hoping for him. I'll miss him.

One of the lessons of the life of Christopher Hitchens is that it is OK to be outspoken and caustic in defence of your worldview. I respect that idea. I thoroughly disagree with his views on God, and Hitchens tragically spent his life largely attacking a strawman (namely, "religion", which is not the same as "God". In fact the two are often contradictory).

Hitchens was someone who had no hesitation in deriding Mother Teresa even when she was still "warm in the grave" (hence this scathing article on the very day she died), so I am sure that "the spirit of Hitchens" wouldn't mind others refraining from expressing gushing (and rather nauseating) praise for him. I certainly have no inclination to indulge in such a pointless and hypocritical eulogy.

I think someone like the late Christopher Hitchens would far prefer people to be honest about what they believe, rather than pretending that it is OK for a Christian to call a man "great" who was anything but.

Yeah. You coulda shown him a thing or two couldn't you. And he'd have laughed heartily in your face.

AboutFarce (@ 5) -

Yeah. You coulda shown him a thing or two couldn't you. And he'd have laughed heartily in your face.

Hitchens was having a debate alongside Stephen Fry against Anne Widdecombe and an African bishop on whether the Catholic church is a force for good. He and Fry inflicted the heaviest defeat on their opponents in the entire history of that multi-year debate series. See a few minutes of Hitchens in full flow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOamsF5r3TE

I'll see if I can find time to reply to others whom I still owe replies on other threads later this weekend, still busy.

“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”
CH

At his best he was the best.

A couple of quotes from Christopher Hitchens:

"Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way."

And...

"And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."

I agree completely with the need to "think for oneself", and "respect free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."

This approach has led me to a conclusion contrary to one, whose exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, which has never been forthcoming.

7 Klaver, a good link, thanks. Worth watching the whole debate. Quite a combination Fry & Hitchins :)

Peter Hitchens on his brother;

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/12/in-memoriam-christopher-hitchens-1949-2011.html

Doug Wilson on Christopher Hitchens;

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/decemberweb-only/christopher-hitchens-obituary.html

Another good speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2-CPsFwJwU

He won't leave a legacy. I don't say this in any particular spirit of malice; few people ever leave a legacy, and there's no reason to think Hitchens will be one of those who do. He said it himself - "seek out argument and disputation for their own sake". That's just somebody putting in time until the clock runs out.

Having listened to Christopher Hitchens share his views on a number of things, I found him arrogant, rude and condescending....I suppose some people like that sort of approach.

The maverick philosopher on Hitchens and death;

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/12/on-hitchens-and-death.html

Have there been any false stories yet of a death bed conversion? When his diagnosis become public, there were a number of stories by believers who thought it would be such a good thing for him to come to god before his death. And lots of prayer for that to happen. And it wouldn't be the first time that, prayer having apparently failed again, they just made something up.

@18 -

Well whaddya know? Prayer doesn't benefit the life of someone who rejects God. How very nasty of God to not force himself on those who hate him!!!

Oh, and how terrible it will be to discover that a hater of God didn't have a deathbed conversion. Oh that really undermines the Christian faith!!

(/ tryin' hard not to mock, but it ain't easy.)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Will, would you care to explain why I'm ludicrous?

Not you personally, but what you said. Allow me to have a stab at it. Without argument and disputation - for their own sake - we'd still be in the trees. That's the first thing. The other thing is your contention that hardly anyone leaves a legacy. You obviously don't read much. Or else you don't understand much of what you read.

I think it's worth posting this, and I think this is a suitable place for it.

Stephen Fry's contribution to the debate on the catholic church, following Hitchens' which is posted above. If Hitchens is Tyson, Fry is Ali. This is splendid!

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk

And 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOcT_vq7NyM&feature=related

Only praise for Hitchens allowed on this blog eh? Shame that, but then again I shouldn't really expect a balanced view on the blog as there is never a balanced view given on the radio programme.

I prefer this clip from Terry Eagleton, expresses a very ballanced view of Hitchens.

https://youtu.be/ubQ-gclxM3o

He fought the bit out with Terry Eagleton. They didn't like each other much. What balance do you speak of?

Aboutfarce @26

Eagleton calls Hitchens "grossly theologically ignorant and illiterate". Which clearly goes against the hagiographical theme that Crawley wishes to put over in his blog.
In post #20 I added that Hitchens was also arrogant and a self publicist and that I for one wouldn't miss him and it failed to get past the gestapo. Balanced argument eh?

No, aboutfarce. Argument and disputation for their own sake didn't take us out of the trees; those things that did take us out of the trees had the side effect of argument and disputation, but that's not the same thing at all. As for hardly anyone leaving a legacy, I would have thought it was quite obvious I was referring to a historical, as opposed to an intimate personal legacy. I'm sure Hitchens family will miss him, and those in the New Atheist movement into whose mouths he put words will, for a time, miss him, but like most of us, his presence hasn't changed anything. But perhaps you just didn't understand what I wrote.

@ Blogster, 27.

Of course, it's quite common that the critic of religion is met with the response, "you just don't geddit", which is a cop out. Not to mention patronising. "Oh you just don't understand the subtleties, and since your mind is closed, you never will." Please. I can't explain what it's like to be on LSD to you for the same reason. And your experience of it would be as unique to you as mine was to me. That does not, however, mean that there are not things we can say objectively about LSD, or about the effect it has on people. No-one disputes this and I think we are on the same page, given that "spiritual" experiences are very close in their nature to the experiences people undergo on certain psychotropic drugs.

He wasn't a self-publicist, as you claim. He spent most of his life in obscurity. I came across him first about 15 years ago. I'd never heard of the bloke. I looked him up after he was mentioned by Martin Amis in some of his work. He went stellar because he wrote about religion when religion was rudely thrust to the fore with George Bush's election and 9/11. But you can't say he was inconsistent, he had taken a shot at Mother Teresa long before the publication of God is Not Great. He rode a wave. And rightly so. Before Bush and 9/11, religion had dropped so far down the register of most thinking people's consciousness it had become nigh-on insignificant, and religious people shouting in the background were looked at with a mixture of embarrassment and contempt. Rightly.

Then all of a sudden it usurped concerns about the economy (which is what had rightly been concerning thoughtful people since the Fall of the Berlin Wall) and was the word on everyone's lips. Only then did Hitchens and Dawkins and Dennett and Harris emerge to give it the treatment it deserves. Hitchens, from a moral standpoint. Dawkins, to defend his life's work, which has always been assailed by the religious, likewise Harris and Dennett as someone who has tried to understand it.

If there is anything to be said of Terry Eagleton's crossfire, it's that he had a punnet of sour grapes.

I bloody well hate sounding like an apostle but as someone, by a long stretch inferior, but who has taken a similar path and attitude to life as Hitchens, I won't entertain disparaging little snipes at him.

The fair response, you might say, was that he slagged off Jerry Falwell and other such hateful creatures while they were still warm in their graves. Fine. Those people had their defenders too. At least I'm not threatening to kill you for shooting from the hip. You fire away. But I'm not tied to any pole. Expect me to shoot back.

@ Casur1, 28.

Parade your ignorance if you wish, but I'm not about to take the time to explain to you how argument and disputation have advanced the human race. You appear to think of these in negative terms, "not nice". They can and do take place in civilised terms too, and the result of them is "progress". Ideas unchallenged become tyrannies. That's as far as I'll go on that.

Of legacies, I would point you to the damage inflicted by Hitchens on a figure who wielded immense power, Henry Kissinger. While he was still in relative obscurity, he managed to pretty much force the brute into retirement. Likewise his work on Mother Teresa, which made a lot of other people sit up and take notice, like the Irish journalist Donal MacIntyre, who exposed the cruelty of her regime (for it can hardly be called anything else) of her children's homes.

He was partisan, and I applaud him for it, because he has in that, as a journalist, given us a record for history. Journalists kid themselves when they think they are unbiased. Give me red blooded journalism any day over the "balance" of the BBC, which will routinely give climate change "sceptics" equal space alongside the warnings from the majority of scientists, or on creationism, throw in a quote from Ken Ham alongside an accomplished biologist. Tell it to me straight. Tell me what you really think. Leave attempts at impartiality to historians. Even they don't manage it but at least they admit as much - you must read and read and read. Orwell didn't pretend to be impartial, he went and fought the fascists in the Spanish Civil War and got shot in the neck. Orwell's writing has never gone out of print. I think a lot of Hitchens's deserves to remain too. This may be wishful thinking, but it does nothing to diminish the fact that he has a legacy. That much is set in stone.

OK, Aboutfarce, so 'argument and disputation for their own sakes' is a non-runner, so we're back to just argument and disputation, right? And we needed Christopher Hitchens to tell us Kissinger was a sleezoid? And we would probably have a much better world if those children in the Indian orphanages had been given a nice liberal abortion so we wouldn't have to look at them, rather than given some chance, however harsh, at life. Ok, I'm convinced. By the way, any sign of Will?

Between people who have a grasp of what they're talking about, with an interest in truth, argument and disputation, well wrought, help bring them to truth. The one proven wrong is usually grateful. I love that. I love that all the language around what may or may not have been glimpsed at CERN in the past week has been heavily couched in language of uncertainty. That is how science proceeds. That is how debate proceeds. Are you suffering from such a failure of your imagination that you cannot see where a lack of dissent would leave us? In the trees. I was speaking figuratively, since apparently it needs to be said.

We didn't need Hitchens to tell us Kissinger was a "sleezoid", but we did need him to make the case. He was ACTIVE in forcing this man out of the picture. And there is no substance - NONE - to your response on Mother Teresa's torture chambers. I never mentioned abortion. But the exposure of this old wench for having accepted state-of-the-art medical equipment and then letting it all rust in backrooms, and millions of pounds in donations, because people assumed she must be good, when actually she was running those orphanages according to the strictest of catholic doctrine, on the basis of which suffering was "good" and brought one closer to her god, when she admitted not even believing in that god herself, but still saw it as fine and well to chain children to beds: the exposure of that cruelty was a good thing.

She preached faith, and when her own health faltered, she took the best care the United States had to offer. A lot of the money she attracted like a magnet DISAPPEARED. She accepted hospitality from brutal dictators like the DuValiers of Haiti. Our knowledge of this we have Christopher Hitchens to thank for. Oh yeah, and she's become a saint. No more devil's advocate. This he sneers at too.

No legacy?

So, still no defence of "argument and disputation FOR THEIR OWN SAKE"?

And still no sign of Will?

@29 Aboutfarce
Terry Eagleton’s critique on Hitchens was certainly not “you just don’t geddit”, he articulated perfectly what many people both religious and otherwise have come to acknowledge that big mouth atheistic self publicists like Dawkins and Hitchens are ignorant in their arguments and totally illiterate in their subject matter. Witness for instance Dawkin’s response on Sky News this evening regarding David Cameron’s take on religion in Britain – it was embarrassingly puerile in its content and was typical of the type of trash both he and Hitchens (and Sam Harris for that matter) have delivered over the years. That is what Terry Eagleton was referring to and it is totally justified.
Hitchen’s most definitely was a self publicist. I have read his essays since his time at the New Statesman in the seventies and he promoted himself and his ideas at every opportunity. He was always seeking to be seen at the right events and with the right kind of people. When he disagreed with your argument he was vicious in attack and would not consider any counter argument or theory. Consider his attack o Mother Theresa. His attack was based on two fronts, firstly that the Catholic Church, especially as far as women were concerned consigned people to poverty by not condoning artificial contraception. Hitchen’s neither sought an answer nor a reply to this criticism from anyone, sheer arrogance. Secondly he decried Mother Theresa’s work and used some highly suspect individuals to back up his argument. He completely ignored the mass of evidence or the personal visits made by hundreds of people to Calcutta simply because it didn’t suit his story. Michael Grade was in charge of Channel 4 when his programme was aired and he received numerous complaints and evidence to the contrary even to the extent of request to re-air the programme with these counter arguments included. Not surprisingly he declined. Hitchen’s piece has therefore gone down in folklore amongst the dull and the ignorant who cannot be bothered to seek out the truth. There was absolutely nothing moral about his stance – on anything as far as I’m concerned - from the Iraq war and his support for Bush to his fundamentalist atheism and his student principled lefty International Socialism.
And please don’t pretend to know what “thinking people” are thinking, I can assure you that there are a lot of “thinking people” in my world and religion has never dropped down their consciousness. It is only the ignorant who fail to engage with the events of this world and anyone with modicum of intelligence would have engaged fully with the religious debates that have been raging for years. You may not have done that but that would apply only to you.

Well you just keep telling that to yourself. I'm sorry - I wouldn't mind a good ruck - but you're beneath even my contempt. That's pretty low.

Blogster (@ 35) -

Good post.

Hitchens had no respect for the recently departed with whom he disagreed (whether justifiably or not), and therefore he deserves none himself.

He slated Mother Teresa on the day she died and used the most insulting language to describe Jerry Falwell just after he died. If I used the sort of language he used to describe Falwell, it would not get past the BBC moderators. If anyone wants the relevant video, then it is easy to find on YouTube.

I have almost no respect for the late Christopher Hitchens for this and many other reasons.

Don't worry about AF's views. If he holds you in contempt then take it as a compliment. I just laugh at him.

Spitting Image does religion.

Contempt at #36 and sneering at #38. Atheism at it's intellectual height.

Blogster (@ 35)

I would like to add another...well said.

LSV, post 19,

"Well whaddya know? Prayer doesn't benefit the life of someone who rejects God. How very nasty of God to not force himself on those who hate him!!!"

So our LSV, who has recently again sought to define for atheists what it means to be an atheist, now determines that atheists like Hitchens hate god. When atheists don't see valid reason to presume there even is one.

The other day you said you would be bringing up my supposed lack of understanding of the implications of being an atheist. Unbelievable. The fairy tale guy who would tell atheists they are getting it all wrong in their atheism, has determined that atheists think there is a god and they hate him.

I presume that next you'll be making a post including the words 'logic' and 'reason' and claiming those to be on your side?

Tssk!

@41 -

Someone who wrote a book entitled "God is not great" doesn't hate God?

Yeah yeah yeah. If you say so, Mr Klaver.

Of course, "God" for the recently departed horseman may have just been an idea (no longer, I might add), but I never suggested otherwise. Did CH "love" the idea of God?

Anyone who values "that which I am not allowed to mention" can judge for him(her)self.

As for my deciding what atheists believe... oh no! Perish the thought. Atheism is just a word describing someone who has certain feelings depending on what he had for breakfast (I've decided that "I am an atheist" - look I've said it, so I must be! - and this decision is the result of my having had cereal rather than porridge at the crack of dawn today. So an atheist is simply someone with certain gastrointestinal experiences. And you cannot tell me that this is not true! How dare you be so arrogant as to decide what "atheist" means!!!)

In the words of the serene Mr A. Farce:

Tssk!

It's not atheism. It's colic. Indigestion. We find some things hard to swallow. What we sclerotic types need is a good dose of the Calpol Christianity. A tablespoon of religious whisky rubbed on our gums, to ease the pain and make us sleep better. And make us more receptive to priestly advances.

Tssk.

What a dinner guest 'the Hitch' would have made!

"If I was told to sacrifice my children to prove my devotion to God... and if I was told to admire the man who said 'yes, I'll gut my kid to show my love for God', then I'd say "**** you"

Which more or less summarises Hitchens' dialogue with religious bullies everywhere.

I enjoyed re-reading this interview with Hitchens by a unitarian minister.

https://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hitchens/

Being mindful of some of the posts around these parts over the recent months, this question and answer stood out;

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

AboutFarce (@ 44) -

It's not atheism.

newdwr (@ 45) -

What a dinner guest 'the Hitch' would have made!

"If I was told to sacrifice my children to prove my devotion to God... and if I was told to admire the man who said 'yes, I'll gut my kid to show my love for God', then I'd say "**** you"

I always thought a-theism a pretty simple conjugation - which you'll understand, being a master of Latin as all else - simple "without theism". Perhaps anti-theism is the better term. In any case, it's a bit weak to try to define a person by what they are not. Aren't you supposed to be some kind of philosopher? Isn't that self-evident?

46. Andrew:

"I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian. [Hitchens]"
______________________________

Unitarians don't believe Jesus was God (or part of God). This moves them one step closer to reality in my view.

I don't know if Hitchens knew that or not when he gave his answer. But it's true that if Unitarians deny these central doctrines of mainstream Christianity then they are more closely aligned to Judaism than what we commonly think of as Christianity.

48. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"...I do admire the man who stakes everything on believing what God has not only promised, but also delivered (in this case the delivery of Isaac, the child of promise, who could not die at the time, to which the comment refers - something Abraham knew full well)."

You seem to be suggesting that the Abraham/Isaac saga was some sort of staged pantomime. That they just went through the routine of 'pretending' to sacrifice the child in the full knowledge that it would never happen and was all some sort of big joke.

How does that fit with the underlying message of unquestioning obedience to the whims of this cruel desert God; 'Trust and Obey', etc? If you show you are prepared to do *anything* for God then He will be merciful.

What you've done is 'rationalise' this abhorrent account of (near) child sacrifice to make it more acceptable to your own views.

LSV, I don't see why AboutFarce would be arrogant when voicing an atheist point of view. It takes an ignoramus who thinks atheists think god is real and are angry with him (based on the 4 word title of a book he either never read or understood anything of) to preach to atheists what they should think, to make it arrogant (as well as slightly annoying and very stupid).

In a debate with Dinesh D'Souza, Hitchins accurately describes the god of calvinism, that it...

..attacks us in our deepest integrity, it says that you and I wouldn't know a right...thought without the permission of a celestial dictatorship- that guards us while we sleep, that can convict of us of thought crime...and...will continue to judge us, persecute us and supervise us even after we were dead. How horrible it would be if we were condemned to live in this posture of gratitude...to an unalterable dictatorship in whose installation we had no say

In Hitchens' description of God, 'we see calvin's distinct interpretation of Total Depravity and the total Calvinistic denial of man's free will. Hitchins' description of deity in his book 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' accurately describes Calvin and Hitchins' disdain for John Calvin'

AboutFarce (@ 49) -

I always thought a-theism a pretty simple conjugation - which you'll understand, being a master of Latin as all else - simple "without theism".

I suppose the perfect way to prove God exists to an atheists would be for God to come and live amongst us....do lots of miracles....be an amazing teacher....die on a cross and then come back to life again.

Guess what....he did Happy Christmas everyone

newdwr54 (@ 51) -

What you've done is 'rationalise' this abhorrent account of (near) child sacrifice to make it more acceptable to your own views.

I must say I love it when you speak plainly. Atheism has Greek etymology. Ah well. I'm on the grog. Can you tell?

Then you get onto your "whole point". Careful now. This is your "whole point". If this bit doesn't stand, you're done for. Moving onto your "whole point", I'm somewhat amused that it involves your failing in an attempt to wedge a square peg into a round hole.

Here: "Atheism actually means something. In other words, there are concepts associated with the idea of rejecting belief in God, given that the term "God" is replete with ideas, which have logical implications for our entire view of reality."

You've made a leap there. If one rejects belief in a god, even though there is a body of literature built around the notion of his existence, it doesn't necessarily represent a philosophical position taken in regard to that literature. Your if-then doesn't work. There are plenty of believers who have never gazed at a page of Aquinas or Augustine. There are things that Augustine and Aquinas were right about. All the atheist says is that there is no need nor any evidence of the god. Presumably you would reject Ganesha, the Hindu god. Plenty of writing about him. None of which you are familiar with (I would wager heavily). But you don't believe in Ganesha. You don't need to be familiar with the literature on Ganesha to not believe in Ganesha. The notion of Ganesha as god is "replete with ideas". I don't equate your not believing in the elephant-man-god as your taking any position on those ideas about him.

"Concepts have logical implications" you say. Well your belief has implications FOR YOU, not the person who says he doesn't believe you. Back we come to burden of proof. Stop trying to shackle the man who says no to you to the weights you lock onto yourself.

And dammit. I've just lit the wrong end of a cigarette while bothering with you. That'll learn me.

Where's Will?

56. logica_sine_vanitate,

You've avoided confronting the point here. The point is that the whole story of Isaac and Abraham only works if Abraham *didn't* know that killing his own son at God's whim was all just a set-up.

If Abraham knew all along that God wasn't going to let him 'pull the trigger', so to speak, then this grotesque story loses all of its undeniable power. As I said before, it becomes a meaningless pantomime.

"...could you let me know what your alternative is to this "cruel desert God"?"

The alternative is reality.

"And could you explain to me how this "alternative" guarantees the safety of children."

The safety of children is never guaranteed. However, in my view it is better served by parents who do not submit to strange voices in their heads that tell them to kill their own children.

Sleep in peace, Christopher Hitchins, a man whom fools didnt suffer easily.

Is he asleep or undergoing the beginning of eternal torture, romejellybean?

AF, shouldn't you be asking that question to Andrew? Since it's his god of Calvinism, Hitchins was describing, who "will continue to judge us, persecute us and supervise us even after we were dead". Or will you continue to be subservient to Andrew and not push the dear boy too hard. It isn't like you to pussyfoot around anyone is it

newdwr54 (@ 59) -

You've avoided confronting the point here.

Aboutfarce

Well if there is a Hell, look on the bright side, you'll be able to light your ciggie properly.

You get cigarettes in Hell? That's a nice touch. I wonder if you get them in Heaven. God knows you'd need something to break the boredom. And do they make you go outside? Hmm. I think I'd like to go to The Big Rock Candy Mountain. It sounds great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYGCpGzFWh0

Oh! You know
‘they have barbeque and beer
better than they do up here
and you know all the words to the songs!’

Thanks for reminding me: Hell doesn’t have to be boring. It can be fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-YK4hz8tyA

Well, this might be a good place to be, too, and it’s another one of my favorites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HzJUTLRf_c

Maybe we get to experience both!

Hell Ain't a Bad Place to Be... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAJFz7KU85I

I'm on a highway to it.

Where am I going?

And why am I in this handbasket?

You're the new Moses. All will be revealed.

Hell is a fantastic time around xmas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B767SyhOptM

Oh, winding down, I can’t be Moses or in hell today. Unlike our late Christopher Hitchens (rest in peace), I’m still on earth and trying to ‘reach’:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-KAvPbO8JY

Why does any discussion involving New Atheists always end in jumenile sneering? And I'm still waiting for Will to tell me why I'm ludicrous.

63. logica_sine_vanitate:

The point I'm trying to make, and which was much more effectively made by Christopher Hitchens, is that only someone totally entranced by religious dogma, or otherwise deranged, could rationally consider that killing a child is a morally acceptable thing to do under any circumstances.

Belief in God per say does not mean that someone is a bad parent obviously; but the belief that *anything* that God tells you to do is ok is most definitely of concern. This is because we just don't *know* whether or not there even is a God, irrespective of our *beliefs* about that issue.

So this 'voice' in Abraham's head - was it the Creator of the universe, or was it pre senile dementia? You don't know, and neither do I.

My default position is that voices in our heads are to be distrusted, even if they are accompanied by apparent angel visitations, or apparitions of little virgins (in fact, *especially* so in that case).

You seem to be suggesting that without belief in God life has no *meaning*. I don't even know how to start answering that suggestion, since it is so alien to my own outlook on life, which is happily God-free. If it really bothers you that there is possibly no God, then I can only recommend blind denial; but you seem to have beaten me to that conclusion.

Casur1
Hey dude while your waiting;
your ludicrous
juvenile enough?

I'm saddened but not surprised at some of the comments about hell.
It reveals, either, a lack of understanding or the rejection of it's existence.

If you can be totally confident that it doesn't exist then I suppose you have nothing to fear but if you're not sure then I would consider what you say.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Be afraid? Be very afraid? The beast is real. He's very big down there. In the earth's molten core presumably. While we're at it heaven exists too, up there, on the other side of that black fabric we see at night with the perfect little pin pricks in it. That's where the real party is at. Choirs of angels, cigarette trees, a lake of stew and whisky too. Oh hang on, that's the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

"And the jails are made of tin, a

And you can walk right out again,

As soon as you are in..."

Sounds like the Vatican!

Marie,

It looks like you enjoy a giggle. Assuming the mods allow that we are all adults here, and Will and Testament isn't some kind of "celestial North Korea" in BBC blogland, I can't think of a better place to initiate some word games. It was one of Hitchens's pleasures in life, and could be rude.

See here (if Vanity Fair will run it, I don't see why it couldn't appear here...): https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/07/hitchens-diary-201007

So he and Amis and Rushdie are sitting around a table "three sheets to the wind" (I found out this phrase, meaning "drunk" is a maritime term for a ship out of control in a storm because the sails (sheets) weren't dropped quick enough, anyway...) and decide to simply play. Replace, purely for the sake of a giggle, the word "heart" in any well known song or phrase with "dick".

Silly? Absolutely! But I defy you not to laugh.

"Dick-break hotel".

"Bury my Dick at Wounded Knee".

(Rushdie wins with): "The Dick is a Lonely Hunter".

I'd like to kicks things off by adding:

Achy Breaky Dick.

Sgt Pepper's Lonely Dicks Club Band.

"In prayer it is better to have a dick without words than words without a dick."
- Gandhi (amended)

"When you fish for love, bait with your dick, not your brain."
-Mark Twain (amended)

Here's to Hitchens!

And here's to the mods! They let it through. Wonder where this will go.

"One ought to hold on to one's dick; for if one lets it go, one soon loses control of the head too." -Friedrich Nietzsche (amended, and he would know)

"A good head and a good heart are always a formidable combination."

Nelson Mandela

AboutFarce,

You are a nut, or two.

The article was good - oh there are things I would say.... I’m treading lightly, so as not to insult my sex or my self. The ending were funnery.

I’m going to have to let your game run without me. In the appropriate company, I’d play in a pussywillow-beat, but not on this pubic forum.

I’m afraid I’ve done enough offending for a while. :-|

In the first grade, in a small Catholic school, I remember having to stay inside and miss recess as punishment for being too silly with a couple of boys. Humour too easily carries me away.

Anyway, I’ll try not to be too crude here, as I’m also a sweetpeach in real life.

I must say I thought the hell stuff was great. I was working when PeterKlaver’s link came on. At first, I thought: ‘No. One of those hideous bulky cartoons.’ So I put the window in my tray and continued working while listening to the song. I think somehow that made the song more comical to me. If I end up in hell for getting creative about hell, at least I’ll have had a laugh (to my lily’s content) at it first.

P.S. Just thought I’d throw this in: I’m not an atheist! I’m a theist!

I'm not a pheasant plucker, I'm a pheasant plucker's son.

I'm only plucking pheasant til the pheasant plucker comes.

Say that fast. Wink.

Happy Christmas to you Aboutfart

Thanks, New Horny.

I'm guessing Will ain't coming back to me about the "ludicrous" thing. I suppose smart-mouth hit'n'run is an occupational hazard when you spend a lot of time around atheists.

Hitch - and 'bang', Hell disappeared in a puff of logic!

Newthornley - I dont believe in Hell. What's my punishment?

So far in my adult life, I have publicly challenged certain 'truths' imposed upon many Christians by self appointed spokesmen for God. My reward, in this life, has been to be gossiped about, lied about, discredited, bullied, harrassed, ostracized and eventually, sacked - all done by people who consider themselves good and faithful Christians.

Is Hell, all of the above, but with flames too? And worms? Do the worms wear asbestos suits?

Hell exists in your head and nowhere else. And the reason it exists there, is because there is plenty of space for it. It certainly wont be crowded out by rational thought.

Gosh, it doesn't take much to get moderated around here, does it?

Not sure how you can say hell is a truth imposed on anyone. You believe it or you don't. But if you don't believe it you can hardly call yourself a Christian cos there was no one clearer in talking about hell than Jesus.

It wasnt imposed, Fionnuala? Maybe you werent around when priests preached Hell Fire from pulpits, in schools and on parish 'retreats.'

I still deal with people who are emotionally and psychologically scarred by the religious terrorism foisted upon them as children - by priests. They were a tad more "clearer" than Jesus was when it came to Hell.

As regards what constitutes being a Christian, I'd say that remaining silent on the abuse of children by priests would constitute 'not being a Christian.' However, that's exactly what one man did for 25 years - then they made him Pope.

Christopher Hitchens' comments after the death of Jerry Falwell:

Interviewer: Christopher, I'm not sure if you believe in heaven, but if you do, do you think Jerry Falwell is in it?

Hitchens: No, and I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to.

So here we have incontrovertible evidence that Christopher Hitchens was not totally against the idea of hell for some people.

Therefore those who admire CH can hardly criticise those who believe in hell.

Of course, the big question concerns who goes there. If hell is a place everybody "deserves" to go simply on the basis of "the fall" or "original sin", then count me as a disbeliever in such a ridiculous place. However, if "hell" is actually the experience of the unrepentant wicked when they encounter the reality of the God of everlasting love, then I am most certainly a believer in this state.

I would have thought that the presence of God would be unspeakably devastating for those who have built their lives on brutality and abuse. To expect such people - while in their state of evil - to just meekly receive and enjoy the love of God, is fantasy of the highest degree. Hence, I am not a universalist.

I think most people's "memories" of hell fire sermons are based on literature and films rather than on actual memories. But don't you believe in free speech, Mr Been? Surely priests are entitled to preach whatever is consistent with the faith which employs them. And as I said, Jesus was very clear on hell.

Fionnuala (@ 90) -

Surely priests are entitled to preach whatever is consistent with the faith which employs them. And as I said, Jesus was very clear on hell.

It's the sins of ommission will take us there - the prisoners we don't visit, the naked we don't clothe, the hungry we don't feed - scary stuff for all of us.

Anyway, I'm fairly new to this and have a family to feed for Christmas and lots of shopping to do so I'll go now. A very happy Christmas to you all.

Fionnuala

"But dont you believe in free speech, Mr Been?"

Lol, lol, lol! I certainly do, Fionnuala. So does Bishop Morris of Australia - sacked! And Bishop Gumbleton of the US - sacked! So does Hans Kung, 400 Austrian priests, Leonardo Boff, Fr Tisa Balasuryia - excommunicated.

If you have been attending Mass over Advent you will have heard the exhortation to 'stay awake.' However, to stay awake you must first of all 'wake up!'

As I said, to preach what is consistent with the faith which employs them. Priests who don't agree with Christian teaching should go somewhere else. It's called real integrity, not pretending.

At least we agree on one thing, Fionnuala. When the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops dont teach what Christ taught, they should have a bit of integrity and resign.

That would get rid of Ratzinger, Sodano, Bertone, Levada, Law, Castrillon Hoyos, and many others. We might then again become a Church for, and of, the poor!

RJB (@ 95) -

When the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops dont teach what Christ taught, they should have a bit of integrity and resign.