The despicable Christopher Hitchens

Welcome to Hell, “Hitch”.  No, I will not tolerate a single good word to be said about this monster in my presence.  An unrepentant communist, a worthy follower of the bloodthirsty fanatic Leon Trotsky, a man who built his career off of libeling Mother Teresa, then won the adulation of National Review by promoting two of America’s stupidest, most pointless wars, all because he relished the idea of murdering Muslims.  I can’t think of anyone alive who has been so consistent in the service of evil.

So much for his moral standing.  I’m also not interested in hearing how profound and erudite he supposedly was.  Bull.  The man was an intellectual simpleton; even when I was a neoconservative and read his stuff, it was hard to miss his utter lack of curiosity, his gullible faith in the progressive narrative, his habit of condemning those outside of it without bothering to understand them.  Here‘s David Bentley Hart reviewing Hitchens’ statement on the ultimate things:

To appreciate the true spirit of the New Atheism, however, and to take proper measure of its intellectual depth, one really has to turn to Christopher Hitchens. Admittedly, he is the most egregiously slapdash of the New Atheists, as well as (not coincidentally) the most entertaining, but I take this as proof that he is also the least self-deluding. His God Is Not Great shows no sign whatsoever that he ever intended anything other than a rollicking burlesque, without so much as a pretense of logical order or scholarly rigor. His sporadic forays into philosophical argument suggest not only that he has sailed into unfamiliar waters, but also that he is simply not very interested in any of it. His occasional observations on Hume and Kant make it obvious that he has not really read either very closely. He apparently believes that Nietzsche, in announcing the death of God, literally meant to suggest that the supreme being named God had somehow met his demise. The title of one of the chapters in God Is Not Great is “The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False,” but nowhere in that chapter does Hitchens actually say what those claims or their flaws are.

On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens’ book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them. Just to skim a few off the surface: He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as “an admirable but nebulous humanism,” which is roughly on a par with saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of weaker peoples. He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen. He speaks of the traditional hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero). He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on).

In the end, though, all of this might be tolerated if Hitchens’ book exhibited some rough semblance of a rational argument. After all, there really is a great deal to despise in the history of religion, even if Hitchens gets almost all the particular details extravagantly wrong. To be perfectly honest, however, I cannot tell what Hitchens’ central argument is. It is not even clear what he understands religion to be. For instance, he denounces female circumcision, commendably enough, but what—pray tell—has that got to do with religion? Clitoridectomy is a widespread cultural tradition of sub-Saharan Africa, but it belongs to no particular creed. Even more oddly, he takes indignant note of the plight of young Indian brides brutalized and occasionally murdered on account of insufficient dowries. We all, no doubt, share his horror, but what the hell is his point?

As best I can tell, Hitchens’ case against faith consists mostly in a series of anecdotal enthymemes—that is to say, syllogisms of which one premise has been suppressed. Unfortunately, in each case it turns out to be the major premise that is missing, so it is hard to guess what links the minor premise to the conclusion. One need only attempt to write out some of his arguments in traditional syllogistic style to see the difficulty:

Major Premise: [omitted]
Minor Premise: Evelyn Waugh was always something of a bastard, and his Catholic chauvinism often made him even worse.
Conclusion: “Religion” is evil.


Major Premise: [omitted]
Minor Premise: There are many bad men who are Buddhists.
Conclusion: All religious claims are false.

As a final send-off, I recommend you all check out Tom Piatik’s profile of this loathsome man who he calls “the purest neocon“.  Excerpts:

Hitchens has never apologized for his Trotskyism. As he told British writer Johann Hari in October 2004, “I don’t regret anything. … [The socialist movement’s] achievements were real, and I’m glad I was a part of it.” And in the July/August 2004 issue of The Atlantic, Hitchens wrote a hagiographic essay about a figure whom he claimed “always was … a prophetic moralist.” Hitchens was not writing about Mother Teresa or John Paul II, but about Leon Trotsky—a man who was an active participant in and apologist for Lenin’s Red Terror, the inventor of the “blocking units” that would gun down Russian troops foolish enough to defy the commissars by retreating, and the author of such witty aphorisms as “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life.”…

A straightforward description of all Hitchens’s anti-Catholic outbursts would fill every page in this magazine—he recently argued, in essence, that Judge Roberts should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court because he is Catholic—but his most disgusting, and revealing, anti-Catholic spasm was his reaction to the death of John Paul II, a man he dismissed as “an elderly and querulous celibate, who came too late and who stayed too long.”

Speaking ill of the dead is a Hitchens trademark, with Mother Teresa, Bob Hope, and Ronald Reagan—whom Hitchens described as “dumb as a stump” and a “cruel and stupid lizard”—each rating a bilious sendoff….

So where does this lover of Trotsky and hater of God, this despiser of religion and tradition and devotee of “permanent revolution,” this anti-Catholic bigot and reviler of Reagan and John Paul, now find an ideological home? Among the neoconservatives, naturally. As Hitchens told Johann Hari in the same interview where he said “I don’t regret anything,” he admires Paul Wolfowitz, whom he described as a “real bleeding heart.”…Barry Didcock came to a similar conclusion in the June 5, 2005 Sunday Herald after interviewing Hitchens: “The way Hitchens tells it, he began to realize, as the 1990s wore on, that US force could and should be used to fight what he saw as the forces of fascism.” Hitchens still wants world revolution; the only difference is that now he sees us Americans as perfectly placed to do the fighting and the dying needed to achieve his Trotskyist dream.

As both the Hari and Didcock interviews make clear, Hitchens was able to overcome his past squeamishness about American military force not because America is threatened, but because the threat now comes from men who believe in Allah rather than Marx. Didcock notes, “the origins of [Hitchens’s] position lie in his long-held distaste for religion,” and Hitchens told Hari, “The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represent all the most reactionary elements on earth. … However bad the American Empire has been, it is not as bad as this.” Hitchens also wrote—in the same column in which he extolled the priest-killing potency of the French and Russian Revolutions—that “George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the US armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled.” Hitchens’s entire politics is motivated by his hatred of religion and tradition; he’d be just as happy bombing St. Peter’s as the Taliban.

62 Responses

  1. There is a very entertaining youtubed debate in which Hitchens makes Dinesh D’Souza seem very bright, learned, honest, and intellectual. It’s a little long, though. But you can get the basic idea in 20 min or so.

  2. Skip forward at least 10 min into it.

  3. LOL. Yes, you can try to tap dance on the grave of a great man, mostly because he’s no longer here to shut you the hell up. It’s ok, he’s done his. And long after all these nobodies whom you quote are dead (I would add “forgotten” as well, but that implies someone knows who the hell they are in the first place) millions will still read Hitchens, and be influenced by a fantastic literary wit of his.

    Oh, and P.S., Hitch was not a “philosopher”, he was, what’s that word…. oh yeah, an “author”. Criticizing his writing for not being philosophically rigorous enough is like faulting Mark Twain for not including enough equations into “Tom Sawyer”.

  4. No-one admired Christopher Hitchens more than Christopher Hitchens.

    I disapprove of vigilante damnations like yours, Bonald, but I must admit, I’m curious to hear how he has been explaining himself to his Maker. “Well, Lord, it was like this… it seemed like Bush had it right – you really had to be there at the time….”.

    I hold out hope of meeting a more humble, chastened Hitch in purgatory one day, even if he’s in there until the place shuts…. I like to think that Blessed Mother Teresa is praying for him, and we should probably do likewise.

    Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei… eventually….

  5. I object on principle to speaking ill of the dead, but it takes quite a generous set of principles (and even then quite a stretch) to call Hitchens “great,” “fantastic,” or witty.

    Or is this post some kind of sophisticated satire?

  6. Would you know what “sophisticated satire” even means, much less be able to distinguish it were it to appear before you?

    And yes, he was a great man, a fantastic author, and among the great wits of our generation. Jealous much?

  7. We must always account for the possibility, however excruciatingly tiny, of deathbed repentance — hence why, as I said, I object to speaking ill of the dead (and also why my post on the topic at my own blog is very, very brief).

    I think it’s worth celebrating, though, that the face of fashionable atheism is no longer his but, probably, Sam Harris’ (who is at least as incompetent and nowhere near as engaging). Who else would take over? The ghoul-faced Richard Dawkins, despised by his own liberal followers for not being sufficiently PC (or whatever) and whose likeness is probably best known from his lampooning on South Park?

  8. Unfortunately since there is no hell, no heaven, and even the Catholic Church itself has dis-invented purgatory, you will get no such chance. And Hitch will live on for a long time through his work, invented god notwithstanding.

  9. Yawn.

    I’d have been more impressed with his life had he been a good man.

  10. Care to bet on it, old chap? If so, I have a feeling that you’re going to owe me a glass of Sauternes in the next life, and you can probably add a gin and tonic for Hitch too.

    Sorry if you find my flippant tone irritating, but I find atheism fundamentally difficult to take seriously.

  11. It’s certainly harder to take atheists seriously when they mix up basic concepts like Purgatory and Limbo.

  12. Not being a philosopher doesn’t excuse one from the duty of educating oneself on one’s subject and thinking about it rigorously. Hitch’s refusal to do so partly explains how it was that he fell on the side of murderous ideologies so consistently.

  13. Dawkins is actually my favorite of the bunch. He’s got some genuine work in evolutionary biology to his credit, and he’s a fair science popularizer. Plus, the “flying spaghetti monster” is an amusing fabrication.

  14. His debate with Craig was even worse. Interestingly, I only just watched the whole thing maybe a week ago. The highlight (err, lowlight) was Hitchens’ meandering about asking stupid questions for 10 minutes trying to entrap Craig somehow (which he ducked with natural grace) before giving up and ceding the rest of his time to the Q&A.

  15. Dawkins is ok as a writer when he’s a biologist who strays into atheism, but the problem is that, for the last 30 years, he’s been an atheist who’s strayed into biology. As for the flying spaghetti monster, I guess people’s senses of humour differ.

  16. The following is something I had written privately some months back, which seems pertinent at this time:

    A point that seems very obvious to me the longer I have pondered it and that trumps any secular critique of the sacred that might be mounted is that secularism inescapably reduces to existential nihilism, which in turn renders the entire secularist position, in all its various modifications, untenable for human beings. When secularists like Hitchens or Dawkins, to name only two of the more odious examples, carp at religion and any sense of the sacred, they think they are doing so from solid ground, that their reason or their science or their knowledge grants them this. In fact, there is no ground beneath them at all, only the abyss: precisely by virtue of their commitment to philosophic naturalism they are thereby bound to existential nihilism, which will necessarily drag them down. There is no way to escape from this, given their precommitments. Attempts might be made to escape, but these eventually ring false. Nietzsche, that disturbed prophet, saw all the nihilistic implications of secularization with complete clarity, as seen in his writing on the death of God, but tried to escape the trap with his doctrine of the Übermensch, capable of creating his own values independent of the Divine grounding, a doctrine that is ultimately untenable – one cannot erect values when there is nothing underneath one’s feet that might support them.

    A no doubt deeply uncharitable note with respect to Christopher Hitchens: His younger brother Peter Hitchens was following a course not dissimilar to his elder brother’s until his conversion to Christian faith. He relates in brief the story of that conversion in an interview with the Daily Mail: The relevant passage is below with the image in question attached:

    “My own, slow return to faith began when I was 30, in 1981. By this time, I was doing well in my chosen trade, journalism. I could afford pleasant holidays with my girlfriend, whom I should nowadays call my ‘partner’ since we were not then married, on the European continent.
    I no longer avoided churches. I recognised in the great English cathedrals, and in many small parish churches, the old unsettling messages.

    One was the inevitability of my own death, the other the undoubted fact that my despised forebears were neither crude nor ignorant, but men and women of great skill and engineering genius, a genius not contradicted or blocked by faith, but enhanced by it.

    No doubt I should be ashamed to confess that fear played a part in my return to religion, specifically a painting: Rogier van der Weyden’s 15th Century Last Judgement, which I saw in Burgundy while on holiday.

    I had scoffed at its mention in the guidebook, but now I gaped, my mouth actually hanging open, at the naked figures fleeing towards the pit of Hell.

    These people did not appear remote or from the ancient past; they were my own generation. Because they were naked, they were not imprisoned in their own age by time-bound fashions.
    On the contrary, their hair and the set of their faces were entirely in the style of my own time. They were me, and people I knew.

    I had a sudden strong sense of religion being a thing of the present day, not imprisoned under thick layers of time. My large catalogue of misdeeds replayed themselves rapidly in my head.
    I had absolutely no doubt that I was among the damned, if there were any damned. Van der Weyden was still earning his fee, nearly 500 years after his death.”

    In reading this, I cannot help recalling from the opening passage of Quran’s second chapter:

    “As for the unbelievers, alike it is to them whether thou hast warned them or hast not warned them, they do not believe. God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a covering, and there awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

    It strikes me that Christopher Hitchens is one of the great misotheists of our age – and their name is legion. Even dying of esophageal cancer, he will not rest, but is compelled, it appears, to curse God to his dying breath. In looking upon him now, I cannot help but think that I am looking upon a man destined very shortly for Hell. This is, in its own terrible way, the most trumping of rebuttals.

  17. Said the man who just finished arguing that Mussolini and Hitler merely made a couple of bad decisions here and there….

  18. I would be willing to bet anything and everything that I’m right, if such a bet made sense. However, since collecting on said bet is, by definition, impossible, I shall pass.

    And I’m sorry you find atheism hard to take seriously. On the upside that says next to nothing about atheism itself, and speaks volumes about your own intellectual rigor, or lack thereof.

    Proph: I apologize for inexcusably mixing up the two made-up places. Which one was purgatory again? And which old fool invented it?

  19. Make that a *double* gin and tonic.

  20. Thank you everyone for your input. I’m afraid I’ve got to bow out now and get some work done today!

  21. Of course, why would you need to know what the hell you’re talking about before you burble to your better-read peers? A true student of Hitchens.

    I’m reminded of Edward Feser’s comical dialogue relating how obnoxious theists would sound if they adopted atheists’ styles and conventions in debate:

  22. Hitchens was to our father’s religion as Ted Kennedy was to our country. An enemy of everything worth anything. And I hated them both for this.

    He is now where he wished to be, infinitely distanced from God. Alone, with Hitchens, for eternity – talk about misery. I bet he now wishes for a “do over.” Too bad, so sad, Christopher. You “talked the talk,” now you get to “walk the walk.”

  23. Ah, gloating. Perfect Christian virtue there, FWM. Any other selling point to your “religion”?

  24. It’s more like Three Stooges slapstick.

  25. We won’t be with you for eternity.

  26. Cool story bro. Man was a groveling imbecile. Was easily verbally smashed to pieces by William Lane Craig.

  27. Admittedly, Hitchtard was always my favorite of the dolts. Hope he converted at the last minute and spared his soul the eternal fire due to it.

  28. There is little worse than losing one’s soul and Hitchens is at this moment experiencing such a feat. It’s a pity that he didn’t turn around before it was too late but perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised since the modern generation is pretty much one of the most unbelieving ones in history.

  29. fafsa, if he wasn’t a philosopher and if he made no claim to be could you explain why he would author a chapter “The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False”?
    You do know what area of study metaphysics falls within, no?

  30. He was a philosopher actually, as is anyone who philosophizes (which is all of us). He was just especially bad at it.

  31. I find atheism hard to take seriously, precisely because I once did take it seriously… and thereby discovered how unserious it is.

  32. so are Christian conservatives allowed to critique sharia law, or does doing so mean they just hate Muslims?

    now obviously Hitchens hated the religious right, but most of them supported getting rid of the Taliban too. if they’re traitors for not making common cause with Islamists, well…alrighty then

  33. I have read a LOT of Hitchen’s work over the years, although nothing of his atheist stuff.

    (When I was an atheist, I never could see what the point of proselytizing atheism was all about! Especially not nowadays, although it was understandable in the 19th century).

    Hitchens writing kept you reading but left nothing behind. The most favourable general impression was his book on George Orwell, which I liked at the time I read it – but again I can recall nothing at all about what it actually said.

    In sum, Hitchens was a journalist; and was very good at journalism by modern standards. He should be judged by the standards of journalism. OK, let’s do that:

    Addison and Steele’s The Spectator, Samuel Johnson’s The Rambler, GK Chesterton, George Orwell… how does ‘Hitch’ match-up with them?

    Are people in 10, 20, 200 years going to be buying little volumes of his ephemeral essays on random topics, as we do for the above?

    To ask is to answer.

    Hitch may well have been in the top flight of US journalists – as evidenced by the vast coverage of his death…

    (note: Hitch has always been virtually unknown in his native UK, where the top paid opinion journalist was, for some years, Julie Burchill – the UK prefers populist ‘miserable git’ writers to intellectual Marxists)

    – but that simply shows the very, very low standard of contemporary journalism.

  34. BTW – Hitch was a drunk, not an alcoholic. He was a drunk because being drunk was how he chose (wanted) to spend much of his life.

    Think about that. He chose to spend much of his life heavily intoxicated with alcohol – he went to considerable efforts to do this, it was systematic, he pushed it to extremes (I know this from personal witnesses, not just from reading the media). It was his central spiritual (or psychological) strategy.

    While this is hardly uncommon (at least in Britain) this is a truly appalling thing. It is viscerally disgusting, and a revelation of utter nihilism.

    A slang word for this is to be ‘wasted’ and this is accurate – to be a drunkard is a deliberate decision to ‘waste’ life, to get it over and done with – to regard LIFE like many people regard a long transoceanic flight – the best hope being to get through it asleep and completely unaware, and if that is not possible in an intoxicated haze.

    From an existential sense, Hitch’s life is an horrific, terrifying, example (one of many) of the nature of modern ‘success’.

    That Hitch chose to proselytize his world view, despite knowing from the inside its savage emptiness, was of course evil – and evil of a kind common, almost universal, among the intellectual elite who make their living from communications (as I know from experience).

  35. The only “despicable” person here is you. While I didn’t necessarily agree with everything he had to say, I respect him because he was intelligent, articulate, and honest. We lost a great man and intellect in the passing of Hitchens. You sound like a bitter, demented person and should probably seek psychiatric help.

    Instead of insulting our troops and making common cause with our enemies you, if you had any decency, would be mourning Hitchens’ death.

  36. @Eva: ” I respect him because he was intelligent, articulate, and honest.”

    This is true.

    But is it enough?

    *Certainly not* – would be the Christian answer:

  37. I like to think that Blessed Mother Teresa is praying for him, and we should probably do likewise.


  38. […] The life-long, unrepentant Trotskyist polemicist and warmongering atheist known as Christopher Hitchens has died of esophageal cancer. Hitchens was a man of his time, an insignificant son of a World War Two British war criminal, who was catapulted to fame through his absolute hatred and intolerance of all things religious, while his younger and more conservative brother faded into obscurity. He blasphemed against God, castigated the Pope, and openly brandished hate against the Catholic Faith (and to a lesser degree Islam), but was a fanatical and follower of modernism down to its last detail, and tolerated no dissent from its orthodoxies and doctrines. Despite his associations with the New Left, his bile-filled invective against everything traditional, against culture, religion and identity, Hitchens found a home among the neoconservative clique of American politics. FrontPageMag, the online magazine run by his fellow ex-communist, David Horowitz, has praised Hitchens as a defender of Western civilization. In turn, Hitchens had reciprocated his admiration of neoconservatives. He admired Paul Wolfowitz, and minced no words about his glowing veneration of the neoconservative movement, saying that "it [could] turn US power into a revolutionary force". Like many neoconservatives (although he himself never used the label), would continue to promote wasteful, internationalist, and globalist wars in the name of "democracy," but not necessarily because he actually supported the United States, but because as Piatak says, "his entire politics is motivated by his hatred of religion and tradition; he’d be just as happy bombing St. Peter’s as the Taliban". Additional/supplementary links:…al-contrarian/ http://www.theamericanconservative.c…/oct/10/00022/…pher-hitchens/ […]

  39. @Eva

    I find it hard to belief that you actually possess an undergraduate degree in philosophy. Did they not teach you that ad hominem emotionalism is not the proper way to present your disagreement?

    Your comment follows all of the standard methods of the leftist mind. Calling yourself a “conservative” doesn’t change that.

  40. Precisely. She sounds like an emotionalist leftist. If one walks like a duck, talks like a duck, probably is a duck.

  41. “Instead of insulting our troops and making common cause with our enemies you, if you had any decency, would be mourning Hitchens’ death.”

    If there is no God, why should anyone care about Hitchens death? Moreso, why should anyone care about “having decency”? The Abyss is indifferent to the maudlin sentiments of a random female homo sapien.

  42. If this is a world where someone who can write a sentence like “In German it reads and sounds more like poetry, which is why it seems probable to me that Nietzsche borrowed it from Goethe, who was writing a century earlier.” can be called a ‘philosopher’, something has gone very wrong. Hitchens was a pompous, pseudointellectual sack of bile, and nothing more.

  43. Oh SNAP.

  44. That would be a selling point, indeed, if what you typed made any sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, it seems typing is the extent of your talents.

  45. Considering that the legacy that Hitch left behind is orders of magnitude greater than, for instance, yours (unless you happen to be Obama or reincarnated Vonnegut), I would tread lightly when pronouncing that he “wasted” his life.

  46. Oooooh, “If there is no god, why care about anything?” line. How original! Come up with that brilliant tack yourself, or did you need help?

  47. LOL you really are spergin’ hard all over this combox. All because some people don’t like your bloated alcoholic (and now dead) idol.

  48. Prof. Charlton may be a wee bit mad, but I nonetheless predict that his stuff will be read far into the future, certainly well after Hitchens is long forgotten.

  49. Who the bleep is Prof. Charlton?

  50. Hey, anyone is free to dislike anyone else. But all your sputtering has been reduced to “he was meeeeeeean!” And y’all are free to dislike someone for that reason. It just amuses me. Hitch is dead, he doesn’t care any more, sadly. Otherwise he would have reveled in the malevolence of these mosquitoes.

  51. I’m curious, could you point me to an argument Hitchens gave against the existence of God? Maybe reconstruct it in a logically valid form? I read his book ‘God is Not Great’ and I honestly couldn’t extract any arguments; the quote Bonald gives seems to me quite accurate of the general form of argumentation in his works:

    Major Premise: [omitted]
    Minor Premise: There are many bad men who are Buddhists.
    Conclusion: All religious claims are false.

  52. “Come up with that brilliant tack yourself, or did you need help?”

    While many before me have brought up this question, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer beyond infantile ramblings about humanism and how great humanity is.

  53. Well, awatkins, it’s like this.
    Major premise: a claim needs to have evidence for its veracity to be considered “true”.
    Minor premise: there is no good evidence for the existence of any gods.
    Conclusion: there is no reason to believe in god (any god).

    Also, it’s amazing that a person can read a book and not understand its premise at all. Hitchens rarely argued that god doesn’t exist. He argues that religion is bad. The two are entirely separate concepts. And, indeed, “there are many bad men who are Buddhists” would count as argument for that point, provided one accounted for the obvious “post hoc ergo promter hoc” objections.

  54. The answer to your question is very simple. You refusing to accept it would say far more about your than the answer.

    Why care about anything? Because it’s the only life we have, you gotta occupy it somehow. So find what you care about, and go for it. Stop pretending like you being the best damn tetherball player in the tri-state area should, nay must!, have some universal and eternal consequences. If it matters to you, that’s good enough.

  55. If by “evidence” you mean “proofs of material phenomena” then you are simply presuming materialism to be true and thus begging the question.

    But if you mean “proofs of any sort, material or metaphysical” than you are simply betraying your ignorance and should really do your homework before presuming to lecture others. Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition” would be a good place to start. Or even Bonald’s brief essay “In Defense of Religion,” linked to the left.

  56. Odd that a person like Eva has called herself a “conservative”. Her worldview and lifestyle are essentially liberal (in whatever degree).

  57. “So find what you care about, and go for it.”

    What if you have sociopathic tendencies, you hate people, and killing large swathes of them would thrill you to no end?

  58. […] The Despicable Christopher Hitchens. […]

  59. Cosmic Tinkerbell-worshipping cocksuckers.

  60. Many rational people might argue that while there is no reason to take the concept of heaven seriously there is much evidence that religious superstitious thinking has created enough of a hell here on earth.

  61. “a man who built his career off of libeling Mother Teresa” don’t you mean ‘who built his career off libelling’? Besides, didn’t she build around 150 convents named after her but didn’t build any hospitals? Can you tell me where Hitchens impugned Anjezë Bojaxhiu? The Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt religious organisations in the world, why would Anjezë be any different?

  62. @ fafsa: Does “fafsa” refer to the financial student aid? I’m just wondering. Regardless I find it somewhat ironic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: