/lit/ - Literature

holy shit what a tryhard picture he is not alburr camew

Nothing.

Read his works other than God is Not Great and you'll see his thinking has quite some depth.

>>3763597
I quit reading god is Not Great about halfway through. His writing does nothing for me. I was expecting a brilliant takedown of religion that would render any attempt to defend it moot. Instead what I got was a man who blows up certain aspects of religion to caricaturish proportions and then proceeds to pop the balloon he himself blew. Takes easy as shit shots, and makes jokes for the, say, Ellen crowd. I saw an interview where a religious man was clearly debating the shit out of Hitch, whereupon he retreated into his 'charm' and prepared wit. The religious guy (muslim, i think) was quite brilliant, but he was defending something so irrational taking him down with logic shouldn't have been too hard. Mortality was pretty good though, I liked it and wish he got to finish it.

>>3763597
he's was a angry butthurt atheist

>>3763597
i have found that he preaches to the choir for the most part.

>b-b-b-but... god isn't Real

This board more than any other is just people with inferiority complexes who LOVE crucifying a fairly famous intellectual who was believed to be exceptionally intelligent. We get to live out our delusional fantasy that we are the smartest of the smart, and had we cultivated our minds and time properly we would exceed him.

That is the actual reason.

>>3763647
>This board...
...is the only board dedicated to 100% non-stop trolling.

FIFY.

>>3763649
eh?

>>3763649
>'FIFY' insecure one-upmanship
>mention trolling to save self from being wrong "Was just trolling guyz xD"
>my point in a nutshell

Thx

>>3763647
But we love Wittgenstein.

>>3763647
It's true :(

>>3763671
I wasn't that guy, you moron. Just chiming in to remind you newfags that 95% of what goes on in this board is trolls trolling trolls. (The other 5% is newfags 'rating my bookshelf', 'what shuld i reed next' and 'homework halp plz'.)

All style, no substance

>>3763704
Surely you see why I assumed you were trolling as well by what you wrote?

There's nothing wrong with him. He was a journalist and political commentator, but people tend to compare him to philosophers, where he is obviously deficient, but he had no aspirations of being a great philosopher.

He looks like one of those reddit fedora-wearing atheists in that picture.

>>3763780
except from the part where he's not wearing a fedora

>>3763647
This.

>>3763882
Are you autistic or something?

Well, for one thing, he's dead.
He led a highly irresponsible life and he died in the most banal, predictable way possible. It's a shame.

But as for what you're really getting at with your question, there's nothing wrong with him really. He was a great journalist. A fearless one. And he was a very impressive orator. I've learned a lot about rhetoric and debating from him.

I do get a perverse enjoyment from watching him debate theists who aren't really prepared for him, but I think it's unfortunate that those debates are all he's really recognized for now.

>>3763647
I think we do revere intellectuals, but only insofar as they are distant enough from us so as to not be a threat, i.e. if they're from the past or old enough to be considered of a different time (look at all the hate dfw gets, mainly because he was youngish).

I don't think that's the case with Hitchens though, he legitimately wasn't that great. Sure he was smart, but his work is lackluster.

>>3763647
wow there pal, you're making quite a specific profile there. are you sure "this board more than any other"

Christians:1
Irishman:potato

I was listening to an interview he gave with Paxman not too long before his death, while he was undergoing treatment for cancer.
There's one bit where they talk about him being a man of principle, and when Paxman asks him why he turned out to be such a man he answered that he did not know.

I think one of the reasons is that he grew up in school surrounded by kids that came from rich families of heritage and when you can't be superior to a man in terms of wealth or social standing, you can at least be superior to him in terms of "principles".

Any how, I think this desire to prove himself to be MORE MORALLY UPRIGHT THAN EVERYBODY ELSE was his main flaw, and he could have learned something from the Christian doctrine of Original Sin which highlights the vanity of trying to be "more moral than everybody", as we all come from a place of moral poverty.

There's plenty I dislike about him, but I've got some respect that he actually had the balls to get waterboarded, and afterwards changed his mind about it. Nobody with that kind of intellectual honesty can be all bad.

Hitchens was human trash, and his corpse should be interred in a grave worthy of his towering legacy, an eternally burning garbage fire, rising as high as a Baghdad sunrise, a smoky immolation of all the worthlessness that could be crammed in his "contrarian" paunch.

Even this dream, of the phoenix never rising from the ashes, preserves that peasant’s megalomania more powerfully than any embalming fluids currently coursing through his veins. Formaldehyde's more potable than his lifeblood's cocktail of lies and booze, a tincture only the diseased imbibe. Hitchens was strictly for suckers, a mouse that roared, a VH1 I Love the 80s panelist with a fancy accent, a rap sheet and cirrhosis. "Rationalist," "skeptic," "contrarian," "public intellectual" — court jester. He plied that ancient trade for the deadliest predators on Earth; his was the reflexive, suck-up, kick-down cruelty of the British madding crowd. That’s all, folks.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=13097

I think people here enjoy exiledonline as well
http://exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/

>>3763597

he wrote for the new statesman, as therefor is infected with dirty managerial socialist mind viruses.

>>3767339
Didn't he leave the New Statesmen because he was upset at their failure to think critically?

Look at that picture. What is wrong with him you ask? Look at that picture!

>>3767363

not really relevant when one never the less still cleaves to false premises, its like using a map and compass to calculate your path through an olympic track, youre going to go in circles either way.

>>3767339
>New Statesman
>Bad
Spectator pls go

>>3763711
Like your post.

>>3763647
Hitchens was a journalist, not an intellectual.

>>3763647
>hitchens
>exceptionally intelligent
who's next, themazingatheist? lel

>>3767439
i really love how you just proved him right without realizing it by posting this

fucking incredible

>>3767450
>Implying that proved anything
I call samefag

>>3767432
He was both you dope

He was funny and quite a gifted rhetorician but ultimately used his "islamofascism" paranoia to make racist remarks that he's only really been called out for recently, along with some of the other militant atheist intellectuals.

>>3764186
>a VH1 I Love the 80s panelist with a fancy accent, a rap sheet and cirrhosis.

Damn dude

>>3767391
You've got to admit it can be a bit ridiculous at times; The New Statesman is only good if you know what you're going into. I realize British papers don't give a shit about offering even a simulacrum of balance.

By far the most entertaining of the "new atheists." You could appreciate him for his character, if nothing else. I recommend the youtube video where he debates religion with his brother Peter. It is funny.

I'd rather have Hitchens defending atheism than Dawkins. I just despise Dawkings with a passion.

>>3764162
What was important about a figure like Hitchens was that he affected the convention of religious debate.
Organized religion has a way of making nonbelievers look like deviants, and by being instigative Hitchens was able to shift that perspective; into one in which criticism is actually possible.
He was sanctimonious, but it's important to believe that one CAN be morally superior, so that one can strive to be righteous. His arrogance was well worth the culture of skepticism it provided.

>>3763597
Neoconservatism and all of its ridiculous paranoia.

>>3767815

Hitchens could defend anything and I'd listen to him.

>>3763597
He was that that man who is so common in the modern world: a combination of shallow thoughts and deep conviction. He mistook vocabulary for intellect, sarcasm for humor, humor for wisdom, and narrow-mindedness for insight. Proudly ignorant of the positions he opposed he learned that he could make a decent living shouting to the rather large audience that shared his ignorance and bigotry.
In the end he is doomed to the Hell he feared most - obscurity.

>>3763647
Who ever claimed Hitchens was an intellectual? Indeed, he is proof that being a decent writer != being an intellectual.

>>3763704
don;t forget the Dune/Rand/Bible newfags who soon morph into Dune/Rand/Bible trolls

>>3767975

That's what I don't get. You get these people going ga-ga over a decent writer, when decent writers are a dime a dozen.

>>3763956
Be careful! There is a reason he debated people who were unprepared and not proficient debaters - it was the only way he could 'win' a debate. Look at his debate with, oh, William Craig - it was a humiliation for Hitchens and he was careful to avoid its like afterwards.

>>3767983
Some people confuse 'skill with language' with 'skill at thinking'.

>>3767989
>>3767977
>>3767975
>>3767973
How is it possible to say so little in so many words? You did use the word bigot, however. (Protip: just use the word 'racist' and be done with it; this guarantees victory). Please, point out one instance of racism or bigotry by Hitchens. Was it because he didn't think Saddam was a great person? Or because he dared criticize Islam?

>>3767989
>William Craig
You're joking right? William Craig is the worst type of religious.

>>3768017
I do not think Hitchens was a racist, but I do believe he was a bigot.
Hence the word choice.
And I believe I was fairly clear in my statements. Do you need me to summarize with bullet points?

>>3768022
>Craig is the worst type of religious
He's a terrorist?!
Or do you think a well-educated, well-spoken man who defends his religious beliefs is even worse than a terrorist?
>Craig is the worst type of religious
Which is why it was humiliating for Hitchens when Craig slapped him around in a debate.

>>3768030
Only children and idiots never lose debates.
To 'lose' a debate precludes that you're thinking about what you're saying.

>>3768038
>Only children and idiots never lose debates.
That isn't in contention, is it?
What I *did* state was that Hitchens was humiliated by Craig and, thereafter, never debated anyone who might 'win' against him.
Why are you so upset? Was Hitchens an idol of yours?

>>3768030
Slapped him around my ass. I have seen a debate where Hitchens came off worse than his opponent, but the one with Craig just wasn't. I just want you to know that I find your opinion disgusting. I read your text on my laptop monitor and I furrowed my eyebrows.

>>3768049

He got bitch-slapped by George Galloway, that's for sure.

>>3768045
If you can 'win' a debate about the existence of god you are a complete charlatan.
That is, unless you can prove that god does or does not exist.
Good luck with that.

I don't understand it when people say Craig outright beat Hitchens. I never saw it. However, I think they defeated eachother by making objective claims for/against the existence of a deity.

>>3768025
Then specify how he was a bigot. If by bigot you mean that he was critical of religion, then by the same token so is William Lane Craig, your beloved, who criticizes the atheistic worldview. Considering how religious thought has dominated the world for so long, surely you'd admit that mere criticism of it mild if anything.

>>3768063
Interesting proposition, the idea that it is impossible to win a debate on a particular topic.
Are you sure you understand how debates work? Are you the author of
>>3768038
and, if so, how do you reconcile the two statements?
Listen, are you going to actually follow the thread and talk about Hitchens, or are you going to keep trying to make it about you?

>>3768077
If your debate is on a topic that is almost assuredly impossible to resolve, then yes - you can't "win".
What's important in these debates is the enlightening discussion that both candidates can bring. As long as both debaters are honest and commiserative, they can bring something new to the conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BWFpBTqSN0
This is an example of a well-tempered religious debate.
That you think Craig "won" suggests to me that you have a distorted conception of what a debate should be.

>>3768038

aim for simpler sentences to avoid falling flat on your face next time

what's a good intro essay collection (or book)?

>>3763649
No, that would be /pol/.

>>3768116

"Preclude" has become one of the most horribly abused words on /lit/.

>>3763597
Nothing.

He was 10/10