Christopher Hitchens has died

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The brilliant Richard Dawkins sums it up beautifully in his moving tribute to his friend and fellow-secularist in today's Independent (UK): "A symbol of the honesty and dignity of atheism".

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/richard-dawkins-illness-made-hitchens-a-symbol-of-the-honesty-and-dignity-of-atheism-6278298.html

"He looked frail, and his voice was no longer the familiar Richard Burton boom; but, though his body had clearly been diminished by the brutality of cancer, his mind and spirit had not. Just two months before his death, he was still shining his relentless light on uncomfortable truths, still speaking the unspeakable ("The way I put it is this: if you're writing about the history of the 1930s and the rise of totalitarianism, you can take out the word 'fascist', if you want, for Italy, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Austria and replace it with 'extreme-right Catholic party'"), still leading the charge for human freedom and dignity ("The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy – the one that's absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do") and still encouraging others to stand up fearlessly for truth and reason ("Stridency is the least you should muster ... It's the shame of your colleagues that they don't form ranks and say, 'Listen, we're going to defend our colleagues from these appalling and obfuscating elements'.").

I feel privileged to have been able to live on this planet at the same time as someone like Hitch (and Dawkins). Hitch is gone, but his ideas live on and his light will continue to help dispel the dark shadows of ignorance and superstition that religions cast on humankind.

We of sound mind will miss him, but one consolation is that the god-botherers have not tried to claim he recanted and turned to the sky fairy on his deathbed. I think Hitch had taken precautions against that.

Beautiful phrase, by the way, "ventriloquise the divine". A real Dawkins gem and it so wonderfully sums up the god-bothering vendors of myths and their utterly spurious claims to have a direct line of communication with something that any sane mind knows does not exist.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dawkins is another hypocrite, a man who denies atheism is a central part of communism, yet he wants to say there was "you can take out the word 'fascist', if you want, for Italy, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Austria and replace it with 'extreme-right Catholic party.

He then wants to make out Catholicism was the reason for fascism.

Hello Mr Dawkins, check facts, only atheists are allowed to be members of communist parties, fascists will accept anyone.

Hitchens' idiot of a friend does say, did the communists kill in the name of atheism?
Yet the fool wants to blame Catholicism for fascism.
They want it everyway. They are able to blame religion whether rightly or wrongly but never atheism for anything, use an argument to say atheists weren't responsible for the most murders in history in places like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia and so on.
Then use the same argument that and change it to say a religion was responsible for deaths.
These people like to think they are so clever that the same argument can be used to say atheists are great but change atheist for Catholic and say Catholicism is bad.
Dawkins in the above treated people as being stupid, being an intellect he hopes his followers are less aware.

Hitchens or Dawkins, weird people, forget that only atheists are allowed to join communist parties, then ask did they kill in the name of atheism, like hello it was a regime that only allowed atheists to be members.
So while these people are not communists, they shouldn't be some of the biggest hypocrites around.
Atheist rulers are responsible for the deaths of upto at least 100,000,000 people.
Dawkins tells us they didn't kill these people in the name of atheism but refuses to even say the people who did this had to be atheist to be communists rulers.
He wants everything his own way to suit himself as shown by what he said in the quote above.

drkpower wrote: »

And Christians are responsible for the death of 100,000,001 people.
Oh, and them Muslims are responsible for the death of 100,000,002 people.

Well, that settles it then:rolleyes:

Only if the ruling party restricts members to be only Christians or Muslims.

This is where Dawkins argument is a big fat fail in what he said in the quote from the earlier post.

RIP Christopher Hitchens, its people like him that restore my faith in humanity. A monumental intellect, I can say that the world is a lesser place without his great mind still around.

Gah, just saw a smug religious friend of a friend on facebook write "Well! Now he knows!" Ahhhh!!

Fond memories of reading The God Delusion when I was 16 and it becoming my bible- RIP Hitchens

MagicMarker wrote: »

Marxism forms the basis of communism, the terms can be used interchangeably.

My point is you're full of shit, I thought that much was clear.

It depends on what Marxist principles one chooses, them all or just bits and pieces of Marxist ideology.

You are losing when you have to degrade yourself by your last comment.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Those who blame atheist dictators for mass murder are overlooking the fact that they were themselves adopting the role of an all powerful and vengeful god.

Kim Jong ll is a perfect example of this adopting of the all powerful god-like dictator role.

Instead of prayers and crucifixes there are songs and photos of the 'dear leader' who's only goal is to save his flock from the decadence of sinners. Even if salvation of the dear leader's flock involves purging the population of those who've fallen foul of sin.

But isn't that what people like Dawkins and Hitchens fail to see.

You can have a Godless society but it then ends up being replaced with someother thing or person that is worshipped.

Dawkins worships Charles Darwin and is obsessed by religion.
Hitchens to alcohol and cigarettes and he too was obsessed by religion.

If one removes something then something else replaces it.
These people didn't want a God, but then they would be no one without God or religion for which they are best known for because of their views.
Religion and God made them famous.

Paparazzo wrote: »

Who wants a godless society? Don't think anyone wants religion banned, just not forced on everyone. A secular society is what they want. And it's getting closer all the time.

Richard Dawkins does, the man who said he regrets letting his daughter believe in Santa Claus when she was a young child.

Min wrote: »

Richard Dawkins does, the man who said he regrets letting his daughter believe in Santa Claus when she was a young child.

Does he want religion banned? Any links to support that? I listened to one of his audiobooks, definitely doesn't mention that he wants it banned.