quisquose Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Didn't he have a drinking problem when he was a bit younger? coinciding with his pro-palestinian views. Then as he sobered up is later life, he became more pro-Israel. He was a heavy drinker, of that there is no doubt. But he once said "as long as you control it, it has utility, but that as soon as it controls you you are lost". He used alcohol, he enjoyed alcohol, but as soon as he was diagnosed with cancer he stopped drinking. I know plenty of heavy drinkers that are not alcoholics, and I know of plenty of alcoholics who hardly drink at all. George Best was an alcoholic, but Hitchens was not. I thought the news comments were a cheap dig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 @flamingjimmy "Hitchens once wrote a line that has almost gained the status of philosophical epigram or even scientific dictum: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Although it echoes Wittgenstein's famous injunction regarding the ineffable – "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent" – Hitchens's version is less a "no entry" sign than a civic reminder to place rubbish in the bin." Excerpt from Guardian interview in 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 It'll be interesting to see if Mr Galloway says owt on his show tonight...I reckon he'll have a little dig. I think they really disliked each other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I have my own belief and believe it is based on the truth. Who would have a belief that they believed was based on a lie? Your statement makes no sense. You try to convert what you believe into some personal Truth but it can never be. All religions assert that they are the 'one true way' and by definition none can be. The more one picks away at belief, the more absurd it becomes and that is why I see it as my duty to protect future generations from its absurdities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazybaby Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Just watched this again on youtube , Religion is Insanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 There have been lots of wonderful eulogies about Christopher's life but none more so than this one from an Iraqi. http://faisoly.blogspot.com/2011/12/christopher-hitchens-is-my-hero.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Who would have a belief that they believed was based on a lie? Your statement makes no sense. You try to convert what you believe into some personal Truth but it can never be. All religions assert that they are the 'one true way' and by definition none can be. The more one picks away at belief, the more absurd it becomes and that is why I see it as my duty to protect future generations from its absurdities. You would be surprised- there are countless 'religions' out there and some times you find people who may have been part of this belief/cult but left once they do some soul searching. Perhaps my quote is taken at face value but I see no other logic in believing in another faith if my faith gives me all the answers- it answers everything that my natural state would question- and being scientific inclined, I find it that much more easier to accept it. Of course there are countless people who will believe their faith is the truth and I in no way interfere with anyone's belief- it is personal. However I have met individuals who left certain faiths because that faith could not answer the deeper questions it's adherents asked. Just as you believe there is no God based on your own reasons, myself and others like me will believe there is based on our reasons- my belief is not simply because of just some book- it goes deeper based on my own scientific thinking. There have been more than enough religious threads on SF and nobody gets anywhere as they tend to lose track and eventually close. As I said before, I only posted on this thread because I felt it was unfair that some people should make a judgement on someone who is no longer here despite what they believe. CH only spoke about what he vehemently believed- even if some disagreed with him. IMO he is entitled to that as so many of us are- and finally, there have been people of a religious nature who have committed crimes and atrocities- who professed faith in God but killed innocents- as far as I know, Hitchin's never killed anyone and hence I feel we are no one to pass judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Pete Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 He was a heavy drinker, of that there is no doubt. But he once said "as long as you control it, it has utility, but that as soon as it controls you you are lost". He used alcohol, he enjoyed alcohol, but as soon as he was diagnosed with cancer he stopped drinking. I know plenty of heavy drinkers that are not alcoholics, and I know of plenty of alcoholics who hardly drink at all. George Best was an alcoholic, but Hitchens was not. I thought the news comments were a cheap dig. Yeah I think I read up that he drank a lot but was able to control it. He smoked too. He may not have been an alcoholic, but he drank at a level which one could describe as alcoholic. I read somewhere that he would sink a bottle of Whisky and wake up the next morning sharp as a tack and start writing. Spirits are terrible for the Oesophagus. Plus he had oesophageal cancer running in the family (his father had it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 As I said before, I only posted on this thread because I felt it was unfair that some people should make a judgement on someone who is no longer here despite what they believe. ?!? And yet, you are the one who has judged him, and slandered him calling him militant. You are the one that has defamed a man who has just died. As we have established, all he has done to earn this descriptor from you is write books and debate with people. So I am asking you whether you would describe people who write books about their religion, and/or debate people about their religion, as militant also? And if not, how can you justify that double standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
762mm Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 The light that burns twice as bright, etc. Sad loss of a voice of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.