Hitch is barely cold and already the ghouls are coming for the corpse. It’s the strangest approach, too — they’re all sounding like Mormons, trying to retroactively baptize him in their faith.
Case #1: Ross Douthat. But then you knew that Christian hack would do his best to turn an atheist’s death into a moral fable for his faith. He compares his literary gifts to G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis and thereby, by some strange rambling logic, claims him as a kindred spirit, actually cites Hitchens denying that he was going to abandon his lifelong and strongly held principles and convert on his deathbed, only to then concludes that Hitchens wouldn’t have given in to atheistic despair. It’s appalling, sleazy, and contemptible, and exposes Douche-hat as someone completely incapable of comprehending any other perspective than his god-bothering own.
Do go read Charles Pierces’s takedown. If the NY Times had any sense, they’d fire Douthat on the spot (because he’s a fucking dimwitted ghoul), and put Pierce in his place (because he actually has talent and perspicacity).
Case #2: Scott Stephens. Stephens is the religion editor at ABC Online, and he actually makes Douthat look good. Douthat at least is constrained by the Times in his length; Stephens has a kind of spirit-infused theological diarrhea that he pours onto the page. I swear, I blacked out several times trying to read the whole thing — I think he was trying a novel argument for the soul by doing his best to make mine sick to the point of pining for mortality.
His obit is a weird one that simultaneously tries to be generous in its praise while sinking to new depths. One of the running themes seems to be ‘Hitchens got fat’, with comments like “his increasingly corpulent body”, “overindulged jowls”, “bloated, hirsute complexion” (that last one is strange) — aha, I thought, so that’s what Conservapædia looks like dressed up with a clerical collar and a thesaurus.
But then, he tries to “distill the essence” of Hitchens, and concludes that he was, at heart, a Christian. He quotes Hitchens saying that the Pope was one of his three most deeply hated people in the world (the others being bin Laden and Kissinger), and then declares that Hitchens’ anti-totalitarianism was exactly like the Pope’s.
Yet, on the other hand, it was precisely the form of rigorously Christocentric humanism advocated by Pope Benedict and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, that constituted the most powerful and persuasive critique of the totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe. Moreover, it was from Christianity itself that Hitchens derived his keen sense of the illegitimacy, the idolatry of totalitarian power.
And then he quotes Hitchens acknowledging the contribution of Christianity.
The greatest contribution of Christianity in my life is the reminder of the complete ephemerality of human power, and indeed human existence – the transience of all states, empires, heroes, grandiose claims, and so forth. That’s always with me, and I daresay I could have got that from Einstein … and from Darwin. But the way I got it and the way it is implanted in me is certainly by Christianity.
That’s from a public conversation he had with his brother. But Stephens doesn’t bother to mention what Hitchens said further down:
If anything could prove what I so much believe, which is that we are not made by God and never were and could not have been, but that many, many gods have been made by men and women and it is precisely the other way around, the basic claim of materialism — if nothing else could persuade me of that obvious truth, the behavior of religion itself would be enough.
Hitchens was always blunt and plain-spoken about his opinion of religion. He would not ever deny that he was a product of a Western and English culture that had religion wrapped around its roots (like a parasitic fungus, I would say), he was also explicit in his denial of the validity of god-belief, and was frank in his accusations of the folly of faith. For a Christian to now try and put the mantle of Christianity on him is repulsive and disrespectful — it’s like witnessing the desecration of a corpse. The corpse may not mind anymore, but it’s still a distasteful spectacle and gives the lie to any pretense of appreciation of the person who once resided in that body.
But then, that’s what ghouls do.
It’s also such peculiar behavior. When popes die, you don’t find atheists lining up to write encomiums in which they claim that he was really an atheist, deep down, and that he lived as a humanist rather than a Catholic. When William Lane Craig dies, no one will speculate that he denied the gods on his deathbed; when Scott Stephens croaks, no one will winnow through his columns, straining occasional words and phrases out of context to suggest that maybe he really was sympathetic to atheism after all. They are who they are, deluded dunces who invoke no sense of envy in us at all.
And maybe that’s the explanation. Hitchens was a man of palpable talent and immense rhetorical skill, and maybe we should recognize it as flattery that these Christians desperately wish to appropriate him.
But there is one thing anyone who read his works could know: Hitchens was an atheist, without qualification.
That last one probably means “ZOMGZ, he didn’t bother shaving himself clean anymore”. Apparently that’s a huge moral failing, and so is allowing oneself to grow fat. *vehement nodding* I want Comic Sans.
The current pope? Try to make him out as a humanist? bwhahahahahahah. Good one PZ.
It tells you a lot that we don’t WANT to associate with their beliefs and leaders. But they are so very desperate to adopt ours.
Well said PZ. I even sensed a little Hitch in your style there.
There seems an utter dearth of class on the theist side of the twilight zone.
Well not class as much as common decency…mind you being as they is xians…what do ya expect.
When you think that they can stoop no lower…they always… and without fail, manage to plumb new depths of depraved, delusional, spiteful, pompous, dumbassery!
The consistency is quite astounding!
These holy men have no concept of how ridiculous they are to a non-believer. They cannot wrap their tiny minds around life without a religious context. They believe their fantasies give them power and an overriding perspective about the human condition. In the end their beliefs are irrelevant or would be if they did not try to inflict it on those of us who have found a world of wonder beyond fairy tails.
Actually, just to bust your chops, there is a place where he says he is not an atheist but rather than anti-theist. :)
Yet curiously enough I do think I vaguely remember some talk of after her death about Mother T(h)eresa (spelling? I know. Its late at night and I’m tired and drunk as usual.) not feeling the presence of or really believing in God for many years up to death or something like that? Almsot claiming heras a de facto atheist IOW.
Not that that even if true (& I coudl be misremmebring here sure.) would excuse trying to warp Hitchens around to suit their purproses. Not one little bit.
Excuse my use of language should it become insulting, my anger on the matter at hand does not excuse the terms I may or may not use, but please be mindful that they are said in anger and the reasoning and compassionate areas of my brain are not fully engaged.
Now, with the disclaimer out of the way. Fuck those assholes with a dead-porcupine sideways, repeatedly.
First, the ghoul known as Ross Douthat, utilizing Hitches’ few last words and writing it in such a way that would seem that he WOULD toss away everything he has said and worked for. The man was fearless with his words and never backed down – why – then in the end you would expect him not only to throw away his principals but go against the very character that Hitchens himself IS!
Second, to the more disturbing ghoul known as Scott Stephens, anyone looking to “distill” the essence of Hitchens needs to simply look at the man as a whole – flaws and all – not just a few words. Utilizing his move from the Left to the right was because Hitchens (although I still disagree, on how we went about it) was right in the end.
Also – Ghoul Scott Stephens, your God is a just like the many people Hitchen hated on the grounds of totalitarianism. The Biggest mistep you sir take is to confine the Human Spirit (our unified Solidarity; not some actual spirit mind you) to your nailed to a tree Jew.
Enjoy your Porcupines, the whole prickle each, you’ve earned it.
At its core, it’s cowardly. Douthat had to wait until Hitchens was dead to write this sort of nonsense, because he knew if he didn’t Hitchens would have scorched that douchebag beard of his down to the root.
Also, too:
Well, yes. It made the pope’s own totalitarian regime look rather silly by comparison. Ceaucescu was many things, but he never went to work in a freakin’ dress…
“It’s also such peculiar behavior. When popes die, you don’t find atheists lining up to write encomiums in which they claim that he was really an atheist, deep down, and that he lived as a humanist rather than a Catholic.”
Perhaps so. But then there’s always the odd exception. When Mother Teresa’s letters were published after her death, I seem to recall HER being picked over somewhat for signs of non-belief by someone…who was it… oh yes, I remember now.
An arsehat in New South Wales put out this release, which is a doozy:
Fred Nile, NSW Upper House
Scott Stephens is like a member of the LDS trying to baptise Hitchens post-mortem.
@ StevoR
You can find Hitch referring to that in “The Four Horsemen”. You should be able to download off the interwebs (Try richarddawkins.net), I cannot provide link from where I am now.
Picked over for signs of non-belief?? She admitted to years of internally not believing. The text was straightforward. The Catholics didn’t deny it—they just spun it so that it only reveals the depth of her faith more deeply (ta-da!!) If you find a secret memoir where Hitchens confesses to secretly actually being a theist for years, then by all means pick that apart. But it doesn’t exist.
Hitchens himself, her arch-rival, didn’t even use her used Mother Theresa’s confessions against her but against the Church for the ways it exploited her.
Mother Teresa (part deux):
Linky to article.
From the comments of Ross Douthat’s POS:
QFT.
Hmm, at least Hitch’s post-mortem skewering of Falwell was funny. It seems that wit is rather thin on the ground over there!
“How sad, and ultimately futile, the life of Graham, his genuine regard for the deep meaning of the Christian life, his philosophic brilliance and compassionate speaking, as his brain is ultimately digested into worm shit, as we speak. Nothing more nothing less.”
You mean like that?
For Douthat, the fact that there was no deathbed conversion isn’t a particularly difficult problem. He suggests that Hitch quite likely had a post-deathbed conversion.
You can do that in some theologies, you know, so Hitch just waited a little longer than Lady Hope’s Darwin did.
Glen Davidson
Mother Teresa. Falwell.
There is a difference. Hitchens had no problem fronting up to anyone and stating his point. He did not wait until these people died to kick the carcass. He just stared kicking, and when they turned into a carcass he just kept going. If Hitch was anything, he was not a gutless turd.
For whatever reason, I can seemingly hear The Big Bang Theory’s Raj saying “Hee-larious.”
Desperation. The new scent, by Christianity.
Reminds me of something Albert Einstein is supposed to have said:
(If my theory of relativity is right, the Germans will say I am a German, and the French, a citizen of the world. If the theory proves to be wrong, the French will say I’m a German, and the Germans, a Jew.)
It’s of course not exactly the same, but my point is, people do shit in that general category with famous people all the time. It’s not right, but it’s common.
All it really proves is that the person in question is or was famous enough to be worth the bother.
I have no doubt we’ll also see people who want to put him down for his atheism.
“for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever … “neither in her heart or in the eucharist.””
Not fucking surprised she was a evil gruesome old cow that declared that suffering was good for the spirit amongst her victims in that charnal death house.
Money went in but no drugs came out.
Notice when she went pear shaped she high tailed to the most expensive and modern hospital she could state side…no undue suffering for her sorry ass.
@13. & 15. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen :
Cheers! That’s the one I was thinking of! Much appreciated. (Raised beer salute.)
New? So Darwin did convert on his deathbed then? Ditto Bertrand Russel?
In Hitch’s words… Take a number. Get in line. And kiss my ass.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2011/12/20/take-a-number/
Let’s not forget the greatest cause of anger in Douthat’s article: the misreading of Philip Larkin.
The difference between atheists and xians is their truthfulness. Xians just lie and make stuff up.
At least Mother Theresa said in print that all she knew of god was a great silence. Not unusual. A few xians claim to hear god in the voices in their heads. These gods all say different things though. Not very convincing.
To paraphrase Hitchens himself, even if he did covert with his dying breaths, it still proves nothing, but that man is weak and fearful in the face of death. It is his life and his body of work that waves us in the general direction of truth and urge us to find our own way.
For people like these columnists to claim that Hitchens’ life was in the end Christian, is absurd and complete and utter sour grapes. They lost the argument with him and they can’t stand it.
They make vague claims to know what was in Hitchens’ mind at the end and can’t conceive that he wouldn’t give in to God, and are quick to claim him because of his legacy of mind. They, in turn, must be equally quick to happily claim the deathbed conversion of every serial killer, genocidal tyrant, and child-abusing priest who succumbs to the same fear. I doubt we’ll see columns about that.
Nice to see nmcc, the homophobe who referred to Martin Amis as “Hitchens’s bum chum, Smartin’ Anus,” sharing his deep thoughts with us again.
Do go read Charles Pierces’s takedown. If the NY Times had any sense, they’d fire Douthat on the spot (because he’s a fucking dimwitted ghoul), and put Pierce in his place (because he actually has talent and perspicacity).
Somewhat OT, but there’s also Charles Pierce’s Grantland piece on Tim Tebow. Pierce is definitely a writer with national stature who just plain gets it when it comes to religion in the public sphere.
I don’t particularly remember Hitchens being… Hairy. Or corpulent, though the last couple years it’s not like he could run marathons. It’s called dying, and it’s not particularly pleasant.
What are they going to do? Claim that because he supported the Iraq war, he’s a Christian? Because he wrote dozens of books against Christianity that deep down he believed? What is the point of claiming him for what he’s not?
The long and weary history of Christians and other theists trying to co-opt all virtues as subtle signs of stealth spirituality is their desperate attempt to fight back. It’s pushback, a reaction, a defense — not a first strike.
For the truth is, of course, that all the good and noble aspects of religion are, at heart, secular. Compassion, kindness, community, reflection, freedom, courage, forgiveness, charity, and so forth and so on. They make sense and have value not because they come from the belief in God, but because they come from the life of humanity. It’s a mind trick. All religious people are, at heart, accepting secular values and granting them to God in order that God may grant them back to them.
I can say this with confidence because the only things that an atheist (or the hypothetical neutral observer) would agree is good about religion is something that must be good for its own sake. Religion will perforce lose the moral argument. They can’t win on common ground … because once they admit to a common ground with nonbelief, then they automatically lose.
They can’t play the mind trick on us. It doesn’t work.
Mmm, tasty word salad.
Let’s not overlook Doug Wilson at “Christianity Today”:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/decemberweb-only/christopher-hitchens-obituary.html
He spends the entire third page of the article trying to plant the seed that maybe Hitchens had a deathbed conversion despite there being zero sign of such a thing occurring and despite Hitchens specifically denying it in advance anticipating exactly this type of nonsense.
Well, he said he wasn’t going to, BUT…
We didn’t hear anything about it, BUT…
Little weasel.
Funny how things look different in function of your point-of-view.
In my mind, JP II was going AWAY from Christocentrism (OK, not by a lot) to profess some humanism. Certainly more than his predecessors.
As for the current Pope Benedict, an humanist? So far he has been mostly revoking JP II small changes to the Catholic church. But I have to admit he is resolutly christocentric.
How convenient. Pretend that somehow one public atheist is a stand-in for all atheists, make the most tortured connections to various christian apologists and claim that the atheist was actually a believer all along. I guess that this is easier then dealing with real atheists and centuries of people who struggled to free themselves from the cross.
Not all of we atheist became atheists because of the words of Hitchins, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. In my case, it is because of people like Robert Green Ingersoll and the writings of people like Arthur C Clark and Isaac Asimov. There is a history of free thought and atheism that we are fortunate enough to inherit.
does not eliminate
Everyday, atheists die, knowing that their deaths are coming. Everyday, people do not have deathbed conversions. But it is easy to ignore this by focusing on a few public atheists. What these people need to learn is this, that lying about Hitchins after he no longer can refute their words does not eliminate the words and actions of the living atheists.
Heliantus, do not kid yourself; Benny was JP II’s enforcer.
My comments here sort of mirror this thread.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/12/19/fischer-god-sent-hitchens-to-hell-out-of-love/#comment-48360
…but I’ll add: Can anyone find a single instance of a theist or non-theist ever likening Hitchens to C.S. Lewis while he was alive? Just asking.
Theologorrhea.
Comment 30
Okay, I agree, my comment might appear homophobic, but it was really, hand on heart, just an example of schoolboyish humour. It wasn’t meant to sound homophobic. I apologise for that.
It isn’t so much that Smartin’ Anus might have one, but more to do with the fact that he IS one.
And that’s the thing about this whole hagiographical nonsense in regard to Hitchens. Now that he’s turned up his toes, we are supposed to accept without question (if you take at face value the pathetic antics of Dawkins and Coyne, that is), that every aspect of the Great Man was laudable. Even extending to those who sat at his feet. And the people who are now promulgating this nonsense, are the very people who consider risible the story of the 500 on the mountainside.
“The ghouls’ new game” since we’re all making sure (after the lies at Darwin’s deathbed) that they can’t claim “deathbed” conversion they’ve resorted to either “subconscious” or “graveyard” converts.
Heliantus,
JP II professing humanism? What I remember is:
– JP II condemning Liberation Theology
– JP II telling German bishops to get out of the pregnancy counseling business
– JP II aligning himself with conservative Islamic clerics at the 1994 population conference in Cairo against contraceptives…
– JP II making clear that transsexual people could not serve in church positions
not much humanism there now?
Yes, that was based on her own explicit statements in private and in her memoirs, but the intention wasn’t to claim her as one of us (the fact that she brutally took her own crisis of faith out on thousands of impoverished and ill people in her power alone is monstrous and we have no reason to want to be associated with her) but rather to puncture the myth of her piety and dedication that was being spun.
Amazing how homophobic a lot of schoolboy humor is. So, your excuse is that you just did not think about what you were saying.
If it appears to be, it is. Just because you are blind to it does not mean it is not so.
Thank you for ignoring all of us who do not accept all of what Hitchins stood for as being defendable. Also, thank you for pushing across the idea that all of us acknowledge the need of a “Four Horsemen”.
I think you are here to have an epic battle against an army of straw. I did not need Hitchins, Dawkins, Harris or Dennett to lead the way for me. I do not need Amis as you sarcastically and homophobicly suggested.
Fuck off.
@nmcc #41 “hagiographical”? Don’t make me laugh. I’ve barely read an obit or remembrance about Hitchens in the last few days that doesn’t point out his human failings right alongside his accomplishments.
How are those who admired (not worshiped, revered, or glorified) him supposed to remember him in this time? With skewering caricatures? Logical arguments clarifying how much of an egotistical ass he could be if he wanted? To rape his corpse? It is a time to remember the best of the man like any other wake. So forgive us these few days. We’ll get back to damning him for his politics, misogyny, and facial hair later.
Besides, we’re not the ones predisposed to looking to the clouds for the glorious dead…that’s…let me think…
I may be mistaken but it really posses me off when I hear the idea expressed that humanism and “liberal” ideas like democratic government have come to us from religion. I will admit that the christian church in the form of the RCC and some of the Popes have been seen to advocate humanistic concepts. Those ideas I think did not originate in monasteries but were adopted as much as they have been from outside of the church. All of the “liberal ideas” that they have advocated are all watered down and emasculated and only reluctantly proposed not unlike those wonderful suggestions made by our own beloved accordionists and just as helpful.
it is pathetic and smells of fear that such commentaries could be made on the “unrepentant” death of ones sworn enemy that he was really just like us despite all the evidence to the contrary.
guh!
uncle frogy
I am only surprised it took the cowardly sleazes this long.
AJ Milne, do not fool yourself; they had all of this long before Hitchins got cancer. It just took this long for this batch of sleaze to be seen with all the rest of the shit oozing about.
The pope is a christocentric humanist? Now there’s an oxymoron if ever I’ve seen one.
fa·ce·tious /fəˈsēSHəs/ (adj) …
Isn’t it obvious? Christopher Hitchins was famous as a heavy drinker, fond of Scotch in particular. Scotch is a distilled liquor. Christians are “full of the spirit!” QED.
spell check is so helpful if the ideas in my head would slow down enough that they do not get crowded at the door. I meant accommodationists and not accordionists though it is true that very few of either I can tolerate for very long.
uncle frogy
I like “accordionist,” actually….
Sorry about that. Sometimes it gets so hard to tell. Too many people keep saying that they cannot believe that some people are so hateful and stupid.
I should have kept in mind your rather cynical presence here.
It’s like all those silly claims that we are closeted theists, have faith in ourselves, blah blah blah. They simply cannot comprehend what the world looks like without god.
Just like they don’t understand arguments from personal revelation are worthless. Or how they don’t understand that we could no more convert to christianity on our deathbeds than they could suddenly believe in the easter bunny or santa claus on their deathbed.
It’s weird, because they are so far from ever having had open minds that they’re convinced that we’re them, with closed minds. I’ve copied this from GilDodgen on UD in Pharyngula comments previously, but I want to point to the desperation in this wish that we’d “come clean”:
I mean, we don’t say, gee, I wish the IDiots would come clean and admit that it’s all about god. They can’t help themselves, they’re always admitting, often insisting, that it’s all about god. How come we never “slip” and say it’s all about atheism or some such thing?
Hm, what a quandary, why, why, why? I suppose it could be because it’s all about intellectual honesty and science, while they’re about neither one.
But, but, but, surely they must just be very good at keeping their true motives quiet? Um, yes, so much so that our “true motives” never even cross our minds. Not that the IDiots don’t know that they do nevertheless, because that’s the only thing that could “legitimize” their own colossal intellectual dishonesty.
Glen Davidson
Quite-a-bit-time reader, first time commenter,
this is gaming the machine but when you link to Douthat and Stephens directly, they’re accruing links which in turn means that they’re showing up higher on Google if someone should look for Hitchens.
If you don’t wanna shovel links and hits their way, something like the google query with (first hit) might be better.
It’s something the SCAM-opponents slowly realize that their linking and debunking just means that the SCAM is given more prominence.
Ok, somehow I screwed up the link, so here brute force:
http://www.google.be/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=douthat+hitchens+hell&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=uPfwTpaPHIOhOs3HvZsB
Janine – various comments
Thank you for your contribution. I wasn’t actually speaking to you, but thank you for your interjection.
You appear to be quite unhinged in various, spittle-flecked, ways. But, er… I was going to say something else…but I think that pretty much covers it.
PS – My comment about Smartin’ Anus was pretty innocuous. There were other reasonably more important comments about Hitchens. But, I’m sorry anyway for saying something humourous. Arrrah! I’m sorry for apologising for saying something humourous. I mean, I’m sorry for apologising for saying sorry for saying something humourous.
Your obvious brilliance at wielding the wordy scalpel has got me all flustered. Tell me how to apologise to your satisfaction, and I’ll use that method.
Incidentally, which side were you on in the great Elevator Man scandal? As if I need be told.
Oh, and also, lest anyone get the impression that the great Man laboured in vain, how, exactly, did he leave the world a better place? Let’s start with women!
nmcc, your trolling is noted, you can fuck off now.
Open blog, spleen weasel. No one fucking invited you to speak.
So, anyone who disagrees with you is unhinged?
I think I have my answer.
Bored now…
@alikuran: good point. You can also use rel=nofollow in your links. (<a href=”blah” rel=”nofollow”>). Which is probably easier to do.
PZ used to do this at SciBlogs, but I just checked the source and it isn’t happening here. In the comments, yes, so linkspam won’t work, but not in the text.
@crissakentavr, Hitch was actually quite hairy before the chemo – the “bear” body type. How anyone could consider this remotely relevant to anything he ever said is left as an exercise for the reader.
nmcc #60
Your weak attempt at irony would work better if you had actually said something humorous. Here’s a hint: humor has to do with being funny. If what you say (or write) isn’t funny, then it’s not humorous.
Anyway, you’ve established yourself as a trolling asshole. No doubt that was your intent and you succeeded very well.
No, it was homophobic.
You should apologize for thinking yourself humourous.
And then get the fuck out of here, nmcc.
I’m reminded of how Dan Everett’s deconversion experience began. He was a missionary to the Pirahã and wondered aloud how all the landscape had been made. The man he was talking to looked at him, astounded at such silliness, and said: “These things were not made.”
And FFS, is there any editor left at the NYT who knows what a comma is?
Ancient Roman superstition: if you insult the ghosts of the dead, they come and haunt you.
~:-|
You know what? Do us all, yourself included, a favor and go to Sweden.
No, it was homophobic.
But he self-describes as innocuous. He identifies as innocuous. He may not conform to YOUR personal interpretation of innocuousness, but he believes he is furthering the cause of innocuousness…
Okay, I can’t keep a straight face with this any more.
Grr. Try again:
But he self-describes as innocuous. He identifies as innocuous. He may not conform to YOUR personal interpretation of innocuousness, but he believes he is furthering the cause of innocuousness…
Okay, I can’t keep a straight face with this any more.
Yikes! I wasn’t really expecting a barrage of bluster in reply. Well, I suppose I was from Tis’ Your Man or whatever he’s called, since he seems to always make a comment immediately after my own.
Anyway, what was your answer to the charge that Hitchens’s flaws might have massively outweighed his puny little atheist credentials? From the feminist point of view? From the freedom to speak one’s mind point of view? And so on.
Now, do your best to reply without using the words ‘fuck off’. That’s just rude, and would never be allowed on rd.net now that Little Lord Fauntleroy has taken Hitchens’s admonishments in regard to open discussion and debate to heart and has employed the ghost of Lavrenty Beria to moderate his website.
Why, were he alive today, I do believe he’d recommend a cluster bomb would be in order for Mr Dawkins!
And any comment you read here regarding what to do with dead porcupines is merely a courtesy detail.
nmcc:
That it’s utterly irrelevant to this post; you want to spew your bile, go to the proper post, troll. This post is about his atheism, puny as you might consider his credentials to have been in this regard.
(You’ll still be trolling, but at least you’ll be trolling on-topic)
You make a smarmy comment and you’re amazed you get smacked down for it? Thinking obviously isn’t your first language.
Aw, is the cupcake all upsettipoo because mean old ‘Tis thinks nmcc is an asshole? Suck it up, cupcake.
Should I give up trying to keep track of how many times these ghouls and wights descend upon the deceased and attempt to claim them as one of their kin? It seems every time someone of note who is not a christian passes on, a pre-selected army of corpse-hunters comes out to feast.
Blow it out your ass, fuckface. I do not hold Hitchens in high regard. But I also see you fighting against a straw army. I am not impressed.
Not going to happen, shitstain. If you do not want people to say rude shit to you, go to a site where that is banned.
Just one thing, the rudest and most hate filled statements I have seen had no swearing.
Now go forth and fuck off.
David,
why do you hate Sweden? They don’t want homophobic assholes like nmcc there, either…!
Yikes! I wasn’t really expecting a barrage of bluster in reply.
so, from this we conclude you’re not only a cretin, but a liar.
fast approaching demented fuckwit territory.
I recommend banhammer.
unclefrogy wrote:
Likewise. Of course, all one need do to when this lie rears its ugly head is to ask them to point to the bible verse(s) that demonstrate a support for the concept of democratic government – and also ask them to explain how, if that is the case, we were stuck for so long with monarchies citing the Divine Right of Kings as justification, with the church leaders nodding their heads in agreement.
Religion is almost always in opposition to liberal social change until it becomes obvious the tide is turning. As many people have noted it will come as no surprise if, once gay marriage is the norm, Christians will be attempting to take the credit for it like they have with ending slavery.
Here’s more corpse desecration from the religious right – this time from our favorite shrill Republican harpy, Michelle Malkin;
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-r-i-p-and-an-atheist-christmas-remembrance/
tl:dr
Short version – Hitch *really* hated islam, so I’ll say some mild niceties about him, and then make a baseless claim that he found god.
I really wish the woman would open up commenting on her echo chamber website to someone other than her sniveling tea bagger minions.
Well, thanks ya’all for yer stupifyingly stupid insults. Though I must declare, you really are all amateurs. I mean, surely ‘spastic-brained tit-wank’ has much more of a punch?
However, I must repeat a few posers: P Z Myers has a little note on this website that says he reserves the right to expose anyone threatening violence. Yet, he (along with Dawkins and Coyne) extols a man who glorified violence – even stooping to an explanation of how brilliantly technological a cluster bomb is because of its potential to kill 10 or 20 people and not just one person. How come?
Then, I ask the resident feminists (and people like Paula Kirby on Dawkins’s website) how they reconcile their views that women be taken seriously with their lamentations for Hitchens’s demise, given that his response to women pronouncing their views on a certain political matter was ‘Fuck those fat slags’.
Now, I could say much more, as, indeed, I have (and all of which has been totally ignored, for example, Morales has ignored my response and challege to him on another thread). But, my main question to ya’all is this: If a toadying, toadish, toad-enabling toad like Hitchens can illicit your sympathy on no other grounds (because you are all so readily willing to ignore all other grounds) than he was an atheist, surely there’s hope for Uncle Joe Stalin yet!
The shitstain babbles on but does not address a person who has expressed that she does not hold Hitchens in high regard.
Blow it out your ass, you gibbering fool.
You know it’s going to be bad if it’s on CNN’s belief blog, but check out the verbal diarrhoea from Stephen Prothero against Hitchens there.
Linky
nmcc, your inability to stay on-topic is duly noted.
Now, was Christopher a public, declared and influential atheist.
(All evidence points to ‘yes’)
Are not various goddists (ghoulishly) using that notoriety to make post-mortem insinuations about his possible conversion or goddist tendencies?
(All evidence points to ‘yes’)
That‘s the subject of this post.
—
Now, if you want to indulge your personal (and ugly) animus towards him, I’ve already pointed to where it’s on-topic.
Why shouldn’t we ignore a blatantly obvious and oblivious troll, without any objectivity, cogency, and perspective, much less intelligence in the form of being on topic? In order for us to pay attention, say something worthy of us paying attention. At the moment, that is simply “good-bye”. Typical pointless loser.
I mean, surely ‘spastic-brained tit-wank’ has much more of a punch?
nope. takes too long to type, let alone being entirely too localized in dialect.
Demented Fuckwit is shorter and doesn’t need hyphens.
efficiency and accuracy.
that’s the mark of a good insult.
If a toadying, toadish, toad-enabling toad like Hitchens
oh, by *punch* in insults you really meant *punchy*, as in punch-drunk, as in brainless?
get lost ya pathetic wanker.
Fuckin’ ‘ell, that was quick. I had hardly posted that before you replied. I hope you aren’t just sitting there waiting for me to post so you can get your inane, deliberately construed so as to ignore the point, childish insults in without even thinking! Just so as you know, I can keep the questions up all night – fortified, Hitchens like, with a plentiful supply of beer (though I’ve only got one fag left, which is a bummer. American chap from the back: ‘What’s that he said? Fag? Bummer?’ Ooooh er, missus!). Anyway, Janine, why do you feel the need to be so foul-mouthed? Is it any wonder that St Paul said a woman shouldn’t be allowed to speak in church?
nmcc, ever think that most of us at this blog respect Hitch for his atheism and the ability to express it eruditely to the world, but we also recognize that he, like all of us, is a flawed human being with some bad sides? Hence, you can’t get us worked up by only concentrating only on his bad side, which is why are are trolling, trying inanely to stir up shit. And we have no control what happens on other blogs. and you are stoopid if you think we do. If we care to comment on other blogs (I don’t), we could so, and we won’t do anything because you, a troll, suggests it.
Azkyroth,
Why are you looking for a fight with me tonight?
Had a bad day? I’m sorry to hear it, but I’m just not in the mood.
nmcc, so you don’t deny that Christopher a public, declared and influential atheist and it’s that very notoriety which is inducing goddists to vainly insinuate that even he might have bought into their nonsense.
(Your efforts to derail the topic are transparent, O troll)
Fuck off, nmcc. No-one’s interested in you or what you have to say.
Well, okay. That’s a forthright way of putting it. Not exactly democratic, but there you go.
It’s obvious that the ‘new’ atheists cherry pick their views, ignoring the unpalatable and excusing the unconscionable, to suit their purpose.
If Hitchens’s demise has proved anything, it’s proved that.
But then, any disinterested party recognised the falsity of it of late.
nmcc @ 85;
It may surprise you to learn that none of the regulars here find homophobia or misogyny particularly amusing. If you aspire to be taken seriously here (or simply to avoid invitations to intimate relations with a porcupine in an advanced state of decay), then I suggest you cut it out. Failing that, I would point out that the internet is a very large virtual space, and there are plenty of other sites where people might be more receptive to your
bigoted blather…inane trolling…transparent attempts to compensate for your own sexual insecurities… concept of humour.Why do obvious and oblivious trolls always describe their problems, not our? Must be their hypocrisy in action.
Still not interested, nmcc. Fuck off.
The troll is an asshole and somehow it’s everyone else’s fault.
Yawn, they all play the same game. And they think they are “free thinkers”. Boring follow they leader types.
@nmcc
None of us are cherry picking. If you’d read the other thread, you’d see that most of us agree that Hitchens was a misogynist and war-mongerer. That being said, he was still an incredibly intelligent and well-spoken spokesperson for atheism who made positive contributions to the movement. If you think his flaws render that insignificant, then whatever; that’s your perogative. I don’t see why you should be complaining that we don’t want idiotic theists to claim a popular atheist spokesperson as a Christian.
Wha…did Hitch write a bible?
More of that good religious decency.
Look, give over with the name-calling. It’s stupid and tedious. And, by the way, after all this time, do you really think that calling someone a ‘troll’ has the slightest validity?
The simple fact is, you use the abuse and ‘troll’ shout because you are (mostly) full of shit and can’t answer the questions in any sensible way.
‘Hey theist, there is not a man living in the sky who acts as your invisible friend. Get over it’ And that makes you people so clever. Yet, when it comes to almost any other issue: violence and war, womens’ rights, ecomomics, crime, etc, you couldn’t muster a sensible and coherent argument to save your life.
Look at this thread alone. As far as I can see, the main argument is 1) Hand out abuse, 2) Hand out more abuse, 3) Say some self-serving crap like:’Okay, Hitchens was a swine in loads of ways, but at least he was an atheist’.
Do you really not see that that is just an inverted form of the ‘Stalin was an atheist’ so-called argument?
I can keep the questions up all night
yes, please do keep posting your inanity.
it will just get you banhammered that much faster.
Typical fuckwitted troll. All he does is tell us we behave like he does. He has no point. He doesn’t answer our questions. He has no evidence for his fuckwittery. Just bullshit. And can’t shut up. Typical nonsense that every troll exhibits.
We think calling a troll a troll has validity. That’s why we call you a troll, troll. We also think calling you an asshole has validity. That’s why we call you an asshole, asshole. You see, you’re a trolling asshole, so it’s reasonable to call you a trolling asshole.
Do you have any other stupid questions or are you just going to whine about people recognizing the truth about you?
Wait…are you in favor or against on those positions?
Typical troll. Asks questions, but can’t stand up and say “This is what I believe, and this is the evidence to back it up”. Thinks by asking inane questions and using uberskepticism he can shake the atheist positions. Like that hasn’t been tried before (last week was it?). And as long as it does that, no changing of minds will take place. The direct approach is required.
How does uberskepticism defeat atheism? atheism is a null stance and thus evidence of god is required. I just don’t understand *sigh*
If you were to take a position on any of these topics and support that position with evidence, then perhaps you’d get engaged in a discussion. But when all we see from you is homophobia, whining about being called a troll, and sneering at atheists, then we’ll respond appropriately. Does that make sense? Or are there too many big words like “support” and “evidence” for you to understand what I’m saying?
In their delusional minds, if we can’t answer inane questions to their satisfaction, dog must exist. They think if they repeat the
mantraquestions enough, we’ll see the light. Some RWAs use the same technique. *snort*Hey shithead, way to not reply substantively to mine or anyone else’s criticism.
THIS is why you’re being called a troll. You’re whining about abuse, straw-manning what we’re saying and only contributing not-funny homophobia.
If you don’t want to be treated like a troll don’t fucking act like a troll. People on Pharyngula are generally perfectly willing to forgive you if you apologize where you’re wrong and start contributing something useful to the discussion.
News just in! Troll denies being a troll!
Well, I certainly appreciate your last Tis yourself and Not Somebody Else. It’s an improvment on :’You fucking troll, troll fucking asshole, asshole fucking troll, asshole, trolling asshole, fucking asshole’
Or words to that effect.
As to your (and your dopey friends) questions: I’m the one who started asking the questions. You haven’t answered any of them yet. Neither are you likely to. That’s the thing about you ‘new’ atheists, you are fundamentally dishonest. And spineless. That’s why you haven’t the guts to call Hitchens what he actually was. Or to call Coyne or Dawkins on their utterly bizarre, sycophantic ravings.
Anyway, it’s time for bed. Piss off!
What questions?
It’s like dealing with a hamster on crack
You are a liar or an idiot.
And a troll.
You don’t have the guts to apologize for your idiotic opinion, do you??? You don’t have the guts to admit you are wrong. Typical loser troll.
Am I supposed to be shamed by this, fuckface?
Dollars to doughnuts the pissant doesn’t stick the flounce.
:’You fucking troll, troll fucking asshole, asshole fucking troll, asshole, trolling asshole, fucking asshole’
which sounds remarkably like “toadying, toadish, toad-enabling toad”
seriously, just fuck off.
Douthat and co. are taking necrophilia to the next level.
The retired Unitarian Universalist minister Rev. Marilyn Sewell tried reframing Christopher Hitchens into someone who shared her religious views:
“Was Christopher Hitchens Religious?”
http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2011/12/was-christopher-hitchens-religious.html
Here’s a short passage from the end of her article:
I did appreciate Dr. Francis Collins essay on the Washington Post web site:
“In remembrance of my friend Hitch”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/in-remembrance-of-my-friend-hitch/2011/12/18/gIQAHxMx2O_blog.html
Most of it was fond memories of a friend without trying to re-mold the deceased into something else.
Dishonest troll describing him and his actions again. Typical way to not even be in the argument. And still no evidence. Inane and leading questions aren’t evidence. Real evidence for your imaginary deity is something like the eternally burning bush. Have it handy?
nmcc #109
The fucking trolling asshole is still whining about people recognizing him as a fucking trolling asshole.
No, fucking trolling asshole, you didn’t ask questions. You complained about Hitchens exposing the truth about Mother Teresa. Then you tried to justify your homophobic sneer at Martin Amis, pretending it was “schoolboyish humour.” Then you whined at Janine commenting on your homophobia. You claimed everything said about Hitchens was hagiographical. And you whined about being called a fucking trolling asshole. But actual questions from you are lacking.
It’s not dishonest nor spineless to call a fucking trolling asshole a fucking trolling asshole.
Haven’t you looked at The dark side of Hitchens thread? Not too many nice things said about him there.
I have no idea what Coyne or Dawkings are saying about Hitchens. I don’t frequent their websites. So why should I comment about something I know or care nothing about?
Don’t forget your decaying porcupine.
This Onion headline says it all:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/fumbling-inarticulate-obituary-writer-somehow-losi,26890/
Typical “neener-neener! me so smart!” trolling; how tedious. Sounds like that ridiculous lot over at convert_me.
It’s amazing to me how much people try to use the death of others to further their own cause. I mean, words are twisted to some extent when people are alive, but after they die and aren’t around to argue back… tsk tsk.
aladegorrion wrote:
Well, they are Christians after all – using a dead guy to further their cause has pretty much been their SOP from day one.
nmcc and his ilk believe in authority. He appeared to think that we were all atheists because we took Hitch to be an authority, and followed his word because of that *snort*. Taint the authority, taint the message. But the problem with the Gnus for him, is there are almost as many ways to atheism as there are Gnus. I never really heard of Hitch until after I started reading Pharyngula, and by then I had been an atheist for decades. And I recognized no authority on the journey, just fellow travelers, like Asimov and Sagan. nmcc just can’t picture somebody making up their minds without an authority figure telling them what they should believe. One can only pity those who can’t think for themselves, like nmcc.
It is part of the job description. One of my cousins was only twenty-one when he died. His wake was presided by a baptist minister who did not know him. He had nothing to say about the young man we were mourning. He yammered on about how life is short and we needed to accept jaysus. One of my sisters noticed how tightly I was clenching my fist.
It took all of my will to keep from trying to punch that priest in the face. It would not have happened if I tried, there were too many people between me and that sack of ooze.
A member of my family was dead before he could truly begin and I had to listen to tripe that I can here on a street corner.
It is their job and they call it comfort.
@Janine
Is it just me, or is nmcc the most boring troll… like, ever? Anyone else? He just keeps telling us stuff we already know with a tone of perplexing triumph. nmcc – yes, Hitch was imperfect. We get it. We’re over it. Chill.
Xe’s certainly a strong contender for that honor.
It was humorous though, how they kept insisting that Hitchens wasn’t the saint we all said he was, yet kept ignoring the link to the thread on this very board about the man’s faults.
It’s almost as if they weren’t really trying to have a discussion.
Looks like I missed the fun, but in the hope nmcc has enough of a spine to pop back in:
How many times are you going to say that being called a troll isn’t worth responding to? ‘Cause, if it wasn’t worth responding to you probably should… you know…
(Looks over almost all of FreethoughtBlogs. Looks at the sterling ideas nmcc has presented on these topics. *Shrugs*)
Fixed that for you.
Oh, plus the: “Please check out the ‘Hitch’s Issues’ thread on this blog” responses. Oddly, you seem to keep missing those. Almost purposefully.
It would be – if we were insisting that Hitchens was a good guy because he was an atheist.
We’re not.
If you disagree, please quote where someone says something to that effect. I suspect you’ll find a lot of people talking about his excellent writing, his inspirational courage, especially in the face of deadly disease, and his tenacity in not backing away from a fight (a mixed blessing, at times). As you’ve been directed to the threads in which these things are mentioned, repeatedly, at this point I’m beginning to assume you’re either really dumb or essentially dishonest.
Dumb people get correction. Dishonest people get abuse. When we can’t tell, we tend to use both, to see what sticks best.
Welcome to Pharyngula.
OK, let’s start with one particular woman: Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu. The demolition job Hitchens did (in The Missionary Position) on the reputation of that vile sadistic ghoul and arselicker of tyrants, certainly improved the world. Outside that, I was never an admirer of his, and have read little of his writing; but as several people have pointed out, there’s a whole thread on this blog devoted to his less admirable traits and actions. This thread is about religious attempts to deny the obvious fact of his atheism.
Looking at the Dark side of Hitchens thread it appears that nmcc already knew about it, and indeed had posted there, though not apparently with anything more cogent than they posted here. And before they posted in this thread. So deliberate attempts to derail topic when known other topic more appropriate? Massive massive fail.
And Hitchens was definitely not my path to atheism. I couldn’t point at anyone who caused that. (Though my school chaplain inadvertently helped there).
It was mentioned upthread somewhere that theists typically can’t imagine a world without gods. This is true. They have no introspection; it is a foreign skill which they lack nearly completely. It has been trained out of them since toddlerhood.”Do not ever consider the implications of your claims, for that way leads a perception of internal conflicts and an honest appraisal of alternative explanations.”
Hence they do not do well at science, either, and generally are not fans of science fiction. You can’t do either if you can’t think to yourself “If X, then Y… Wow.” And therefore they can’t imagine folks thinking differently from themselves. They have to imagine what kind of motives *they would need in order to act like other kinds of people. In the sixties they thought males with long hair were gay, because why would they “have hair like a woman if they weren’t queer”? And why would someone claim there wasn’t a god unless “They were mad at god, or just wanted to sin”? They lack empathy largely because they cannot imagine what it is like to be born differently than they were. Ever ask a True Believer why you should accept their unfounded claims and not another set, like the Muslims or Hindus? I have, and I always get a blank stare in return. Not evasion so much as they don’t seem to understand the question.
There is another issue, however, with these imaginary deathbed conversions. They are terrified of reasonable, sane people, who pay their bills and love their kids, who have no need for gods. Drug -addled atheists are OK, Commmunist oppressive secret police atheists are OK, miserable angst-ridden atheists are OK, because they just show young folk how important it is to be saved, and how much happier they’ll be in church. So Hitchens will be vilified by some, turned into a monster of the worst kind, and turned into a flawed but really-in-his-heart Christian by others.
Because what they can’t ever admit to themselves is that a man, flawed but in many ways admirable, can go through life and death without any gods.
Kermit #134
Since most goddists feel the need for god(s), they assume everyone has such a need. When these folks proselytize at us, they’re trying to sell that their particular flavor of deity will exactly fill the god(s)-shaped hole in our psyches. The idea that we not only don’t want god(s), we don’t need god(s) is incomprehensible to them.
Could we express this as their being too keen on cutting god-shaped holes in themselves?
(To be fair, most of those holes were cut by their folks…)
hmm, yesterday, while reading the poots of nmcc, a little bell kept ringing in my head when I saw the “toady, toad, toadying, etc…” inanity.
I knew I had seen that referenced somewhere before, and now I recall it.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/12/hitched-in-history-to-crimes-against-humanity.html
it was in reference to this piece of utter tripe.
note the author’s initials, which are the same two letters, just inverted, and the style, which seems awfully familiar.
The fact that christians want Hitchens shows that he was a serious athiest problem for them on the world stage.
The comments mentioning Hitchens less egalitarian words before nmcc commented show that we aren’t one hivemind of fawning accolites.
nmcc, you were pwned before you even started typing. The fact that you did not realise this shows just how little intelligence you have.
Don’t worry though as you will still have some use, should anyone need to show a group powerpoint presentation up on their wall.