"Hitchens, the atheist supported an atrocity, the invasion of Iraq, and its consequences. I would have expected an atheist to have more compassion."

Given that he was so derogatory of Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens did not believe in the meaning of, let alone practise, compassion.

Mr Hitchens was trenchant, incisive in his criticisms of Henry Kissinger, but eventually seemed to go quiet about the doings of that fellow. Can anyone point me to an essay of Chris's that explains why he "moved on", or whatever it was he did, in easing his pursuit of Dear Henry?

Oh well.

So long to a facile wordslinger. Rumour has it that Yahweh has offered him a 17-Eternity pass to Heaven, and he may yet accept it, if Yoani Sanchez gets a similar offer. Imagine, basking in unending glory, with another of the Empire's court jesters.

We can examine the statement "To die without illusions is to die a strong man." That is a generalisation that applies to nobody. Although Hitchens did not have the particular illusion that there is a God one cannot honestly say about him or any other person that he had no illusions.

One of Hitchens' articles examined the generalisation, "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger." He made the point that his cancer had not killed him but had made him considerably weaker.

Another false generalisation is that religion lessens the fear of death.

From Roy Porter's "Flesh in the Age of Reason":

"Like Johnson, Boswell was tortured by a fundamental fear of death. He sought reassurance of any kind from anyone. He harassed the dying David Hume. The sceptical philosophe’s calm at his impending demise from liver cancer drove Boswell ever more distraught: he wanted to see in the unbeliever the fear which gripped himself. In vain he tried to make Hume reveal some spark of faith. At the sceptic's imperviousness, Boswell became increasingly desperate:

“I ... felt a degree of horror, mixed with a sort of wild, strange, hurrying recollection of my excellent mother's pious instructions, of Dr. Johnson's noble lessons, and of my religious sentiments and affections during the course of my life. I was like a man in sudden danger eagerly seeking his defensive arms.

The thought of somebody dying without dread was unbearable.""

Sophocles said, "It is good to die young. It is better not to be born at all." Regarding the latter not everyone is that lucky.

Thanks for this thread.

You may not always have agreed with Christopher
Hitchens but listing to him debating learned and
religious figures on the Bible, Hell, and Jesus,
was entertaining. One has to admit the man had
style.

I admire Hitchens as a great polemicist and writer capable of stirring people's passions--if not their imaginations, or empathy. It seems to me Hitchens epitomised and played up to the myopic and predictable paranoia of a supercilious, imperialist-rationalist Set, conspicuous for its indifference to the evils it presides complacently over, yet outraged and intolerant beyond all measure of anything eccentric or idealistic or non-conformist or, worst of all, critical.
This is not merely sour grapes at Hitchens's ostensible betrayal of the left, whose representatives are often as deserving of censure as any group; I'm often critical of the left myself. But Hitchens wasn't merely critical of elements of leftist propaganda after 9/11--his epiphany--as he liked to recount, he abandoned the left and embraced the liberal-rationalist right, not only against political leftists, but economic reformists (same thing), religious idealists, malcontents, dissidents, aliens, and critics of every stamp.
I would have had more respect for Hitchens if he'd taken no side but was critical of all--no side is above criticism--but he crossed the no-man's land and chose to defend the dominant material and ideological force in the world--seduced by the dark side, you might say, which makes a fetish of human rationalism and imagines itself self-righteous. Hitchens and co have helped make liberal rationalism an ideology, as cock-sure as Catholicism was in its hayday, and just as deluded. Worse, he's diverted much of what political dissent there was into futile ideological intolerance.
In his sober (thoughtful) moments I suspect Hitchens's was conversant with the hypocricies that underwrote his rage, but he never lived long enough to expose them, as I'm sure he eventually would have.
Unfortunately, he never had time to think better and recant.

I agree Lexi.
As much as some of the things he wrote or spoke about were controversial in the extreme, I still admired him for saying what he felt.
He certainly had several religious leaders chasing their tails, and that always makes me smile :)

Squeers obviously doesn't agree...
<"Unfortunately, he never had time to think better and recant."

Why should he recant his words simply because they are different to your beliefs Squeers? He simply didn't believe in the writings of an old book said to be inspired by someone claiming to be the son of a mythical being.

It is not a great stretch for someone to be skeptical of such outrageous claims.

Rest in peace Christopher Hitchens...