Well.., what did you expect ? this CLOWN that wrote that article has to be a religious person (most likely), there is so...... much in his article that is wrong, that he should be a shamed of himself, calling himself a journalist, he couldn't hold up Hitchens jack strap, LMFAO !!!

I still think he's second rate. Just because he's popular doesn't mean that he's good.

He's INFAMOUS, not famous.  Fame implies a status reserved for the elitist models of human beings that would rather pollute the world with glamour and materialism as opposed to possessing a presence of hard hitting, in-your-face details and facts about issues that have a direct impact on everyone.  What he did was make a impressionable layout on how outdated most of our thoughts are, why they are silly/dangerous and that being outspoken with an absolute truth as you can possibly muster is the only mode of communicating with people rather than relying on designated fallacies brought on by generations of brain washing.  Besides all that, I wouldn't expect someone that thinks in black and white as knowing much about this diverse individual.

So, just because he doesn't mirror your views, that's your excuse for having no knowledge of any of his writings, his books, his many atheist/theist debates and many TV interviews/appearances?  In your case, I guess ignorance CAN be bliss...

On a side note, protesting has created policies, rulings and standards that have shaped this country; of course, not all of them good, mind you.  The point is that your statement reeks of defeatism and a shameful way of looking at people who speak their mind in a constructive way that make others question who they are, what they're doing and whether or not it's benefiting society as a whole. 

It's not whether or not he mirrors my views.  I mean, I'm here.  The average person =here= doesn't mirror my religious views, and yet here I am.

Protesting for the sake of =protesting= seldom does anything useful and my impression of Hitch, based on what little I do know (just heard of him, only read Wikipedia ...) is that he's someone who protested ... for the sake of protesting.

My impression is that he protested / preached to an echo chamber.  That his death seems to have been repeated within a remarkably small and closed community confirms that to me.

Rofl. Go Canadian banks for infiltrating the US. How many you got down there? Scotia? Royal? Montreal?
Good to know at least some Canadian businesses grow into the US.

Re: the OP, I never heard much about Hitchens, but I never heard anything at all about this jealous banker who somehow thinks his opinion matters. He's just upset people aren't paying attention to him.

Holy shit. Anyone who values Orwell or writes a book about Jefferson CANNOT be called a "leftist".

I fucking hate that shit. He WAS when he was younger he was "leftist". But as he got older, he saw life in the shades of gray that reality is, so he took every claim and every event  as a case by case issue.

He hated North Korea and Iran and supported BOTH the wars. He also hated political correctness.

Economically speaking he got rich off the free market by selling his books and becoming a famous author. So he DID value western open markets.

Where he was "leftest" would be on the rights of minorities such as non-Christians, gays, ect ect ect. But even his attitude would be, "Don't silence the bigots, fight back with your own voice".

So anyone leaving a comment here, please skip the stupid fucking stereotypes that just because someone picks on anyone's god, that somehow they want a fascist society like Stalin or Iran.

Hitchens would have been if alive during the founders time, would have been fighting along side Jefferson and Washington. And Jefferson most certainly would have valued his right to be an atheist.

Belief in ANY deity does not insure freedom. Iran is full of believers. The Dark ages was full of believers. And prior to the American Revolution, the states were very sectarian and dogmatic. It was because of Paine and Jefferson and the First Amendment and "no religious test" that everyone reading this right now can do so.

Freedom is not a monopoly owned by one label and the word "atheist" does not make one anti-western.

Hitchens was the cold water on the face of myth exposing it for what it was. Just like Jefferson equated the virgin birth claim to "Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter".

I've been called a leftist, and I found Orwells 1984 great. It's good when flaws to an idea are presented so as to allow modifying the idea. Orwell has probably had as much impact as Marx on showing me that socialism is a superior economic system.

Shows what you know about the current history of the atheist movement. If "protesting" did no good, like you want to claim, atheists would still be on the back burner like we were just 11 years ago.

I've been active for the past 11 years and can tell you the atheist movement has exploded and is now on the radar of the mainstream. Back then there were only a handful of atheist websites and almost no articles written about atheists in major media.

Now there are hundreds of major atheist websites. Authors like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Ayan Hersi Ali(former female Muslim) who became an atheist and woman's rights activist,

Infidel Guy was the first BLACK atheist who took an entire prime time hour on network tv in "Wife Swap". Brian Sapient was in a debate with moron Crapoduck Christian "Ray Comfort" on ABC Nightline.

Atheist and scientist Neil Degrees Tyson wrote the "Pluto Files" which traced the history of the planet and became a PBS documentary. He has also been on Steven Cobert and had a cameo on the sitcom Big Bang Theroy.

And I "protest" every single day, not just here, but anywhere I can in news media websites.

Why? Because a nurse in Chicago back in 01, who was an atheist, expressed concern about all the god speak when she rightfully pointed out that more than Christians died in those towers. Over 80 nationalities and all the world's major religions had dead represented.

So if you want to try to marginalize atheists by trying to make our "protest" out to be some emotional reaction to a fictional god, go ahead, we don't care and we wont stop you, that is your civil right. But you are dead wrong.

Our "protest" is no different than someone telling you that the Packers won the Super Bowl and not the Chargers. Our "protest" is no different that pointing out that the earth is not flat.

Skeptics and questioners always have to pull myth lovers kicking and screaming into the future.

Sigh.

I read =plenty= of material that contradicts my views, from plenty of sources where my views are less likely to be found.  Remember me?  Jew hanging out on an Atheist board?

However, FINDING material from someone whose views are contrary to my own requires more WORK and I'm less likely to just run into their writings by accident.  The less mainstream their views, however contradictory to my own views, the more unlikely I am to run across them, no matter how much I read.  Which is a ton.

As for the rest, I offered my opinion as someone who had no exposure to the guy and offered my opinion as to why someone else might not have ever heard of him.  My response was offered as a rebuttal to the notion that surely EVERYONE had heard of him.  I hadn't, but I had heard of Richard Dawkins (remember him?) likely because Dawkins is more mainstream and less of (gasp!) a psuedo-intellectual who has a thing for protesting all the damned time.

You give me one quote where he advocates the extermination of all Muslims. No, he is strictly talking about theocracies and rulers of those theocracies. He has never said or would ever say, "Go kill all Muslims".

He is talking about the CURRENT state of Islam and how GOVERNMENTS use Islamic law to run those states. That is a completely different issue than advocating the extermination of an entire group of people based on label.

I don't agree with bombing the shit out of any of those countries, not because their rulers don't deserve it, but because it would create a bigger mess. And it would piss off secular Arabs and possibly kill someone like Neda in Iran who did want to fight her own Muslim theocracy.

He would care less about Islam if it had it's own Jefferson and Paine and those states had neutral governments. He was talking about political rule, and the role of religion in their governments.

Ayan Hersi Ali, a former Muslim would probably not agree with bombing the shit out of the middle east, but having suffered the oppression of Islamic men, she WOULD understand Hitchens attitude towards ANY theocracy.

If those countries were Christian and not Muslim and it was the Dark Ages, he'd have the same attitude.

He'd wouldn't have minded bombing the shit out of North Korea either.

But he wouldn't here in the states, want the ban of a Mosque, or advocate killing Muslims who live here in the states. And I am quite sure he has had Muslim friends in his past having traveled all over that region as a reporter. I think he had lots of sympathy for oppressed people, but he had none for theocracies or fascist states. He MOST certainly had sympathy for Muslims in those countries who did not want to live under their rulers.

You really want to paint what I do here as "protesting", and for someone who claims I am illiterate you sure act like you cant read yourself.

I DO HAVE goals. To challenge people to think for themselves. Because I DO hold the position that god claims are nothing but superstition. You don't like that goal because it conflicts with your position. Too bad.

What you wanted me to give you was something like, "I want to force religion out of existence through government force", that way you can make me out to be a monster and justify your superstition.

I am sorry if you think my goal is simplistic. But that is all it amounts to. A debate, if it does nothing, it serves as a reminder that no claim on any issue, much less religion, deserves a pedestal.

Now, you are starting to do what I see every believer of every religion do when they post here. Instead of sticking to making a case to their own position, they complain about the actions of others.

If I bother you that much, don't respond to my posts. I am sure we can talk about other issues. But if you respond to me, I can and will respond the way I see fit.

If you want to falsely accuse me of "protesting", fine, wrong, but fine. Then stop responding to me. There are other posters here you can engage.

I do not owe your claims any value just because you make a post. I value what you can prove, not what you claim.

Hey, at least I have the chops to admit it when I'm speaking from a position of RELATIVE ignorance.

That said, I've seen nothing that would indicate he's actually an "intellectual" in the sense that's not merely used to heap praises on journalists.

What I have read of Hitch tells me that he'd change his mind on a topic just to change his mind or follow some fad.  For example, he went from being a Socialist to being a Capitalist right about the time it became completely obvious that Socialism was an utterly failed ideology.  Which is to say, the boat had already sailed and he was hoping to catch a ride before anyone noticed he was frantically swimming after it.

On the other hand, as a Leftist, the standards for being an "intellectual" are already so low that perhaps even a pseudo-intellectual count as an intellectual.  I don't know -- I find most leftists are more often engaged in wishful thinking and entirely too seldom engaged in anything moderately resembling rational thought.

I'm sure I'll now be told to go read about him a lot more, but since my opinion of him is trending in the general direction of "self-important liberal darling", I can't guarantee it will change for the better.

You have used the word "protesting" in regards to what you thought I was doing in other posts. So if you were not talking about me it would have been wise to clarify specific names as to whom you were talking about.

Maybe you use that term as a general criticism of people whom you think waste their time on subjects you don't think they need to "protest".

Let's see -- pathological lying, mind-reading, projection and fortune telling.

You've got quite the racket going there.