He made horrible arguments against God's existence.
He was always getting owned, his childish arguments were pathetic.Great writer, great thinker, and a hero of the anti-theocratic movement. He gobbled up christian and muslim shills like xmas cookies, and made it sound easy and even humorous at times. His intimidating intellect and hatred for bullshit made fundies quiver, at least at the thought of having to share a stage with him.
Last time I checked he was still eternally dead.
Where's the news?
Where's the politics?
What does that even mean?
I completely understood his argument against organized religion, just not his indignation against the concept of a higher power. In the end, his brilliance and sardonic wit couldn't save him.
I mostly viewed him as a compelling zealot, hypocrite and monotonous at times. Being decisive in an argument only gives an air of authority to the believers and angers the detractors. The people in the middle can't be bothered with that bullshit.
He was always getting owned, his childish arguments were pathetic.
No. Hitchens was a hack.incorruptible?!? is this our long lost incorruptible??
Where's the politics?
incorruptible?!? is this our long lost incorruptible??
The funny thing is I have this friend who is a born again Christian and a creationist. He is a huge fan of Hitchens even though he obviously disagrees with him on anything pertaining to religion.
I thought he had a major wit and I always enjoyed listening to him debate. Even when he was wrong (ahem, the Iraq War?) his wrong opinions were often edifying.
Unfortunately for you, arguments For "God's" existence are even more horrible.
He was always getting owned, his childish arguments were pathetic.
Sandorski is a person who thinks pointing at existing eyes is good evidence that they evolved, by assuming that they evolved.
Sandorski isn't in any position to evaluate valid arguments.What the fuck are you on about now?