For you die hard fans .... I'm not the author, I'm just the passer-on.
Although I personally found the article right up my opinion alley, it isn't for everyone but everyone might be open to opines not their own.
(Yeah, I know! WhoTF am I kidding?)
On this: "Seriously, he never had any original thoughts."
I have not read Hitchens, but one of my ex BFs was a big fan of his. He told me something "wonderful" (or some such adjective) about a theory that H. had come up with. When he told me the theory of the origins of religion, I said, "That's been around for years. In fact, I discuss this in a mythology course that I teach." Never had any desire to read the guy after that.
And after that, my BF would preface information with "I know that you probably already know this . . ." and yeah, he never told me anything I had not run across in my studies. Sometimes, when people are newbies in any area, others can seem wise and original when, indeed, they are building on the ideas of others.
Hitchens was as much a religious fundamentalist as any theist ever was, and maybe for worse reasons. When he didn’t know the mic was on he admitted he didn’t want religion to go away because he was enjoying fighting it too much. I guess it gave him a sense of purpose (not to mention considerable cash). I always thought he was a vile and hateful man. When he died, his coworkers didn’t have nice things to say about him. Dawkins is little better. Harris is a mixed bag, and Dennett is a fine gentleman. IMHO.
So what if the gross overstatement that he had no original thoughts may in some small measure have some validity? For example, the concept of monotheism making one a serf may have derived from Robert Ingersoll. And there have been other examples I can't recall at the moment. But at least he stole from the best, and had the style and guts to promote such views to a new generation, most of whom are probably ignorant of their source. I sometimes hear complaints about the lack of "new" arguments against religion as if that counts in theism's favor. No need to re-invent the wheel for what is already valid.
No, he wasn't. He obviously had flaws, but he also did a lot of good furthering secularism and atheism. As for the author, he's also wrong about Mother Teresa. She is a fucking saint, as proclaimed by Pope Francis. Though that fact isn't any defense of her poorer character traits.
I am on the fence with this one. Even as I have become totally disillusioned with Bill Mahr. Their opinions have taken on a curveball effect! They must live with their public words, but at the same time, they hold nothing of substance in their later life, that I can use!
Hitchens made and defended his points. If it was wrong, how come no one called him on it in a very decisive way?
I'll be honest I never understood his beef with the Clintons but I think he had some points about Teresa, though I admit I am only taking his words as true because no one would ever correct him in debate lol