So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

Very brave.

I cannot fathom the sheer willpower and mental strength it would take to soldier on through debates and interviews in the same condition, let alone in the same manner as Hitchens does. I gotta stop whining when getting outta bed in the morning and man up to the example Hitchens has set.

Well said.

>> ^Offsajdh:

I cannot fanthom the sheer willpower and mental strength it would take to soldier on through debates and interviews in the same condition, let alone in the same manner as Hitchens does. I gotta stop whining when getting outta bed in the morning and man up to the example Hitchens has set.

>> ^chilaxe:

So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.


Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.

>> ^chilaxe:

So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.


My Grandfather was a lifelong health nut. He never drank, never smoked, exercised every day and was a staunch vegan. I have never seen him drink a soda or even a cup of coffee. He died after stage 4 throat cancer took over and spread to his lungs and lymph-nodes.

Everyone will eventually get some form of cancer. Sure, drinking and smoking have an profound increase in the likelihood, but don't toss out holier than thou statements like this when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. My grandfather was a good man that died too soon from something nature does to us all given time.

@Hive13 I'm sorry for your loss. You're right that cancer can arrive randomly, even when we're young children.

This is about statistics, though, which aren't disproved by outlier events. Unhealthy lifetsyles greatly increase the chances of dying from cancer and other diseases while still relatively young, as is Hitchens.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

>> ^chilaxe:
So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.


I think it's sad that he's dying, and it's sad that he's relatively young (60 years old) with much more to contribute to the world. That seems like a high price to pay for some simplistic chemical addictions.

It's sad for sure, but it's his choice as it should be, and we will have to bear the burden of losing his voice early because of it.
>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
>> ^chilaxe:
So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.

I think it's sad that's dying, and it's sad that he's relatively young (60 years old) with much more to contribute to the world. That seems like a high price to pay for some simplistic chemical addictions.

@gwiz665

Right, it was his choice, but we're also free to analyze that choice.

His job was to write social commentary, to give society advice on what we as a society should do, but he himself wasn't able to follow basic medical guidelines to avoid an early death.

He never thought we should treat people's ideas with kids' gloves, so I'm sure he'd understand if we follow in his tradition in our thoughts on life choices.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'christopher hitchens, hitch, life, death, lost gall bladder, chemo brain' to 'christopher hitchens, hitch, life, death, lost gall bladder, chemo brain, brian lamb' - edited by RhesusMonk

>> ^Hive13:

>> ^chilaxe:
So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

My Grandfather was a lifelong health nut. He never drank, never smoked, exercised every day and was a staunch vegan. I have never seen him drink a soda or even a cup of coffee. He died after stage 4 throat cancer took over and spread to his lungs and lymph-nodes.
Everyone will eventually get some form of cancer. Sure, drinking and smoking have an profound increase in the likelihood, but don't toss out holier than thou statements like this when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. My grandfather was a good man that died too soon from something nature does to us all given time.


And by nature, you mean the poisons human industry has added to the environment that pollute our air, water and food, right?

As I always like to point out, there's a difference between something being your fault; and you deserving it.

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?

The lack of conviction you speak of, the unwillingness to accept any "truth" as absolute is by definition the opposite of arrogance. How can anyone who -believes- in anything say to the "non-believer" that he's arrogant? A believer must be arrogant enough to say "I believe in this, I don't believe in that", a logical person simply says "I am not informed enough to decide what is true and what is not, I believe everything is possible". As far as I'm concerned, belief is the ultimate form of arrogance: a person allowing himself not to be completely objective...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?


It is impossible to look at Hitchens' life and accuse him of believing "all propositions equally valid". The singularly most defining aspect of his very public life was his vehemence in debating the merits and superiority of numerous propositions over others. Whether one agreed with his conclusions or not, you could hardly accuse him of not taking a stand, nor being willing to put his own stands to the test, personally.

He embarrassed Charleton Heston during the first Gulf war by famously asking him to name a country neighbouring the state he was so eager to attack, Heston couldn't name one. It was one of the most championed victories of the anti-war movement, and Hitchens was bearing the standard. He then promptly went to Iraq and lived among it's Kurdish people, who thoroughly persuaded him he had been wrong, and he came back as one of the strongest supporters for Saddam's removal.

Hitchens' single biggest life goal was the deconstruction of religion hoping to in essence rid the world of it's evils. Despite this goal, he deliberately took his own children to be taught about religions by their respective leaders and representatives, to avoid poisoning their opinions with his own bias. Still wanting them to be able to make a personal, honest and well informed decision of their own.

The man is an example to us all, no matter how much we may disagree with his conclusions his loss will be a loss to us all. Very few are left in the public sphere with his breadth of knowledge and willingness to vehemently promote and defend what they believe to be true and right.

>> ^chilaxe:

@gwiz665
Right, it was his choice, but we're also free to analyze that choice.
His job was to write social commentary, to give society advice on what we as a society should do, but he himself wasn't able to follow basic medical guidelines to avoid an early death.
He never thought we should treat people's ideas with kids' gloves, so I'm sure he'd understand if we follow in his tradition in our thoughts on life choices.


He'd probably curse you for a fool if you didn't in point of fact.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The lack of conviction you speak of, the unwillingness to accept any "truth" as absolute is by definition the opposite of arrogance. How can anyone who -believes- in anything say to the "non-believer" that he's arrogant? A believer must be arrogant enough to say "I believe in this, I don't believe in that", a logical person simply says "I am not informed enough to decide what is true and what is not, I believe everything is possible". As far as I'm concerned, belief is the ultimate form of arrogance: a person allowing himself not to be completely objectiveBR>


Believing something is not the ultimate arrogance. I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow. Is that arrogant, or is it just good sense? Essentially, I am taking a leap of faith, but the precipice isn't very high. We can believe things just on the basis of observation and deduction. Just because I could be wrong doesn't mean I have no basis for my belief. My belief there is completely justified by the long history of the Sun coming up every day without fail, the stability we find in the continuim, and what we have observed about the behavior of Sol and other similar stars.

How is one supposed to be truly objective? Only God could be truly objective. We simply don't have enough information to be objective about anything. Our lives are consumed with self-interest. Just to maintain our life here we have to eat, be clothed, etc. I guarantee you no one on Earth is as interested in this as you are. We are inherently selfish for this reason. We have to be. It isn't like someone else could or would live our lives for us. Unless we reach out and grab it for ourselves, no one is going to be putting it in our hand.

A logical person may say he isn't informed enough to make judgments about everything, but he is reasonably informed enough about some things to feel fairly confident in his stance. Is that arrogance? To believe something is true, regardless of whether he could be wrong or not? We all have that in common, you know. Every one of us could be wrong about absolutely everything we know as true and real. I think its admirable, to take a stand for what you believe in, as obviously Mr Hitchins did and still does. I think its cowardice to dismiss it all as meaningless. The Earth is ripe with meaning, with value. It screams out to us every moment of every day. To look at this world and see nothing meaningful has got to be a mental illness at best.

First of all, you misunderstood me completely, I was talking about spiritual belief, there's a difference between believing the sun will come up and believing in god and even there I have a problem with the verb "believe". I don't believe the sun will come up, I know it has come up every day since the day I was born so I assume (with quite a bit of certainty) that it will come up again tomorrow.

I understood from your words that you believe in god, you talk about meaning with such certainty and then you talk about humility? To me, true humility is accepting you can't truly believe in things of the spiritual nature, they are metaphysical, you have no means of judging their meaning/existence or lack there of. You could look at the different explanations science/religion/your own personal interpretation can offer and say which you feel the most at peace with.

You talk about the "trap" of nihilism, again, ironic. As far as I'm concerned religious belief is the trap, it is in of it self arrogance, it is saying "I believe in something because I do, because I have faith". I don't "believe" in science, I accept that it is our most efficient tool at understanding the world, it isn't an answer, it is a means. I don't understand how any humble human being deems it justifiable to just pick from a plethora of so called "answers" or "truths" and say "this one, this is true, this explains everything, there is meaning". Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you are religious then why would you talk about something like the sun rising and falling? It is a physical phenomenon that we can observe and make (somewhat) objective assumptions about. You must realize that in religion logic is never on your side, it is the belief in spite of logic, the insistence on the least likely, arrogance.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The lack of conviction you speak of, the unwillingness to accept any "truth" as absolute is by definition the opposite of arrogance. How can anyone who -believes- in anything say to the "non-believer" that he's arrogant? A believer must be arrogant enough to say "I believe in this, I don't believe in that", a logical person simply says "I am not informed enough to decide what is true and what is not, I believe everything is possible". As far as I'm concerned, belief is the ultimate form of arrogance: a person allowing himself not to be completely objectiveBR>

Believing something is not the ultimate arrogance. I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow. Is that arrogant, or is it just good sense? Essentially, I am taking a leap of faith, but the precipice isn't very high. We can believe things just on the basis of observation and deduction. Just because I could be wrong doesn't mean I have no basis for my belief. My belief there is completely justified by the long history of the Sun coming up every day without fail, the stability we find in the continuim, and what we have observed about the behavior of Sol and other similar stars.
How is one supposed to be truly objective? Only God could be truly objective. We simply don't have enough information to be objective about anything. Our lives are consumed with self-interest. Just to maintain our life here we have to eat, be clothed, etc. I guarantee you no one on Earth is as interested in this as you are. We are inherently selfish for this reason. We have to be. It isn't like someone else could or would live our lives for us. Unless we reach out and grab it for ourselves, no one is going to be putting it in our hand.
A logical person may say he isn't informed enough to make judgments about everything, but he is reasonably informed enough about some things to feel fairly confident in his stance. Is that arrogance? To believe something is true, regardless of whether he could be wrong or not? We all have that in common, you know. Every one of us could be wrong about absolutely everything we know as true and real. I think its admirable, to take a stand for what you believe in, as obviously Mr Hitchins did and still does. I think its cowardice to dismiss it all as meaningless. The Earth is ripe with meaning, with value. It screams out to us every moment of every day. To look at this world and see nothing meaningful has got to be a mental illness at best.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
First of all, you misunderstood me completely, I was talking about spiritual belief, there's a difference between believing the sun will come up and believing in god and even there I have a problem with the verb "believe". I don't believe the sun will come up, I know it has come up every day since the day I was born so I assume (with quite a bit of certainty) that it will come up again tomorrow.
I understood from your words that you believe in god, you talk about meaning with such certainty and then you talk about humility? To me, true humility is accepting you can't truly believe in things of the spiritual nature, they are metaphysical, you have no means of judging their meaning/existence or lack there of. You could look at the different explanations science/religion/your own personal interpretation can offer and say which you feel the most at peace with.
You talk about the "trap" of nihilism, again, ironic. As far as I'm concerned religious belief is the trap, it is in of it self arrogance, it is saying "I believe in something because I do, because I have faith". I don't "believe" in science, I accept that it is our most efficient tool at understanding the world, it isn't an answer, it is a means. I don't understand how any humble human being deems it justifiable to just pick from a plethora of so called "answers" or "truths" and say "this one, this is true, this explains everything, there is meaning". Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you are religious then why would you talk about something like the sun rising and falling? It is a physical phenomenon that we can observe and make (somewhat) objective assumptions about. You must realize that in religion logic is never on your side, it is the belief in spite of logic, the insistence on the least likely, arrogance.


I can tell you're itching to attack my views here, but since you're not sure, you can't unload the big guns. I'll make it easier for you. Yes, I believe in God. No, it isn't because I was raised with religion (i wasn't), nor was I indoctrinated. I was agnostic until a few years ago. I believe in God because of personal revelation.

Now you say God isn't likely. How would you know? If you want to look at it that way, everything is equally unlikely. Why should anything exist at all? I think you're having the problem that most atheists have, seperating the question from religious ideas about it. The question, "Was the Universe created?" is a perfectly reasonable one. I don't see why it seems so out there to some people to believe that the Universe could have been created. To say it all exploded out of nothing randomly I think is a much more bizzare (and ridiculous) thought.

The spiritual is not something you believe in, it's something you experience. It's not a matter of conceptualizing it, it's a matter of what is happening in actuality, real time, in the here and now. Before my beliefs changed, I had no clue what any of it was all about. I presumed people were imagining it. Not so. There are interconnections between us which transcend physiciality. There are parallel realities in which people can and do travel, in their dreams or wide awake. Until you experience it personally, you absolutely won't know anything about it what-so-ever. It's like trying to watch a football game from outside the stadium based on the noise the crowd is making.

I don't believe the things I do, or have the faith I have, because of some selfish need or weakness or fear. I believe as I do because of my personal experience. I wouldn't believe it, otherwise. It isn't arrogant of me to believe in something in which I have sufficient evidence personally. To me, truth is something tangible; it is not a vague conception. It is the framework of who and what I am. Regardless of whether it seems real to someone else, it is real to me, and the impact I have on the world is a direct result of that truth. So, either way you look at it, it's a real thing. This is what I meant about all the meaning out there. 7 billion human beings living out their truth. It is tangible to all of us.

Well, I'm just glad we reached this point. I don't really feel a need to "attack" your views, I just wanted you to play the "you can't understand" card. It's the kind of rhetoric I won't spend time arguing with. If I told you I experienced a revelation that led me to believe the universe is governed by an invisible unicorn in space you'd think I'm an idiot. Well, that's all I have for you in regards to "you can't understand it". You're right, I can't, I haven't experienced "spirituality" and as far as I'm concerned it's complete and utter BS.

>> ^shinyblurry:



I can tell you're itching to attack my views here, but since you're not sure, you can't unload the big guns. I'll make it easier for you. Yes, I believe in God. No, it isn't because I was raised with religion (i wasn't), nor was I indoctrinated. I was agnostic until a few years ago. I believe in God because of personal revelation.
Now you say God isn't likely. How would you know? If you want to look at it that way, everything is equally unlikely. Why should anything exist at all? I think you're having the problem that most atheists have, seperating the question from religious ideas about it. The question, "Was the Universe created?" is a perfectly reasonable one. I don't see why it seems so out there to some people to believe that the Universe could have been created. To say it all exploded out of nothing randomly I think is a much more bizzare (and ridiculous) thought.
The spiritual is not something you believe in, it's something you experience. It's not a matter of conceptualizing it, it's a matter of what is happening in actuality, real time, in the here and now. Before my beliefs changed, I had no clue what any of it was all about. I presumed people were imagining it. Not so. There are interconnections between us which transcend physiciality. There are parallel realities in which people can and do travel, in their dreams or wide awake. Until you experience it personally, you absolutely won't know anything about it what-so-ever. It's like trying to watch a football game from outside the stadium based on the noise the crowd is making.
I don't believe the things I do, or have the faith I have, because of some selfish need or weakness or fear. I believe as I do because of my personal experience. I wouldn't believe it, otherwise. It isn't arrogant of me to believe in something in which I have sufficient evidence personally. To me, truth is something tangible; it is not a vague conception. It is the framework of who and what I am. Regardless of whether it seems real to someone else, it is real to me, and the impact I have on the world is a direct result of that truth. So, either way you look at it, it's a real thing. This is what I meant about all the meaning out there. 7 billion human beings living out their truth. It is tangible to all of us.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
Well, I'm just glad we reached this point. I don't really feel a need to "attack" your views, I just wanted you to play the "you can't understand" card. It's the kind of rhetoric I won't spend time arguing with. If I told you I experienced a revelation that led me to believe the universe is governed by an invisible unicorn in space you'd think I'm an idiot. Well, that's all I have for you in regards to "you can't understand it". You're right, I can't, I haven't experienced "spirituality" and as far as I'm concerned it's complete and utter BS.


I actually said a lot more than that, ninjainheat. It's fairly disingenuous to characterize my entire post by one statement. It wasn't a condescension either. I am just going by my own experience. I didn't understand the spiritual at all, nor could I perceive it, until I experienced it. It's a bit like the story where the indians couldn't see the gigantic ships coming to shore when Columbus came because it wasn't in their worldview or understanding. So, I can understand your skepticism. I used to be equally skeptical. I was in fact agnostic, as I said before.

Since you say you're done I guess I'll cut this short. I would only suggest to you that you're rather quick to judge something you admittedly know nothing about. And the ridiculousness of contrasting these questions to fantasy as if there is nothing meaningful there is intellectually dishonest. Aristotle, and many other philosophers, thought they were important. His theory of God was the "Uncaused cause" which actually uniquely describes the judeo christian God. God, naturally, solves quite a lot of large philosophical problems. That's not a reason to believe, obviously. Yet it just shows that these are important questions. Was the Universe created is a reasonable, logical, and rational question. Is there life after death is also a reasonable logical and rational question. Unicorns and spaghetti monsters are not inherent to this reasoning.