One of his more iconic debates can still be viewed right here on the sift:

http://videosift.com/video/George-Galloway-debates-Christopher-Hitchens-on-Iraq-part-1

>> ^sirex:

Hows about people remember and celebrate the man however the hell they want ?


Sure.

I'll make mine a double.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'christopher hitchens, tribute, voice of reason, hommage, whisky, cheers' to 'RIP, christopher hitchens, tribute, voice of reason, homage, whisky, cheers' - edited by therealblankman

>> ^JiggaJonson:

promote
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memo
riam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011
gets teary eyed


Thanks for the promote Jigga, I didn't see this one the 1st time around. I'm gonna miss the Hitchslaps...

A friend of mine found this quote from Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife, after he died. Found it pretty inspiring:

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me - it still sometimes happens - and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous - not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance… That pure chance could be so generous and so kind… That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time… That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it's much more meaningful…

The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful."

*promote

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011

*gets teary eyed*

*promote

Monotheism gets the Hitchslap.
Christopher Hitchens is dead
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/christopher-hitchens/graydon-201112
May he rest in peace.

This guy is a christian. He talks about and believes in magical things that just do not exist or are invisible, silent, unproven, and lacking any verifiable evidence. He is not different from any other garden variety christian creationist. Of course Chis Hedges must attack the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet men of whose logic is unimpeachable and unapproachable by the likes of Chis Hedges.

"You have figure like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris who are religious illiterates and bigots whose right wing policies do not differ in any way from the christian fundamentalists they attack. They're all chanting for war in the middle east and demonizing muslims in the name of western civilization rather than in the name of satan."

Wow... not sure what to say here.

Edit:
Just learned that Hedges is the only person that Sam Harris will no longer speak to or shake hands with, because of his vehement dishonesty and hatred for those who possess a difference of opinion. Again wow.

I think this guy is great for promoting free, individual, logical thought. But he may have made an error when he said; "If there's any truth to empathy, you're going to have to substantiate it." I thought empathy was simply recognizing, and sharing, someone elses experience (happiness, sadness, pain). I hope he keeps up the good work, we need many more like him, especially when we may soon (hopefully not) lose the greatest free thinker of our age, Christopher Hitchens.

Considering he will be nothing but a lifeless pile of flesh when he's dead (and he knows this), I think it is very considerate to honour his accomplishments while he is still alive.

>> ^VoodooV:

But I'm not dead yet!
Quiet, you're not fooling anyone!

I know that Hitchens' situation is not looking promising last I heard, but it does seem odd that I've seen so many videos lately that make it seem like he recently passed.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, christopher hitchens, sean penn, atheist, dawkins, cancer' to 'stephen fry, christopher hitchens, salman rushdie, sean penn, atheist, dawkins, cancer' - edited by hpqp

@SDGundamX

WARNING: pretty harsh words ahead.

First, I'm not going to take up the "to toast or not to toast" subject, only point out that if you choose to ignore my "sarcasm" label, you can't go on to blame me from straying off topic (also: Hitchens is not an alcoholic, which is why I posted the citation from him about his drinking. What with all the dolts he's debated though, it's little wonder he felt like taking the edge off).

Sifters up/down-vote a comment based on their (dis-)agreement with it's content/sentiment, as do you, so no need to get self-righteous about it. Some comments are sarcastic, some funny, some serious arguments; that's communication for you (you'll note the highest rated comments on VS are not necessarily the most snarky (see here, or my top comment for example).

Saying that we don't pay attention to what other comments say is ridiculous in this context: it is because attention has been paid that snarky witticisms can be writ (and so spot on, may I add). Seriously though, saying that the religion/atheism discussion has been "O'Reillyfied" is incredibly insulting and downright false (unless you're talking about shiny's comments... but since he's pretty much the only one to stand up for his absurd convictions on VS I can see why you'd get that impression, from that side of the argument in any case). You point to my response as an example, but it only shows that I'm making two points: correcting your false statement about what Hitchens does in his debates in the briefest possible manner, and arguing that there is nothing sinister or wrong in drinking to a sick man in homage of what he's accomplished, no matter if alcohol is responsible for his sickness.

It seems to me that, as @ChaosEngine points out, you simply don't like being called out on your false assumptions and accusations. I find it telling that you took the time to answer my comment here, whining about how it's impossible to have a debate, but you chose not to answer to my comment here, in which I call you out on your false assumptions without sarcasm, but with evidence (more on that here). So coming here on your high horse to look down on those of us who sprinkle our arguments with both evidence and sarcasm is the height of hypocrisy when you choose to ignore all the actual debate going on. No wonder you can't understand why sifters no longer respond to shiny's bs, or if they do, with nothing but scorn and derision. Not all of us have the patience of a Christopher Hitchens with people who repeatedly spout the same nonsense no matter how many times it is refuted. If all you can do is resort to complaining about tone then by all means, go somewhere where people do not rustle your feathers or question your assumptions, but don't delude yourself into thinking that that is a more rational debate than the ones here.

Yes, the above is harsh, but sometimes one need be to get a point across. If I didn't think you were capable of rational debate I would simply ignore you (as I do shiny).

Just a heads-up, but if you quote someone they get an email telling them what you wrote instantly. So if you go back and edit your comment (as you did in this case) I still get to read your original remarks. Something to consider before hitting the submit button next time, if you didn't realize that. I'll respond to your original post:

Yeah, you used your sad little line once already. I know you think it makes you sound smart, but it just makes you seem like a tool. Care to actually engage in a debate with facts and opinions?

Yes, I would very much like to engage in a debate with facts and...opinions (can you have a debate without opinions)?

Regardless, I would also like to engage in a debate where people avoid logical fallacies rather than zealously pursuing them (for instance, that pesky ad hominem that so many people on the Sift have a hard time avoiding). And unfortunately I've learned that kind of debate just doesn't happen here often enough, which is why (as I said in my original post) I've moved on to debating on other forums where people are more interested in reasonable discussion than comment upvotes or making themselves feel clever by insulting others.

By the way, just in case you still don't understand the point of my original post, I suggest you read my answer to hpqp in which I spell it out clearly.

Or you can keep insulting me and continue proving my point.

Also, since you asked so nicely, here are some facts for you:

-- Hitchens in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule" (Vanity Fair, March issue)
-- In the same article, he mentions that some people need alcohol to avoid self-destructing even more quickly... self-referential? Who knows.
-- According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans moderate drinking is defined as no more than two drinks a day. Yet according to his own auto-biography Hitchens was drinking far in excess of that, including half a bottle of red wine (no less) at lunch alone in addition to his other drinks throughout the day.
-- As per hpqp's quote, he knew it was bad for him but continued to drink anyways... right up until the cancer. In fact I could find no information stating that he has given up drinking despite the cancer.

Of course, Hitchens denies that he's an alcoholic... but so do most alcoholics so I don't give that much credence.

In the end, though, whether or not he is an alcoholic is actually a moot point. The excessive drinking (if you prefer that term) has contributed to his cancer and an early grave. Thus it strikes me (and Shinyblurry) as peculiar to honor him with a toast. You disagree and that is your right. But instead of stating your case, you (and to be fair, a lot of others) came out flaming those who disagreed with you. And that is how we ended up having this conversation.

(P.S. I am indeed a tool. But I am a tool who carefully considers what his opponents say and can argue his point without having to insult the opposing side.)

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
Wow, what an original and clever response.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Upvoted for both missing the point and proving it at the very same time.

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/SDGundamX" title="member since March 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">SDGundamX, Hitchens was not an alcoholic. It is possible to enjoy a few drinks without being an alcoholic.

As for your response to @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://fletch.videosift.com" title="member since August 9th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#FF4500">Fletch, I fail to see how he either missed or proved your point. All I can see is that he refuted your bullshit with facts and logic. But I guess those aren't really popular with your ilk.