Not a bad summary of Hitch by the SMH, for those who have no idea who he was.
www.smh.com.au/world/the-hitchens-ethos--provocative-militant--and-always-humanist-20111217-1ozqe.html
Personally, I feel Hitchens is up there with Attenborough as somebody this world can least afford to loose..
His grasp of language, spoken and written also created a very interesting chronicle of his premature demise, with some very good perspectives that the average cancer sufferer just cannot provide. With no delusion of an afterlife he faced oblivion with courage, honesty, and dignity..
There is a collection of obituaries over at; http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644246-christopher-hitchens-obituaries
He was a boss. Back in my uni days I used to try and troll the Christian groups on market day because at the time I considered arguing with religious nut jobs some what of a sport; this was of course before I realised it's pointless as you can't argue with the indoctrinated. Anyway if I had even 1/100th of the knowledge and elocution of Mr Hitchins it would have been an epic good time.
I'm sure there's a lot of religious fruit bats out there right now going "see he got what he deserved" 
great man. a huge loss for mankind.
I used to argue with religious people as well (about religion, I still argue with them for other things) but really.. it's like arguing about mathematical theorems with a person that uses Dr Seuss math (where after "three" comes "blue"), or playing a game with a child: since they make up their rules according to their argument, you won't be able to reason with them.
It seems stupid of me to quote "Van" at this moment, Hitchens wasn't a fan of religion or stupidity though he did love words more than most.
"Rave on, you left us infinity
And well pressed pages torn to fade
Drive on with wild abandon
Uptempo, frenzied heels"
Maybe it is time to make some aware of the difference between an "athiest" and an "agnostic" and for them to figure out which of the two they are.
My book of reference is the "Concise Oxford Dictionary" first edition 1911, fourth edition 1951, reprinted (with revised addenda) 1952,1954 and 1956, mine being the 1956 reprint and the only authorative dictionary of the English language that I accept as I regard all later dictionaries as being polluted by "New Speak".
In alphabetical order:-
agnostic:- 1. one who holds that nothing is known, or likely to be known of the existance of a God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
atheism:- disbelief in the existence of a God; Godlessness.
The former suggest an open mindedness that allows for proof of a God dependant on a material manifestation.
The latter suggests an immoveable stance of total denial of the existence of a God or the possibility of it.
The difference is subtle but clear, relevant and noteable.
Me??............I am a sinning irreligious Christian who therefore believes Christ came to the world to relieve us of our sins and that whosoever believes in He shall have everlasting Life.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
^ Very nice, Those definitions can of course be expanded.. This is quoted from the Dawkins book, the Santa Delusion...
I Have censored the book title and the rest of this post for the amusement that getting a thread locked for talking about Santa will cause...
Replace Santa with anything you like.
