This is a loss. Not so much for his views but his writing ability. The great writers are dying off and I haven't found many coming up to replace them. Certainlly won't find great writing on the sportspages these days!

RIP Hitchens.

Where did he pass too?  He believed in nothing, so I guess he just rots in a hole.  Nevertheless, he was entertaining and stimulating.  Can you name one person or thing he liked?

How does one go about believing in nothing?

badgerkevin wrote: How does one go about believing in nothing?

That's a misnomer.  It's more like not "believing" in anything.  It's about not believing anything you don't have any evidence for.  Like, for example, you probably feel about most religions.

Thanks Arial. I understood at what he was going for. Hitchens did not have faith in anything supernatural, but believed in many things. The man was a great writer, clear and concise in his beliefs. Faith is the word TheCodger could have used and been accurate.

A person who believes in everything believes in nothing.

If a person is merely another animal, then anything that improves one standing or wealth is just fine. What's good for the grizzly or an Orca, is good for me,another animal,  too.   After all, survival of the fittest, in a way.   There must be a moral componnent to life.  If we are just another animal, morals are just take it or leave it, what ever works for me.   So, if one is of Hitchens bent, there should be no such thing as even selfish of brutish behavior, as long as it feels good or improves one's prospects.  For people like Hitchens to talk about "right" or "wrong" or "good' vs. "bad" is totally without obligatory foundation.  If we are just another animal, we can eat our own young, especially if they are useless (or needed for food), without any remorse, as is the way in much of the real aninmal kingdom.   However we do have Judeo-Christian principles which revere life and virtue.

All that aside, one can still follow the teachings of a Jesus, without believing literally.  As do other various "religions" which may follow the teachings of a scholar or mentor.

TheCodger wrote: 

If we are just another animal, morals are just take it or leave it, what ever works for me.  

I disagree, but I guess the extent of it depends on what you mean by "just."  We are another animal, but we have a much greater ability to reason and reflect than most other animals.  And we are very social animals.  We have evolved to engage in social relationships that are much, much more than just "whatever works for me."  There is absolutely no need for any supernatural power to direct our conduct.

Your justification is for you, but in a real world, people will do what is necessary to thrive or survive.  Even if it means killing in self defense.  In some societies (Canada), lethal self defense is not legal.  That is their problem.  Stil, sacrificing one's success or life on some philosophy or lack thereof, is a personal choice, not found in non-human world.  We are under no societal obligation to be altruistic or even respect life (as in abortion, especially partial birth).  However, our sociteal laws are really based on Judeo-Christian ethics.  That cannot be denied.

A person does not need to believe in supernatural to believe in teachings of Jesus, or any philiosopher.  His teachings are altruistic, but we do have free-choice, even in the Christian religion. 

If I am wrong, nothing lost, if you are wrong, nuts!  You will be disappointed, to say the least.

TheCodger wrote: Where did he pass too?  He believed in nothing, so I guess he just rots in a hole.  Nevertheless, he was entertaining and stimulating.  Can you name one person or thing he liked?

He liked smoking and drinking.

I hate when people equate religion to morals.  One does not need religion to be moral.  That argument is nonsense, like religion itself.