1. Comment #36353 by Rtambree on May 1, 2007 at 1:29 am

More mainstream coverage for atheism. The theists must be sensing the end of the world is nigh.

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #36361 by Fouad Boussetta on May 1, 2007 at 1:48 am

Ho ho ho. I like him. He's got GUTS.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

3. Comment #36368 by Jolly Wally on May 1, 2007 at 2:03 am

What is great about these prominent atheists, is that they are all so different. Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris, to this magnetic gentleman ^o)

Other Comments by Jolly Wally

4. Comment #36380 by kirkmc on May 1, 2007 at 2:46 am

He is interesting, but should learn to start drinking after his interviews. He'll be giving the moralizers fodder, saying that all atheists are alcoholics.

Other Comments by kirkmc

5. Comment #36402 by Eureka Step on May 1, 2007 at 3:48 am

I agree, Jolly Wally.

We're building an all star team here!

Not enough time dedicated to letting Hitchens get his point across or "sell" his book, but still...

Fear of the dark...check
Fear of death......check
Hatred of sex......check

You got yourself a religion.

Other Comments by Eureka Step

6. Comment #36404 by Tavat on May 1, 2007 at 3:54 am

Yeah, he was pretty sauced, for sure. But I have a feeling that it was just to prevent him from lashing out at Stewart (our the audience)for conducting the show in the mocking and light-hearted and, ultimately, frivolous manner for which the Daily Show is famous. His work is serious and he is VERY serious about argumentation (or at least about arguing), so getting sauced maybe prevented him from coming off as too much of a cantankerous douchebag. See a previous interview with Stewart for a more reactionary Hitchens (Sorry, I can't find the link, but I saw it somewhere on YouTube). He was pretty cool under Jon's distracting giggles.

Other Comments by Tavat

7. Comment #36407 by Liveliest Crib on May 1, 2007 at 3:56 am

4. Comment #36380 by kirkmc on May 1, 2007 at 2:46 am

He is interesting, but should learn to start drinking after his interviews. He'll be giving the moralizers fodder, saying that all atheists are alcoholics.

They'll say it anyway. :) And somehow, I get the feeling that asking Hitchens not to drink before appearances is like asking the moralizers to renounce their faith.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

8. Comment #36436 by Feuerbach on May 1, 2007 at 5:36 am

The story goes, hitchens wanted the book titled:

"God is a hoorible old bastid, ahh feck off will ya...PINT!"

but the publishers had to convince him of the folly of it in a rare sober moment.

Other Comments by Feuerbach

9. Comment #36439 by jaytee_555 on May 1, 2007 at 5:46 am

Many of the posters on this site may be put off Hitchens by his stance on Iraq (much of which I happen to agree with). But don't anyone underestimate him. He always gives first class argumentation and well-researched reasons for his points of view. He is extremely erudite, and a top-notch communicator, sauced or not.

His site www.hitchensweb.com is well-worth a visit.

Jaytee_555 (UK)

Other Comments by jaytee_555

10. Comment #36440 by Audley Strange on May 1, 2007 at 5:48 am

It all makes so much sense now. If you give an infinite amount of chimps an infinite amount of typewriters they may well come up with the works of Shakespeare. But if you give a finite amount of chimps some pen parchment and ink and a couple of thousand years they'll come up with the Bible.

Other Comments by Audley Strange

11. Comment #36445 by Bookman on May 1, 2007 at 6:48 am

What a wasted opportunity that was. The best preparation for this book tour would have been a visit to Betty Ford. It is a disease, so I suppose I should feel some pity for the man. From what I've heard, the book is much more coherent.

Other Comments by Bookman

12. Comment #36450 by Chris Davis on May 1, 2007 at 7:09 am

Excellent! The book should be good stuff.

Though Dr. Dawkins is of course the One True AntiGod, I look forward to reading Hitchens on this subject: he always manages to combine intemperance and anger with such pinpoint-precision arguments that no-one, however offended and hostile, can fail to miss them.

I don't see the fuss about his ethanol absorption: his arguments were perfectly coherent. I'm sure getting somewhat tiddly is good preparation for going on the Daily Show to sell a serious subject in a manic comedy environment and a couple of minutes to do it in.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

13. Comment #36451 by ICONIC FREEDOM on May 1, 2007 at 7:09 am

If I were to fabricate a religion to endure all the tests of time, it would include all of the following:

1. God cannot be evidenced through rational means. This will ensure that any rational argument is null and void.

2. God and man's consciousness transcend the material world. This will ensure that no scientific experiment can negate the existence of God.

3. Man will only know God if he truly asks from his soul to believe. So, it is each man's fault if they do not know God.

4. God is the sole creator and precedes all that is empirically known now and in the future. Any advancement in science will not negate God's existence, as God will precede anything that is proven.

5. Man's existence transcends this life. All future lives are affected by man's performance in this life. This way, religion can continue to control and affect the lives of men through a moral structure.

6. Faith does not require evidence and is the ultimate prerequisite for a moral life and a pleasant afterlife. Just adhere to this religion or else.

7. God is beyond the realm of man's understanding but you still must believe in God. So believe even though you have no way to understand why.

A belief in God is not required in order to value or believe in the following:

1. The power of sound and light

2. The beauty and power of nature

3. The awe of this universe and the possible multiverse

4. The existence of a collective consciousness

5. The power of the mind

6. There is much to this world which is unfathomable and presently unknowable

7. The Golden Rule

8. Social contracts

9. Life

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

14. Comment #36452 by konquererz on May 1, 2007 at 7:16 am

I'm not a big Hitchens fan, but I will likely buy and read the book. I thought the interview was fun though. Jon Stewart makes me laugh no matter who he interviews. Hitchens always looks slooshed, this time was no exception. He did a bang up job for being, well, like he is....

Other Comments by konquererz

15. Comment #36455 by waxwings on May 1, 2007 at 7:28 am

Hitchens looked wasted in that clip. Assuming that's the case, he's not one of those fortunate people who is made more interesting by being drunk.

Other Comments by waxwings

16. Comment #36457 by Zaphod on May 1, 2007 at 7:33 am

He gets his views across better here http://www.booktv.org/ram/feature/0407/btv042907_4b.ram

Other Comments by Zaphod

17. Comment #36462 by franciebrady on May 1, 2007 at 7:50 am

Anybody got a link to the video that is *not* Quicktime?

Other Comments by franciebrady

18. Comment #36467 by bouwe on May 1, 2007 at 8:38 am

Interesting to contrast his views with that of his younger brother (also a journalist). Apparently he is a godbeliever who doesn't believe in evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

Interesting dinner conversations at family gatherings, that is for sure.

Interesting to note his brother's "reasoning" for not believing in evolution: he has fallen for typical creationist claptrap aka "no one was there at the time, so how can you prove it?" mentality. No wonder poor Christopher turned to the bottle, having to put up with crap like that from his little brother-who-turned-Tory. I'd be drinking too!

Other Comments by bouwe

19. Comment #36470 by RascoHeldall on May 1, 2007 at 9:03 am

It all makes so much sense now. If you give an infinite amount of chimps an infinite amount of typewriters they may well come up with the works of Shakespeare. But if you give a finite amount of chimps some pen parchment and ink and a couple of thousand years they'll come up with the Bible.

Wonderful!

This is great, atheism seems to be getting loads of airtime in the States now - dare I say it is on the verge of becoming...fashionable?

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

20. Comment #36472 by Gaffer on May 1, 2007 at 9:10 am

I watched it once and didn't even think about him being drunk until I read the comments. I've watched it again and still can't see it. Maybe I've just seen George Best and Oliver Reed on chat shows too many times though.

Other Comments by Gaffer

21. Comment #36475 by Mr. Mark on May 1, 2007 at 9:34 am

Hitchens looked drunk? Spare me.

Hitchens was just as lucid here as he was over the weekend at the LA Book Fest. He didn't look at all inotxicated or off his game. He did have to deal with Stewart's style of interviewing which is hardly straight forward, but he got his message across, and he didn't yell at the audience.

I swear, hopping on the "Hitchens was drunk" bandwagon is a cheap shot. Most people know that Hitchens is a big drinker, yet people on this blog rush to throw out the "he's drinking again" meme as if they're in possession of some hot gossip of which no one else has even an inkling. It amounts to the lowest common denomonator of discourse on "Subject: Hitchens."

Let's stop with the knee-jerk reactions.

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

22. Comment #36480 by cassdenata on May 1, 2007 at 9:57 am

I second that, or third that. The thought of him being drunk never crossed my mind.

Other Comments by cassdenata

23. Comment #36481 by paulcaira on May 1, 2007 at 10:04 am

The drunk thing is interesting. I've been thinking recently - 'Hell, humans do loads of things that are irrational - get drunk when it's bad for them and makes them foolish, carry on smoking when they know it's going to kill them, buy £400 handbags because they've been hyped - maybe religion's like that. Just part of our irrational nature.'
But of course, the difference is that no one is expected to take these irrational behaviours seriously or to respect them. To the extent Hitchens may have been drunk, our respect for him may have been diminished. But when a bishop or rabbi is wheeled up on TV or radio, we're expected to respect him more...

Other Comments by paulcaira

24. Comment #36486 by carnitine on May 1, 2007 at 10:12 am

He certainly looked tipsy to me, and it's the first thought that I had. I think perhaps he just has a different style of response than RD does. RD comes prepared with responses to all the standard questions, which allows him to get a lot more words in.

Hitchens seems to just wing it, which is probably preferable in many situations, but when the goal of your interlocutor is to get cheap laughs (love Jon Stewart, but he's not an easy interview), not having canned responses prepared works against you. This could also be the reason why he seemed a bit mashed, as he stumbled and bumbled while searching for his words, rather than knowing what he was going to say already.

I'll likely pick up his book eventually, as he seems to be a great (if under-informed) writer, but his interview skills and personality traits make him a less effective representative of atheism in my opinion.

Other Comments by carnitine

25. Comment #36489 by Mr. Mark on May 1, 2007 at 10:18 am

Interesting Hitchens factoid:

Hitchens shares his birthday with Thomas Jefferson - April 13, and Hitchens chose his most-recent birthday to become an American citizen. Yep. he's been one of us Yanks for about 2 weeks.

Hitchens now joins the elite group of Americans who may utter the phrase, "sod off!" without sounding pretentious. ;)

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

26. Comment #36490 by BocoDragon on May 1, 2007 at 10:18 am

The interview did not go well.

Spin it however you want, but that was hardly enlightening to atheist and theist alike.

I'm sure the book is a better argument than the painful interview I saw on the Daily Show.

Other Comments by BocoDragon

27. Comment #36495 by waxwings on May 1, 2007 at 10:32 am

Man, Hitchens was tanked.

I see some comments here lamenting this fact because it reflect poorly on the atheist community. My fellow atheists would do well to remind themselves that there's nothing about atheism that says you can't be a drunk, a neocon, or a complete asshole for that matter.

It might also do well to remember that 'The Daily Show' is a comedy show. Who cares if Hitchens got blitzed in the green room before his joke interview with Jon Stewart?

Lighten up people.

Other Comments by waxwings

28. Comment #36496 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 10:33 am

Does anyone know how to do Wikipedia editing, without me wasting any more of my life trying to learn how to? This page needs an edit here:

Christopher Hitchens - English journalist who has a reputation as a drinker. Hitchens wrote that "in my time I've met more old drunks than old doctors", and noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind."[22] His 2007 book is titled Hitch Is Not Great: How Everything In My Body Is Filled With Poison, Particularly My Liver where he writes that he is "a self-centered fantasist and an Scotch-centered ignoramus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iconic_drinkers

Cheers

Other Comments by Roll

29. Comment #36497 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 10:36 am

Many great people have been, or are, big drinkers. Or have even become great because of alcohol, their drug of choice. Please stop attacking this and listen to the man.

Other Comments by Roll

30. Comment #36504 by Bookman on May 1, 2007 at 11:03 am

Mr. Mark wrote:


"I swear, hopping on the "Hitchens was drunk" bandwagon is a cheap shot"

I'm in complete agreement with Hitchens on the topic of religion and I think he has written eloquently on the subject. But showing up drunk for interviews, not once, but repeatedly, is completely unprofessional. It's hardly "cheap" to point that out. I like a lot of what Hitchens writes, but lets face it, the man's a boor. Give me Dawkins any day.

Other Comments by Bookman

31. Comment #36505 by krogercomplete on May 1, 2007 at 11:05 am

For a more sober (and extremely impressive) performance, check out the Religion and Culture Panel from the LA Times Literary Festival that was posted yesterday.

Other Comments by krogercomplete

32. Comment #36523 by UncleJJ on May 1, 2007 at 12:13 pm

He did a good job of replying to Jon Stewart's questions and got the message across in a humourous way. I can't see what people are on about, he didn't seem to be drunk at all.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

33. Comment #36535 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 12:53 pm

"...showing up drunk for interviews, not once, but repeatedly, is completely unprofessional."

Who are you to tell Hitch, the proper way to comport yourself publically, is with sobriety?

"It's hardly "cheap" to point that out."

Yes, it is. You don't come close to attacking the ideas, in fact you seem to support them. What then do you find repulsive about the method of delivery? Perhaps they pander to your own prejudices about what kind of person is allowed to elaborate on your own firmly adopted philosophy.

"I like a lot of what Hitchens writes, but lets face it, the man's a boor. Give me Dawkins any day."

Hitch adds the required boorishness in his interviews, to the eloquent argument in his writing. Boorishness bludgeons the platitudinous rantings of the faithful perfectly.

Other Comments by Roll

34. Comment #36545 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 1:31 pm

And what's more. @Roll climbs up on to the table, without regard for his own safety.@
Hitch is usually bang-on about the Western reaction to Iraq. I don't know how many of you have actually read any of his stuff in relation to this, or are just assuming the worst kind of Bush/Blair affiliation without reading the meat of it. But his ideas and reactions that are described as Neocon, are a journalistic simplification for what he is actually saying. I would urge anyone interested in understanding his real attitude, to listen to Hitchens and not the people that would compartmentalise him on this issue. There is something to be heard there IMO.

Other Comments by Roll

35. Comment #36547 by BaronOchs on May 1, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Will all the temperance society bores give over?!

[inane comment]Churchill drank and he won the war[/inane comment]

Hitchens has acheived more in life than a fair few sober people I daresay and I'm not going to judge.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

36. Comment #36548 by The Soothsayer on May 1, 2007 at 1:55 pm

"This is great, atheism seems to be getting loads of airtime in the States now - dare I say it is on the verge of becoming...fashionable?"

Is this a plainly positive thing that atheism might become fashionable? Fashion, I think, means something that isn't here to stay, that is, something that is just a momentary trend that will pass away rather soon. I think that atheism is a burden that many people aren't really ready to handle by themselves and rely too much on charismatic figures such as Dawkins or Hitchens(who are to them just substitutes for Jesus or YHWH). There are many fence sitters who may be atheists today but maybe not year or two from now(they will forget the whole thing, or something like that). I would value the atheism that has sprang from our personal "spiritual journies" and not the atheism that is a result of some "fashion trend in 2007".

Other Comments by The Soothsayer

37. Comment #36550 by tomjlawson on May 1, 2007 at 2:02 pm

"Comfort" is the key word. When you want to take something dangerous away from somebody they cry, "It comforts me!"

Where else do we hear statements like this?

Oh, yeah, the National Rifle Association. Every NRA member has a gun for one reason: to protect themselves from the imaginary. They think that all minorities want to steal their stuff, that homosexuals and pedophiles want their kids, and that sex addicts want to rape their wives. Scary thoughts, but those are the moderate gun owners that live in the suburbs! The fundie gun owners are in militias waiting around for the great race war to start so they can defend white power.

There are plenty of safer ways to find comfort. Personally, I like to eat junk food.

Other Comments by tomjlawson

38. Comment #36554 by William on May 1, 2007 at 2:16 pm

But showing up drunk for interviews, not once, but repeatedly, is completely unprofessional.

There's a difference between being a drunkard and being drunk. While Hitchens is clearly a man who's downed a few in his time, he doesn't appear in any sense to be drunk in this interview. He's coherent, even eloquent. He's not falling over himself or being unresponsive or belligerent (although he did sort of hit on Stewart).

You've also got to remember that many of his television appearances these days are on Fox News or Bill Maher's show. If he requires a drink or two beforehand, in order to fortify himself against the barrage of inanity, I think it's excusable. It may even be essential.

Other Comments by William

39. Comment #36580 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 1, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I like Hitchens, and I think the interview went reasonably well, but I think it would have gone a lot better if Hitchens hadn't been quite so drunk.

Of course the guy does most interviews drunk - and most of the time it helps him. But here I think he overdosed.

If I were his publicist, I'd institute a "no more than X drinks until after your last interview for the day" rule for the tour. Given Hitchens' legendary capacity, I suspect X would be a surprisingly large number, but a number less than the number he'd consumed before the interview at the top of *this* thread.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

40. Comment #36584 by William on May 1, 2007 at 4:17 pm

I can't believe that THIS is what some people consider "drunk"! Haven't you folks ever been to a bar?



Other Comments by William

41. Comment #36602 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 1, 2007 at 5:44 pm

But a TV studio interview on a book tour is not a bar.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

42. Comment #36610 by William on May 1, 2007 at 6:19 pm

But a TV studio interview on a book tour is not a bar.

That's not what I meant. I meant "Haven't you ever been to a bar and witnessed how a drunk person actually behaves?" Is Hitchens slurring his speech? Is he off-balance? What makes you think he's drunk?

I'd say at most he had a quick drink or two in the green room, a perfectly congenial method of decreasing anxiety and lubricating conversation. I mean, come on people, he's not behind the wheel here!

Other Comments by William

43. Comment #36636 by Rob M. on May 1, 2007 at 8:47 pm

God is not great, but Christopher Hitchens is freaking awful.

Hitchens' arguments for atheism are fine, but he has a hidden agenda and that agenda is that it is OK for the USA to invade or bomb muslim countries, including relatively secular ones like Iraq.

Other Comments by Rob M.

44. Comment #36642 by William on May 1, 2007 at 10:03 pm

but he has a hidden agenda and that agenda is that it is OK for the USA to invade or bomb muslim countries,

His "agenda" is not hidden. He's very up front about his opinions. And his contention is that it is more than OK, in fact it is necessary, for the U.S. to remove dictators from power, whether they be at the head of Muslim countries or not. It's essentially a form of Idealistic Anti-Fascism.

including relatively secular ones like Iraq.

While Iraq isn't a theocracy, it's hardly secular, even relatively speaking. And I don't understand your distinction. Why is it somehow more reprehensible to attack "a relatively secular Muslim country" like Iraq rather than, say, Iran? Because Saddam was less devout than the Ayatollah we should have left him alone?

I don't necessarily agree with Hitchens' views on foreign policy (mostly on pragmatic grounds) but I don't think you can just dismiss him as a warmonger, or an anti-Muslim crusader. His political philosophy is more nuanced than that.

Other Comments by William

45. Comment #36644 by MelM on May 1, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Conclusion: Faith is a vice!

Other Comments by MelM

46. Comment #36650 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 1, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Huh??!!?

Compared to his normal eloquence, Hitchens was slurring his words, he was physically off balance at a couple of points and (most uncharacteristic) he seemed to be having a little trouble maintaining a train of thought.

The man has the alcoholic capacity of an elephant, but this time I think the elephant was near full.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

47. Comment #36658 by William on May 2, 2007 at 12:57 am

Compared to his normal eloquence, Hitchens was slurring his words, he was physically off balance at a couple of points and (most uncharacteristic) he seemed to be having a little trouble maintaining a train of thought.

Are we talking about the same video? I didn't hear any slurring or see any loss of balance (can you point to a specific time on the video?). As for losing his train of thought (which I don't find, either, but perhaps I don't construe it in the same way you do), that's probably due to Stewart's constant interruptions.

Other Comments by William

48. Comment #36672 by Jef on May 2, 2007 at 1:42 am

To the 'Hitchens is a drunk' crowd, I'd just like to say, 'So what?'

What exactly is it that gives anyone here the right to pass judgment on Hitchens for his personal habits? Is he harming anyone other than himself? Frankly, I don't see that it's any of your business what he does.

As was said above , and rightly so in my opinion, atheism is not a temperance society.

For those who say that drinking should be avoided because religionists equate drinking alcohol with immorality, I can only ask why you are kow-towing to their prejudices in that respect.

Other Comments by Jef

49. Comment #36701 by UncleJJ on May 2, 2007 at 3:29 am

I have watched the video clip twice more trying desperately to see any indication of slurring words or slow thinking and there is simply none. It seems people who dislike Hitchens, for whatever reasons, are imagining that he's drunk here and using that to slur him when there is no evidence. Please take it from someone who is neutrally inclined towards him (me that is) he is perfectly coherent and fully in control of his body, mind and voice at least on this occasion even if that has not always been so. I would certainly ride in a car driven by him based on the lucidity of this performance, he is not drunk in any meaningful sense of that word.

Can we just return to the substance of the interview which includes amongst other things the accusation that several Muslim heads of state drink alcohol despite that being against their dietary laws.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

50. Comment #36705 by Lee Harrison on May 2, 2007 at 3:52 am

[quote]The "Hitchens is a drunk" ad hominem is getting to be extremely tiresome.[/quote]

For crap's sake - you do understand what an ad hominem is, don't you? If people were predominantly saying, "Hitchens is a drunk therefore his arguments are wrong and he's not worth listening to" you would be correct. If you look twice at the comments, however, you will see that this is not the case.

Most people are not dismissing his ideas just because he's drunk in the interview. Most people aren't dismissing his ideas at all. It's simply sad that a generally eloquent proponent of rationality and atheism IS a drunk.

And those of you who couldn't tell from the interview above - the lenses in your rose coloured glasses are too thick. The guy was clearly tanked and he was operating on automatic pilot - fortunately his arguments are both good and 'sound bitey' enough to survive despite this.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison