Was he an exceptionalist or a clear thinker?

>>2879429
>DUUUUDE INVADE IRAQ CUZ I DON'T LIKE RELIGION

>>2879429
>ultra liberal Marxist
>supported the war on Iraq
???

>>2879429
>>2879429

>DUDE CELESTIAL NORTH KOREA LMAO

Thomas Aquinas and centuries of theological discourse BTFO irrevocably

>>2879429
A brilliant orator, but when one looks at the content of his work it will become clear he was nothing but a mouth-foaming alarmist.

He went from Trotskyist to Neocon, he is incapable of holding a political ideology without thinking it needs to be spread through the globe. He treats Christianity as its entire history was nothing but an extension of the inquisition and crusades. Goes to the point where he even blames the crimes of explicitly secular and anti-theist regimes on Christianity

>>2882063
I know I'm dealing with a partisan when they pull enough mental gymnastics to claim Communism is a religion.

>>2879429
His overall message was good.
Sadly even with all the information he had he still only touched the tip of the iceberg. We all know that you cant focus on one political ideology, because economies change and thus politics should change with them.
And he made some narrative errors, like assigning quotes to the wrong people, but his content and wits made him the overall best.

>>2879429
It seemed a whole lot like he was trying to exorcise his personal demons through his narrow-minded crusade against the concept of "faith". Seemed intelligent, but the intelligent are often very good at fooling themselves, especially when they want to use motivated reasoning to justify their beliefs. Constantly twisted historical fact and religious texts into pretzels to get them to say what he wanted.

File: hitchens islamophobia.png (104KB, 559x241px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 559x241px

>>2879429
>Hitchens
>thinker
I used to be a fan of this faggot, and I can still appreciate his rhetorical/polemical style. But look at anything he's ever written and there's literally no argumentative substance, just a dazzling, ironic style and 9000 ebic literature references per paragraph. He had no coherent philosophy, worldview or morality, and apparently very little ability to reason abstractly and deal with concepts honestly. He was VERY good at putting a sentence together, but he was no philosopher - more like a glorified journalist.

>>2882956
What he did was showing how religions poison everything and he succeeded by showing many examples.
What he did not do was give enougj evidence to support the claim that religions are false, but for this you do not need philosophers, neuroscientists or astrophysicist, but historians and there are too few of them in the religious debate.

>>2882063
HOW DARE YOU?!

>>2879929
That's not why he argued for invading Iraq
>>2881282
He rejected Socialism by the end of his life, because most of them still inhabit an early 20th century fantasy world with no solutions for the changing future.

That's why /lit/ hates him so much. But they can't beat his argument against socialism, so they resort to discrediting him for being an atheist; since atheists just "don't get it".

>>2883249
>But they can't beat his argument against socialism
what was it

>>2883265
I just summed it

>>2883235

But he was a journalist, who wrote mainly about current affairs and literature.

Your post is like criticising a footballer for not playing golf.