Happy Atheist Forum

In the esophagus that is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100701/en ... ediahealth (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100701/en_afp/usmediahealth)

That's what you get for smoking so many cigarettes.
Best wishes.

Of course, it may be God trying to shut him up.

My father died of cancer 2 weeks after my 17th birthday. He had been ill since I was 13. I hope CH he gets over it, it's a horrible disease to suffer from as there is no certainty of a cure, one feels betrayed by ones own body, it's slow to kill and often painful. The ultimate proof of an imperfect evolved body vs one designed by a benevolent 'Sky Daddy'.

No way!!

 

I pray that he gets better.

Just taking the piss! That would be useless!  

Jokes aside, I hope he gets he gets the treatment he needs and recovers.

Well, I feel a bit sheepish now for being so annoyed about him cancelling his lecture here.  

Quote from: "Dretlin"I pray that he gets better.

Just taking the piss! That would be useless! lol

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Dretlin"I pray that he gets better.

Just taking the piss! That would be useless! lol

I am dyslexic. Sometimes errors slip through the net.

Thank you.

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Dretlin"I pray that he gets better.

Just taking the piss! That would be useless! lol

I am dyslexic. Sometimes errors slip through the net.

Thank you.

I am also a bit dyslexic, if it were not for my spell checker my posts would be far more, shall we say, creative  

Quote from: "Tank"I am also a bit dyslexic, if it were not for my spell checker my posts would be far more, shall we say, creative  

Sadly, I am more than a "bit" dyslexic.

I am happy to talk more about this, in a different topic. I am about to go way off topic if I continue.

Poor man, hope he gets over it.

Oh, umm.... I posted this on the What's on you mind today before I saw that this thread existed. Hope the re-post is ok:

Quote from: "I"Apparently Christopher Hitchens has cancer which has incited nuts like George Berkin to blog an open letter to Hitchens himself claiming God is "being good to him" by giving him cancer.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... nt=Twitter (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/jerk_of_the_day.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28Pharyngula%29&utm_content=Twitter)

Damn, that's terrible. I hope he gets better.

Dude was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other week, and Stewart mentioned how the guy looked totally trashed after so many years of hard drugs, booze inebriation, etc.

So it's finally showing, huh?

Well, he is 62.

That's horrible. I wish him the best.

It's unfortunate to see that his relationship with his brother is probably not getting any better while Peter is writing things like this (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/11/how-not-to-argue-part-94-the-sad-case-of-christopher-hitchenss-hero-worshippers.html).

It's going to be sad to have to say goodbye to my favorite atheist hawk.

Quote from: "Sophus"It's unfortunate to see that his relationship with his brother is probably not getting any better while Peter is writing things like this (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/11/how-not-to-argue-part-94-the-sad-case-of-christopher-hitchenss-hero-worshippers.html).

No True Scotsman spotted here, amongst many other snags:

Quote from: "Peter Hitchens"Then there is Mr 'Crosland', who (as so often) spoils an otherwise cogent case by dogmatism and hostility. He alleges that believers are pleased by my brother's grave illness. As a generalisation, this is a shameful falsehood, as Mr 'Crosland' well knows. No serious Christian could understand his faith and take such a view - and very large numbers of Christians have publicly declared that they are praying for him, and urged others to do so.

By the way, what article is Peter responding to?

That's not the same as lowering yourself to rejoicing over someone being unfortunate enough to possibly have cancer. The person is alive and cancer was not asked for.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Peter Hitchens"Then there is Mr 'Crosland', who (as so often) spoils an otherwise cogent case by dogmatism and hostility. He alleges that believers are pleased by my brother's grave illness. As a generalisation, this is a shameful falsehood, as Mr 'Crosland' well knows. No serious Christian could understand his faith and take such a view - and very large numbers of Christians have publicly declared that they are praying for him, and urged others to do so.

By the way, what article is Peter responding to?

I just saw this.  "Wesley Crosland" is a frequent commenter on Peter Hitchens's Mail Online blog.  You can find the comment from which this quote was taken here (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/11/rather-interesting-but-they-all-missed-it.html?cid=6a00d8341c565553ef013488a18333970c), time-stamped "02 November 2010 at 09:58 PM."

Though I'm fairly familiar with the Daily Mail (one of my friends gets the Sunday edition regularly), I have a generally low opinion of it's content and editorial stance, and don't read Peter Hitchens's blog.  This question intrigued me, however, and I did a bit of detective work.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Peter Hitchens"Then there is Mr 'Crosland', who (as so often) spoils an otherwise cogent case by dogmatism and hostility. He alleges that believers are pleased by my brother's grave illness. As a generalisation, this is a shameful falsehood, as Mr 'Crosland' well knows. No serious Christian could understand his faith and take such a view - and very large numbers of Christians have publicly declared that they are praying for him, and urged others to do so.

By the way, what article is Peter responding to?

I just saw this.  "Wesley Crosland" is a frequent commenter on Peter Hitchens's Mail Online blog.  You can find the comment from which this quote was taken here (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/11/rather-interesting-but-they-all-missed-it.html?cid=6a00d8341c565553ef013488a18333970c), time-stamped "02 November 2010 at 09:58 PM."

Though I'm fairly familiar with the Daily Mail (one of my friends gets the Sunday edition regularly), I have a generally low opinion of it's content and editorial stance, and don't read Peter Hitchens's blog.  This question intrigued me, however, and I did a bit of detective work.

Isn't the Daily Mail tabloid journalism?

Quote from: "Sophus"Isn't the Daily Mail tabloid journalism?

Now there is a good question. :devil:

My mother reads the daily mail (I never capitalise those two words out of principle) which annoys me greatly. It is by far the most irresponsible paper in the UK. It is the pinnacle of knee-jerk hysterical journalism and is to real news what anthrax is to food.

I could go on for hours pointing out the unbelievably hypocritical and morally bankrupt aspects of this particular tabloid but I fear it will make me angry for the rest of the day.

So I'll just leave it at this: The daily mail is the Fox News of the news paper world only, it makes people like Glenn Beck look like a moderate, forthright and sane individual.

Is that why they're about the only ones reporting that Christopher Hitchens is bisexual (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255852/So-WERE-Tory-ministers-gay-flings-Christopher-Hitchens-Oxford.html)? Do they intend for that to be some sort of a smear?

Oh, apparently Gawker is doing the same (http://gawker.com/5504032/christopher-hitchens-gay-prep-school-sex-a-window-into-horny-teenage-bicuriosity) but I'm not very familiar with them either.

Quote from: "Recusant"I just saw this.  "Wesley Crosland" is a frequent commenter on Peter Hitchens's Mail Online blog.  You can find the comment from which this quote was taken here (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/11/rather-interesting-but-they-all-missed-it.html?cid=6a00d8341c565553ef013488a18333970c), time-stamped "02 November 2010 at 09:58 PM."

Though I'm fairly familiar with the Daily Mail (one of my friends gets the Sunday edition regularly), I have a generally low opinion of it's content and editorial stance, and don't read Peter Hitchens's blog.  This question intrigued me, however, and I did a bit of detective work.

Thanks much, it's very appreciated.

eta:  This is fucking priceless:

QuoteNot so long ago, a member of the faithful celebrated Christopher's wholly natural illness thus: "Yay, he's got throat cancer, and it's no surprise that he has it in exactly the place where he has blasphemed so much". Apart from pointing out the embarrassing semi-literate style of many of the simple-minded faithful, Hitchens also mentioned that, in fact, his tumour was not located in his throat, and that he had blasphemed with more organs than that anyway.