Hitch is dead

I'm reading about him now. I never really knew much about him, apart from he liked to debate. Add by Edit:
He has some thought provoking arguments and an honest appraisal of reality. I am reading the Amazon link to one of his books, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and find that he was quite an intelligent soul.Edited by Phat, : addedEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

I was rereading this EvC Obituary/Commentary on Christopher Hitchens, and was briefly considering closing this topic out of a simple respect for the man. Something caused me to wander over to trusty search engine Google and research the man a bit more. What I found was more of the same debate that we have at EvC in our microcosm of a community.To wit: What not to say about Christopher HitchensI was curious about this man and also a bit curious about human nature and this inevitable quarrel between religious believers/fanatics and atheist/humanist freethinkers. During his life, Hitchens himself was often happily immersed in this controversy. As one of the blogs said,... but all this was part of the same battle he’d waged all his life It was, if I can phrase it like this, a matter of everything I hated versus everything I loved. In the hate column: dictatorship, religion, stupidity, demagogy, censorship, bullying, and intimidation. In the love column: literature, irony, humor, the individual, and the defense of free expression.So I vote to keep this EvC obituary open in the defense of free expression, allowing the religious and secular thinkers alike to continue their ongoing tirade against each other, in this topic at least...in honor of a man of expression and literary skill, dying with his beliefs intact.Oh BTW Hooah, I thought you might enjoy this:(comment from blog: Shortly after Christopher Hitchens’ passing in the wee hours of Thursday-into-Friday, the Reverend Rick Warren tweeted, My friend Christopher Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him constantly & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now.(comment from reader of blog, about Warren)
..."So odd that so many seemed to take his criticisms of religions personally. Why did they even care what he thought? It's not like reading his book would cause them to lose their faith. Comments like Warren's are petty, as if he views faith as nothing but a game with winners and losers."

A couple of points.1) Does God need us to defend Him? Does He expect us to condemn those who mock Him?2) Is there any better ways to defend the faith rather than attacking those who freely express themselves in opposition to it?Edited by AdminPhat, : change adminphat to phat

I read Larry Tauntons account of his friendship with Christopher Hitchens and am amazed at the recollections. Maybe you are right, jar. They may well have even better than Johnny Walker Black Label up there for him! Imagine..one of his best friends a Christian!! Christopher Hitchens and Larry TauntonEdited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : added video link

As I was reading on the internet about RC Sprouls death, I recalled the EvC reaction to the death of Christopher Hitchens and wondered if Hitch and RC had ever had a debate. Upon googling, I was surprised to find that Christopher Hitchens own brother,Peter was a Christian! The Rage Against GodOld Answers to the New Atheism: An Interview with Peter HitchensAnd finally, an article that explains how they got along:
The Brothers HitchensEdited by Phat, : added link

I just listened to the first 30 minutes...and will likely hear their full discussion out.

I have two video excerpts to share with this tribute thread. One is essentially a eulogy, delivered by Christopher himself...at his last public appearance.
The other one is an excellent debate in which I highly recommend reading the transcript as well.

underneath your explanation lies a pretentious smugness that I dont appreciate. You sau that atheists...or you....somehow know something that belivers...or myself dont know. The fact is you know no more than I know. No God is not a default position and you have no grounds to insist that it is. Its fine that you have no problem with oblivion. q if you want me to quit preaching I too want you to quit spouting your beliefs as facts. You have no idea.

Perhaps I am going stir crazy being at home so much. Nevermind that I do enjoy arguing occasionally. I actually have a week off from the grocery store and what better way to alleviate stress than arguing with you about how many angels fit on the head of a pin! First off, you can't speak for atheists any more than I can speak for all believers. Perhaps you all have arrived at a definition of what you are to be defined as...I can always google Matt Dillahunty if I need any further confirmation. One reason I decided to quibble with you again was due to several statements you made earlier: I will agree with you that virtually none of us do as Jesus commanded. Giving up all that you have saved, acquired, and use is quite difficult for the average person to do. I am not about to go off on a homeless jaunt into the mean streets to tell other homeless people about the power, love, and majesty of our Living Jesus Christ. My faith is simply not strong enough. Add the fact that I couldn't handle sleeping under bridges and in shelters especially during COVID-19! As for the church and its hoarded wealth, I am reminded once of something John Lennon said before his untimely death. I am paraphrasing, but I remember someone accusingly asked the wealthy Beatle (estimated fortune at the time: $150 Million) why he didn't simply give to the poor and help feed them. He stated that he very well could do just that but even with his vast fortune, they all would eat for perhaps a week and then be as hungry then as they are now while his fortune would be spent and he would then have no resources whatsoever to help anyone with anything.
It's much the same with churches. They could well sell their buildings and assets to help the less fortunate, but once that was all gone the poor would still be with us and the churches would have no assets to fall back on. One could argue that they would still have the God that they believed in, but if so, that God can use people to help the poor individually rather than in a socialist collective way that you seem to suggest need happen. All that being said, I agree with your basic point that few if any Christians have the guts to listen to Jesus and take His words literally. Guilty as charged.

First of all, I disagree. In fact, I boldly say you are WRONG. Jesus not only existed but currently exists. Jesus was before the book was even written, except as the Rhema of the Holy Spirit. You don't seem to get this about believers. At best, you denigrate this belief as secondary to your "facts". The real fact is that you do not know 100% whether God exists, whether Jesus Christ exists, and/or whether He is capable of communion with humans. Don't tell me about evidence. Naysayers have done cartwheels for years attempting to disprove his existence. The very fact that many detractors are so passionate and dogged in their attempts to discredit this story which you call a myth serves as evidence to me that there is something different about Jesus Christ in that there are many many other myths that never elicit such passion (pro and con) from humanity.I know that you are an oddball who dwells on these things. You will lecture me that my chosen "God" is nothing beyond a character in a book written by humans. This is, however, your opinion. You have no way of knowing that this is true.Prove me wrong.I will share with you some scrip (which I know you find unimpressive and unconvincing). You will simply say that the book cannot prove the reality of the story in the book. But let me quote it. I basically believe the same as Paul said. God does not need a book any more than He needs a Temple. Perhaps you would rather believe the story that everything simply expanded from a singularity and that everything that ever existed must be matter, energy or the thoughts of living creatures (which thus) originated from such a source. And what makes that story any more credible than the Book of Acts? Only that you claim that it can be explained and traced through observable evidence. The fact is, we have not observed every step of the evidence towards that conclusion any more than we can verify the authors of the "Book" or the intentions thereof.My point is that your argument is not anymore valid than mine.

I agree. You likely would state that IF God exists and is all-powerful He not only has the ability but the responsibility to shield us and protect us from every harmful event that comes our way. But we cannot dictate what God *should* do if God in fact exists and is omnipotent. Of course, we can claim to define His responsibility, but we are not the final arbiter of His duties and responsibilities. It's like having a kid grow up and leave home. Parents are no longer responsible for the child when they reach a certain age of accountability. It's likely the same with God and humanity. There are certain conditions on this planet which are a part of the natural order and which...even if God had the power to change...are meant to be part of our character development.And of course, you have already concluded that God is a myth...despite having no conclusive proof that this is so. So on and on we go. Because there is no rational argument apart from belief. You have simply decided to label belief as fantasy-driven wish fulfillment, never understanding that at least some believers have had an actual mind-altering event that solidified and defined their faith. People have always behaved badly, especially in mob settings. Speaking for myself, I would hardly demand your death but would fight back if you and the liberal elitists tried to censor preaching as hate speech or limit the speech of believers. We certainly won't limit your speech. I'm not an idiot. Of course, I would pick the vaccine, even though it likely will be around 60% effective. And my prayers are best served directed on behalf of others rather than as a means to protect only myself.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but what you basically say is that if the universe exists and arose without a Creator than it is what it is, but that if God were involved He has a lot of 'splaining to do...in order to satisfy the charges that are leveled through humans. Essentially you are saying that God cannot be all-powerful and all-loving because___(fill in the blank)_________________. You are framing the argument so that belief in God makes no sense. OK, but I will only use the red-letter words of Jesus in order to define God. I won't use the OT because I have no way of knowing if God were actually talking or if humans wrote what they felt He said and/or meant to satisfy their own behaviors. It is clearer with Jesus.I will use a few precepts from the OT, however. We can debate the rationality of them later.Allow me a bit to study what the book actually says that "God" and/or Jesus actually says.

He is not all-powerful enough to make us perfect.(without fundamentally changing our freedom and destiny) Some believe that He expects us to use the grace He gives us to become kinder, gentler, more altruistic individuals toward each other. Personally I have no doubts about His power. I have questions but no doubts about His intentions. And I fully understand why He allowed people the very right to disbelieve and even mock Him.Humans seem to be advancing towards the idea that we and only we are responsible for the future of humanity and human progress. We still have the ability to believe in Him were we to think it would help us in any way. That jury has not reached a conclusive decision. Edited by Phat, : added point

If He made us perfect from day one, we would have had no free will nor no development and choice to achieve what He ordained for us
Protecting us and making us sanctified would have defeated the whole purpose of our existence.
The "messy stuff" as you put it was necessary to give us a resistance to fight against. You will say He blew it by causing many deaths and suffering along the way, but I doubt you would even listen to His explanation of why it had to be that way. You would simply set up the straw god and then indict him according to human logic and justice.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

And yet you would have no problem with the "winner of a giant cosmic lottery" explanation. You would place more faith and likelihood on a random chance than on an intelligent designer. As for the supernatural part, you would never believe anything that you had never seen.