Friday, December 16, 2011

Hitchens goes to meet his Maker

Christopher Hitchens Dies at 62...

"The author and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins described him as the "finest orator of our time" and a "valiant fighter against all tyrants including God

He maintained his devout atheism after being diagnosed with cancer, telling one interviewer: "No evidence or argument has yet been presented which would change my mind. But I like surprises."

And, indeed, I believe he will be surprised. I wont speculate as to what happens now.
However...  God evidently has a sense of humor.
How else to explain Jesus' statement to Peter: "Upon this rock I build my church."   At once both a pun and highly ironic, as Peter had just denied Christ three times.

I've read Dawkins and I've read Hitchens.  Dawkins rails a lot against God,  a  more accurate depiction of Hitchens' views would be 'Religion Poisons Everything'.  I don't think that is true but, on general terms, it's not incorrect, either.  And I defy the most devout religionist to negate THAT.   Especially if you follow contemporary news.
But EVERYTHING?

No.  Compare and contrast, for discussion's sake, the Shaker Cult v the Amish community.
Religion poisoned the Shakers.  Where is the malignant effect on the Amish?

If Hitchens cited the Westboro Baptist freakshow.. or the global mission of the devout to kill, convert or gather tribute from all 'Infidels' he has a valid point.
Like I say, though, that isn't God, that's man's Religion.

 I've observed over many years, that there are two general types of Atheist:  Those who don't believe because they don't 'see' hard and fast proof of the greatest mystery of the universe.. and those who deny to avoid self-judgement and guilt. Of course it is usually a blend of philosophies, but with Hitchens I think it was mainly the former..

2 comments:

Damon said...

You're denying the Amish have been poisoned by religion?! Look up some information about the horrible prevalence of abuse, and in particular child sexual abuse, in Amish communities.

Heh. I suppose that sort of thing is A-OK to religionists, isn't it.

pettyfog said...

Sorry for the moderation delay...
No, I am not denying it at all.

There is no construct of man that is not subject to man's vanity or weaknesses. That was made clear, many times, in the bible.
To say that because the same atrocities exist among the believer as the unbeliever, then what is the point of espousing a belief, is the real hypocrisy.
"It's hard to be good, so why bother!"