Christopher Hitchens: Godlessness Is Not Great — How Atheism Poisons Everything

The New American ^ | Monday, 19 December 2011 | Selwyn Duke

[Paladins Prayer]

In writing this piece, I’m reminded of a little exchange between the late William F. Buckley and friend and fellow National Review writer Florence King. Buckley had just penned some less-than-flattering words about a recently deceased person of prominence whose name escapes me, and King chided him, saying something to the effect that he had broken ground in journalism: the “attack-obit.” Buckley’s response was, “Wait till you see the obituary I have planned for you!”

And in writing this critical article about bon vivant Christopher Hitchens in the wake of his death this past Thursday, I expect some ridicule as well. Yet I don’t think Hitchens would demand to be spared the acidic ink he used to eviscerate others — or that he would have any credibility doing so. Remember that this was the man who, before the gentle Jerry Falwell’s body was even cold, said things such as “If he [Falwell] had been given an enema, he could have been buried in a matchbox” and “I wish there was a Hell for Falwell.”

For my part, I wouldn’t wish eternal damnation on Hitchens; I truly hope he rests in peace. But I can’t say the same for his legacy. And when I see the obligatory exaltation of his life’s work — with secular icons, the deader they get, the better they were — I think that legacy needs a little damnation.

[2banana]

Actually, God is used to justify making up your own rules (e.g. “God says Kill The Infidels!”) far more often than atheism is.

40 million dead in communist China says you are wrong
30 million dead in communist Russia says you are wrong
5 million dead in communist North Korea says you are wrong
3 million dead in communist Cambodia says you are wrong
etc.

And PS - don't equate the God of Christianity to the god of islam.

[2banana]

But I am not convinced that if a belief is useful, it must therefore be true.

We have a saying in the army - "If it seems stupid but works it is not stupid."

[D-fendr]

conceive of a universe where supernatural beings exist

I would wager that if we could discuss your conception of supernatural beings, I wouldn't conceive of them either.

All without ever being particularly perturbed about… which apparently are a lot more important to you than they are to me.

I think of it more in terms of meaning, value, what is this incredible cosmos we swim in, what's our relationship to it and what's important about our and my existence. And I see this as what humans who are fortunate enough to survive past middle age tend to think about then, if not sooner.

All of these questions lie in the realm of philosophy and religion. But, I completely accept the validity of your position as well. Just because I can't imagine living an unexamined life, doesn't mean anyone else has to do squat.

I also think that there are many who are transparent to it. They live a deeply connected (religious) life without thinking about it.

The first step is for both views to acknowledge and respect the alternate position; and, if discussion is desired, do so on that basis.

thanks for your reply.

[elcid1970]

“One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.”

- J. Stalin

[cookcounty]

"I just have no more ability to conceive of a universe where supernatural beings exist than I do to conceive of a universe where 2+3 does not equal 3+2."

What does that have to do with anything? It frequently often happens that some people conceive of things that others do not, not even very smart people. Maybe you should broaden your thinking. "And in my last fifty-plus years on this planet, I have managed to educate myself both formally and informally; serve my country in uniform; steadily advance in my chosen career; marry a lovely woman and stay happily married to her for thirty years; and raise a family."

Well, that will get you at least as far as your grave.

[Talisker]

Well, a long time ago I discovered something about people hostile toward Christianity. Sure, the more cerebral among them may offer philosophical justifications for their opposition, but at the end of the day their antagonism finds its origin in the emotional realm. To be precise, they hate Christianity not so much because they think it’s wrong. They hate it because it tells them they’re wrong: It condemns their sins as sins.

"It" doesn't do anything. Christianity isn't a collective entity that goes around doing things.

Christians do things.

And many, many many people have found that many, many, many Christians like to enact their Christianity - and their Christian judgements - in a very un-Christlike way (while praising Jesus for his tender mercy towards THEM).

And as a result, there are a great many people who have been deeply hurt by these savage and cruel judgements, and have learned to hate Christians and Christianity with a passion that has empowered the Left for amny, many decades, and perhaps to the destruction of this country.

To which these brutal Christians deny their personal behavior, and hide behind the strictest teachings of Christianity, and blame their victims.

But towards whom I sincerely believe Jesus will one day reply: "I know you not."

[Burkean Buckleyite]

Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false?

Pascal's Wager fails because there is more than one option for belief in God -- and, for all we know, following the wrong religion offends God more than declining to follow any of them (which means that you may indeed have something to lose).

[BrandtMichaels]

Or just maybe all the ‘offended’ non-christians like to have their cake and eat it too.

1st I will not deny that the wheat is also sown with tares - God said let them grow together so as not to harm the wheat.
-Only you and God know the condition of your heart[spirit];
-the wheat = true believers;
-tares = pretenders.

2nd Judge not lest you be judged. Any true judgement will come with some form of punishment for evil-doers. But who does the punishing? More often than not it should be left to God and more often than not those decrying their treatment by the ‘christians’ are just playing a whiny wimp-a_s victim poor poor pitiful me card.

3rd The judgement in #2 above often flows in the opposite direction. Why do they hate us? Because they 1st hated Jesus! As we are told in the new testament.

4th Romans 3:23 All have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God. The human heart is wicked and filled with deceit.

5th Romans 10:10 or John 3:16 - all of us were born spiritually dead and need a supernatural act from God in order to be reborn spiritually.

6th If you sincerely seek to know God you will find God. And hopefully in that accept your salvation for therr is no name in Heaven and Earth that can be substituted for Jesus.

I’m praying for you Talisker and all who read this post.

[James C. Bennett]

Hitchens already answered most of the arguments raised here:

This is a concluding statement by him, watch the entire debate in the related links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-k1Jr0fp0dE

[James C. Bennett]

Often, almost always, the “I will pray for you” types are merely stroking their ego by establishing themselves on a pedestal they paint to pretend to be higher than yours. It simply makes them feel good, self-righteous and validated.

When you realise this, it’s easy to separate the true believers from the charlatans.

[BrandtMichaels]

yeah sure - lots of folks like to stroke their ego with an
annonymous internet posting - whatever!

This means I’m praying for you too James C Bennett.

Saw you are a recent - jan 2010 - FReeper yet I’m sure I debated crevo threads with your from several years ago...

You have not changed a bit.

[Notary Sojac]

Thank -you-!

I've been in many a discussion with many a Christian in my lifetime. I'm always open to what they have to say and I've read many of the books of apologetics that have been recommended to me.

But one topic that always runs into a dead end is - "what is the atheist's source for Ultimate Truth??"

I've watched as other atheists try to come up with an answer to this, and frankly I agree with my Christian friends that it's probably not possible.

But few atheists other than me seem to be willing to answer back, "No, I don't have a source of Ultimate Truth, and so what if I don't?"

[Zionist Conspirator]

Yet giving his memoirs a title that is a play on Catch-22 was more fitting than Hitchens ever could have imagined. For his whole world view was a Catch-22: He so desperately wanted to convince the world that a belief in God has led to many bad things, but without a belief in God, it’s impossible to credibly say that things can be “bad.”

Exactly!

[James C. Bennett]

An omniscient god has no need for prayers.

Such a god would have known what you yearned for, before you prayed.

But stroke on, as I say, since it pleases you - “good deeds” and “rewards” and all!

[Zionist Conspirator]

The comments to the full article in the New American are interesting. Those who describe themselves as atheists really do seem to believe that atheism grows out of one’s own superior intellectuality.

I was unaware that The New American had atheist readers. At least it has atheists who are registered at the site so they can post responses to articles.

Must be Randians or something.

[Notary Sojac]

I don't think the body count makes much difference, it's a function of technology. Time travel back to the Thirty Years War with a sufficient load of machine guns, radios, and Zyklon B and I suspect you'd see death tolls that would rank percentagewise with what the Communist regimes have done.

don't equate the God of Christianity to the god of islam

I see them as two of the dozens of gods in which I do not believe. That's not quite the same thing as "equating" them.

[D-fendr]

Excellent reply! You jumped right to the nub.

Yes, absolute or ultimate truth is a difficult question without some source for it; it’s an interesting trip for me even before I get to the source question.

It’s a given for me than everyone acts as if ultimate or absolute/unconditioned truth exists (it’s really impossible not to and avoid an infinite regression of because, because, because..)

However, we can act as if there is an ultimate truth even if there isn’t; usually this discussion ends up at: I choose life over death, choice over no choice.

Of course we would then be taking as our absolute truth or values that life is better than death, choice better than no choice. At first glance this seems a solid place to land.

But, then, most folks I know would say there is a higher value than life that is the basis for their choices, a value they would die for. And off it goes again.

Anyway, I appreciate your reply of: “No, I don’t have a source of Ultimate Truth, and so what if I don’t?”

But...

:)

I would answer that with: No matter what the source or no source, you act as though there is an ultimate truth or value — if only in order to get out the door in the morning. Let’s see what yours is or are and how you arrive at them.

But that’s getting into the examination and philosophical discussion pretty far; and, again in my experience, lots of folks really don’t have an interest in it.

Unlike some others, I don’t think this lack of interest alone signifies a lack of “religion.” I have known those I consider darn near holy who had no interest in examining these questions. One doesn’t preclude the other.

thanks for your interesting reply.

[A_perfect_lady]

Even that Ultimate Truth trick that theists do is merely a line in the sand. It means that beyond that they will not argue. The believer says “X”. The non-believer says “Y”. The believer says, “No, it’s X because God says it’s X!” And for the believer, that’s the end of the argument. If they hold firm to the starting notion that there IS a God and that whatever holy text they reference is correct, they have basically let you know “Beyond this I will not reason with you. Logic means nothing to me.”

[A_perfect_lady]

That whole “praying” thing baffles me too. “Pray for my nephew, he’s very ill.” Why? God’s going to let him die unless he hears enough prayers? God’s not sure and we need to sway him one way or another? God can’t do it on his own? I’m not even being snarky, it really, really, really makes no sense.

[D-fendr]

Some perhaps, but then you haven’t met Mr. Acquinas.

:)

There are religious folks who haven’t examined their beliefs either. Or at least don’t care much for epistemology.

Logic is a great tool, but it is limited to a subset of reality. We know, or act as though we know, a great deal (some would say the most important things) that cannot be known using reason/logic alone.

We say these thing transcend logic. Not contradict it, not irrational, but go beyond what the tool of logic can be used to know.