Posted on 12/20/2011 9:15:48 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Infamous serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer recognized this as a teen, as he asked his parents rhetorically, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?” The fact is that just as we wouldn’t consider vanilla ice cream “wrong” or “evil” simply because we learned that 90 percent of the world didn’t like it, it makes no sense to thus label murder if the only reason we do so is that most of us prefer that people not kill others in a way we fancy is unjust. If there is no God, “morality” is just values and values are just taste. And when Hitchens axiomatically accepted his morality as something more, it implied God’s existence. Only, while Dahmer figured this out, Hitchens never did.
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.
Knew his days were numbered in 2007 when he published a taunt. Not just a baby-killer but also a dumbass.
Exactly. Atheism always carries the stench of smugness.
Although in Hitchen’s case, it was entertaining. My pastor, an Irish Catholic from Chicago, had occasion to debate Hitchens on TV around the time of his book. Sensing he was losing the argument, Hitchens resorted to calling the priest an “Hibernian snob”. We both had a good laugh over that.
This past weekend, I told my pastor that I’d pray for his old nemisis’ mortal soul, just to piss him off.
We had a good laugh over that one, too.
My favorite quote on the subject:
Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.
Blaise Pascal
We too!!
All you have to do is look at the insects, birds, flowers,
and the continuation of faith in a Savior that died for their sins - a belief that has survived 2000 years.
Any Christian can see why they believe. An atheist does not have that ability because God does not react with them as he does with His believers. They do not see God’s hand at work - we do. They do not see the works of the Holy Spirit - we do.
Higher intelligence?? I think not!!!
Actually, God is used to justify making up your own rules (e.g. “God says Kill The Infidels!”) far more often than atheism is.
One believer says, "God says 'Love One Another'". Another believer says, "God says 'Kill The Infidel'". God doesn't speak for himself to declare one right and the other wrong -- you have to figure that out yourself.
No. DNA, physics, chemistry, etc. are mere accidents.
/sarc
And to quote many other Atheists, “If God didn’t exist, somebody would have to invent him”. So if you know deep down inside that God(s) don’t exist and you know that if enough people figured out god didn’t exist and would commit so many atrocities if they knew god didn’t exist, why continue to push the concept of god not existing?
What philosophy can you use to replace the morals cobbled up by eons of theism that would replace theist-based morality that can’t be abused by the morally insane? Humanism has tried to make a “new morality” but they’ve failed because the “new morality” either takes away rights of the individual to please the many or it quickly becomes a paradise for sociopaths.
If you’re an Atheist, it would be irresponsible and immoral to destroy the concept of God(s) when you know that’s the only thing keeping many psychopaths from abusing people.
And that’s why God himself doesn’t make himself provable via scientific experiments. He doesn’t want psychopaths worshiping him out of fear.
First, which God? Read a little further in the Pensees and you will find that he suggests reinforcing a tentative belief by "having masses said, taking the holy water" which makes it clear that his wager is not a bet on God, but a bet on Roman Catholic doctrine. Let me ask you, would I be wagering correctly if I chose to be a Unitarian, a Jehovah's Witness, or a Jew?
Second, if there is anything an omniscient God should know, it's the contents of the human heart. Do you not think God could tell the difference between true belief and a belief concocted for the purposes of winning the "wager"??
But the fact that there have been and are so many theisms, most of which have had the same stabilizing effect, provides no argument whatever that any one theism is any more "true" than the others.
But I am not convinced that if a belief is useful, it must therefore be true.
No, human intellect has proven to be an extremely unreliable moral guide in the absence of belief in a Higher Power.
Yes, the true G-d commands us to love one another. He who is the G-d of Creation does so ordain.
The god that says “kill the infidels” is not the G-d of Creation but a different and dark being not of a divine nature and a false deity the belief in which only leads astray.
I ask the same question of atheist. Which God do you know does not exist?
The creative principle of the universe; there is none? The source of your absolute truths; there are none?...
Often, in my experience when an atheist describes the God they don't believe in, my response is "I don't believe in that God either."
Much of the praise of Christopher Hitchens in the last week has seemed to me to translate to, “Look at me being sophisticated!!!” It’s rather interesting, really, because there’s nothing sophisticated about aiming scatological and sexual abuse toward those you’ve identified as your ideological enemies, as Mr. Hitchen liked to do ... any 7-year-old who’s been in a barnyard can do the same, although hopefully his parents would beat the tar out of him.
I have prayed for Mr. Hitchens’ soul, as I hope someone who thought I was totally awful would do for me, and I’m sincerely sympathetic to those for whom his death is a real personal bereavement.
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.
All without ever being particularly perturbed about "the creative principle of the universe" or "the source of absolute truths", which apparently are a lot more important to you than they are to me.
Mass murder can be quite rationale. Ethics are often irrational.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.