— Christopher Hitchens (via sixtyforty) (via friendlyatheist)

Christopher Hitchens clip from Collision (via WhyWon’tGodHealAmputees)

This might be the most straightforward argument I’ve ever seen Hitchens make during a debate.  That’s not to say he’s unreasonable in other debates, but rather that he gets himself a bit convoluted from time to time.

I do not say that all practitioners of woman-hating, anti-Semitic, sadomasochistic suicide immolations are themselves insane, but I do say that the teaching itself is demented. In the same way, I do not say that all Muslims are terrorists, but I have noticed that an alarmingly high proportion of terrorists are Muslim. A paranoid or depressive person—of whom we have many millions in our midst—does not have to end up screaming religious slogans while butchering his fellow creatures. But a paranoid or depressive person who is in regular touch with a jihadist “spiritual leader” is presented with a ready-made script that offers him paradise in exchange for homicide.

I have nothing to comment on this article that isn’t in direct agreement with Hitchens…

— Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great

(via AtheistPlanetBlog)

This is the debate we’ve been waiting to see.  I’m not through it yet, but I hear Fry and Hitchens mop the floor with the Catholics.

It’s a nice morning treat after yesterday’s ruling against women’s rights in the House of Representatives…

FOX News: ‘Atheism vs. Christianity’ with Christopher Hitchens ~ Atheist Media Blog

Check out the reaction and the body language of the news anchor/mediator.  This kind of biased, religious-leaning (literally, in this case) has no place being touted as news.

I think both Hitchens and Douglas Wilson came off well in this brief interview, however.

A Christian Asks, “Do we worship a bully?”

(link from jessinhotpink, who I hope realizes this is in response to the author of the article)

Warning: the referenced article may make you audibly “WTF?”

Oooh this is going to be fun.  Let’s quote a few things, shall we?

“These authors expose the difficulty of understanding the wrath of God. Misconceptions concerning God’s character and His relationship to the world are prevalent. Students of God’s Word must be ready to address the issue of God’s supposed character as a ‘capriciously malevolent bully.’ Scripture does not shy away from revealing the wrath of God but it would seem that many Christians do.”

Wait, so you’re not “shying away” from the issue when you say, “Oh, God’s just difficult to comprehend.”? You only have difficulty “understanding” the god of the Old Testament in this case strictly because you’re trying to shoehorn him into something which he is not: tolerant, kind, or moral by any of today’s standards.

“First, God is holy. God’s holiness entails both the aspect of being set-apart as well as being morally pure. Isaiah’s vision of the seraphim reveals that “Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of Hosts, the whole earth is filled with His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).  This song of the seraphim speaks of God’s otherness. God is set-apart from His creation.

Isaiah’s vision also reveals God’s moral purity. In v. 5 Isaiah cries out, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” God’s moral purity is also declared by John, “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). God has not sinned, cannot sin, and will not sin. In fact, it is God’s holiness which causes Him to react strongly against sin.”

I suppose I shouldn’t ask for more, but relying on 4th hand accounts (5th? 6th?) as proof of the supposed holiness of your god seems pretty weak.

Both Hitchens and Dawkins were basing their comments upon the actions of your god, not what another worshipper like Isaiah has to say. Or is God himself writing this, and if so, how could you reasonably trust what he has to say about himself?  It seems to me that a murderer might be apt to the same behavior, declaring their actions just or holy in spite of the “appearance”.

Oh, and if your god is omnipotent, isn’t it quite paradoxical to also think that he cannot do something, including sinning?

In fact, I see no argument here which suggests that your god is, in fact, holy, and even if he were, how does that justify the abhorrent nature of his actions, which we’d denounce as a modern society?  Or does the mere fact that he could smite you at any moment force you into worship regardless of his behavior?

“Second, God is just. Everything God does is right. No action of His could ever be wrong. Job 37:23, “The Almighty – we cannot find him; he is great in power; justice and abundant righteousness he will not violate.” God cannot violate the rules that He has established. God’s holiness necessitates that He do what is right, always.

God’s justice applies to punishing offenders. God’s law can be summarized this way, “Live holy for I am holy.” Anyone who does not live holy (Romans 3:23 exposes that this is everyone) has earned punishment. Romans 6:23 teaches us that the wages of sin is death. This means that all offenders to God’s law, which is everyone, are deserving of death. Consequence for sin is just. God is as fair for punishing law breakers as human judges are for punishing criminals.”

Seriously? Everything he does is right, and therefore any interpretation of inappropriate or detestable behavior must just be misunderstanding? Ridiculous.

I find your comment about “everyone being a sinner and therefore deserving of death” absurd.

I was once at a Sunday mass where the preacher had the same stance. “He could kill all of us, and he should.  But he doesn’t.  That’s what makes Him great,” he said.  Really now, if I walked into your church with a semi-automatic weapon, threatened everyone, and set down a set of rules which everyone in the room had broken without a chance to follow, and subsequently not shot anyone, would you then worship me? I don’t think so, because people find actions like that as bullying at best and likely as far more reprehensible than that.  Perhaps you should give Hitchens a break here; I think he went lightly on your god for the description he actually deserves.

“Third, God is love. God’s love is one of choice, commitment, and action. Scripture reveals that it is God who first loved us. Love is better appreciated against the reality that we are unlovable. We are rebels, enemies, corpses, and children of wrath; yet God still chose to love us.

First John 3:16 teaches us that we know love because Jesus sacrificed His life for us. Jesus was the substitute for us on the cross. He suffered the just reward of our sin, God’s wrath. The death of God’s Son was not an act of bullying, but rather was a sweet display of His sacrificial love.

God in His holiness hates sin. God in His justice punishes sin. God in His love settles our sinful debt through the death of His Son. We do not worship a bully. We worship a holy, just, and loving God. Amen and Amen.”

Sounds like you’re talking about multiple personality disorder, but that aside, I see nothing here which describes love.  I see only descriptions of a god murdering his son (himself?), and contradictions in his supposed powers – if your god were all-powerful, why go through the effort of murdering his own child, why not just remove sin altogether?  It takes a person of faith in the modern world to see murder as something sweet when most of us find it repulsive.

I also find it humorous that your defense of the god of the Old Testament is done through quotes from the New Testament.  Perhaps - and this is just conjecture – is this because there’s nothing redeeming about your god when he’s displaying his abominable actions?

So the answer, in my, and likely many atheists’ eyes, is, “Yes, you worship a bully.” In fact, I think calling your god a bully is putting it lightly.  I feel that Dawkins was much closer in writing, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully,” but even that doesn’t do justice.

Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens: What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism? on Vimeo (via Vimeo)

I won’t have an opportunity to watch this until later this evening, but it seems as if it ought to be a decent round-two to their debate.

Before watching it, here’s what I expect: Turek making some fairly naive arguments that sound logical on the surface, but fall apart at a decent glance, and Hitchens applying Occam’s razor a bit too much and generally only making absolute sense to the people who have read his books.

Either way, probably worth the two hours if you’re a Hitchens fan.

— Christopher Hitchens (via Daily Atheist Quote) (Thanks, reneehendricks!)