Christopher Hitchens, "God is not Great" author, is not really an atheist
By: Brendan Patrick Keane | Published Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 3:55 PM | Updated Friday, September 9, 2011, 9:46 PM
In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Christopher Hitchens objectively describes his terminal illness, and the prospect of a painful death.
This moving conversation is conducted as though under strict orders against sentimentality. It is a mark of his integrity, perhaps, that Hitchens would flay his own circumstance with the coldness he employed to disembowel Mother Theresa.
Christopher Hitchens is known for his war with those amongst us who purport to have special knowledge, unreasonably revealed to them by God. (I am not such a person.)
Hitchens is not an atheist, however. His agnosticism often seems to undo God, but he is admittedly incapable of doing so, merely limited as he is to undoing the legitimacy of divine spokespersons. He reveals his limits in this interview.
As he deals with the awful burden of esophagal cancer spreading through his lymph nodes, he is concerned about rumors of a death bed confession. He is trying to make clear to us what he believes before he is incapable of doing so later-on.
Despite that over-arching political concern, Hitchens' first real philosophical assumption is that the universe exceeds in complexity, full human understanding. And so, uncertainty is inescapable. He did not discover the principle, he must concede to it. He also concedes the possibility of a prime mover.
Atheism is too certain a position for Hitchens, author of the badly titled book God is Not Great. Badly, because it is too declarative, and certain. Where God is a wide-open term used to short-hand the ineffably complex universe, calling it "not great" is the equivalent of saying life is a half-empty glass. He just does not have access to enough information to make that determination.
Just because it's ineffable, doesn't mean people don't try to talk about it. God is the short-hand many use to describe a) the anthropomorphized tribal father that made "all" b) or simply, that terribly complex "all."
Either way, "all" is too big for any human head, even one like Hitchens' to wrap around it. So how could he know if it is great or not? If Hitchens can not know all, he cannot know that nature's symmetry prohibits underlying intelligence or even overall "personality."
In the interview it's clear, he's unclear. He is with the uncertain.
Hitchens is determined above-all-else to expose the religious who claim to be representatives of God, as charlatans. He sees these men and women in their stupefying costumes as really "absolutely nude," full of certainty when there is none.
He recognizes no one that has discovered God themselves; nor anyone that has ever received revelation where he has not. To do so would create a class of mammals bearing warrants from God to control less evolved homo sapiens. It is this unsubstantiated nightmare that he holds-out against, nobly on behalf of all he will leave behind.
Hitchens mission against these taxing shepherds subverts his acceptance of new possibilities, however. He cannot know beforehand, what his death will or will not teach him.
I hope Hitchens recovers by whatever miracle or medicine. And I hope for Hitchens that he knows he is loved by the universe, as is my hunch.
The confusion arises because agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief. I believe that when most people refer to themselves as agnostic they mean to say that they believe it more likely than not that a god exists but that it is impossible to know anything about that god. It would be more accurate for most of these self identified agnostics to refer to themselves as deists. In this way it is possible to be agnostic without being an atheist although this is a very fine line to walk. As Colbert says, "Agnostics are just atheists without balls". One does not have to be certain that no god exists to be called an atheist however. One only needs not to be persuaded that there should be any likelihood of a god existing to be called an atheist and Hitchens certainly falls into this category. Hitchens' acceptance of the possibility that a god exists, even if that possibility lies somewhere on the order of one in a trillion, is merely a matter of intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity. In the question of the Abrahamic god, Yahweh, he is certain enough to deny that posssibility outright even in the threat of eternal damnation. If that level of certainty doesn't qualify one as an atheist then I don't know what would.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 26, 2010, 10:46 AM EDT
Eilonnw: You incorrectly says "To be an agnostic is to be an atheist." You make this mistake because you inherently know that agnosticism can be defended: no clerics, no religion, no defined God. Atheism goes a step further and affirms nothingness as origin. It's a subtle but crucial difference to understanding that atheism purports to know something just as preposterously as the theist.
Eilonnwy | Aug 26, 2010, 09:57 AM EDT
You clearly have no idea what an atheist is. To be an agnostic is to be an atheist. When you say you don't know, you then don't believe, and that's what atheism is.
Hitchens says he is an atheist, shame on your for putting words into his mouth and trying to portray him for what he is not. Hitchens understands all too well what the atheist position is, a lack of belief. He doesn't have to prove God does not exist, he does not have the burden of proof.
You are just as bad as people begging for Hitchens to make a death bed confession. How about you don't make stupid assumptions about what people believe and accept what they say.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 25, 2010, 11:22 AM EDT
biodaedo: An atheist and theist answer this question differently: What started the universe? Theists say God. Atheists say nothing. Belief does not mean religion. Belief means you think something true for which you have no proof. Hitchens concedes his uncertainty. That is not atheism.
biodaedo | Aug 25, 2010, 03:31 AM EDT
You're just trying to force atheism into being a belief system because it makes you feel good. I've met people like you before, you're a dime a dozen.
Atheism in its broadest sense is not a belief system, period. If atheism is a religion, not-collecting-stamps defaults as a real hobby. My not having belief in your god does not mean I actively believe it does not exist. If this were the case, you could make anyone religious by inventing a concept on the spot (like the flying spaghetti monster) and simply because they obviously have no belief in something that they've never heard of, doesn't mean they already hold the belief that it does not exist. Your stance is insane.
Allow me to illustrate a little further, for your simple mind. The Higgs Boson Particle is currently only theoretical. No one knows whether or not it exists. If you believe that the higgs boson particle exists, you're like a theist. But if you don't have belief in the existence of the higgs boson, it does not mean that you actively believe it does not exist. This is atheism. Only a strong atheist would say, "i believe the higgs boson particle does not exist."
With respect to the higgs boson particle, all of us should be Agnostic Atheists, meaning that we lack belief in its existence because there is no evidence (atheist), but at the same time, we do not make claims to knowing whether or not it exists (agnostic). It is the only reasonable stance to take given a current atmosphere of there being no evidence for it.
And believe me Brendan, no one is twisting language here, although that does happen all the time, it's how words change in meaning and connotation. Research atheism, genuinely do it. Or else, shut up.
CQQLGUY | Aug 25, 2010, 12:30 AM EDT
BrendanPKeane: Calling atheism a religious relief is like calling baldness a hair color. This is a fairly popular atheist quote, but it doesn't sound like you complete grasp the concept.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 25, 2010, 12:25 AM EDT
biodaedo: You are only correct if we twist language, as you must do by creating "strong atheists" and "weak atheists" in order to alter the definition of atheism so that it no longer represents a belief, a stance, an undefendable position.
biodaedo | Aug 24, 2010, 07:27 PM EDT
Hi BrendanPKeane: I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong about the definition of atheism. Atheism, in its most broadest sense, is quite simply the "lack of belief" definition. There are atheists who actively make the claim and believe that there are no gods, and those are called "strong atheists." Read more about atheism as a philosophy in any academic book, or hell, even wikipedia, before spewing your ignorance much more.
Peace
BrendanPKeane | Aug 24, 2010, 06:57 PM EDT
BarkingToad: You make a common mistake. Atheism is not the lack of belief, it is in fact, a belief. It is belief in "nothing" to explain the universal philosophical problem of First Cause. Theists answer "God." Atheists answer "nothing." Hitchens explicitly states he does not dismiss the possibility of a First Cause and is so not a true atheist. Try to focus your rebuttal on the important mistake you make where you illogically argue that atheism is a belief-system based on "disblief" versus "belief."
BarkingToad | Aug 24, 2010, 06:33 PM EDT
Obviously, you have no idea what the word "atheist" means.
Atheism is "the lack of belief in any god or gods". Agnosticism is "the lack of knowledge concerning gods", possibly "the claim that knowledge concerning gods is by definition impossible".
As such, the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
As an agnostic atheist, I take offense at your display of ignorance. Hitchens does not believe in any gods, therefore, he is an atheist. To claim that he is not is simply a lie.
Looking forward to your apology.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 24, 2010, 04:42 PM EDT
leftbehind81: You may reject the problem of causality, but it is an inherent problem that makes the Big Bang theory so interesting or "circular" to use your word. Hitchens is anti-clerical and refutes all illustrations (gods) of the phenomenon outside understanding, including origin.
seathanaich | Aug 24, 2010, 03:43 PM EDT
Hitchens isn't even dead yet, and the Christians are already lying that he isn't an atheist, just like they have lied about "death bed conversions" of people like Charles Darwin, etc.
Atheism is defined as disbelief in gods. Hitchens doesn't believe in gods. He's an atheist. It takes a dishonest theist to intentionally misprepresent something as simple as this.
Why is the mere existence of atheists such a threat to an individual theist? If you are going to comment on atheism, at least learn what the word means. There are agnostic atheists, and there are gnostic atheists, just like there are agnostic theists, and gnostic theists. This isn't rocket science.
location404 | Aug 24, 2010, 02:18 PM EDT
They aren't the same, they answer two different questions. It's possible for someone to be both, for someone to be either, and for someone else to be neither.
Atheism means a person doesn't believe any gods exist.
Theism means a person believes one or more gods exist.
Agnosticism means a person doesn't think it's possible to be certain (to test) if the god or gods in question exist or not.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists. There are some, but not many strong atheists. There are agnostic theists. And there are theists who are certain their god exists and it's provable. Most people who identify as merely agnostic are probably agnostic atheists. But not all of them, I am sure there are agnostic deists and agnostic theists who identify as agnostics. And possibly even impartial agnostics.
birtchfeld | Aug 19, 2010, 10:09 PM EDT
Babblefish... lots of intellectual pride spinning in meaningless circles; congratulations! You've convinced yourselves not to be held accountable (la, la, la, la... the house is not burning down, the house is not burning down, the house is...) Christopher Hitchens looks frightened; I hope he will at last abandon his pride and admit to God what he has always known... God is indeed great. If you love your neighbor, pray that God will lead Mr. Hitchins by grace through faith - who knows, we may celebrate with him in Heaven.
leftbehind81 | Aug 18, 2010, 10:54 PM EDT
@Brendan, First let me say that the "first cause" argument I reject outright simply because it is a circular argument. It is a lot like the intelligent design argument, if the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an even more complex entity then wouldn't that in turn mean that entity is so complex that it in turn would have to be created by an even more complex entity? And then that one an even more complex entity and so on. In other words, God would need a bigger God to have created him under this logic. I am sorry, this isn't an answer.
You can use the term 'God' to refer to many things, and in doing so you more and more confuse the meaning of the word. God could refer to an ancient greek God, or perhaps to the Buddha, or maybe even Lao Tzu or maybe you could incorrectly call the Tao a 'God'. But if we do that then what are we really talking about when we talk about God? Each of these concepts of God are quiet different. You might agree that it is far easier to argue against the existence of a greek god then for instance the christian God. And i would say that it is even harder to argue against the very abstract idea of a Tao then the Christian God.
To avoid these confusions I have to insist that the western word 'God' actually refers to the historical western God. That is the monotheistic judeo-christian God refereed to in the Bible and described theologically as all loving, all knowing, and all powerful. This is the God, that Hitchens objects to, not an abstract idea.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 18, 2010, 10:18 AM EDT
leftbehind81: If you must limit the concept of God to a particular western concept, then why not "primum movens?" Western philosophy has successfully abstracted religious coloration into logical problems, where God sheds his robes, and becomes something more mathematical: an original causality. Hitchens clearly accepts that a prime mover is logically possible, and in so expressing this uncertainty, he cannot fairly claim to be an atheist. An atheist believes that nothing (not God) started the universe.
leftbehind81 | Aug 17, 2010, 10:13 PM EDT
God in western society is in not a "wide-open" term. God is a very unambiguous entity, he has a definition that has been defined for centuries. Namely that he is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. He wrote a few books, if you disobey him (such as masturbating) he will condemn you to eternal burning, and if you do obey him he will let you stay at his really cool house in the clouds. But he decided to tell you what he wants you to do through a bunch of old guys in Rome. You know this is the truth, because they said so, and of course it is impossible that they would either lie or have no idea what in the world they are talking about. And how could they get anything wrong, I mean they are well known for being incredibly competent.
This is not an eastern concept of a higher power such as karma or the Tao. And i don't know about Hitchens, but personally if I was ever only told of the eastern idea of what we call God (they would not call this god), I probably would not be an "atheist".
And let me just say, i think it is a offensive to question someones faith. If you were a catholic, and someone looked at your beliefs and said "nope, your actually Jewish." you would be offended. Not because there is anything wrong with being Jewish, but instead because you spent a lot of time and effort developing your catholic faith. It is the same way with being Atheist. We spend a lot of time developing our stance and opinions on God and to simply to dismiss how we choose to identify ourselves is condescending.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 15, 2010, 06:36 PM EDT
You can't hold a disbelief without believing something instead. Atheism is the belief that there is "no god" or "nothing" to explain the ultimate questions of philosophy. Theism is the belief that "god" answers those questions.
samlehman | Aug 15, 2010, 01:24 PM EDT
Defintion via OED: atheism - noun - disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.
Tautologous | Aug 15, 2010, 11:02 AM EDT
@Bill Killpatrick:
To be an atheist is to not believe in gods?
So theism is an atheist?
Rocks are atheists.
AIDS is an atheist.
Hate is atheist.
All of them do not believe in a god.
It is people like you and Cline who so misrepresent atheism it is a joke. Atheism is the belief there is no god. I am an atheist.
Not believing in god is not anything at all. No such thing exists. You are calling atheism something that does not exist. A fatal error of logic.
Cline has no clue about atheism and neither do you. Logical buffoons 100%.
2BorNot2B | Aug 14, 2010, 02:11 PM EDT
@Bill Killpatrick: "To be an atheist is to not believe in gods. The burden of proof has always been with the other guys." -- Really? If that is the case, and atheism purports to believe in science as a 'sort of proof' that God does not exist, then this 'science-god' is indeed a very inadequate proof since most scientists know that science itself is continuously evolving, that it does not by any means have even a fraction of the answers and that if they, as scientists, know anything is that they know KNOTHING! Further, and most important, it is scientists and atheists who in view of the misteries and wonders of creation cannot possibly have a random origin, and have not proven the non-existence of God. There is more evidence of God in the simple observable creation than the results of human devised ingenuity or invention have produced. In fact, the chasm between these two is so great as to not even be quantifiable. Therefore, the onus of proving that God does not exist is really on those who deny Him, not the other way around.
2BorNot2B | Aug 14, 2010, 01:48 PM EDT
Sez BrendanP: "Cursing a sick man or worse, gloating at it his condition, must be sinful according to some religious system," -- Your concern for the 'sick man' is touching Mr. BPK, really bordering on a sort of Mother-Teresian religious humanitarianism. To atone for the 'sin of gloating' (there was NO cursing involved, as your atheist sympathies might have led you to believe), I will flog myself 20 times; that is as soon as you do likewise to atone for the way in which Hitch, your hero, mercilessly eviscerated a godly woman who never, ever, even knew he existed.--
Continues Brendan: '..nothing chases a mind to atheism more effectively than advocates of God.'-- And I'd say, nothing chases a mind to God more effectively than the murderous rampages of militant atheists who manage to acquire even a small amount of power and then try to forcefully impose their vacuous and dead-inducing philosophy on others, either by raw military means, or by the pen, as in the case of Voltaire -who was infinitely smarter, funnier and of higher intellect than Hitch. -- I assure you, there have been more casualties of atheism and more people praying to God, begging for their lives, and wondering how to regain their self-respect as a result of attacks from men and women who not only rejected the idea of God but tried to impose their way of thinking. -- " We all live in uncertainty and should respect our common ignorance." -- Oh that all those atheist beasts (and we all know who they are), that have littered their path with millions of corpses, victims of their murderous prejudice and authoritariansm, might have listened to your wise counsel!
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 10:36 AM EDT
You have caught me. My name is not really Mavis Pike. Actually, to be fair Keanso, you are prepared to reply to criticism, even when it's as ill-tempered as mine. So you deserve respect. I grudgingly grant you said commodity.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 10:25 AM EDT
The book is only anti-clerical. I have little problem with it. The video is anti-clerical, but then reveals more than that simple posture. In the video Hitchens himself discusses the uncertainty principle. That is what prompted my short response, not his book. If that is irrelevant, tell it to Hitchens--he brought it up, not me. I'm glad my little letter has inspired you "MavisPike." Please now watch Hitchens interview closely, and listen to his own discussion of uncertainty.
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 10:06 AM EDT
You keep saying the "uncertainty principle" as if that phrase was in any way relevant to this conversation. The uncertainty principle states that (among other properties) the momentum and position of a sub-atomic particle can not simultaneously be identified. It's got nothing to do with the debate on the existence of God. You then say that " His anti-clerical book and its title would confuse readers into believing Hitchens had somehow resolved the uncertainty principle." Nobody who had actually read the book would be in any way confused. It is possible to argue without insulting you but -- what with your violin and your pathetic desire to be Irish -- you just make too appealing a target.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 09:50 AM EDT
His book is much more an anti-clerical work, than a philosophical one. I am more interested in his philosophical stance on first-cause. He speaks to this issue in the interview, and allows for first-cause, for "god" in the largest sense. This is what I was writing about. His anti-clerical book and its title would confuse readers into believing Hitchens had somehow resolved the uncertainty principle. Of course he had not, as he discusses in the above interview. Is it possible to discuss this with without insulting me? Or has Hitchens only taught his followers how to argue by personal attack?
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 07:07 AM EDT
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse this article of being offensive. After all, Hitchens is a big boy and, if he had a beef with a gravely ill man, he would continue to put in the boot. The piece is, however, the sort of confused, pretentious tripe you'd expect a half-bright, fully-lazy high school student to cough-up. Rather than presenting a critical analysis of the book -- better than Dawkins's more pompous tome, I feel -- Keane offers a worthless analysis of the title alone. That's understandable enough. What with his fiddle and all, Keane must be a busy man and it's easier to read a title than a whole book. But the piece doesn't even work on those debased terms. How can you consider the phrase "God is Not Great" without pondering its relationship to the Arabic phrase Allāhu Akbar? Those words, often bellowed by suicide bombers, translate as "God is Great". Hitchens's book dismisses that particular God with great efficiency. You should try reading it some time, fiddle boy.
BillKilpatrick | Aug 13, 2010, 11:18 PM EDT
This article is a slanted, inaccurate, summary of Hitchens' interview. Why wouldn't a curious reader simply read - or watch - the actual interview rather than buy into this mush? Atheists don't have to know the unknowable to be atheists. To be an atheist is to not believe in gods. The burden of proof has always been with the other guys.
xyolist | Aug 13, 2010, 11:01 PM EDT
Really, really...another rant from, yet another, pedantic sciolist who can't let go of childish reminiscences (Sunday school indoctrination)...grow up Brendan the Easter Bunny does not really bring you the eggs!
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:47 PM EDT
Tautologous: the question that atheism purports to answer is the ultimate question of any logically concluded investigation of any causality. It is absolutely a thing, it is everything.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:21 PM EDT
Atheism does not allow for the possibility of God. Skepticism does so.
Tautologous | Aug 13, 2010, 10:03 PM EDT
BrendanPKean,
Atheists by logical necessity allow for the possibility of a god since it is not proven there is no god. All beliefs allow the possibility of being false. No burden of proof applies to any belief, including theism. The only time a burden of proof applies is when someone says something is true. Atheists do not say "it is true there is no god". All truths must be proven.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 02:58 PM EDT
Cursing a sick man or worse, gloating at it his condition, must be sinful according to some religious system, surely. There is nothing that chases a mind to atheism more effectively than the advocates of God. We all live in uncertainty and should respect our common ignorance.
2BorNot2B | Aug 13, 2010, 02:40 PM EDT
With death knocking at the door of this fame-seeking opportunist Hitchens, he'd be damn fortunate to find someone like Mother Teresa --the woman he savaged-- to give him the solace and dignity he demands before entering the door to the 'great beyond,' which he now rightfully fears. Soon enough he'll find out whether 'he might have actually been wrong' about those things which provided him with momentary notoriety.-- Earthly fame is fleeting though. Mother Teresa, through her religious ministry based on God-centered love, created a legacy that will keep her presence on earth alive perhaps forever. Hitchens will be denied even that. He will soon be a forgotten footnote somewhere. -- Meanwhile, as someone said: "There are no atheists in foxholes." And as the final curtain is drawn over Hitch, either this gasbag will admit there is wisdom in that phrase, or risk finding the unpleasant consequences of his blockheaded stupidity; alas... too late! -- Neener, neener! He should have gone with Pascal's wager.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 11:56 AM EDT
CitizenWhy: That's a very important point about Mother Theresa. Hitchens criticized her from the a priori that she was somehow an economic activist whose good could only be measured in the material relief she brought to people. He confused her spiritual mission, to show love, with economic development, which was not her concern. He damns her for her disinterest in such material outcomes, when in fact she was completely married to circumstance, and resolved to providing spiritual solace to those she could not pull from poverty, she could not pull from poverty, she could not pull from poverty. And because she could not, Hitchens damns her mission as causing poverty (!) when in fact she meant only to provide love to those we so easily hate. That Hitchen hated her, says something.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 11:51 AM EDT
Tautologous: Atheism is the assertion that there is no god. It would be a theory if one set out to prove it so. Atheism is not burdened with proving anything. It is simply the conclusion: no god. You are confusing theory with belief. If you believe something, you do not also believe its opposite. Fudging-open atheism to mean "no god, but maybe god" is intellectually cheap. It means "no god."
CitizenWhy | Aug 13, 2010, 11:13 AM EDT
Reply to BrendanPKeene ...
Poor mother Teresa. All she wanted to do was to assure the wretched of a happy death so that they would enter the next life without misery, despair or bitterness. Perfectly in accord with her traditional non-political Catholic beliefs (love as the basis of religion) or with the Hundu belief in reincarnation. Unfortunately too many misunderstood her mission and assumed she was working to end poverty. As a result many accused her of not being effective about ending poverty (as if anyone knows how to end poverty). My Irish mother told me she admired Mother Teresa because "she's a real Irish woman, she does what needs to be done no matter what the men (the hierarchy) say."
CitizenWhy | Aug 13, 2010, 11:05 AM EDT
Everyone here seems to have missed the announcement that God is suing for divorce from all earth-based religions on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.
Tautologous | Aug 13, 2010, 01:38 AM EDT
Atheism is not the certainty there is no god.
Atheism is the belief there is no god.
All beliefs are possibly true and possibly false, that is what makes them beliefs. Thus it is possibly true to all atheists that a god exists.
This author confuses the unrelated concept of agnosticism with atheism. Tsk tsk.
mhichil | Aug 12, 2010, 10:05 PM EDT
so how do you know that you don't know, if you don't know? Let me know what you find out!
fireweed | Aug 12, 2010, 09:21 PM EDT
all be it darkness beyond conceptualization, our perpetual light shine upon him doubt is a equally soulful journey as fate.
CitizenWhy | Aug 12, 2010, 12:39 PM EDT
God has announced that He/She will be seeking a divorce from all earth-based religions on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Did you miss that story?
BrendanPKeane | Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM EDT
Hitchens has been considerably less kind to Mother Theresa than normal decorum would expect. He can take any rudeness you perceive, though I intended none. I wrote a respectful response to a very public video. Hitchens has always taken the posture of certainty, but he cannot be, and it was appropriate to confront this while he is still well able to rip me a new one.
NathanL | Aug 12, 2010, 03:44 AM EDT
What a ridiculous article. Aside from the rambling nonsense attempt at trying to put words in Hitchens' mouth, the author clearly knows nothing of Christopher's views. He is an "Anti-theist". That is: even if it is true, he wouldn't like it.
And who can blame him: the notion of a "universal dictatorship" (actual words of Hitchens) is repulsive to anyone fortunate to have lived in a democracy.
I think the author of this "article" owes Mr Hitchens an apology for blatant misrepresentation of what was said. The lack of quotes to back up the wild airy-fairy commentary is proof of that.
BonoboBaby | Aug 12, 2010, 02:11 AM EDT
The author of this commentary has no idea what "atheist" means. An atheist is a person who has no belief in a god. That is the only criteria. Regardless of what many misinformed believers claim, an atheist is not necessarily a person who claims no gods exist.
Many atheists are open to the possibility that a god or gods exist. They simply do not believe in any gods at this time because in several thousands years of hard effort by believers no one has ever managed to produce any credible evidence or compelling arguments for the existence of a god.
I recommend the book, "50 Reasons People Give For Believing in a God" (Prometheus Books)
oilzzfan | Aug 12, 2010, 12:09 AM EDT
your title is absolutely inaccurate.
this man has no hesitation to lay it on the table. he points out clearly: pray if you want, but make no assumptions.
it is obvious where he is headed. i hope any believer will have an ounce of their own grace to let him die with dignity.
i know, that is far too much to ask, so i am confident he will go out with a fight and a clear message to believers "you have wasted your life based on a lie".
BrendanPKeane | Aug 11, 2010, 10:27 PM EDT
Thankfully men like Christopher Hitchens are comfortable enough to allow their lives to be examined by the public. I am grateful to him for making this conversation open for all to interpret. His stance on the Iraq war was motivated by the Kurd cause, but I think also it was a calculation post-9/11. The first Iraq war went quick and fast. He thought the second one will too, and there's no benefit to being the post-9/11 anti-war thinker. He had a dramatic about-face on Iraq after the American mood shift in 2001.
Monsoonman | Aug 11, 2010, 09:35 PM EDT
God=Good orderly direction...Yes there is a God. I will hire John Edwards to channel Christopher Hitchins after his passing and give proof to us.
DennisQ | Aug 11, 2010, 07:52 PM EDT
Hitchens confused a lot of people when he came out in support of the war in Iraq. He's always held himself out as a Great Thinker, but that wasn't evident when he apparently thought Saddam Hussein was some kind of Islamist. Saddam was as indifferent to religion as Hitchens himself. Later on it came out that Hitchens' career advanced because his support of the war drew favorable attention from people who were in a position to benefit him. Maybe he's not really a prostitute, but his deliberately wrong-headed positions certainly raises questions about his integrity. I remember watching a television debate between Hitchens and an opponent of the war, and Hitchens simply dug in his heels and refused to acknowledge valid arguments. That's when I concluded that even if Christopher Hitchens is not a right wing jerk, he'll do until one comes along. Incidentally, there was nothing to recommend the Iraq war - nothing. I could understand Hitchens' motivation for supporting it if he were a Zionist. I wouldn't respect it, but at least I wouldn't be mystified.
RichWilson | Aug 11, 2010, 06:54 PM EDT
You obviously don't know what 'atheist' and 'agnostic' mean. None of the 'new atheists' (including Hitchens and Dawkins) claim to have proof that there are no gods. They understand that such a proof is not possible, any more than you can prove there are no invisible unicorns. Anyone who claims absolute proof that there are no gods isn't an atheist, but an idiot.
otheroptions | Aug 11, 2010, 06:46 PM EDT
"It is this unsubstantiated nightmare that he holds-out against," It is a substantiated nightmare. People willing to die and kill for their own version of god. People willing to accept that their god puts pedophiles in positions of leadership over their churches and their lives. It's a nightmare alright.
MrThumbtack | Aug 11, 2010, 06:37 PM EDT
The arguments you raise are old and tired, and your headline is simply a ploy to gain attention. As the last poster said, shame on you.
soicanpost | Aug 11, 2010, 05:10 PM EDT
He has said countless times he is not only an a-theist but an anti-theist. What a cheap point you try to score by taking advantage of a sick man to increase your readership. Shame on you.
53 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.jklarson | Aug 26, 2010, 11:54 AM EDT
The confusion arises because agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief. I believe that when most people refer to themselves as agnostic they mean to say that they believe it more likely than not that a god exists but that it is impossible to know anything about that god. It would be more accurate for most of these self identified agnostics to refer to themselves as deists. In this way it is possible to be agnostic without being an atheist although this is a very fine line to walk. As Colbert says, "Agnostics are just atheists without balls". One does not have to be certain that no god exists to be called an atheist however. One only needs not to be persuaded that there should be any likelihood of a god existing to be called an atheist and Hitchens certainly falls into this category. Hitchens' acceptance of the possibility that a god exists, even if that possibility lies somewhere on the order of one in a trillion, is merely a matter of intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity. In the question of the Abrahamic god, Yahweh, he is certain enough to deny that posssibility outright even in the threat of eternal damnation. If that level of certainty doesn't qualify one as an atheist then I don't know what would.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 26, 2010, 10:46 AM EDT
Eilonnw: You incorrectly says "To be an agnostic is to be an atheist." You make this mistake because you inherently know that agnosticism can be defended: no clerics, no religion, no defined God. Atheism goes a step further and affirms nothingness as origin. It's a subtle but crucial difference to understanding that atheism purports to know something just as preposterously as the theist.
Eilonnwy | Aug 26, 2010, 09:57 AM EDT
You clearly have no idea what an atheist is. To be an agnostic is to be an atheist. When you say you don't know, you then don't believe, and that's what atheism is. Hitchens says he is an atheist, shame on your for putting words into his mouth and trying to portray him for what he is not. Hitchens understands all too well what the atheist position is, a lack of belief. He doesn't have to prove God does not exist, he does not have the burden of proof. You are just as bad as people begging for Hitchens to make a death bed confession. How about you don't make stupid assumptions about what people believe and accept what they say.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 25, 2010, 11:22 AM EDT
biodaedo: An atheist and theist answer this question differently: What started the universe? Theists say God. Atheists say nothing. Belief does not mean religion. Belief means you think something true for which you have no proof. Hitchens concedes his uncertainty. That is not atheism.
biodaedo | Aug 25, 2010, 03:31 AM EDT
You're just trying to force atheism into being a belief system because it makes you feel good. I've met people like you before, you're a dime a dozen. Atheism in its broadest sense is not a belief system, period. If atheism is a religion, not-collecting-stamps defaults as a real hobby. My not having belief in your god does not mean I actively believe it does not exist. If this were the case, you could make anyone religious by inventing a concept on the spot (like the flying spaghetti monster) and simply because they obviously have no belief in something that they've never heard of, doesn't mean they already hold the belief that it does not exist. Your stance is insane. Allow me to illustrate a little further, for your simple mind. The Higgs Boson Particle is currently only theoretical. No one knows whether or not it exists. If you believe that the higgs boson particle exists, you're like a theist. But if you don't have belief in the existence of the higgs boson, it does not mean that you actively believe it does not exist. This is atheism. Only a strong atheist would say, "i believe the higgs boson particle does not exist." With respect to the higgs boson particle, all of us should be Agnostic Atheists, meaning that we lack belief in its existence because there is no evidence (atheist), but at the same time, we do not make claims to knowing whether or not it exists (agnostic). It is the only reasonable stance to take given a current atmosphere of there being no evidence for it. And believe me Brendan, no one is twisting language here, although that does happen all the time, it's how words change in meaning and connotation. Research atheism, genuinely do it. Or else, shut up.
CQQLGUY | Aug 25, 2010, 12:30 AM EDT
BrendanPKeane: Calling atheism a religious relief is like calling baldness a hair color. This is a fairly popular atheist quote, but it doesn't sound like you complete grasp the concept.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 25, 2010, 12:25 AM EDT
biodaedo: You are only correct if we twist language, as you must do by creating "strong atheists" and "weak atheists" in order to alter the definition of atheism so that it no longer represents a belief, a stance, an undefendable position.
biodaedo | Aug 24, 2010, 07:27 PM EDT
Hi BrendanPKeane: I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong about the definition of atheism. Atheism, in its most broadest sense, is quite simply the "lack of belief" definition. There are atheists who actively make the claim and believe that there are no gods, and those are called "strong atheists." Read more about atheism as a philosophy in any academic book, or hell, even wikipedia, before spewing your ignorance much more. Peace
BrendanPKeane | Aug 24, 2010, 06:57 PM EDT
BarkingToad: You make a common mistake. Atheism is not the lack of belief, it is in fact, a belief. It is belief in "nothing" to explain the universal philosophical problem of First Cause. Theists answer "God." Atheists answer "nothing." Hitchens explicitly states he does not dismiss the possibility of a First Cause and is so not a true atheist. Try to focus your rebuttal on the important mistake you make where you illogically argue that atheism is a belief-system based on "disblief" versus "belief."
BarkingToad | Aug 24, 2010, 06:33 PM EDT
Obviously, you have no idea what the word "atheist" means. Atheism is "the lack of belief in any god or gods". Agnosticism is "the lack of knowledge concerning gods", possibly "the claim that knowledge concerning gods is by definition impossible". As such, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. As an agnostic atheist, I take offense at your display of ignorance. Hitchens does not believe in any gods, therefore, he is an atheist. To claim that he is not is simply a lie. Looking forward to your apology.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 24, 2010, 04:42 PM EDT
leftbehind81: You may reject the problem of causality, but it is an inherent problem that makes the Big Bang theory so interesting or "circular" to use your word. Hitchens is anti-clerical and refutes all illustrations (gods) of the phenomenon outside understanding, including origin.
seathanaich | Aug 24, 2010, 03:43 PM EDT
Hitchens isn't even dead yet, and the Christians are already lying that he isn't an atheist, just like they have lied about "death bed conversions" of people like Charles Darwin, etc. Atheism is defined as disbelief in gods. Hitchens doesn't believe in gods. He's an atheist. It takes a dishonest theist to intentionally misprepresent something as simple as this. Why is the mere existence of atheists such a threat to an individual theist? If you are going to comment on atheism, at least learn what the word means. There are agnostic atheists, and there are gnostic atheists, just like there are agnostic theists, and gnostic theists. This isn't rocket science.
location404 | Aug 24, 2010, 02:18 PM EDT
They aren't the same, they answer two different questions. It's possible for someone to be both, for someone to be either, and for someone else to be neither. Atheism means a person doesn't believe any gods exist. Theism means a person believes one or more gods exist. Agnosticism means a person doesn't think it's possible to be certain (to test) if the god or gods in question exist or not. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. There are some, but not many strong atheists. There are agnostic theists. And there are theists who are certain their god exists and it's provable. Most people who identify as merely agnostic are probably agnostic atheists. But not all of them, I am sure there are agnostic deists and agnostic theists who identify as agnostics. And possibly even impartial agnostics.
birtchfeld | Aug 19, 2010, 10:09 PM EDT
Babblefish... lots of intellectual pride spinning in meaningless circles; congratulations! You've convinced yourselves not to be held accountable (la, la, la, la... the house is not burning down, the house is not burning down, the house is...) Christopher Hitchens looks frightened; I hope he will at last abandon his pride and admit to God what he has always known... God is indeed great. If you love your neighbor, pray that God will lead Mr. Hitchins by grace through faith - who knows, we may celebrate with him in Heaven.
leftbehind81 | Aug 18, 2010, 10:54 PM EDT
@Brendan, First let me say that the "first cause" argument I reject outright simply because it is a circular argument. It is a lot like the intelligent design argument, if the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an even more complex entity then wouldn't that in turn mean that entity is so complex that it in turn would have to be created by an even more complex entity? And then that one an even more complex entity and so on. In other words, God would need a bigger God to have created him under this logic. I am sorry, this isn't an answer. You can use the term 'God' to refer to many things, and in doing so you more and more confuse the meaning of the word. God could refer to an ancient greek God, or perhaps to the Buddha, or maybe even Lao Tzu or maybe you could incorrectly call the Tao a 'God'. But if we do that then what are we really talking about when we talk about God? Each of these concepts of God are quiet different. You might agree that it is far easier to argue against the existence of a greek god then for instance the christian God. And i would say that it is even harder to argue against the very abstract idea of a Tao then the Christian God. To avoid these confusions I have to insist that the western word 'God' actually refers to the historical western God. That is the monotheistic judeo-christian God refereed to in the Bible and described theologically as all loving, all knowing, and all powerful. This is the God, that Hitchens objects to, not an abstract idea.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 18, 2010, 10:18 AM EDT
leftbehind81: If you must limit the concept of God to a particular western concept, then why not "primum movens?" Western philosophy has successfully abstracted religious coloration into logical problems, where God sheds his robes, and becomes something more mathematical: an original causality. Hitchens clearly accepts that a prime mover is logically possible, and in so expressing this uncertainty, he cannot fairly claim to be an atheist. An atheist believes that nothing (not God) started the universe.
leftbehind81 | Aug 17, 2010, 10:13 PM EDT
God in western society is in not a "wide-open" term. God is a very unambiguous entity, he has a definition that has been defined for centuries. Namely that he is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. He wrote a few books, if you disobey him (such as masturbating) he will condemn you to eternal burning, and if you do obey him he will let you stay at his really cool house in the clouds. But he decided to tell you what he wants you to do through a bunch of old guys in Rome. You know this is the truth, because they said so, and of course it is impossible that they would either lie or have no idea what in the world they are talking about. And how could they get anything wrong, I mean they are well known for being incredibly competent. This is not an eastern concept of a higher power such as karma or the Tao. And i don't know about Hitchens, but personally if I was ever only told of the eastern idea of what we call God (they would not call this god), I probably would not be an "atheist". And let me just say, i think it is a offensive to question someones faith. If you were a catholic, and someone looked at your beliefs and said "nope, your actually Jewish." you would be offended. Not because there is anything wrong with being Jewish, but instead because you spent a lot of time and effort developing your catholic faith. It is the same way with being Atheist. We spend a lot of time developing our stance and opinions on God and to simply to dismiss how we choose to identify ourselves is condescending.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 15, 2010, 06:36 PM EDT
You can't hold a disbelief without believing something instead. Atheism is the belief that there is "no god" or "nothing" to explain the ultimate questions of philosophy. Theism is the belief that "god" answers those questions.
samlehman | Aug 15, 2010, 01:24 PM EDT
Defintion via OED: atheism - noun - disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.
Tautologous | Aug 15, 2010, 11:02 AM EDT
@Bill Killpatrick: To be an atheist is to not believe in gods? So theism is an atheist? Rocks are atheists. AIDS is an atheist. Hate is atheist. All of them do not believe in a god. It is people like you and Cline who so misrepresent atheism it is a joke. Atheism is the belief there is no god. I am an atheist. Not believing in god is not anything at all. No such thing exists. You are calling atheism something that does not exist. A fatal error of logic. Cline has no clue about atheism and neither do you. Logical buffoons 100%.
2BorNot2B | Aug 14, 2010, 02:11 PM EDT
@Bill Killpatrick: "To be an atheist is to not believe in gods. The burden of proof has always been with the other guys." -- Really? If that is the case, and atheism purports to believe in science as a 'sort of proof' that God does not exist, then this 'science-god' is indeed a very inadequate proof since most scientists know that science itself is continuously evolving, that it does not by any means have even a fraction of the answers and that if they, as scientists, know anything is that they know KNOTHING! Further, and most important, it is scientists and atheists who in view of the misteries and wonders of creation cannot possibly have a random origin, and have not proven the non-existence of God. There is more evidence of God in the simple observable creation than the results of human devised ingenuity or invention have produced. In fact, the chasm between these two is so great as to not even be quantifiable. Therefore, the onus of proving that God does not exist is really on those who deny Him, not the other way around.
2BorNot2B | Aug 14, 2010, 01:48 PM EDT
Sez BrendanP: "Cursing a sick man or worse, gloating at it his condition, must be sinful according to some religious system," -- Your concern for the 'sick man' is touching Mr. BPK, really bordering on a sort of Mother-Teresian religious humanitarianism. To atone for the 'sin of gloating' (there was NO cursing involved, as your atheist sympathies might have led you to believe), I will flog myself 20 times; that is as soon as you do likewise to atone for the way in which Hitch, your hero, mercilessly eviscerated a godly woman who never, ever, even knew he existed.-- Continues Brendan: '..nothing chases a mind to atheism more effectively than advocates of God.'-- And I'd say, nothing chases a mind to God more effectively than the murderous rampages of militant atheists who manage to acquire even a small amount of power and then try to forcefully impose their vacuous and dead-inducing philosophy on others, either by raw military means, or by the pen, as in the case of Voltaire -who was infinitely smarter, funnier and of higher intellect than Hitch. -- I assure you, there have been more casualties of atheism and more people praying to God, begging for their lives, and wondering how to regain their self-respect as a result of attacks from men and women who not only rejected the idea of God but tried to impose their way of thinking. -- " We all live in uncertainty and should respect our common ignorance." -- Oh that all those atheist beasts (and we all know who they are), that have littered their path with millions of corpses, victims of their murderous prejudice and authoritariansm, might have listened to your wise counsel!
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 10:36 AM EDT
You have caught me. My name is not really Mavis Pike. Actually, to be fair Keanso, you are prepared to reply to criticism, even when it's as ill-tempered as mine. So you deserve respect. I grudgingly grant you said commodity.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 10:25 AM EDT
The book is only anti-clerical. I have little problem with it. The video is anti-clerical, but then reveals more than that simple posture. In the video Hitchens himself discusses the uncertainty principle. That is what prompted my short response, not his book. If that is irrelevant, tell it to Hitchens--he brought it up, not me. I'm glad my little letter has inspired you "MavisPike." Please now watch Hitchens interview closely, and listen to his own discussion of uncertainty.
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 10:06 AM EDT
You keep saying the "uncertainty principle" as if that phrase was in any way relevant to this conversation. The uncertainty principle states that (among other properties) the momentum and position of a sub-atomic particle can not simultaneously be identified. It's got nothing to do with the debate on the existence of God. You then say that " His anti-clerical book and its title would confuse readers into believing Hitchens had somehow resolved the uncertainty principle." Nobody who had actually read the book would be in any way confused. It is possible to argue without insulting you but -- what with your violin and your pathetic desire to be Irish -- you just make too appealing a target.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 09:50 AM EDT
His book is much more an anti-clerical work, than a philosophical one. I am more interested in his philosophical stance on first-cause. He speaks to this issue in the interview, and allows for first-cause, for "god" in the largest sense. This is what I was writing about. His anti-clerical book and its title would confuse readers into believing Hitchens had somehow resolved the uncertainty principle. Of course he had not, as he discusses in the above interview. Is it possible to discuss this with without insulting me? Or has Hitchens only taught his followers how to argue by personal attack?
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 07:07 AM EDT
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse this article of being offensive. After all, Hitchens is a big boy and, if he had a beef with a gravely ill man, he would continue to put in the boot. The piece is, however, the sort of confused, pretentious tripe you'd expect a half-bright, fully-lazy high school student to cough-up. Rather than presenting a critical analysis of the book -- better than Dawkins's more pompous tome, I feel -- Keane offers a worthless analysis of the title alone. That's understandable enough. What with his fiddle and all, Keane must be a busy man and it's easier to read a title than a whole book. But the piece doesn't even work on those debased terms. How can you consider the phrase "God is Not Great" without pondering its relationship to the Arabic phrase Allāhu Akbar? Those words, often bellowed by suicide bombers, translate as "God is Great". Hitchens's book dismisses that particular God with great efficiency. You should try reading it some time, fiddle boy.
BillKilpatrick | Aug 13, 2010, 11:18 PM EDT
This article is a slanted, inaccurate, summary of Hitchens' interview. Why wouldn't a curious reader simply read - or watch - the actual interview rather than buy into this mush? Atheists don't have to know the unknowable to be atheists. To be an atheist is to not believe in gods. The burden of proof has always been with the other guys.
xyolist | Aug 13, 2010, 11:01 PM EDT
Really, really...another rant from, yet another, pedantic sciolist who can't let go of childish reminiscences (Sunday school indoctrination)...grow up Brendan the Easter Bunny does not really bring you the eggs!
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:47 PM EDT
Tautologous: the question that atheism purports to answer is the ultimate question of any logically concluded investigation of any causality. It is absolutely a thing, it is everything.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:21 PM EDT
Atheism does not allow for the possibility of God. Skepticism does so.
Tautologous | Aug 13, 2010, 10:03 PM EDT
BrendanPKean, Atheists by logical necessity allow for the possibility of a god since it is not proven there is no god. All beliefs allow the possibility of being false. No burden of proof applies to any belief, including theism. The only time a burden of proof applies is when someone says something is true. Atheists do not say "it is true there is no god". All truths must be proven.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 02:58 PM EDT
Cursing a sick man or worse, gloating at it his condition, must be sinful according to some religious system, surely. There is nothing that chases a mind to atheism more effectively than the advocates of God. We all live in uncertainty and should respect our common ignorance.
2BorNot2B | Aug 13, 2010, 02:40 PM EDT
With death knocking at the door of this fame-seeking opportunist Hitchens, he'd be damn fortunate to find someone like Mother Teresa --the woman he savaged-- to give him the solace and dignity he demands before entering the door to the 'great beyond,' which he now rightfully fears. Soon enough he'll find out whether 'he might have actually been wrong' about those things which provided him with momentary notoriety.-- Earthly fame is fleeting though. Mother Teresa, through her religious ministry based on God-centered love, created a legacy that will keep her presence on earth alive perhaps forever. Hitchens will be denied even that. He will soon be a forgotten footnote somewhere. -- Meanwhile, as someone said: "There are no atheists in foxholes." And as the final curtain is drawn over Hitch, either this gasbag will admit there is wisdom in that phrase, or risk finding the unpleasant consequences of his blockheaded stupidity; alas... too late! -- Neener, neener! He should have gone with Pascal's wager.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 11:56 AM EDT
CitizenWhy: That's a very important point about Mother Theresa. Hitchens criticized her from the a priori that she was somehow an economic activist whose good could only be measured in the material relief she brought to people. He confused her spiritual mission, to show love, with economic development, which was not her concern. He damns her for her disinterest in such material outcomes, when in fact she was completely married to circumstance, and resolved to providing spiritual solace to those she could not pull from poverty, she could not pull from poverty, she could not pull from poverty. And because she could not, Hitchens damns her mission as causing poverty (!) when in fact she meant only to provide love to those we so easily hate. That Hitchen hated her, says something.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 11:51 AM EDT
Tautologous: Atheism is the assertion that there is no god. It would be a theory if one set out to prove it so. Atheism is not burdened with proving anything. It is simply the conclusion: no god. You are confusing theory with belief. If you believe something, you do not also believe its opposite. Fudging-open atheism to mean "no god, but maybe god" is intellectually cheap. It means "no god."
CitizenWhy | Aug 13, 2010, 11:13 AM EDT
Reply to BrendanPKeene ... Poor mother Teresa. All she wanted to do was to assure the wretched of a happy death so that they would enter the next life without misery, despair or bitterness. Perfectly in accord with her traditional non-political Catholic beliefs (love as the basis of religion) or with the Hundu belief in reincarnation. Unfortunately too many misunderstood her mission and assumed she was working to end poverty. As a result many accused her of not being effective about ending poverty (as if anyone knows how to end poverty). My Irish mother told me she admired Mother Teresa because "she's a real Irish woman, she does what needs to be done no matter what the men (the hierarchy) say."
CitizenWhy | Aug 13, 2010, 11:05 AM EDT
Everyone here seems to have missed the announcement that God is suing for divorce from all earth-based religions on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.
Tautologous | Aug 13, 2010, 01:38 AM EDT
Atheism is not the certainty there is no god. Atheism is the belief there is no god. All beliefs are possibly true and possibly false, that is what makes them beliefs. Thus it is possibly true to all atheists that a god exists. This author confuses the unrelated concept of agnosticism with atheism. Tsk tsk.
mhichil | Aug 12, 2010, 10:05 PM EDT
so how do you know that you don't know, if you don't know? Let me know what you find out!
fireweed | Aug 12, 2010, 09:21 PM EDT
all be it darkness beyond conceptualization, our perpetual light shine upon him doubt is a equally soulful journey as fate.
CitizenWhy | Aug 12, 2010, 12:39 PM EDT
God has announced that He/She will be seeking a divorce from all earth-based religions on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Did you miss that story?
BrendanPKeane | Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM EDT
Hitchens has been considerably less kind to Mother Theresa than normal decorum would expect. He can take any rudeness you perceive, though I intended none. I wrote a respectful response to a very public video. Hitchens has always taken the posture of certainty, but he cannot be, and it was appropriate to confront this while he is still well able to rip me a new one.
NathanL | Aug 12, 2010, 03:44 AM EDT
What a ridiculous article. Aside from the rambling nonsense attempt at trying to put words in Hitchens' mouth, the author clearly knows nothing of Christopher's views. He is an "Anti-theist". That is: even if it is true, he wouldn't like it. And who can blame him: the notion of a "universal dictatorship" (actual words of Hitchens) is repulsive to anyone fortunate to have lived in a democracy. I think the author of this "article" owes Mr Hitchens an apology for blatant misrepresentation of what was said. The lack of quotes to back up the wild airy-fairy commentary is proof of that.
BonoboBaby | Aug 12, 2010, 02:11 AM EDT
The author of this commentary has no idea what "atheist" means. An atheist is a person who has no belief in a god. That is the only criteria. Regardless of what many misinformed believers claim, an atheist is not necessarily a person who claims no gods exist. Many atheists are open to the possibility that a god or gods exist. They simply do not believe in any gods at this time because in several thousands years of hard effort by believers no one has ever managed to produce any credible evidence or compelling arguments for the existence of a god. I recommend the book, "50 Reasons People Give For Believing in a God" (Prometheus Books)
oilzzfan | Aug 12, 2010, 12:09 AM EDT
your title is absolutely inaccurate. this man has no hesitation to lay it on the table. he points out clearly: pray if you want, but make no assumptions. it is obvious where he is headed. i hope any believer will have an ounce of their own grace to let him die with dignity. i know, that is far too much to ask, so i am confident he will go out with a fight and a clear message to believers "you have wasted your life based on a lie".
BrendanPKeane | Aug 11, 2010, 10:27 PM EDT
Thankfully men like Christopher Hitchens are comfortable enough to allow their lives to be examined by the public. I am grateful to him for making this conversation open for all to interpret. His stance on the Iraq war was motivated by the Kurd cause, but I think also it was a calculation post-9/11. The first Iraq war went quick and fast. He thought the second one will too, and there's no benefit to being the post-9/11 anti-war thinker. He had a dramatic about-face on Iraq after the American mood shift in 2001.
Monsoonman | Aug 11, 2010, 09:35 PM EDT
God=Good orderly direction...Yes there is a God. I will hire John Edwards to channel Christopher Hitchins after his passing and give proof to us.
DennisQ | Aug 11, 2010, 07:52 PM EDT
Hitchens confused a lot of people when he came out in support of the war in Iraq. He's always held himself out as a Great Thinker, but that wasn't evident when he apparently thought Saddam Hussein was some kind of Islamist. Saddam was as indifferent to religion as Hitchens himself. Later on it came out that Hitchens' career advanced because his support of the war drew favorable attention from people who were in a position to benefit him. Maybe he's not really a prostitute, but his deliberately wrong-headed positions certainly raises questions about his integrity. I remember watching a television debate between Hitchens and an opponent of the war, and Hitchens simply dug in his heels and refused to acknowledge valid arguments. That's when I concluded that even if Christopher Hitchens is not a right wing jerk, he'll do until one comes along. Incidentally, there was nothing to recommend the Iraq war - nothing. I could understand Hitchens' motivation for supporting it if he were a Zionist. I wouldn't respect it, but at least I wouldn't be mystified.
RichWilson | Aug 11, 2010, 06:54 PM EDT
You obviously don't know what 'atheist' and 'agnostic' mean. None of the 'new atheists' (including Hitchens and Dawkins) claim to have proof that there are no gods. They understand that such a proof is not possible, any more than you can prove there are no invisible unicorns. Anyone who claims absolute proof that there are no gods isn't an atheist, but an idiot.
otheroptions | Aug 11, 2010, 06:46 PM EDT
"It is this unsubstantiated nightmare that he holds-out against," It is a substantiated nightmare. People willing to die and kill for their own version of god. People willing to accept that their god puts pedophiles in positions of leadership over their churches and their lives. It's a nightmare alright.
MrThumbtack | Aug 11, 2010, 06:37 PM EDT
The arguments you raise are old and tired, and your headline is simply a ploy to gain attention. As the last poster said, shame on you.
soicanpost | Aug 11, 2010, 05:10 PM EDT
He has said countless times he is not only an a-theist but an anti-theist. What a cheap point you try to score by taking advantage of a sick man to increase your readership. Shame on you.