An Atheists take on Religion.

Christopher Hitchens

from JoeUser Forums

Christopher Hitchens is the author of a book called "god is not Great: how religion poisons everything". First off notice the small G in GOD.

It is a best seller and had earned Mr. Hitchens around one million dollars plus.

24 years ago Mr. Hitchens came to America from Great Britain, but it took him until 2007 to become a naturalized citizen,{at the Jefferson Memorial} I wonder what took him so long? In his book Hitchens maintains that religion has "serious ethical dilemmas" that would be better handled by reading and following the works of such great authors as, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Shiller, Dostoyevsky, George Eliot and Alexis De Tocqueville, to name a few, he claims that their writings, not the holy books and scriptures are what the human race NEEDS to rely on. He does fail to point out that many of these authors were powerfully influenced by religious teachings.

Needless to say Hitchens and his fellow non believers hold to the Darwin school of thought, Hitchens takes that so far as to deny that one of the greatest teachers of all time Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all.

I personally have always wonder why it is that people of faith contribute to charities much, much more than unbelievers do, time and money. Could it be that religion has something to do with charity and good will towards men?

While discussing the reaction to his book Hitchens mentions the polite reception he receives at churches and synagogues, in spite of the anger bordering on rage for anyone that disagrees with his book or his stance on religion no matter how politely put. Meanwhile he overlooks the blood thirsty and homicidal ways of Islam and completely lets them off the hook, comparing their behavior with that of Christians during the crusades and the inquisition.

While reading Hitchens book I was struck by the amount of sheer hatred he has not just for religion, but for God and for anyone that practices religion in any form. If you want to see what we people of faith are up against read this book. It will arm you with the weapons needed to stay firmly rooted in your faith. Remember we are people of GOD and should behave that way, even though we don't all the time.

religion
4,647 views 23 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hitchens is bad but Dawkins is worse.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
His absolute hatred of God is proof enough for me that God must exist... if he didn't exist, he would have nothing to hate. That's what lets Islam off the hook, after all.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have no doubt that there are some Christians that hate atheists.  After all, to the weak of faith, they are a threat to that faith.  But it boggles my mind how supposedly educated men professing (pun intended) faith in no god are so red faced lividly angry over those who believe in a god.

I am not here to save Atheists from damnation.  I would like for them to find the true faith (as I beleive it), but I am not going to kill them to make them convert.  Yet they feel this evangelical need to do that to theists.  And for what?

If Atheists are right, then theists (note the small t) are fooling themselves and will die and turn to dust.  Just as the atheists do.  But if they are wrong, then the theists will find heaven, and the atheists will not, but again, what harm is that to the atheists?

Could it be that these raving atheists are afraid they are wrong?  And that misery loves company?  SO that if they are wrong, they will have plenty of company in whatever afterlife is destined for non-believers?

The cliche - Methinks he doth protest too much - was coined with these militant atheists in mind.

Disclaimer: For the rush to judgement crowd - not all atheists are militant or insecure in their non-belief.  Just the ones like Hitchens.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
singrdaveJuly 31, 2007 13:50:50


Hitchens is bad but Dawkins is worse.


after reading Hitchens I do not think I would care to delve any deeper into the mind of that much hatred.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)JythierJuly 31, 2007 13:55:05


His absolute hatred of God is proof enough for me that God must exist... if he didn't exist, he would have nothing to hate. That's what lets Islam off the hook, after all.


Boy if you whipped that one on Hitchens he would become totally unglued, what a great question to ask him. I wonder how nuts he would go? Very insightful!!!!!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)Dr GuyJuly 31, 2007 14:31:13


I have no doubt that there are some Christians that hate atheists. After all, to the weak of faith, they are a threat to that faith. But it boggles my mind how supposedly educated men professing (pun intended) faith in no god are so red faced lividly angry over those who believe in a god.


Hatred of any kind is a bad thing, it debilitates the body, spirit and mind.

I am not here to save Atheists from damnation. I would like for them to find the true faith (as I believe it), but I am not going to kill them to make them convert. Yet they feel this evangelical need to do that to theists. And for what?


Because like most secular progressives they think they know what is best for everyone and is willing to kill to prove it.

Disclaimer: For the rush to judgement crowd - not all atheists are militant or insecure in their non-belief. Just the ones like Hitchens.


I absolutely refuse to use any more disclaimers for the dense or weak minded. I figure if they think it is aimed at them, they must be right.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks, Moderateman. I finally said something insightful! Cookies for all!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)JythierJuly 31, 2007 15:05:30


Thanks, Moderateman. I finally said something insightful! Cookies for all!


You say many good things, be kinder to yourself.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
... extra cookies for me!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Yet they feel this evangelical need to do that to theists"

A little harsh, there are evangelical / fanatical aethiests as there are evangelical / fanatical religious individuals, neither do their respective causes any favours. As is usual with such things, the majority of either genre hold their views to themselves (as such) most of the time.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)ZydorJuly 31, 2007 21:52:35


"Yet they feel this evangelical need to do that to theists"

A little harsh, there are evangelical / fanatical atheists as there are evangelical / fanatical religious individuals, neither do their respective causes any favours. As is usual with such things, the majority of either genre hold their views to themselves (as such) most of the time.


any kind of person that sees things 'I am right, you are wrong, there is no room for discussion' is kind of scary to me. Be they religious or unbelievers fanaticism in any form scares the poop out of me.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hatred of any kind is a bad thing, it debilitates the body, spirit and mind.


Well put and exactly my own belief.

any kind of person that sees things 'I am right, you are wrong, there is no room for discussion' is kind of scary to me. Be they religious or unbelievers fanaticism in any form scares the poop out of me.


They don't scare me, they amuse the hell out of me. I love zealots of both camps as they provide me with loads of amusement. They're both quite insane as far as I am concerned.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Hatred of any kind is a bad thing, it debilitates the body, spirit and mind."

I'll second that.

Unfortunately, the waters get a little muddy with some individuals who seem to believe the definition of a Zealot is someone who holds a different point of view.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
He does fail to point out that many of these authors were powerfully influenced by religious teachings.


great point MM. While I'm not familiar with all the men you mentioned I know that Shakespeare and Alexis De Tocqueville were very influenced by scripture.

Meanwhile he overlooks the blood thirsty and homicidal ways of Islam and completely lets them off the hook, comparing their behavior with that of Christians during the crusades and the inquisition.


now this just gets me. Why is it the inquistions of yesteryear are always compared to the present day? It certainly does rationalize the Islam way of thinking. Hello? This is now...that was then. The Muslims had their own blood thirsty ways back then as well. Let's compare now with now.

And.....something that rarely gets mentioned....*I'm getting on the soapbox here* Let's look at this logically.

It's true that Christians have not always been nice but neither have Muslims. Many atrocities have been committed throughout church history in the name of Christ. Muslims are fond of referring to the Crusades, the Inquisitions and such. Christians have done and continue to do many evil things in the name of Christ.

However when Christians have engaged in these violent acts, they have betrayed the teachings of Jesus and have turned their back on the examples that were set for us in the NT. But when Muslims engage in violence, murder, and other acts of terrorism they can legitimately claim that they are following the commands of God as found in the Qur'an and in the examples of Muhammad and his teachings.

This is a major distinction between Christianity and Islam.

*gets off soapbox*





Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
... extra cookies for me!


yes, and pass the milk! Cheers!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

A little harsh, there are evangelical / fanatical aethiests as there are evangelical / fanatical religious individuals, neither do their respective causes any favours. As is usual with such things, the majority of either genre hold their views to themselves (as such) most of the time.

Hence the disclaimer.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought they apologized for the Spanish Inquisition, proclaiming it was far too inquisitive. It should have been the Spanish Casual Chat.

"Anything you need to confess today?"
"No, why do you ask?"
"Oh, no reason - just a casual chat."
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: MasonMPosted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Hatred of any kind is a bad thing, it debilitates the body, spirit and mind.



Well put and exactly my own belief.


any kind of person that sees things 'I am right, you are wrong, there is no room for discussion' is kind of scary to me. Be they religious or unbelievers fanaticism in any form scares the poop out of me.


They don't scare me, they amuse the hell out of me. I love zealots of both camps as they provide me with loads of amusement. They're both quite insane as far as I am concerned.

But when these nut are in positions of power, then we have to really worry.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: ZydorPosted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007
"Hatred of any kind is a bad thing, it debilitates the body, spirit and mind."

I'll second that.

Unfortunately, the waters get a little muddy with some individuals who seem to believe the definition of a Zealot is someone who holds a different point of view.

Yes indeed, having a differing point of view is good, ramming it down someones throat is not good and that is make makes one a Zealot

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: KFC Kickin For ChristPosted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007
He does fail to point out that many of these authors were powerfully influenced by religious teachings.


great point MM. While I'm not familiar with all the men you mentioned I know that Shakespeare and Alexis De Tocqueville were very influenced by scripture.


Meanwhile he overlooks the blood thirsty and homicidal ways of Islam and completely lets them off the hook, comparing their behavior with that of Christians during the crusades and the inquisition.


now this just gets me. Why is it the inquistions of yesteryear are always compared to the present day? It certainly does rationalize the Islam way of thinking. Hello? This is now...that was then. The Muslims had their own blood thirsty ways back then as well. Let's compare now with now.

And.....something that rarely gets mentioned....*I'm getting on the soapbox here* Let's look at this logically.

It's true that Christians have not always been nice but neither have Muslims. Many atrocities have been committed throughout church history in the name of Christ. Muslims are fond of referring to the Crusades, the Inquisitions and such. Christians have done and continue to do many evil things in the name of Christ.

However when Christians have engaged in these violent acts, they have betrayed the teachings of Jesus and have turned their back on the examples that were set for us in the NT. But when Muslims engage in violence, murder, and other acts of terrorism they can legitimately claim that they are following the commands of God as found in the Qur'an and in the examples of Muhammad and his teachings.

This is a major distinction between Christianity and Islam.

*gets off soapbox*

Good points, I would love to be able to tell the Muslim nuts exacly what has a Christian done to you and your people in the last week? while you have been busy shooting nuns in the back over a cartoon.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: JythierPosted: Wednesday, August 01, 2007
I thought they apologized for the Spanish Inquisition, proclaiming it was far too inquisitive. It should have been the Spanish Casual Chat.

"Anything you need to confess today?"
"No, why do you ask?"
"Oh, no reason - just a casual chat."

My fathers par of the family was affected by the Spanish Inquisition, they were forced to leave with what they could carry, no jewelry BTW, no donkey to cart things, MY moms side pretended to Go Catholic but was found out around 25 years after the height of the Spanish Inquisition and forced to flee Spain.

1493 was a very bad year for my Dads family, I wonder If I can sue Spain for reparations?

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes indeed, having a differing point of view is good, ramming it down someones throat is not good and that is make makes one a Zealot


I think this is a case to show that if we don't learn from History we are bound to repeat it time and time again. History is filled with 'forceful conversions' in the majority of religions and non-religions, leaving them each with their own "black eyes" in history.

1493 was a very bad year for my Dads family, I wonder If I can sue Spain for reparations?


I don't think so MM. I think their argument would be. They should have jumped aboard on the Nina, Pinta, or the Santa Maria in 1492.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry MM. While I did not take part in Inquisiting, and never will, I still feel badly for your family that had to suffer through it.