Talking Fairness

A video instead of an article, but relatively the same.
Hardball w/ Al Sharpton & Christopher Hitchens

Now, to begin I am a nonbeliever, but this will be against, mostly, Christopher Hitchens. I’m going to break this apart by the  segments that the youtube user has separated the videos.
1. And beginning with Hitchens’ statement about his title God is not Great. All the polls show that the bulk of Americans believe in God, he is British but he’s not talking to Britons on Hardball. So, his words that most people know “God is man made and one of our biggest mistakes” is actually entirely wrong. So, to kick off this appearance Chris is wrong, which simply right there means that everything else he says must be scrunized because if he can wrong once, he can be wrong all the time.I’ll move on. Now this, “Who can convict us on thought crime,” I see as simply a fundamental difference of ideology because I see nothing wrong with a God who in theory is perfect in his morality, which is what scripture says, convicting man on “thought crimes.” That’s what right and wrong is about. Scripture says that doing good is what God wants from us, but He understands humans are inperfect and thus allows us to do wrong as long as we feel wrong for doing wrong.  Now as for God being a dictator, well, I do question the idea that one is forced to believe in Him. He does not hold a gun to our heads, he holds eternal damnation and suffering over our heads. Except for the fact that He did give us all we have, our life and all we make with our life, which does in fact give Him some legitamacy in wanting gratitude from, even if that is all He wants. So, again Hitchens is wrong because the relationship isn’t best described with the Dictator-citizen metaphor, but the parent-child metaphor; even if God most resembles a bad parent, He isn’t a dictator, but a parent/creator. Then Chris makes his criticisms about the preachings of the church about sex, and well that was a bunch false rhetoric if for no other reason then lifes are not ruined because an individual doesn’t get to experience teenage sex- or at least that that is a very radical position because of the utter lack of evidence. First, most religius people consider themselves happy, all things equal, ie they are glad that they believe what they do… So is Hitchens saying that happiness in life isn’t an important measurement of whether or not a life is ruined? I say that’s radical. Using a comment on the video because I think that actions and the way of life that typically accompanies people who make a comment like, “I like those wonderful Pagan tits in the background behind Hitchens and Sharpton,” (comment pg 4, SatwaDude) ruin many more lifes or come closer to doing so then anything preached about sinful sexual behavior by religious figures. Moving on to the email question when Hitchens declares, “there is no soceity ever known of… where murder theft, purgury, and the rest of it were considered to be ok,” and I guess if he means that there is no society where every individual was perfectly ok with those things, then I’d buy that, but if he means that those things weren’t widely accepted, again he is entirely wrong. Roman gladiators fighting to the death being cheered by thousands of citizens, anyone?
2. I’m not claiming to know more than Hitchens about atheist belief, but this is truly the first time I’ve heard someone say atheist is just another term for agnostic.
Atheist- one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic- one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. So, Hitchens is a agnostical atheist who doesn’t know God exists or not, but thinks that God is bad so it’s better if he didn’t.
   I know I said that Hitchens would be criticized mostly, but the second segment Al Sharpton is just plain ignorant and is unable to comprehend anything… One thing Hitchens never said was “religion is behind everything.” Hitchens mentioned Iran and the Muslim religious enemies he said everything neutrally but then somewhat passionated called those in this counrty who only wish to educate the youth with nonfactual religious preachings… idiots. Agenda?
3. Bush lied about God guiding him. The answer in my mind to the different religions (from a religious stand point) is that the one God knew how unique and distinct His creation was to be and knew that conflict and thus great tests will arise with all of the differences with beliefs.

I am tired of writing and don’t really like writing things too long, so I’ll conclude. Chris Hitchens says he is agnostic, and all of his theories about how God does not actually exist I pretty much agree with, but God, meaning scripture, demands many great ideals, and very few bad ideals, and to say that humans don’t need God is ignoring the reality of his statement that God is man made. So, Hitchens claims that it was a mistake not to ignore the idea that man’s nature is very hoped based. All science points to man believing in spirits way before he started using it to oppress other men. So, it could very easily be argued that God was invented because of the desire for hope and not to gain power.