Christopher Hitchens speaking at The Amazing Meeting 5, Las Vegas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
When it comes to arguments on the existence of God and the nature of this divine being. The debates are usually riddled with redundant arguments coming from both sides of the table.
I am an atheist, despite there being no significant proof for or against the existence of a higher power, but I believe that humans should not live their lives enslaved to such being that does not really affect our daily lives. I solely see that human beings themselves should be accountable for any injustice they may partake in, as each individual in our species does have a rational brain that has the capacity to decide on one’s actions, whatever the situation may be. Of course this doesn’t take into account sociopaths or psychopaths, who could have an incapability to see the difference between just and unjust by default.
I ran into an article by Jacob H. Friesenhahn, a theology teacher at John Paul II Catholic High School in Schertz, Texas; called “Evil, the New Atheism, and the God of the Trinity”. The article was mostly about Christopher Hitchens, who was known to be a loud and proud anti-theist, journalist, among other things. He garnered many enemies during his career for his strong opposing views towards religion and public figures. Hitchens was slandered by many articles written by theists after his death, but this one was slightly different. I would even say there was admiration towards opposing arguments and views. A very nice read.
Yet the article is written by a person who has a deep belief in a loving Christian god and most of the argumentation is as lost in fantasy as most of the rest out there, most of which referencing to the doctrine of the trinity. Though I do find the argumentation even leaning to the fanatical, the way the text is written is quite agreeable. Though I hope you read it, if you are interested in Hitchens and the whole religious debate.
I will share one of Friesenhahn’s arguments against one of my favorite arguments that Hitchens ever made:
Despite the frequency with which Hitchens seemed to repeat this polemic against God as dictator, I always found this particular aspect of his argument against Christian theism markedly weak. It is almost as if the Christian doctrine of God were formulated for the precise purpose of refuting this false concept of God, in relation to which we all ought to be atheists. The God of the Trinity, the God of interpersonal love, the God whose very essence is love selflessly shared among distinct persons, is the utter opposite of the image of God attacked by Hitchens, just as the God of the cross is the exact inverse of Hitchens’s God who stands by with folded arms as we suffer. -Jacob H. Friesenhahn
In this argument we are supposing that God is the exact opposite to the one Hitchen’s offers. The God in the bible is very capricious and wants to be loved by his creations. This sounds very much like a dictator rather than a loving father. To the North Korean population Kim Jong-il was as much a loving father as God is a loving father to a believer.
The only proof of a loving God is in the Bible, which was written by believers a long time ago. Written during times of suffering where a small hope for a miracle was a person’s only chance at slim survival. It all comes down to human empathy. No one would follow a savior who has not gone through greater suffering than themselves. In essence it was a marketing trick of the dark ages.
I would like to finish by saying, that dressing up a human sacrifice with grand words of selfless love, along with redemption for all in death sounds absolutely fanatical.
Of course something will seem markedly weak, if one assumes that the facts are on their side. If one allows themselves to be brainwashed into believing in a deity, be it done by one’s community or self, it is completely the same process as being manipulated by a despot with fear and lies.