Christopher Hitchens Fails His Homework Once Again

tags: apologetics, centrality of jesus, centrality of christ, scott berkun, dying culture, atheism vs theism, jesus

categories: uncategorized, centrality of christ, essential christianity, culture, apologetics

Watching a Christopher Hitchens (deceased December 15, 2011) debate is like watching a master manipulator, or like a guy whose bets are on the side of collective ignorance.

As Scott Berkun observes:

...proficiency in argument can easily be used to overpower others, even when you are dead wrong. If you learn a few tricks of logic and debate, you can refute the obvious, and defend the ridiculous. If the people you’re arguing with aren’t as comfortable in the tactics of argument, or aren’t as arrogant  [or informed] as you are, they may even give in and agree with you.

And we might add that if your audience is not versed in the extant data relative to the argument, like the progressive nature of the Biblical narrative, you might appear to win the debate.   

At least the debate of popular opinion.    

But the irony strikes me as this: While the theist must (and is expected to) do their homework in many disciplines like philosophy, physics (quantum, meta and classic), history, biology, etc, the atheistic can usually get off the hook with only a casting glance at the narrative of Scripture.  If he but quotes a few verses or makes reference to just a few aspects of religious history or philosophy, he is regarded as astute and the presentation of his data pertinent and persuasive.

That's because he's got a huge advantage - the relative ignorance of Scripture with the masses, both Christian and non-Christian.  It's the day we live in.

One example is Hitchen's oft-repeated "man's been around 100,000-250,00 years-then-finally-God-acted" argument, with the obvious conclusion being that God just didn't give a damn about all the people who died and went to hell prior to the incarnation of Jesus.  How could you believe in such a God? Hitchens affirms.

It is very much akin to the familiar "what about those who have not heard?" argument so often employed to discredit the Bible, the nature of the Atonement and of Christ Himself.

While the believer must be pretty darn acquainted with everything from astronomy to quantum physics, why hasn't (or rather wasnt) Hitchens forced repeatedly to deal with verses like Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 9:25, etc.?

These verses do say something, (the retroactive as well as present and future nature of the Atonement) and they need to be introduced into the debate even though they are admittedly in-house arguments, but then so are things like m-theory, multiverse, etc, and whatever the current argument is to sidestep the ramifications that nothing still comes out of nothing if left of itself.

C'mon believing community.  It is just, right and beautiful to be aware of depth of the content of the Logosphere, the universe in which Jesus reigns - our universe and the words of Christocentric revelation.  Then this material must be introduced into the debate. 

From this I personally will never back down.  

The Stifling Tendency of Atheism and Dawkin's Math Problem

To atheists the concept of a god is a straightjacket; narrowing, restrictive, or like a room with an impossibly low ceiling. To finally throw off the shackles and dismiss the god concept is for them to come home, to finally breathe, to finally have a reason to exist.

Quick to deny God as a generic concept, they make the blunder of dismissing Jesus as a completely frivolous attachment. Yet in Jesus the universe of all god concepts explodes into a metaphysical expansiveness that eliminates the possibility of even thinking in terms of "walls", "stifling low things above and especially straightjackets. The "logos" concepts that come with Jesus add stunning breadth, dimension and definition to the god concept.

Not to mention other vital little aspects such as love and forgiveness (Divine and human). As relentlessly self-conscious beings, (unselfconsciously possessing moral awareness) this stuff would seem to come in pretty handy for an atheist.

So bring Him into the debate. He's already here after all. In fact He defines debate itself.

Instead, Mr atheist feels he must labor breathlessly on.

__________________________________

For me to be an atheist would just be way too narrow, too restrictive. It really is faith to conclude there is no god - anywhere. Yes, atheists are quick to affirm that they are just serious doubters, not permanent concluders. But their actions speak otherwise.

Drain the venom, cool down, sober up and let's talk. Sorry Christopher Hitchens, your cool, suave cleverness betrayed an impassioned little-boy urgency. Many atheists (eg, Gordon Stein, Alex Rosenberg) wear their burden upon their sleeve. You hid yours behind a glass, ice clinking, dismissive smirk.

Gosh I wish I could have had a discussion with you before you...

...died. Sorry.

I for one as a lover of freedom, must go beyond such narrow confines, always urgent to insist that atheists DO (somehow) have a foundation for morality, denials of fideism, definitions of true atheism, the urgency to ridicule, the deification (irony!) of reason, etc.

Whew! Hard work! And for one thing, I just don't have the energy!

Or maybe I'm just lazy. Jesus does offer rest after all - spiritual, if not in the end mental also, while remaining the most eternally significant, engaging and challenging of all lives ever lived.

But the atheistic is always squirming, busily setting up straw men that he can shoot down, or dragging poor 'ol modern American Christianity in as its debate partner. C'mon, you sneaky little boy! Just a cursory consideration admits that essential Christianity and modern American traditional Christianity are two very different things.

And by the way, we HAVE seen what an atheist state looks like. Dark, hollowed out, low ceilinged, democidal. Mr. Dawkins with all your smarts, you really can't count can you?

And you're not really serious are you? Please.

It takes a far bigger revisionist eraser than you have to wipe from history your Karl, Joseph, Fidel, Che, Chairman Mao, Pol, etc.

Yea, we've heard it before, "but we're different, we're nice atheists."

Don't even go there. You're smarter than that.

Own it and calm down. We reject your laborious fabrications, as well as your ideas of an atheist state.

We prefer life.