So Chris Hitchens canceled his book tour in order to get cancer treatment, and some douchebag is crowing about it, saying that it's all part of God's great plan. You see, it's a slow-growing cancer, which will give Hitchens time to recant his neocon imperialism atheism. PZ's response is exactly right:
your god is clearly a dick, and so are you. I don't see why you're worshipping him, except that dicks seem to like other dicks an awful lot.
I mean, assume an all-powerful deity who can change human physiology in order to bring people from atheism to theism. Now religious belief is a property of the mind, and therefore of the brain. So such a being could just muck around in Hitch's brain and turn him into a theist without the intervening illness of cancer and the suffering inherent in surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy. If giving people slow, draining deaths via cancer is the best way to lead them to this guy's God, I think we're all better off not believing.
I will add that I like PZ's emphasis in telling this guy about "your god." Other people â other Christians, indeed â believe in a very different sort of god, and this guy's callous idiocy needn't reflect on them.
(Image via)
- Log in to post comments
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/the-vultures-gather/
I'd like to note comment #14 about Sullivan. I hope that we don't make the reverse mistake and become too hasty in passing moral judgment on the reactions, even ones that are theistic.
Of course, in this case, the contempt is merited. In the OP case at Ophelia's blog, it was a little less severe.
As for George Berkin, he the recognized the abhorrent quality of his idea -- is such piety susceptible to moral repugnance? -- and nevertheless presented this imaginative paean to the auspicious spiritual prospects of throat cancer.
What a mind. To see such possibilities. We're all better for reading his thoughts.
You do know that "thoughts from Kansas" is an oxymoron?
In general , ask the normal Christians why people suffer, get cancer or whatever? - You'll get the great plan, or for the greater good, or suffering is good,or mysterious ways. It may not be as idiotic as this guy , but idiotic in their owns ways.
I'm not offering any defense of George Berkin, the crowing douchebag to which Josh is referring. But I would like to point out that both Meyers and Hitchens are themselves Superdicks of the first order.
Don't be silly, radiomankc, and don't be an idiot, Randall Morrison.
There is a difference between saying something idiotic and being an idiot, but some idiotic things require an idiot to say. Forgive me if I've missed some satirical point, but the irrelevance of Randall's slur to the current topic leads me to believe that no clever irony is at work here.
I don't think that these people like their God very much. They always credit him with the nastiest things that happen. This is very much a psycho passive-aggressive thing.
The slur is irrelevant and inappropriate, Zach, the content is relevant.
Hitchens is now one of the strongest secular allies the Fundies could have for their Christian Zionism and their Crusade against the Saracens. But because he refuses to say 2+2=5, they stand on principle and hate him hope a painful cancer will be a good Room 101 for him to push him all the way to crying and coming to the front of the revival tent.
An Ann Coulter or Marc Morano would be - no doubt are - praising Hitchens and sympathizing, even if they didn't care, but not a genuinely committed (in whichever sense you wish to take that word) fundie.
Everything Josh said about what God *could* do to change people's minds is of course true, which is why when I think about the Abrahamic God, it feels like debugging a computer that was patched together with alligator clips and circuit boards by 10 generations of 1st graders, then programmed by space aliens in Befunge.
Tom K, what a terrible thing to say. On the contrary - when God peripherally gently kills 50,000 people standing around you, but leaves you crumbled but barely alive in the rubble of his wrath, by a miracle, that's the nicest thing in the world, and proves how he watches over even the least sparrow that falls and stuff.
Marion,
While I largely disagree with Hitchens on the War on Terror, it's inaccurate to call it Christian Zionism or a Crusade. Unless of course you are referring to support for Israeli atrocities against Palestine for the first, but that would be false, as Hitchens frequently says that it happens with our support and that we have a responsibility to stop it.
For the second, our motives are economic, as always. Yes, there is some window dressing with nutjob Christianity (which is also acted against for PR reasons as well), but Iraq and Afghanistan are not crusades.
And if jumping on a single word in the topic counts as relevant, I suppose you were right to correct me.
zach I resp. disagree w everything you wrote par above so no point arguing w/out basic agreement on facts. Still agree in spirit that comment you were responding to was dodging pt Josh made, tho
Ok, broad conclusions aside (even though I think they're fairly uncontroversial)...
Give me sources for Hitchens saying that he supports the settlers in Palestine, for example. Give me sources for Hitchens saying that Palestine should be conquered by Israel. Give me what you're talking about for whatever it is that is supposed to be Christian Zionism.