Why didn't you expect anyone else to agree with you? because you're operating on a higher intellectual level than the rest of us? or because you've grown used to having your inconsistent posts and incorrect assertions challenged by certain individuals?
As for Hitchens understanding "theology about as well as the average layperson", what a ridiculous and arrogant comment. The man graduated with one of the hardest degrees in the world (politics, philosophy and economics), from one of the most prestigious universities in the world, spent his life studying religion and politics whilst travelling and reporting on it first hand. He knew more about the subject than you could ever hope to.
You've clearly never actually studied Hitchens and Dawkins as you claim, otherwise you'd never have wrote "he targets "religion" and compares god to North Korea....the unchanging, tyrant. Which god? Which "religion"? He makes reference to elements of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but never calls them out specifically."
He's called them all out specifically countless times (as has Dawkins), picked them apart and demonstrated why these religions are ridiculous. The common theme with all of the Abrahamic religions is the notion of this capricious and tyrannical god. Feel free to refute any of their actual points which criticize religion though, rather than making crazy statements related to their accents.
As for my post regarding his death, i'm not for a second suggesting that he chose to die in order to make a statement. What i am saying though is that he was consistent with everything he said. He didn't spend his life telling others how to live whilst failing to meet up to his own standards that he set (like most theists do). If he wanted to drink and smoke because he enjoyed it, then so what? that's a personal choice and has nothing to do with the measure of someone's brilliance. Churchill and many other highly respected historical figures all had the same traits. It doesn't denigrate the truth of their words in any way.
Operating on a higher intellectual level? Huh? No LOL. No need to straw man me either.
I have no expectation that an atheist will ever agree with me. This is based on experience. If an atheist actually agrees with me it's extremely rare.
Our beliefs and worldviews are typically diametrically opposed.
I think you just missed what I wrote….that’s fine. In that 10-minute clip it was just generalizations about "religion".....little for me to respond to and I'm not gonna just conflate and straw man a bunch of generalizations.
As I noted, I've listened to a bunch of Hitchens' lectures and debates...hours and hours of it actually. I've done the same with Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Carrier, Dillahunty, Kagin, AronRa, Ehrman, Krauss, Tabash, etc.... I've done the same with Muslim apologists, Christian apologists, Catholic apologists and Mormom apologists. I've also watched hours of "youtube atheists" as well. I read atheist online materials and articles, but I don't purchase their materials...not going to fund that enterprise. I look online for free pdfs or "give away" material and "cliff's notes" type versions of stuff. Further, Dawkins will always debate a random Catholic priest or a random muslim apologist, but a seasoned Christian apologist…..LOL…..not a chance. Hides behind the “I won’t debate someone who supports genocide”, etc…..just straw man nonsense…..it’s intellectual cowardice. Now, have I mastered all this material? LOL, no! Although I certainly grasp the gist of their arguments and tactics.
And yes, despite the fact that Hitchens elegantly articulated his various biblical objections in a suave, british accent it's still clear he didn’t understand Christian theology....surface level at best. It’s not because he was incapable of understanding it….he didn’t care to understand it…..the surface gave him what he needed. Those surface level objections are enough to elicit an audience uproar every time. I've explained away many objections over the years and most time my explanations aren't read....they're glossed. SF1900 is proof of that LOL!! I can write 2 detailed paragraphs on "2+2=4" and he'd respond with, "have you ever studied 2 + 2?" Or when called on it I’ll get the ole “I don’t have time to read all that stuff.” What that actually means is “I’ve already concluded before you respond that you’re completely wrong.” My rationale isn’t capricious either….it’s based on experience that has vetted it out as correct.
Does everyone do this? No, but the majority? Yes LOL. Why? Most aren't interested in the answers to the objections....they just like the objections and putting forth the objections. It’s that simple for the vast majority. Why? What I find is that when pressed the majority putting forth the objections have no substance beyond the objection itself. Some will say, “Just because your offer up an explanation doesn’t mean with have to accept it.” Well yeah, obviously LOL. The fact that I’m always deemed “wrong” is part of the presupposition of the vast majority of atheists….the explanations are meaningless because the whole of the material is deemed meaningless. My theistic worldview does not comport with the atheistic worldview, but I’m not any smarter than other atheist or theist….I’m just willing to dig in where others are not.
So this begs the question: Why bother if you already know this?
Others read these boards. Others haven't made a choice about God. I refuse to let the atheist and agnostic voice be the only voice. I also refuse to let atheists and agnostics be the only ones asking questions or putting forth objections. Am I the best representative for theists? LOL, no. Although, I'm one of the few around these parts, but I'm slowly seeing others come out and I thank God for that. Believe it or not I actually care about the folks on these boards....both believer and nonbeliever. I regularly pray for everyone and ask for blessings to be showered upon each of you. I pray that the Lord's will be done in each of your lives.