Opinion of Christopher Hitchens

[John Dibble]

I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I like him. I do tend to agree with him on the topic of religion. I think the reason that some people tend to dislike him so much isn't just his views, but rather the fact that he states them so unabashedly with no reservations whatsoever.

Mega HP neocon/bigot/prohibitionist.

Given his politics I can see the first, but for the second and third I can only say "what?" - I don't know of any views of his that I'd consider bigoted, and he's against the war on drugs so the third seems to be right out.

[John Dibble]

Oh, and I will also add that a lot of positions seem to have been reached at out of a desire to refute conventional wisdom regardless of what that conventional wisdom is. Why else does he hate Mother Theresa so much?

I think he likes to refute the conventional wisdom when he perceives it to be wrong, not just because he likes to refute it. As to Mother Theresa, if the things that he's criticized her for are true then there's plenty of reason to dislike her.

[John Dibble]

Oh, and I will also add that a lot of positions seem to have been reached at out of a desire to refute conventional wisdom regardless of what that conventional wisdom is. Why else does he hate Mother Theresa so much?

I think he likes to refute the conventional wisdom when he perceives it to be wrong, not just because he likes to refute it. As to Mother Theresa, if the things that he's criticized her for are true then there's plenty of reason to dislike her.

Perhaps. If there was some consistency to his criticism but I haven´t seen any. He just attacks conventional wisdom for the purpose of doing so.

For example ... ?

[John Dibble]

I think he's wrong to consider all people of faith to be mentally deficient...

I don't think I've ever read or heard him say that religious people are mentally deficient, rather that they are deluded. (the difference being that you can be intelligent but still horribly wrong about something)

Though deluded or not, I think it goes without saying that religious people would disagree.

[John Dibble]

Again, it's an argument that annoys alot of people, but it's not unique and it's not new.

Really there isn't much of anything in terms of atheist arguments that are unique or new - what's newer and seems to really be pissing people off is that there's more and more people, including some who are very eloquent and charismatic speakers, who have the balls to unapologetically state them publicly.

[John Dibble]

I think atheists believe in something that is undefinable.

Its okay to be agnostic, but I don't know what atheists believe other than what they don't believe, which is a cowardly way to rebel.  It basically it means I'm undecided on a religion and don't know what I want.

You seem to think that being atheist and agnostic are somehow mutually exclusive things. This is erroneous.

Atheism is opposed to theism - these two things have to do with belief.
Agnosticism is opposed to gnosticism - these two things have to do with knowledge.

An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in any gods but does not claim to know for certain whether or not any gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks a belief in gods and goes so far as to claim that they do know for certain that no gods exist. (In a similar vein you can have agnostic theists and gnostic theists) Most self-described atheists I've ever had any form of communication with have been the former as I myself also am. Most self-described agnostics are atheists as well. The one and only requirement to be an atheist is to not believe any god claims. There is no dogma, no official meeting places that we're required to go to on specific days of the week, no "atheist Pope" or other central authority figure. Atheism by definition is only a stance on one type of claim.

I also take issue with your assertion that atheists take their position in order to rebel - this claim is asinine. The vast majority of modern atheists lack a belief in gods because those claiming that they exist have not met the burden of proof for their claims. That is not rebellion, that is called being rational.