Christopher Hitchens is probably the only one I can respect, although he did not believe that religion should be suppressed and targeted, rather, that it was just harmful.
To some degree you could argue that believing stuff in God without evidence could lead to one believing in other stuff without evidence, but thats also literally just an inescapable part of the human condition. Hitchens himself still believed in Iraqi War WMDs.
Thing is, Hitchens arguments are based on him assuming "his own words" are truth.
One of the most annoying thing euphorics like to bring out is the "Hitchens's razor", where he says, "
anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Euphorics treat it like gospel, and so does Hitchens, and at a glance it sounds reasonable. But hol' up a minute, if you then ask them "
so where is the evidence for this assertion?"...... Then boom, they go wild and make whataboutism screech etc after realising they have 0 evidence. Which means based on their own rules, they failed to provide any evidence for that assertion, and thus dismissed themselves. Pretty stupid eh?
And once you realize this, you can look back and see that all Hitchens' arguments is made based on him making his own assumptions as truth, but when pressed for evidence, there is none except his own words, which is something they love to call...."circular argument".
So when you see Hitchens believe all that bullshit WMD .... that's because he is also full of bs.
People have been wrestling with this forever dude, it's not just those damn SJWs in current year
There have been interesting arguments in both directions. Harder is the Problem of the Problem of Evil, which is basically why would a omniscient benevolent God create this universe knowing suffering would exist within it. This one's trickier.
Actually, not true, people have solved it, but it's not really well spread or.... to say it bluntly.... "people actually don't give shit".... they asked, but they never bothered to really search for the answer. They asked, but if the answer doesn't come within 5 mins or served to them, people tend to assume there is no answer.
Sorry if i sound like a smug ass euphoric, that's only because i lack the skill to properly convey it politely.
But the main fundamental issue to learn is first, "What is evil" & "Is moral standard objective or subjective?” (hint: it's objective)
Can't teach it over a forum post, but if you really like to understand look towards
Christian Apologetics, where they try to seek these questions through logic.
In fact I can refer you to the specific book I learnt from "
belief - by Francis S. Collins", which is a collection of many apologetics answering many of these eternal questions that people say there's no answer for, especially the moral dillema one.
Some are even more interesting, like "why are so many Christians jerks/assholes?" (my own words) But i leave it up to you learn about it, and i hope you do.
