C.S. Lewis noted that the consequences of a proposition had nothing to do with its truth. Indeed, he warned against thinking otherwise in his book, "The Screwtape Letters", when he had his devil advise tempting people with such thoughts. "'Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.' That's the game." Even if atheism had unrelievedly bad consequences for many... would that make it false?

I'm not convinced that atheism has those bad consequences, anyway. As to "hope or dignity to the disabled" (or poor), modern scientific medicine has helped reduce the number of sufferers and the severity of their suffering. The poorest of Americans are better off - materially, at least - than the royalty of many a past age, thanks to science and technology. Religion may have motivated many of the researchers, but not all... and had little to do with the discoveries themselves. (Google Neil deGrasse Tyson's "The Perimeter of Ignorance".)

Ray.

Let's consider. Who are better off? An African family of a grandmother looking after 4 children with barely money to eat? Or an American family who don't even talk to each other all that much?

If the poorest of Americans (and other developed West) are "better off", why do we lead the world in depression, suicide, heavy drinking and drug use?

People herald modern scientific medicine and discoveries beyond what it really is. The humanity lived and survived just fine without it until now. Even if World War 3 were to happen tomorrow, destroying absolutely everything, people will still manage to survive without the "modern scientific medicine". But, without religion? I'm not too sure.

I learned about the Expo rather late but when I did I was fascinated with the program. I subscribed to the newsletter with a view to possibly attending the next one. Now I see your reference to this one as "inaugural" and so I am hoping that the poor attendance will not discourage you from participating in organizing another one.

Mr. Lee - I've been to Sri Lanka, both the cities and the rural countryside. Not a whole of the poor there would hesitate for a split second to trade places with any American family. "Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does improve your bargaining position." It's very hard to be happy when you can't feed your kids.

As to leading the world in "depression, suicide, heavy drinking and drug use" - we don't. Last stats I saw for depression and suicide, for example, had "no data" for the undeveloped countries, because they can't even keep such stats. You might have a point about drinking and drug use, but then again, economically they're more affordable there.

In any case, that's a side issue. As I noted, even if you were right in every particular... why would that mean atheism was false?

First you say, "I can’t recall his exact response, but I have the distinct impression he began mumbling, saying something about how he couldn’t lie about people who were “unlucky” in life..." and then you say, "So there you have it. Hitchens’ anti-God philosophy offers no hope or dignity..." ...Mister, what do you take us for?

Is it dignified to lie to people that they'll be saved if they believe in the immorality of casting ones responsibilities on a messiah? Is lying moral? To lie to the poor, the uneducated, the down trodden, children, those in need of hope because it's all their crippled or dieing bodies can reach out ... a lie will do?

This isn't dignity, it's what we expect from the unscrupulous used car salesman.

Ray, you have an excellent point. Just because we don't like something does not mean it is false. The larger point is twofold.
First, how can atheism express outrage at anything with no moral foundation in that world view?
Second, what makes atheism false is the proof of GOD's revealing of Himself in His Word and in His life as the Lord Jesus the Christ. Christianity was not created in a vacuum. It is based in reality, shown true in biological, archeological, historical and existential evidences. Anti-theism is an attempt to positively prove a negative. Its very serious harmful world view is only part of the reason it needs to be confronted. It is a new version of the original sin problem: an attempt to deny GOD’s righteous sovereignty over His creation, thus putting man at the pinnacle rather than GOD. This is the main reason it needs to be confronted.
Regarding Neil deGrasse Tyson’s article, he serves well to confirm the realities related in the Bible. The world is running down. We are made for specific purposes. His point that scientific history is not from religion is not founded in reality. Science has worked in religion for the vast portion of recorded history.

nyomythus, where does your concept of dignity come from? I can more rightly question if it is dignified to lie to someone by telling them that GOD does not exist. See "Pascal's Wager". The logical thing is to tell people about GOD, forgiveness of sin, and the hope we have in the forgiveness offered through Jesus paying our sin debt on the cross. Then people have hope for this world and the next. To say "Deal with it. This is all there is." offers no hope at all. More importantly, as Pen Gillett has correctly stated, if we truly have the Gospel (Good News), it would be criminal for us not to tell people about it.

To me, promoting human dignity equates with promoting particular ways we we think, feel and do about one another. I think it equates to promoting greater compassion and greater candor and greater courtesy. That means that we do not obscure the hard facts, rather we face into them; it means that we do not pretend things that aren't, rather it means we search for better and healthier and more pragmatic perspectives, with which to view our own and each others' circumstances.

At the same time, scientific advance gives us all the very real hope of breakthroughs, from the encouragement that one gets from the very real scientific progress; especially when unfettered by non-secular sensibility. This is evidence based optimism, here and now. It keeps us engaged and informed; and allows us to benefit from the constant flow of more and better reliefs and supports and cures. Therefore, promoting hope for people with disability must surely be and, in my view, can only be through the full support of scientific advance.

Show me where secular civilisation is stunted and I'll show you where our brothers and sisters have been reduced to states of hopelessness and helplessness and worthlessness. I would argue that the best way to raise human dignity and give real hope to the hope-impoverished is to promote and spread and advance secular civilization, the world over.

Justin, all I intended to point out was the part you agreed with... that Stan's argument in this article is misdirected. The rest are, as I noted, 'side issues'.

If you click on my name below this comment, you can find my website, where I attempt to address the questions you've raised on other topics. My real email address is there, too, if you want to discuss things further.

MP3 Audio and video from the panel discussion with Christopher Hitchens, William Lane Craig, and others can be found here.