I'll grant you that Hitchens probably over-egged his remark, yet the point remains that the doctrine creates a problem and then offers the cure. 'Sinfulness' isn't a thing beyond the confines of the religion that spawned it. If I don't subscribe to the god against which 'sin' is a crime, how can I possibly require atonement for it? Real-world example: blasphemy in the UK is no longer recognised as a crime. A comment made the day prior to the law being abolished would incur a penalty; the same comment a day later would not. The comment remains the same - all that changed was the recognition of offense. Remove the recognition, remove the offense.
Remove "God", eliminate "sin". Problem solved, and not a shot fired.
Remove "God", eliminate "sin". Problem solved, and not a shot fired.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
