Normally, I'm one of the first in line to defend ratiionalism against religious fundamentalism, but despite some lip service towards Hellenistic rationalism, Hithc spends the bulk of this piece just spewing bile at anyone and everyone who holds religious views.

He doesn't even make an attempt at a rationalistic argument against the celebration of Hannukah. He just blasts the origins of the holiday as being anti-Greek and then just declares that both Christianity and Islam are the direct result of Hannukah.

But let's just assume that the events leading up to the creation of Hannukah never happened and the Maccabean revolt never happened. Does Hitch seriously believe that the Romans would never have later conquered Judea? That this region alone in all of Asia Minor would have been overlooked by the Romans? And that this would have inevitably prevented the rise of both Christianity and Islam?

He can't be serious.

That's a really good point. I normally defend Hitchens, but I'm starting to think that he writes more for attention, rather than fleshing out his arguments.

Then again, the rationalist argument, rarely, if ever works when the counter argument is God. It's not an equal playing field