Yet again, you still haven't refuted anything Hitchens claimed, even though you claim to be familiar with it. Obviously you can't refute them, because if you could, you would have already, after I originally asked you to refute what he said that you don't agree with. Now you're asking me for a refutation (but of what??!), just like Trump incoherently projecting his own lies onto other people, after you refused to refute anything that Hitchens said, or even state what he said that you disagree with. So why should I answer your vague demand to refute some unspecified claim, after you failed to answer the specific question I asked first? You're the one who's denying reality and dodging questions. The ball's in your court to refute what Hitchens said, before demanding I refute some hypothetical claims you won't even identify.
1. What concrete and specific thing did Mother Theresa fail to do for the suffering people when she visited the nun convention?
2. What specific and concrete thing did Mother Theresa do, to be called a murderer in the plane crash?
Most of Hitchens arguments are against the character of god, how he's so totalitarian and capable of causing suffering. There is little to respond to because it isn't based on arguing concrete realities. The game is based on arguing interpretations of events in the most negative light and using that as a reason to distrust the character of god.
God is a necessary concept and arguing how terrible is his 'character', is beside the point. We can endlessly rework history with a nominalist historicism completely devoid of the context that god occupies, to show how terrible god's ethos is and how his adherents are evil, but it is a pointless game in the end.
God isn't going away and this endless attempt by UK atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, et al to have all the benefits of 2k years of Christanity without the theism is a tiring waste of time.
Hitchens is a christian athiest. He is a product of his context and all the secular humanism and gaping at the awe of space won't save you from the fact that the past 2k years were successfully led by christians in the west.
He was in a limo with dawkins and once said even if he had the most complete and destructive argument against god, that would end all arguments about god, he wouldn't do it. He was man who built his career on arguing the endless topic, religion. In his own words he chose this topic because it doesn't run out.
So yeah, preach to me about magic soap labels, if you think that's what god is, then you are welcome to it. I won't join you in nominalist hell and I won't lift you out of a well.
Tilting at windmills here..