Or could it be that he wrote it after the diagnosis of stage 4 cancer came in June 2010? Surely Bill wouldn't be so cynical? Interestingly, in the second comment after the article Bill claims to have written it just now, which I suppose is possible, given the prolific rate at which extreme-right diatribes appear on his blog.
The point is that Bill tries to pass it off as a fair and balanced obituary, and he almost succeeds in describing Christopher Hitchens as a human being, but when you get to the last few paragraphs the real Bill comes out in force.
So now the author of God is Not Great is standing before a great God, and will have to give an account of himself. He will be missed, and it is hoped that in the end he renounced his pride and admitted that he was not in fact the centre of the universe.
What absolute drivel is this, Bill? When did Hitchens claim to be the centre of the universe? Why does not believing in your deity make that true?
The reality is the opposite, of course, but it's not like Bill to twist the truth upside down. Hitchens thought of himself as a mere mortal, who would become entirely extinct at the moment of his death. He did not expect to outlive his brain. He knew the reality that he was a member of an evolved species, a primate, and that his origins in every respect were humble.
The believing Christian (or other religionist) on the other hand believes that their god created the entire universe specifically with their existence in mind, and cares what they do and what they think, and will punish or reward them accordingly.
Sorry, Bill. Atheists just don't have the arrogance to buy into such bullshit.
The universe is indifferent to our fates.
More tastefully yet, Muehlenberg speculates about what his angry god will do now that Hitchens "must make an account of himself".
But we can still pray for the other atheists – both well known and not well known – that they will not die and face a Christless eternity. We can pray for Dawkins and others that they will see the light, as so many countless of millions of others have over the centuries.
Thus proving Hitchens right. Hitchens often said that the religionists aren't content with believing in their little god. "They won't be happy until you believe it too." How right he was.
Muehlenberg writes with the arrogance of certainty, that his version of a particular deity is the definite "truth" and that anyone who doesn't share his barking mad views is "the enemy" and "not seeking after truth".
That's also a strong indicator of a bully.
Christopher Hitchens fought for freedom of speech and the intellect and engaged in rational debates. Muehlenberg is a censorious propaganda peddler. The irony is, that even if there was a god, and it turned out to be the Xtian one, it would be far more likely to think favourably of the intellectual heavyweight of Hitchens than it ever would of a creepy little bully like Bill.
EDIT: An update. Bill has just commented, "one thing is certain: Hitchens is no longer an atheist."
And to think Bill calls atheists arrogant! Way to gloat over a greater man's death, whilst smugly, and without a shred of shame (let alone evidence) suggest he now knows that Bill was right all along, if only Hitch had listened.
Bill sums up in just a few words why religion is so truly loathsome, poisonous, intolerant of dissent, childish in thought and for idiots.
I await without holding my breath a steady stream of Xtians dissociating themselves from Bill's comments.