I have much respect for Hitchens he was a great polemist, he greatly enhanced the debate community.

A truth is not an untrue just because we lack understanding of it.

The claim that a truth can be disproved without proof is false. Many truths are claimed without proof. For example, if I say there are no purple with yellow polka dot elephants does not mean that I have proof of that. If you say there are no one believes it. The most accurate of all sciences, is the science of math which is based on axioms and theorems. The field of science outside of math has a higher chance of error as we use more of our powers of perception and ability to interpret meanings.

This should not stop our quest for truth. Many philosopher's wrote aphorisms based on truth, without proof they are based on axioms and maxims. Yet there purpose in making these statements was not to end an argument as absolute, but to get the reader thinking critically about whether the statement is true.

Can someone discredit such statement as there is a God without proof yes, but will they be accepted creditably maybe if you are Hitchens. Usually a person of authority can change the communities values, but the bible itself is sought out for its simple truths of proverbs and aphorisms from Jesus Christ. Each person has an individual choice to make what to believe science itself, or logic and reasoning can't solve every problem or choice we have to hope for the best.

A security guard is brought in to the school for a unique purpose of keeping the children safe. They have to be suited for the task, and they have to remain qualified for the position they will have. Now the school should not hire an employee who has tendencies to be violent, or has a criminal past. If we simply change the word from liable to trust, we realize that here is a person who knew the high risks and consequences of being in a position of trust, and I do respect these individuals and believe they should be there. A few bad cases should not be applied to the fallacy of association. It is hard to know what really happened in particular cases. By documenting cases and following procedure we may be able to interpret what went wrong, what obstacles we face, and what we can do in the future. This is helpful even when no disciplinary actions need to be taken.

If we are all born as atheist how do you explain this?

The number of possible ways of putting nucleotides together in a chromosome is enormous. Thus a human being is an extraordinarily improbable object. Most of the 102.4x109 possible sequences of nucleotides would lead to complete biological malfunction (Sagan, 1997, 22:967, emp. added)

And then which one of these genetic codes gives us our moral choice. Until science can explain everything, which it can't you have to rely a lot on faith yourself.

Eccl. 8:12 Although a sinner may do bad a hundred times and still live a long time, yet I am aware that it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him. 13 But it will not turn out well for the wicked one, nor will he prolong his days that are like a shadow, because he does not fear God.

Your reasoning's do not hold up as a counter argument, because we are not in disagreement about that as shown in eccl. 8:12 I do disagree with your idea that god is weak or does not exist.

A Christian lives by means of inference, as I am sure you do too. For example you can not see radio waves, but they are there. Man can not even produce the energy that is found in a microscopic atom, atoms found throughout the universe, in what sense do you claim god is weak. What do you regard as strength, is it by what you have felt in your life. Look at the strength of an old man who trust in god, though they are vulnerable and weak, they are wise, courageous, and full of faith. Faith that gives peace even in there lasts hours or in the face of Nazi assault. Can you have that peace of a future hope, can you act for the greater good of mankind or would you save yourself in dire times.

There is not a disorder behind these decisions that will inflict self harm. It is a reasoned choice based on judgements made by the individual in question. This preference comes from personal experience and interpretations of them. Did this individual experience loneliness, anxiety, disappointment, undervalued, frustration, all or more. Maybe changing their bodies would be more valued in core principles, and the consequence would feel small compared with the hurt from before. To help in either case I would drop my presuppositions and be aware of the individuals experience. Can I help make a procedure safer, or can I help him or her cope with their feelings. I would help this person understand that this decision affects more people than just themselves. What really matters here is the person of the heart not the outward appearance.

Well that's a false dilemma, way to bring down womankind. This post invites nothing, but misogynist. A woman should be loved for her intellect, not her body.