/lit/ - Literature

New Atheism is a cancer to this world.

>>11748217

After a while you start to notice that the overwhelming majority of atheist thinking is based on pure emotion, with very very little substantive argumentation behind it.

>>11748217

>well respected journalist uses real world evidence to show how religion has been used for evil

I don't see the problem with this. If you're religious you should take criticism against religion seriously and look at the real world effects of it.

>>11748302
>"real world"
What is outside of it? What are the alternatives?

>>11748302
I think the problem is that it's completely dishonest to accuse God of not being great based on the behavior of humans.
The behavior of humans, including those who profess belief in and commitment to God, has nothing to do with God.

>>11748316
Exactly, those who think that Islamic conflict has anything to do with Islam itself as opposed to the geopolitical situation in the Middle East are simply delusional.

>>11748420
God's existence and character are in no way effected by what humans do.

>>11748291
you sound very angry against atheists. who hurt you anon?

>>11748316
>>11748449
god is entirely a human construct. and the thing is, everyone knows that. there are thousands of gods throughout history that entire cultures revered as real and divine, but now no one believes in. in fact, even the christian god has thousand of competing and non-compatible interpretations. everyone is an atheist in regard to thousands and thousands of gods, some people just go one god further

>>11748217
Anyone else notice that these anti-atheist threads are invariably devoid of arguments? Maybe that says something about the religious mind. These people [the religious] aren't rational beings.

>>11748679
>Anyone else notice that these anti-atheist threads are invariably devoid of arguments?
>he thinks it's just anti-aetheist threads and not every single thread on this website

>>11748217
Cant believe I liked him when I was 13

>>11748726
what argument caused your change of mind?

>>11748728
fedora memes

I know it's a little lazy and clichéd to appeal to muh Dunning Kruger effect on the internet, but it applies perfectly here.

The people that like the 'philosophy of religion' of Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. fall on the peak of this graph.

>>11748728
A realization that he totally misses the point of religious belief and is arguing in bad faith.

>>11748726
So did I. Then, like much of /lit/, I went through my contrarian Catholic phase and rejected him. Fortunately I matured and am no longer religious, so I can once again enjoy his writings.

>>11748738
what is the point that you think he missed?

>>11748744
I have a great deal more respect for him than the likes of Dawkins but he's too incendiary without good reason for me to read him.

>>11748302
Journalists are purveyors of propaganda.

>>11748752
I just stick to his articles and essays on literature, history, and culture.

>>11748217
>Christopher Hitchens
A Stephen Fry-tier "intellectual" who is already forgotten by almost everybody

>>11748420
>thinking Islam has anything to do with God

>>11748768
seems to be occupying at least a corner of the space in your mind

>>11748217
>"Wah, I need an invisible sky daddy who tells me that he loves me and teaches me right from wrong"
Sorry, but if you need the threat of eternal damnation in order to not behave like an asshole, you're still a fucking asshole.

>>11748750
He is very selective, he ignores serious theology and only critiques organised religion with a very heavy hand. Also I think generally he mischaracterizes his opponents and scripture to his own end.

>>11748217
Christianity is the most narcissistic religion there is. It's literally the belive that the most powerful being in existence actually gives a shit about you and sacrificed his life so you don't get what you deserve.

>>11748847
You sound pretty selfish.

>>11748844
Name one example.
And by the way, critizing organized religion by the actions of their believers is legitimate.nJesus himself said: "You shall recognize them by their fruits."

>>11748847
Being alive at all implies something gives a shit.

>>11748314
4chan

>>11748854
I am selfish. Your point?

>>11748856
I never said critiquing organized religion isn't legitimate. I'm saying he's too heavy handed and seems to purposefully ignore the benefits.

I'm not gonna name an example because 1. it's been a long time since I watched anything with him in it, I'm going on memory and 2. I was being general enough that what I say applies to almost anything he says. Just go watch a debate with him.

>>11748302
Why are you even trying to argue with religious people? Their stupidity and unwillingness to comprehend arguments is legendary.

>>11748873
You need to go back.

>>11748862
You can't conceive of someone doing something for selfless reasons.

>>11748867
I knew in advance that you were not gonna name an example and we both know it isn't for the reasons that you listed.

>>11748893
>somebody says the religious don't make arguments
>(You) reply with in generic non-argument memespeak.
Wow lad, you sure showed him.

>>11748896
There's no such thing as an entirely selfless act.

>>11748897
Well those are the reasons, feel free to say what you think instead of interrogating me.

>>11748847
>Christianity’s not true because I think it’s narcissitic

Strong argument m’lord

>>11748913
Exactly my point.

>>11748939
I don't care whether it's true or not. I wouldn't worship such an egocentric God even if that religion was true.
>"Enjoy going to hell then."
What do you feel when a Buddhist tells you that you're going to Naraka? Because it's the same thing I feel when Christians tell me I'm going to hell.

>>11748287
>>11748291

pretty much

>>11748945
Provide an example of an entirely selfless act.

>>11748958
The Passion of Jesus Christ on the cross.

>>11748965
Provide proof that it actually happened. And even if it happened: your God is not selfless. Isaiah states that "the Lord created us for his own glory". If your God isn't selfless, why should his followers be.

>>11748836
Who defines what an asshole is?

>>11748952
So you’re saying that even if you knew Christianity was true you wouldn’t bend the knee? Sounds like you’re the narcissist.

What surprise me so much about the 'new atheists' is how little attention they pay to serious theological arguments such as the Thomist 'prime mover' argument. Dawkins completely misrepresents it in The God Delusion, showing that his understanding of philosophy is worse than that of a typical undergraduate student. I remember watching a debate with Hitchens where his interlocutor made the cosmological argument, and Hitchens was pretty clearly flummoxed and deflected the debate by making some witty remark.

You'd think that if you're putting yourself forward as the leading voice of the atheists, and being arrogant enough to regularly characterise the religious as infantile, you'd at least try to engage with some of the more basic arguments for faith. I'm not even religious (I'm agnostic), it just irritates me to see such unwarranted arrogance.

>>11748217
How anyone could have any faith in any religion after high school is beyond me.

>>11748952
>he thinks he can subject an infinite being to his own finite accusations with any credibility
Also, arent you the narcissist here? Even if you knew that there was an infinite being whose inner workings are beyond your comprehension making decisions that you didnt like, you still would oppose him? Why?

>>11748993
>Thomist 'prime mover' argument
That is just a rewash of Aristotle, and is actually possible to criticize it, since it relies on the assumption of the inexistence of actual infinites and of time as an arrow, which was utterly shattered by general relativity.

>>11748993
either everything requires a cause (infinite regression) or there is something that required no cause (and we have no way of knowing what this would be or any characteristics of it)

At best these arguments support a deistic god, but even that is tenuous

>>11749032
Maybe so, I'm not looking to restart the debate.My point was that the most famous atheists in the world should comfortably have a response to one of the most common (serious) arguments for faith, and yet they seem totally lacking

>>11748847
I'm not Christian but I never got this argument. If a being who created everything exists why wouldnt he want to focus on the smaller details of his creation.

>>11748906
>say your opponent is stupid
>expect someone to take you seriously

>>11748836
Everyone does the right thing because of some degree of consequence or reward. Maybe it's because you dont want to be jailed or ostracised or because you want to fulfil someone's legacy etc. Religion just promises "a reap what you sow" law etched into the fabric of reality.

>>11749046
The "well that only suggests deism" is another atheist deflection that annoys me desu. If you can't provide an argument against deism, then you're not an atheist (or, at least, not a very rational one). If you've already accepted that logical reasoning indicates the existence of SOME higher power (whatever qualities it may have), then you're not an atheist anymore.

>>11748836
>he thinks salvation is a reward for good works

>>11749014
fight the absurd man u have to imagine sisyphus happy :)

>>11749085
the problem is that with "deism" you can define god so widely that it becomes nonsensical. thats why I find it frustrating when theists employ arguments that don't even support theism, but instead a deism that isn't even properly defined

>>11749121
I agree that the cosmological argument alone isn't proof for Christianity (or for Islam, Judaism, or any other religion). But it is the key argument for atheism vs theism/deism

>>11749130
except it is not. whatever fills the role of the "deistic" prime mover could be an entirely unthinking natural phenomenon. the whole point is that you can't tell anything about it at all, and that if you even grant it in the first place. because if you examine the beginning of our universe, then you are talking about a point where there was no matter or space. and as we know that space and time are linked, you are talking about a time when time didn't exist, and so perhaps the idea of cause and effect doesn't even apply under those circumstances

>>11749137
But you'd also have to accept that the deistic prime mover is immaterial, does not operate by the laws of science, etc. Even if it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things (i.e. we still meet oblivion when we die), it's still a different belief to atheism

>>11748801
An exceptionally small corner, yes. Though it's pretty feasible that I will never hear him mentioned again.

>>11748847
>the belive that the most powerful being in existence actually gives a shit about you
Why would god set up the circumstances for our existence is there was no purpose? As an infinite being, God can give a shit about everything. It's not as if he's constrained by time or energy

>>11748862
You sound cool. I bet your a quickwitted machiavelli who fucks loads of girls

>>11748652
>r u mad?
>"who hurt you,"

Hey, did you get lost on your way to Instagram?

>>11749137
Your point ignores that the classical arguments for God's existence are embedded in a system of metaphysics which point to these other aspects of God. That's what a thinker like Aquinas spent his life doing.

>>11749151
why would I need to accept that a prime mover is immaterial?

>>11749193
I'm sure many religions all have their "systems of metaphysics". why would one be more likely than another?

>>11748291
Unlike that rational, established mandate of organised religious doctrine?

>>11749231
Because all material phenomena can be acted upon, whereas the prime mover is pure actuality. It's a key part of the Aristotle/Aquinas argument

>>11749242
>why would one be more likely than another?
Maybe they are all equally valid, and their differences reflect nothing more than differing flawed human attempts to understand the divine. French Catholics and Germany Catholics have different vocabulary, but the vocab is essentially irrelevant

>>11749242
Metaphysical aspects like teleology and substantial forms are simply unavoidable if one is to make sense of literally anything, and it is concepts such as these to which I refer. They are completely commonsensical, and moreover, arguments are provided in defense of them. They are not merely assumed to be correct.

>>11749402
Precisely, there's a point when reality becomes consensual, that point is only reachable using honest means, as people can tell lies apart from reality.

And people see lies and see the truth, the cognitive dissonance become everything and then puff, vanish in the air as it's not really there, there is just one truth.

>>11749375
how could you demonstrate that the prime mover couldn't, itself, be acted upon?

>>11749418
Because then it wouldn't be the prime mover

>>11749418
>how could you prove a triangle couldn't be four-sided?

that's how retarded you sound

>>11749438
>>11749450
So you have a list of attributes for this prime mover? I am asking how you arrived at this list

>>11749472
It would be far quicker and simpler if you just looked at one of the many webpages explaining the argument, because it's pretty clear that you don't understand it. Don't worry, you're still at the same level as Dawkins and Hitchens.

Not trying to be condescending, and not saying you even have to accept the argument, but just at least try to understand it before you say it's bullshit

>>11749488
so far it sounds a lot like bullshit

>>11749507
That's a fine conclusion, as long as you can qualify it beyond "it sounds a lot like bullshit"

>>11749516
so far all I've heard are baseless assertions and appeals to some other argument that people don't even want to post

Remind me why I come to this shit hole again?

>>11748663
Don't you find it interesting how the Hebrew/Christian God is the only one left still around? Just like he said he would be...

>>11750192
less than %30 of the population on earth believes in the Hebrew/Christian god. Your post shows exactly how limited your scope of thinking is. There are around a billion people on earth right now who believe in Hinduism. They believe in Vishnu and Shiva and a whole host of other gods you would probably laugh at. And yet they believe in them to the exact extent christians believe in Yahweh

Gosh even this was a new york times bestseller?

>>11750192
You're a fucking moron.

>>11749032
Relies on neither. It does require the nonexistence of infinite essential causal chains, but you're misrepresenting what that means. It basically just requires causality to work along the Aristotelian model, as well as the rather trivial existence of change.
>>11749046
Whether you agree with Aquinas or not, you could at least take notice of the next couple dozen or so questions after he gives the cosmological argument. Where, you know, he also derives properties on God, specifically counters deistic notions, etc.

Not trying to start arguing the cosmological argument here, you're just misrepresenting the positions theologians take.

>>11748420
True, although there are elements of Islam that make that situation worse.

>>11748217
New Atheism was like the last vainglorious push of rational/utilitarian liberalism. All those triumphant fools writing their books about the brave new era of the levelheaded modern liberal man, only to be pushed aside in a few short years time by the cult of outrage, weakness and oppression which their own ideology engendered and which now dominates mainstream discourse. Richard Dawkins being cowed into submission by a thousand harpies crying sexist was his fitting end and a new chapter's terrible beginning. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't the last chapter for us, if maybe we have finally raced all the way to the bottom in these last 400 years.

Ironic, isn't it?

>>11748847
Judaism is worse in that regard. Christianity takes the position that God cares deeply for all of creation, including but not exclusively humanity. Judaism instead elevates a specific cultural and ethnic group above all others.

>>11748217
its true tho

>>11748847
>Christianity makes life on earth easier / comfier / more enjoyable
Please go read any of the 66 books in the bible right now and you'll see how wrong this statement is.

>>11748663
There are thousands upon thousands of Han Solo action figures. Harrison Ford is a man-made construct.

>>11748420
It does in that the islamic conflict against the west (as opposed to their internal ethnic struggles) is a reaction to the displacement of traditional islamic values by western consumerism

>>11748847
I mean come on. Who ever heard of love actually being real?

>>11751921
glorious /lit tv/ poster

>>11751921
the twist is that the person you think is Harrison Ford is a figment of your imagination

>>11748974
>your God is not selfless. Isaiah states that "the Lord created us for his own glory"

OH LOOK ITS ANOTHER EPISODE OF READING THE BIBLE AS THOUGH GOD WAS A LITERAL HUMAN IN THE SKY AND THEREFORE HAS HUMAN MOTIVES

>>11748993
Hitchens recognises the prime mover argument, he just denies that it proves a theistic God. To him, all it proves is a prime mover

>>11749046
I don't think anyone claims the prime mover arguments prove the existence of the Christian god. From there you simply know God--whatever its nature is---exists. Then you look into the life of Jesus and the history of Christianity etc. and if you find it convincing, you become a Christian.

Faith is not like some eureka moment, after which God appears to you as a magic light and talks to you everyday. The path to becoming Christian (or any other specific kind of religion) is long, very slow, and filled with a lot of doubts.

>>11748217
Resentment goes a long way.
American protestants who never really *got* their faith got to rebel against their parents and society whilst feeling superior along the way. Hitchens provided that and it caught on.
Theology and the common understanding of faith in the time of Bush was perhaps the lowest it has ever been in part to the hypocrisy and vacuity of the boomer generation.

>>11748302
Religion has been also used for good. What now?

>>11751896
But Christians are supposed to accept that the Jews were right and they were actually that special until Jesus appeared.

>>11752177
>God loves you. God is like a father and we are his children.
>What about these passages where God seems vain and petty?
>Well hold on, it's a mistake to anthropomorphize God.

>>11752550
yes the book written to explain god and life to retarded sand peasants does sometimes humanize god to make the stories more comprehendable

>>11748663
kek didn't steven fry say this?

>>11748663
absolutely abysmal post

>>11748217
http://ronaldvhuggins.blogspot.com/2013/09/christopher-hitchenss-plagiarism.html

Reminder that Hitchens was a lazy plagiarist

>>11748663
If only you’d asked who created God, you’d have hit every new atheist trope on one post

>>11752516
I think europeans have a hard time understanding what kind of christianity that american "new atheists" are rebelling against.

>>11748217
modern militant atheism is the perfect exemplification of religionless religiousness

>>11752572
“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”
Are you one of those “christians” that are don’t actually bother to read your holy texts before actually defending them.

>>11752180
Thats simply him being unwilling to accept the conclusion. Yes the argument is only trying to prove a prime mover. But the prime mover has all the properties commonly given to God. So what does it matter?

>>11748663
bait

>>11752862
Imagine if an image of something were different than the image itself.

>>11752572
lmao just stop

>>11752895
>>11752611
>>11752607
amazing responses

>>11748291
>After a while you start to notice that the overwhelming majority of atheist thinking is based on pure emotion, with very very little substantive argumentation behind it.
You will find that this applies to all thinking. All arguments are post hoc

>>11748291
>atheist thinking is based on pure emotion
what exactly do you think religious faith is?

>>11752929
So, not the actual image, which contradicts what is actually being said in>>11752862

>>11752234
Christ says to look at his words, and weigh them. Test his words, to see if they make sense. See if the benefits of following Him outweigh the costs.

As for the rest of this cancerous thread,

1. Most people have not read the Bible, or take the time to understand it.
Evidence for this comes from large amounts of nonsense, such as claiming God is a narcissists, or flat out falsifying what Christ's sacrifice meant, being produced at a ridiculous rate. Everybody does this, including Christian media. If you want an example of such things, then you can pick up classic heresy such as the Left Behind series, the Cabin, and the Face.

2. Atheists tend to run into a bit of problem, where they use weighted scales when it comes to things they do not like, versus things they do like. A very human thing to do, and the one thing that everyone says ad nausium from the Bible: "Judge not least ye be Judge yourselves." Which has the follow ups:
"If your friend has a speck in his eye, and you have a log in your eye, then don't say to your friend, 'Here let me remove the speck from your eye.' Hypocrite! First remove the log from your eye, then help your friend with the speck in his eye."
And
"By the same scales you use on others, shall be used to measure you."
3. The majority of an Atheists arguments against religion comes from essentially three areas:
a. The perceived evil, and actual evil.
b. my scientism.
c. someone I trust tells me that religion is evil, and so I take that person at his word (another way of saying, my faith in this person, convinces me that religion is silly and evil.)
Each one has an answer:
a. the apparent lack of good, does not indicate good does not exist. For example, when a natural disaster hits, many will sacrifice money, time, and energy to help save, and rebuild.
b. Scientism is the belief that science can explain everything, which goes against the original goal of science: The study of the physical world. As a rule of thumb, using the texts from one religion to disprove another, doesn't actually do anything meaningful. Thus, trying to use scientism to disprove other religions is as beneficial as trying to harvest the winds. About the only thing you can do, is realize that your current faith, doesn't match the real world, and makes you sound silly.
c. If you point to Dawkins, Hitchens, or another atheist as the reason for you becoming an atheist, then make fun of someone for saying they have faith in God, because of some event in their life, then it is a point of hypocrisy. Maybe if you suffered what another person has suffered, or lived as they had lived, then you too would be a believer, but no, you walk a different path: the path of the intellectuals, because that is what those fancy scientists have said. So, how about being an intellectual, and study one of the five big religions, and draw your own conclusions? In so doing, you test those major atheists to see if they are worthy of your faith.

>>11751928
Islamic conflict against the West is a traditional Islamic value you pseud

>>11753019
Christ is a terrible example, since everything about is his earlier followers trying to cope with the fact that their messianic saviour was killed in a brutal and humiliating way by the romans.

>>11752946
It's called an allegory.

>>11753089
>Genesis 1 was an allegory
It wasn’t interpreted like that until fairly recently by mainstream christendom, and only because everything in was disproved. Shit, there was even genealogies tracing themselves all the way back to Adam, which makes zero sense if it was supposed to be just an allegory.

>>11748291
*cough* Dawkins *cough*

>>11753102
There's still no disconnect between being made in an image and Adam and Eve existing.
Also Augustine was doing it way before everyone.

>>11748287
source? seems based

>>11748302
The problem is the arguments follow a line of discussion where an educated secular educates a plum average normalfag religious identifying person. It assumes the person reading is an absolute retard basically, the highly educated religious know full well about the various schisms, wars, heresies, abuses, etc. Most serious practicing religious people are aware of these things as well. This isn't new ground being broken here, the average seminarian educated priest has probably had dozens of conversations about concerns over evil committed by other religious people, and these conversations were provoked by other religious people who themselves were concerned about these things. If you go to a forum for a religious community you will find all kinds of discussion about history and controversies.
If you want to promote a conversation about religion just fucking talk to religious people don't publish a book with a controversial cover and pretend you care. This book was clearly designed to sell copies not out of a genuine want of healthy conversation between the secular and religious.

>>11753429
To be fair Hitchens did openly debate practising and influential religious leaders

Atheism by itself is a very weak belief. For a people who use words like 'rationality' and 'logic' quite often, atheism has not a single purely logical belief in it. It requires as much of a leap of faith as some other religions. The only reason it has flourished is as a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived violence of religion and sci-fi, which means most atheists are under the delusion that they believe in 'modern' concepts, and all religions are old fables, although this belief is entirely subjective.

>>11748217
>judging a book by its subtitle
omo

>>11748985
beta male detected

>>11753019
>The majority of an Atheists arguments against religion
*against Christianity
Few, if anym atheist arguments are against religion itself, mostly they're arguments against Christianity that they assume apply to all other religions too because Christianity is the only religion they're somewhat familiar with.

>>11748314
There's ideological worlds.

Since we are imperfect abstract thoughts sometimes serve as a substitute. Hitchens does a great job in showing us some of the disadvantages of fervent belief. Personally, I feel the benefits to faith far outweigh the costs, however, some faiths are much more fructiferous than others. Hitchens also does a good job - in fact, he is the leading example among his peers - in holding Islam and it's failures particularly accountable.

New atheism appears to only target Christianity, while Hitchens, much to the chagrin of the rest of his industry, takes every other religion to task just the same.

All in all, a great read.

>>11749054

Read the old testament and you’ll see how autistic he was about his creation from the very start

>>11748952
b-but God loves you UwU

>>11748952
>I wouldn't worship the thing that gave me the power to be alive to spit in its face.

>>11748316
>brevs I made countless entities that commit acts of evil around the clock 24/7 in a world of my creation and completely under my watch, control and mandate but it's nuffin to do wiv me m8

>>11748663
2006 tier bait

>>11748847
>hates sacrifice
>love is literally sacrifice
>hates love

Fellow Christians, we need to realize that Atheists simply hate love. Anyone who hates willing the good of the other, charity, sacrifice is an enemy to us. Failing to do so is clearly forgivable, but those who reject it, are those who do not want forgiveness.

If I were not a fool, I'd say Christ is about love alone. Though love is the greatest of the three theological virtues. And forsaken is he who denies the offering or fails to offer.

This declaration isn't even reserved for just Atheists; it's for every non-Christian.

>>11750227
They also believed in Vishnu longer than Christianity existed.
>>11753027
The West wasn't relevant when Islam came to be. And no, Byzantines wuz not Westerners. And the West of today is very different from the West of the Crusades.
>>11748771
Islam has a much better consistent definition of a monotheistic God than Christianity.
>>11751562
You're misrepresenting what general relativity states. There's only the here now and the now here. Future and Past is nonexistant. The mathematics of the black hole, something that was observed shows that the Aristotelian model is incorrect.

>>11752234
The only God worth taking into account has to be a self aware entity. It's nonsensical to simply name the first cause/mover to be God. It's a copout some theists do. Critics can easily retort by claiming that quantum fluctuations are God. And some theists will say "well see! You're not an atheist anymore so that's good!". The conversation at that point is shown to be a manipulative attempt by those theists to corner critics with a "gotcha!" moment. There's no honest inquiry for truth.

When you're talking about God, we know all well what it has to at least mean. If you want to reduce the notion for the first cause to mean something that isn't self aware, then theism is unnecessary.

Again, you're not worshiping Quantum Flunctuations. Cosmological arguments by theists are dishonest.

There's nothing convincing about resurrection and the New Testament contradicts itself on numerous passages.

>>11753019
The Bible is not coherent. For it to make sense, i.e to be predicative of a religion, you'd have to separate it into multiple parts, each determining the tenets of a different religion.

It started out with polytheism, then becomes monotheistic (possible cause is during the Babylonian exile and the effect of Zoroastrianism). Then New Testament adds in some Greco-Roman syncretism, along with a slave morality completely different from anything stated in the OT but with a good dose of Israelite supremacy like the OT.

Atheists don't believe in a supernatural creator. So of course the scales are weighted. Much like they're weighted when humans decide animals can be killed for meat but not humans.

a. Broken window fallacy. The time, money and work could have been spent in doing something better which is more likely when there was no natural disaster.

b. Strawman fallacy. Most Atheists in the West do not think their morality is derived from science.

c. Atheists don't point to the quality of Hitchens, Dawkins or other atheists. They point to their arguments/statements and include the person as a cause for those things. They may be wrong about the cause part but that's in no way similar to those who have faith in supernatural events and rely on testimony, which is flawed, especially in cultures without strong oral traditions (which leaves out most cultures including the Judean culture and European cultures).

>>11752572
You called the early recipients of the Bible people "retarded sands peasants". Meanwhile you also trust these people to keep the words of God intact, so you don't end up with a modified version centuries later.

You're a moron.

>>11754354
Right because Hell is such an embodiment of love.

Is killing a woman for refusing your affection really love? If you did so, you'd end up in a mental asylum or in jail.

>inb4 but muh anthropomorphic comparison!

Then why did, according to Christianity, God came into the appearance of a human being? Sounds like the Christian God really wanted to be misunderstood and be interpreted anthropomorphically.

>>11754598
people literally choose to go to hell lmao

You don't seem to know basic Christian theology. This is literally stuff that children learn. No one is ever forced into Hell or Heaven. People choose to go there. This is the Christian perspective (Calvinists, Presbyterians, unconditional election are not Christian).

>>11754598
most christians don't believe in fire and brimstone hell. hell is just the eternal absence of God, the God they already rejected.

>>11754694
> Be born gay
> part of god's plan
> if I act on my homo desires god implanted in me i go to hell
> man cannot understand god's plan so don't think about the contradiction just don't fuck men or else ok

Deep stuff bruv

>>11754740
Everyone on earth has strong desires that they have to supress in order to be moral. Some people are angry as hell and have to keep themselves from assaulting other people, others would naturally like to be greedy pieces of shit. Your homo tendencies are nothing special.

>>11754694
And a woman chooses to be murdered for rejecting the passion of a deranged man.

Christian theology is nonsensical.
>>11754713
>most christians don't believe in fire and brimstone hell.
Now that's just false. And even if it was true (which it isn't), it shows that the believers of Christianity can't make up their mind.
>>11754759
>homo tendency is analogous to assaulting others or be greedy
Nonsense analogy.

Likewise, everyone on earth has strong desires that they need to suppress in order to be moral. Some people have rape tendencies and want to stop themselves from raping, others are naturally deceitful. Your feelings to believe in a supernatural creator, which is a product of evolution, are nothing special. You should suppress them too, to the point where you don't materialize them into actions, just like homosexuals.

>>11754740
>original sin
>disordered nature
>be born gay
>not a part of God's plan
>God's divine providence can bring a greater good out of this disordered nature
>become holy and celibate, essentially choosing to go to Heaven
>be with God forever in communion

even your green text reductions are pathetic

>>11754795
>And a woman chooses to be murdered for rejecting the passion of a deranged man.
lmao your analogy is sad

it's more like
>a woman chooses to ruin her life as a whore by rejecting a man who would make the best version of herself and fulfill her life

>>11754828
>lmao your analogy is sad
Not an argument.

>a woman chooses to ruin her life as a whore by rejecting a man who would make the best version of herself and fulfill her life
Actually that's a bad analogy. Because a whore implies she went for other men (i.e polytheism). But atheists are damned too. So the analogous equivalent would be a woman who is celibate. And the highest level of a female in Christianity is a virgin.

Christianity condemns to Hell what it itself sees as pure.

Also, it's unknowable from the perspective of the woman if the man will make her the best version of herself. It's a forced game of Russian roulette. A woman who rejects a man that threatens her is simply choosing not to be a slave.

>>11752572
The point is Christians still do this when talking about their god's nice traits.

>>11748217
>high school tier
I read this in 9th grade, when I was 14 lmao. Even carried it around as part of the stack of textbooks I had to carry to and from class. It literally is High School Edgelord: The Book. So glad I've matured enough to see that it's a crock of shit.

>>11755474

>lol, I’m so mature posting memes on 4chan, that book is shit, shut up Beavis

>>11755253
it's easy to humanize God because he's a macrocosm of human existance.

>>11755495
i once accidentally painted God's face and I believe he is blind

>>11755474
turboyikes

>>11754524
General relativity does not do away with a relative ordering between events, it does away with any universal time scale. Black holes in no way affect Aristotelian causality. And again, there's a host of arguments closely affiliated with the cosmological that demonstrate a shitton of necessary properties of a prime mover - they demonstrate (pretty conclusively from the prime mover as established in aristotelian/thomistic terms) that such a prime mover must be self aware, and cannot be "quantum fluctuations".
Whether the New Testament or bible are coherent is not very much on topic, but at the very least interpretations can be- and plenty of brands of Christianity hold that the bible uninterpreted by a tradition is unauthoritative.

>>11754598
>>11754795
>>11754864
Come on, at least know the basics of the theology of hell if you're going to argue like this. Hell would be more aptly analogous to dying of starvation when you have an invitation to a banquet. The analogy of a woman rejecting love is rather poor from the start, and extending it as far as you do is absolutely laughable to try and make an argument of.

>>11748217
Daily reminder Peter is the superior Hitchens brother. Christopher is only slightly better than Dawkins, and Dawkins is a high school tier meme.

>>11748750
>>11748856
>>11748897
>"you're lying! You don't really think he argues in bad faith! You're religious! You must be! Only a religious person could dislike my favorite meme atheist!"
Imagine being this insecure.

After reading pic related one only feels shame for New Atheists, as a matter of fact many of the strawman arguments used in this thread (e.g the infinite regression) the author, an actually well read philosopher, takes the time to destroy.

>>11753122
Came to post this.

>>11748897
sad

>>11753429
This. Retards think their argument is completely groundbreaking when its absolutely trivial.
>hits blunt
>*cough* whoooaaa dude, like, some people who believe in God do bad things man, that's so crazy
>yeah dude, how is God real?? fuck man never thought about this!
>we should go tell everyone!

>>11748993
They are ideologues. They represent themselves as "free thinkers" but have no interest in engaging in actual rigorous debate on the subject. If they were they would be forced to admit that agnosticism is superior to their atheism.

>>11751894
well written and underrated post.

>>11748287
Holy Moly, a few weeks ago I came to this same realization, albeit not as well expressed. What a weird feeling.

>>11756000
>using a troll page photo in 2018

>>11754740
>be born gay
nobody is born gay. You are given free will and you choose to act on those desires.

>>11755853
>Come on, at least know the basics of the theology of hell if you're going to argue like this. Hell would be more aptly analogous to dying of starvation when you have an invitation to a banquet.

ya this is much better. "killing a woman for rejecting your advances" - peurile

>>11757976
Okay

> Be stillborn
> part of god's plan
> god loves all his creations
> kills a baby in utero
> don't worry bro it's part of god's plan don't think about the contradiction if you follow my 10 easy steps you'll be reunited in the afterlife :^)

>>11751894
New Atheism succeeded in tarnishing the names of religious institutions without tearing down the underlying slave mortality. Of course, the obvious result of that is the promotion of secular religion (e.g. the modern social justice movement).

It’s not really a surprise, though. The New Atheists promoted scientism which must inevitably result in hedonism (the ideology of the Last Man) or humanism (hypocritical secular religion) instead of teaching people the transvaluation of their slave moral values.

>>11748663
reddit-tier post

>>11757990
It's not a contradiction at all, nobody has a right to be alive. Why shouldn't God be able to take away a life at any point for any reason?
>but thats immoral
in your subjective opinion.
Also religious thought is nothing to do with being rewarded in an afterlife.

>>11755853
How would it be affected by the very real possibility of teleology being purely subjective and unrelated to material phenomena?

>>11757990

Something that is ever brought into being despite abomination is actually more indicative of a God than something that works in perfect order.

>>11748287
I understand what he's trying to argue, but does that correlate with reality. There Republican party's main issue with climate change should be keeping minimum national oversight, but instead they attack the problem on an existential basis, either "does it even exist?" or "is it really so bad?"

>>11757992
The real slave revolt was against objective values

>>11748272
america is a cancer to this world

where do you think new atheism originates from

>>11757992
Replace 'new atheism' with 'protestantism' and you are right.

>>11750227
absolutely haram. atheists are beyond redemption

>abrahamic religions and hinduism are the same!
To think that medieval peasants were more intelligent than the average college graduate is a sure sign of the end times

>>11759054
>>abrahamic religions and hinduism are the same!
way to completely miss the point

>>11753019
Ezekiel 23:20

>>11757990
>it is impossible to rationalize our physical reality with a divine purpose
>salvation requires numerous steps
Anon please.

>>11759092
>they believe in them to the exact extent christians believe in Yahweh
that's what I was referring to. and to keep it simple, it's fundamentally wrong

>>11759038
>protestantism promotes hedonism
elaborate
>>11759092
not that anon but
>th-they believe in their gods as much as westerners believe in theirs!
You're really going to appeal to the majority, anon? Everyone on this board knows that the masses never make it past the peak of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Most people never truly question their father's god, most people never objectively pursue the truth, and most people never read past "The God Delusion" or "Knowing God" tier books.
Thinking critically serves no purpose in day-to-day life for probably 7.3 billion people today. Hence "NPCs."
You have to come to conclusions yourself, honestly and as unbiased as possible.

>>11755495
>macrocosm of one branch of evolution on one planet in one time period
just admit he's anthropomorphized because humans created him

>>11759208
great argument dude
>>11759240
>You're really going to appeal to the majority, anon? Everyone on this board knows that the masses never make it past the peak of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Most people never truly question their father's god, most people never objectively pursue the truth, and most people never read past "The God Delusion" or "Knowing God" tier books.
what the fuck does any of this have to do with anything at all? this garbage you wrote is just a fucking non sequitur, completely disconnected from the rest of the conversation

>>11756000
>asking someone to define their criticism more specifically = "you're lying"
you might be retarded anon

>>11758086
uh-oh, did someone violate your safe space? do you need a coloring book?

>>11757992
>the people arguing against religion in it's totality are actually religious
the absolute state of theists

>>11748291
It serves to persuade. You cannot reason people out of religion that they didn't reason themselves into. So you use the same tactics that religious people use in order to persuade them that maybe they aren't absolute truth.

>>11754795
>Now that's just false. And even if it was true (which it isn't), it shows that the believers of Christianity can't make up their mind.
Americans are weird and deviant, that's why you were all ran off the continent

>>11748217
Why do atheists try to debunk religion through sociological means and not metaphysical ones?

>>11759330
I think he's saying that of course people adopt the beliefs of their fathers, because they don't apply too much thought to what they believe. People are generally inexperienced in truth seeking.

>>11759424
Yes, obviously, but what relevance does that information have to the conversation taking place?

>>11759400
this. Genealogy is a non-argument in such discussions

>>11759330
I rarely spell things out but you seem desperate.
You:
>everyone is an atheist in regard to thousands and thousands of gods, some people just go one god further
Nice Dawkins quote.
The masses go one god further (or 33 million gods further for hindus) because it's emotionally and mentally challenging to question their father's gods and their culture's gods. How hard is this connection to make--Dawkins is right when he says you can, most of the time, predict a person's religion based on their geographical location. Hence the importance for an individual to critically and in an unbiased manner come to conclusions on their own.
Also you:
>There are around a billion people on earth right now who believe in Hinduism. They believe in Vishnu and Shiva and a whole host of other gods you would probably laugh at. And yet they believe in them to the exact extent christians believe in Yahweh
Exact same thing. To truly be objective in seeking out the truth is something that next to no one does--it's more comfortable to have faith in your father's gods or your culture's gods.

The statements you've made are mostly true but they're not a case for atheism as you somehow think they are. They merely proves how great a struggle it is for the average man to truly question his biases.
And now I ask: what was your father's god? What is your culture's god?

>>11759363
Most are lol. Most atheists have a tremendous amount of faith in their beliefs.
Good for you to transcend into the elitist "nihilistic agnostic" category.

>>11759494
I'm actually a Hindu, but I don't think one should assign religious characteristics to people who actively refute religious belief systems

>>11759506
I don't think you should regard faith as being a purely "religious characteristic."
In any philosophical text (that isn't skin-deep) no one operates on a "dogma of religion vs. the reasoning of rational thinkers" dichotomy.

>>11748291

Pretty much. I wonder where the "atheists know more about religion than believers" meme comes from. Most atheists I end up discussing with do nothing more than bombarding me with basic questions about religion and faith that one should already know before engaging in such.

Damn, some of them even openly admits never have reading the bible but still insists on saying that it is just a collection of fairy tales with no intrinsec value.

>>11759550

Yep. You know he's a le four horseman atheist when he says in one breath that he's read the whole Bible and in the next implies that he thinks salvation is based on works (usually by saying something like >>11754740 said about going to hell for being bad).

>>11759571
>le four horseman

Squawkins, Hare-ass, Dimwit and Bitchens. A few good men.

>>11757992
New Atheism has no desire to tear down slave morality because its world view is wholly based on it. All those guys are decapitated Christians which is to say they are liberals.

>>11759240
>protestantism promotes hedonism
Just an error on your part. You say new atheism (protestantism) promotes scientism which in turn promotes hedonism. Scientism never promoted hedonism directly. The rest is true

>>11759474
>You:
no. I'm not even an atheist.
>The masses go one god further (or 33 million gods further for hindus)
You obviously don't understand the meaning of the "one god further" bit. It's not about believing in one god further, it's about disbelieving one god further. It's not "the masses" that go one god further, it's the atheists.
>because it's emotionally and mentally challenging to question their father's gods and their culture's gods. How hard is this connection to make--Dawkins is right when he says you can, most of the time, predict a person's religion based on their geographical location. Hence the importance for an individual to critically and in an unbiased manner come to conclusions on their own.
Yes, that's obvious, but what relevance does it have to the post (>>11750227) you replied to (>>11759054)? What point are you attempting to refute or respond to?

>>11755474
LARping incel cringe

>>11757990
Nah, you don't understand bro. God is like, transcendental. Just turn your mind off and cuck yourself.

>>11759689
Congratulations, you caught my hasty misinterpretation, and yet it changes absolutely nothing about my claim that you conveniently missed. I said it thrice. Not once, not twice, three whole times. Here it is again.

"The statements you've made are mostly true but they're not a case for atheism as you somehow think they are. They merely prove how great a struggle it is for the average man to truly question his biases.
And now I ask: what was your father's god? What is your culture's god?"

Stop with your willful ignorance. Work on your understanding of the english lexicon if you can't see the relevance of my words to >>11750227
And I didn't reply to >>11759054, it's pretty easy to see how many replies a post has.

>>11759809
There is no fucking relevance. The whole point of that post was merely to bring up Hinduism as a counterexample to the other guy's claims that the Christian/Hebrew God is the only one still being worshipped. The point you're trying to make has no relevance to that.
>And I didn't reply to >>11759054,
And I didn't say you did.

>>11750227
>They believe in Vishnu and Shiva and a whole host of other gods you would probably laugh at.
No. I do not laugh at them at all. It's wishful thinking on your part. You see, idols are a real force. Money was never the sum of its molecules.

>>11759832
Absolutely disheartening. Enjoy your father's god.

>And I didn't say you did.
You, in >>11759689,
>Yes, that's obvious, but what relevance does it have to the post you replied to (>>11759054)?

>>11753102
>It wasn't interpreted like that until fairly recently

Bullshit. Prove it. You're arguing against a meme Christianity.

>>11759901
>A LARPer MAGAcel "trad" Christian" talking about meme Christianity

oh the irony

>>11759971
I thought you of all people would know that ad hominem isn't an argument, redditfriend. Your reddit moderators will literally lock entire discussions if there are too many spastics like you and the ad hominem threshold is breached.

Other anon was correct, you're spouting bullshit, many of the very first churches had allegorical interpretations of the Torah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

>>11753102
>le science disproved the bible, i saw dawkins EXPLODE at the psuedoscientific lies inside that sheeple book!
the bible isn't a science textbook. can this bait thread die now

>>11760034
just accept that evolution blows all religious creation myths completely out of the water and shakes any kind of revelatory "knowledge" to its core

>>11760051
Maybe read more than one post in a thread before you say the same thing that your fellow dogmatic anons have said?
Since the very beginning of the church, the majority of the scribes, saints, and religious leaders have purported an allegorical interpretation of biblical of creation.
How narrow is your understanding? Was it the 1:1 creationists who did this to you or are you willfully blind?

>>11748217
Better yet, how anyone could even read?

>tfw atheist but don't tell people bc of how cringey the community has become in the post "New Atheist" years

Idk what it is with some nerds who get all smug because they think they've taken the ultimate redpill by deciding that the Bible is just a book of fables. The New Atheist figureheads are almost always in hard sciences too, which confirms my suspicions that hard science folks tend to have such a rationality boner they can't form coalitions with people they disagree with or have full empathy with them.

>>11760101
but this isn’t true, the church fathers believed the Earth was 6000 years old and created in a blinding flash of light by God in some esoteric operation

>>11760138
>created in a blinding flash of light by God in some esoteric operation
Y..yeah, w..who would believe in that nonsense?

>>11753019
>For example, when a natural disaster hits, many will sacrifice money, time, and energy to help save, and rebuild.

This is a bad example. Can you think of good reasons why I think that?

>>11760138
>>11760024

>>11753027
western conflict against the near and far east is a traditional western value you pseud

>religitard b8
>233 replies
>actual thread about books
>[tumbleweed rolls past]
i hate you fuckers

>>11748420
the "geopolitical situation" in the middle east is that it's full of retarded inbred arabs.

>>11748744
I never liked his writing, even when I was an atheist. It's not well put together. It doesn't say anything interesting. It exists only to pander and to soothe the anxiety that he personally has about denying God.

>>11750227
But consider that the vast amount of them aren't even white and thus don't even have souls. It's like saying Christianity isn't true because ants or computers don't believe in it. It's totally irrelevant.

>>11748287
people are better when put under a guise?

>>11752870
>But the prime mover has all the properties commonly given to God. So what does it matter?
A naturally occuring, inconscious phenomenon has nothing to do with the abrahamic God or any religion I know of

>>11762014
Stop being dense and read Questions 3-11 from the Summa pt. 1

If you want to see a bigger connection to the Christian God from Aquinas's five ways, you should read further, assuming you read question 2.

see
>pic related
why the fuck would Aquinas or any Christian theologians just stop at "pure act!!!"? Only a retard wouldn't suspect that these philosophers/theologians build on and from that beginning point.

>>11762040
I forgot to mention, Summa Contra Gentiles will give you a shit ton of substance on these topics in the Summa

>>11748316
Exactly, if you want to accuse God of not being great read the Bible. There are plenty of examples there for you to choose from.

>God doesn't exist because there is no empirical evidence. But aliens do exist, because "the universe is really big, lol"
Explain this atheists

>>11762203
>lots of stuff like dark matter and particles exist even though we can't detect them because otherwise our entire cosmological model doesn't make sense
>God is totally not a thing though because we can't detect him

>>11762203
We say aliens are probable, not that we're absolutely sure they're out there. Working off what physics and astronomy tells us, we can expect that the elements we observe here are distributed in many galaxies... So it would be pretty odd if there was no other life in the hundreds of billions of viable galaxies in the observable universe. Not certain, no -- but far more probable than "it's this because I say so, lol".

>>11759027
This.
If you're unironically mad that a deconversion book aimed at a popular audience didn't rebut your idea of sophisticated theology, you're over estimating Americans.
We're talking about people who overwhelmingly don't believe evolution is true because it conflicts with the Bible but believe a global flood happened.

>>11762263
>lots of stuff like dark matter and particles exist
This is being challenged at the moment.
>>11762203
We can hope there is alien life, and since God chose to work with evolution we should look for certain patterns found in our globe. Say, water, temperature range, no asteroid storms...

>>11762381
>This is being challenged at the moment
As it should be. I'm just pointing out that believing in undetectable invisible things in order to explain the universe is not restricted to religion.

>>11748731
This
The best way to make people reject someones ideas is to make the loudest mouthpiece look stupid

>>11762352
Damn dude you demolished that dastardly argument that's definitely purported by the religious demagogues.

>>11762352
>We say aliens are probable
lol who tf is "we"?

>>11762203
Well you see, though statistically it's very unlikely that even in a universe our size life COULD exist elsewhere, it's the fact that there is a chance that it could that means it's better to assume that aliens just exist. They haven't come to us yet because... like the desire to expand and conquer ultimately leads to a society's downfall, ohhhh-kayyy?? So if they had the desire to come to us they would be literally DESTROYED before that ever happened.
Geez anon... just go watch "in a nutshell" by those german animators. It's so simple even a kid could understand it. I love science :^)

>>11748291
Well yeah i lost faith because i wasn't feeling it anymore. And desu literally all argumentation about divinity is pseudo-rationalization of muh feelings.

>>11748217
>lower case g

Cringe

What's really silly is that some people here, that I assume were mostly bred and grown in a religious environnement, had their little rebellious phase as a teen before going back to religion and are now just projecting their own hatred of their teenage self onto people that don't share their belief.

>>11762694
I was atheist my whole life though

>>11748217
>the absolute abundance of christfags on this board

>plain yellow cover
The #1 sign the book is a pile of pseud garbage.

>>11762669
I LMAO at the life of atheists that don’t capitalize the ‘G’ in ‘God’ as if there’s some rule which says you don’t capitalise the first letter of the names of non-existent things.

>>11762694
Still in your rebellious phase eh?

>>11749064
>jokes on them, I w-was just pretending to be stupid

>>11748272
Only if you live on reddit and see it enough to poison your mind. But outside those types, it has been very good.

>>11749012
Don't you believe in the all powerful entity that is the government and partake in its worship like the rest of us?

>>11762938
dont we capitalize it because its his name, like gods is impersonal but he is just God. If we name someone violet we capitalize the V because its her name