/lit/ - Literature

>One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.

based

>>12869837
yes

he is

Desu

>>12869837
Even though I vehemently dislike Hitchens, I think he won all of his debates against religious people because all he had to do was attack the utter bullshit in their holy books while they desperately tried to counter him with DEISM.

>hates god
>dies of cancer
LMAO

>We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books.

based

>>12869837
He is a hack and Stirner btfo religion, nationalism and humanism all in one blow while this crying ass is still crying about morals and ethics for greater goods.

>>12869837
I don't wish to refute the points he made, but merely to point out that he was attacking religion and theology from a purely materialist standpoint. He did this consistently and thoroughly. I am still an atheist. But rewatching some of his debates, though it comes off as superficial posturing or disingenuous rhetoric, I honestly believe that most of the religious people he debated were looking at things through a completely different lens - essentially speaking a different language.

So what do you say about the extremely insightful and prescient wisdom that Christian religious texts exude? No, they aren't factual histories or even good stand-alone allegories. But the overarching theme of what they value vs. warn about or punish is remarkably consistent and true with today's society.

I don't believe that God hates fags because he just hates fags. I believe that the writers of biblical stories recognized that unbridled homosexuality caused severe harm to society and so sought to punish it and bridle it. Just an example.

>>12869876
How much willful ignorance do you have to have to say religion is pointless for solving moral dilemmas, and then point to Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.

>>12869850
>>12869881
Honestly this. As a philosopher, Hitchens is abysmal. He set himself up with the easy task of attacking literalist religion but not once did he address anything deeper than that. It's absolutely ridiculous that he is considered a great thinker by many.

>>12869895
It's a shame that he had to rely on his anti-religious writing to stay in the public view. His literary criticism, and historical and political commentary is much more insightful and enjoyable to read than anything he ever wrote about God. It's a shame that no one associates him with the body of work he created in the three decades preceding "god is not great."

>>12869938
not previous anon.
Honestly i got a very diferent idea from reading his wiki page. He seems to have been in all that sort of political games consisting on calling
and accusing people of being other ideologies

>>12869895
He was an absolute brainlet.
>>12869938
>his political commentary was insightful
No it wasn’t. He was a communist retard.

>>12869845
Possibly the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever read... this guy passes for a “thinker”?

>>12869972
>I got a very different idea from reading his wikipedia page
Okay. There are very few contexts in which the above sentence is not inexcusable. He called people out, as you do in politics, and had serious hatred for certain types of people. Yes. That says nothing about the quality of his writing about politics, history, and literature. Read Arguably and Love, Poverty, and War.

>>12869984
>No it wasn't. He was a communist retard.
I read a book called Blood, Class, and Empire and I thought it was a really thorough and insightful look at the English and American relationship over the centuries. His reviews of history books and memoirs are among my favourite essays of his.

>>12869862
Why did God create cancer, and then deliver it to His creations, continuing to this day? Even to children?

>>12869989
I think this one better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnD5RqgVtw0

>>12869895
if he's so great how come i've never heard of him? even being on this board for so long i've never seen him discussed

>>12870143
Suffering only makes prosperity that much sweeter, do you think adam and eve would've appreciated having the garden if they weren't kicked out of it?

>>12870176
So children need to die at 10 years old, and what little they lived done so in excruciatingly painful conditions, because they'll "prosper" later on? And what about the ones who never read the Gospels and believed in Jesus, are they going to Hell right after their hellish years on Earth?

>>12870162
He was a fad back in ~2002-2010 so if you are a zoomer it is unlikely you would have heard of him. He was a very topical fad-guy type writer who came and went pretty quickly. Think like Jordan Peterson types, nobody will have heard of JP in 10 years from now either.

>>12870176
But God created Adam and Eve. Why would he create something incapable of enjoying or appreciating something without losing it, and then insist that they experience suffering for not appreciating it? What kind of sinister, malicious game is your god playing?

>>12869895
Hitchens is famous because he's very eloquent irl, you can put him on the spot and he just spouts out complex well formed sentences with a coherent underlying structure connecting them to each other.

Back when he was a meme his most popular videos were him debating people on various topics

>>12870197
oh gotcha. i'm only 21 so that makes sense

>>12869876
>our ethical dilemmas are better handled by Christian auhors.
Way to go
>>12869890
this. Hitchens was a hack and his work won't be read in 5-10 years

>>12870162
There is a Hitchens thread on /lit/ at LEAST once a week. Usually twice.

>>12870197
Take away his atheism writing and he produced a great body of writing and speaking. My theory that most people hate Hitchens not for his position on Mother Teresa, the War in Iraq, or the Clintons. Most people can't help but hate him because he was an outspoken atheist and there is something that simply triggers people when someone insults their religions that they're willing to ignore thirty years of writing, speaking, and debating....so sad.

>>12869989
not a refutation

>>12870176
damn, if only there was some way to alter the make up of reality so prosperity could be sweet without the arbitrary rule of needing suffering.... what a concept

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA&t=2s

NOTHING can be more based than this

Hitchens, like many atheists, never seems to appreciate just how much the idea of eternal life--resurrection from the dead--figures into the idea of God's justice. The justice and goodness of God springs precisely from this: that death is not the end of the human experience, and that, once our life on Earth is ended, we will reap rewards for what we've done well, or reap punishments for what we've done badly.

>>12869888
What kind of severe harm does faggotry cause?

>>12870316
this is exactly what a con man would tell you. the real question is why would you believe someone else has more knowledge about what is required to receive some reward in an afterlife that can't be demonstrated at all?

>>12870316
Prove the resurrection happened without referring to The Bible (not evidence).

>>12870222
Well I think it was more that he did things that pissed off both sides, his neocon views caused the left to hate him, and his atheism cause the right to hate him and in the end he had nobody in his corner. His writings probably won't age well because of how topical most of them were.

>>12869845
This is super lame and depends on contemporary ignorance of rhetoric, logic, philosophy and religion.

"Religion comes from" - lol. *Revealed* religion has been *revealed*. It does not "come from" this period or that, this ignorance or that. If you don't have the mental capacity to understand the subtlety and significance of that concept, why of course you can't believe it. This is the problem with a lot of people in this dumb world, Hitchens included.

>>12870333
Faggotry does not have any serious impediment to lust and does not produce offspring. The sexual release, which, due to the lack of natural impediments (women being generally more discriminatory in their mating choices due to the vast bodily commitments of childbirth), results in no kind of lasting meaning, such as offspring. It is a gesture of pure hedonism.

These traits are manageable at normal rates - say 3-5% of the population. But if it is conditioned, rewarded, and grows, society increases in impulsive, unfulfilling activities without the resulting positive activities (child-rearing, value-sharing, etc.)

>>12870349
That's not untrue. The bulk of his writing isn't particularly topical. He wrote about books, writers, politicians, and philosophers; timeless, all, in their own way.

>>12869888
In his debates (not sure of his books, which I haven't read), he speaks to people whose worldview is not merely what you indicated yourself as valuing - a cultural alignment with primarily Christian precepts - but a literal belief in reality having been created by the character in the Old Testament, and Jesus being this entity's son, arguing for these on both rational and empirical grounds. And he himself merely offered up his own rebuttals to their arguments, along with his own arguments for his own materialistic worldview. What do you mean by "speaking a different language"? Those he debated believed in a literal account of reality supplied to them by their interpretation of Biblical scriptures, which another person of whatever background may similarly argue against, from the same ground, though grounded in a different worldview.

Also, there's nothing "unbridled" about the Judeo-Christian clause regarding homosexuality; it doesn't say that "If a man lay with a man far too many times, such that society becomes negatively affected by their relations, punish them in such a manner they turn away from such engagements. And if this destructiveness continues without an end in sight, have them put to death, for the sake of society". Leviticus is far more brief than that, demanding death for a single act of non-heterosexual relations between males, with no exceptions nor further discussion on the matter. Nothing "unbridled", rather, the very act itself, was to be automatically and capitally punished. And was this "prescient", by the way? If so, should we reinstall it in our society today?

Speaking frankly, you sound to me like a Christian posturing as an atheist who "recognizes the value in Christianity". I don't exactly understand your criticisms of Hitchens, whose debates are quite straightforward in their aim, and this purpose being understand by both himself and his Christian opponent.

Correct whatever you consider me wrong in writing here.

>>12870342
It's a historical fact, acknowledged by the biggest enemies of Christ. It's the reason hundreds went to their deaths in the first year or two - impossible unless they believed, and for so many to believe this that strongly, how could it have possibly been faked...

>>12870408
Wouldn't the same be caused by the elimination of the "bodily commitment" in heterosexual relations through contraceptives?

Homosexuality, at least in males, can't really be conditioned either. It has
genetic basis. So it's unlikely to ever grow beyond the 3-5% safe margin you stated (e.g US has about 5% gays).

>>12870451
>the same with bodily commitment among heteros?
Yes.

>homosexuality in males can't be conditioned
I think homosexual behaviour can, indeed, be conditioned. The intrinsic attraction won't be as long-lasting or strong, perhaps, as someone born that way, but the behaviour can certainly be conditioned. I point to the tranny kids and drag kids for an example of how unnatural behaviour can be conditioned. Not to mention anal rape in all-male prisons.

And I'm speaking as a for-real closeted homosexual, not from a place of hatred.

>>12869837
most of this are anecdotes

He was a fat cuck who bed side converted.

>>12870351
You're right, anon. The fact that it claims to be "revealed", yet is clearly a mere product of it's time, means that we can write off the entire Judeo-Christian theological edifice with certainty as being wholly false in the origins it claims of itself. We could have otherwise simply viewed it as a product of the wisdom that lived in its authors - but if it claims to be "revealed", it has no such leniency. And having seen for ourselves the number of textual errors, the number of scriptural inconsistencies, the historical inaccuracies and contradictions of the stories within, the contradictions to findings in the empirical sciences - yes, we can most definitely declare the entire book to be an elaborate fanfiction - no longer to be considered a theology, which it meets absolute none of its own criteria for.

>>12870417
None of that is evidence, sorry.

>>12869984
>communist
Early in life, sure, but by the time he was writing things like OP's pic he was pretty much a neocon (his hatred of religion, especially Islam, made him a strong supporter of military action in the Middle East).

>>12870409
and this purpose being understood by both himself and his Christian opponents*

>>12870316
>reap punishments for what we've done badly
Does "not believing in the Gospel and Jesus and God" count as something "done badly", for which punishment is deserved? Am I going to be tormented eternally simply for believing differently?

>>12869837
Abrahamic Religions are poison

>>12870497
>who bed side converted.

I'm not sure there's a more thoroughly disproven statement than that one.

>>12869888
This seems quite dishonest. Hitchens debated against people who believed that Theism was true of reality and explained it accurately and deserved to be followed - and in what way did he do so poorly? He won basically every debate he entered, and both him and Dawkins have as much cultural clout as they ever did, due to the strength of their argumentation. Then again, arguing against Christians has never required much, and I mean that respectfully. Also that last part about homosexuality seems to me a very careless glossing over of the true Judeo-Christian approach towards homosexuality, which you don't want to acknowledge the far harsher realities of.

>>12870520
What about accounts of apparitions of the Risen Christ throughout the centuries?

>>12870818
They could all be false, they could all be true, some could be false and some could be true - but how would any of it be verified? If we believed all supernatural accounts found throughout history, from every culture, there'd be no end to what we'd believe in. That said, I myself do believe in the supernatural, though specific to certain phenomena. And personally, the only artifact I think Christians should use to argue for the resurrection is that of the Shroud. That's probably the strongest support you currently have for it.

>>12870143

anyone wants to see the real hitchens, just watch this.
shows how big of a brainlet he really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZiIU3u3e6I

>dude sex, LMAO
>solution to poverty is the 'empowerment of women' dude
>the holocaust dude, the church did this because the anti-semetism, but they didn't renounce their beliefs till le 1964!
>you're against homosexuality and want to ban it???? WTF, i love homosexual, my friend right here is a homosexual. DUDE i would leave him alone with my kids and let him baby sit them whenever he wants to!
>dude let me prescribe my 21st century morality to assessments of slavery, because DAE bad? WTF, why the fuck would any ancient culture have any literature or anything accepting slavery dude???? SLAVERY DUDE

>>12870887
There are other instances of the supernatural/miraculous that have left physical evidence behind, which I wish people paid more attention to. There's an entire history of Eucharistic miracles that have been photographed, for example, and some have even been scientifically analyzed.

>>12871067
Mind linking me a resource, be it a webpage or book, that would introduce me to this realm? As an neutral investigator of the supernatural, I'm open to all such evidence.

>>12871057
>Why would any literature, which claims to be the eternal, divinely-inspired Word of God, breathed by the perfect Holy Spirit itself, show any support of a horrendous and primitive cultural practise like slavery, which was completely normal for the era, and something which everyone ignorantly followed?

Fixed that for you.

>>12871117
Why do you think slavery is wrong?
What if our society is wrong about the issue? Your argument is purely based on modern morals, which— newsflash— are based on a very narrow range of thought. It's all axiomatic in the end, and to parade around some moral argument from the modern zeitgeist as if it were an absolute proof of anything is dishonest as fuck and screams that you haven't actually thought for yourself but are just parroting around the opinions of society at large.

>>12871145
I have thought plenty about it, actually. Slavery is the most fundamental violation of the law of equality, the inherent recognition of all beings as equal to eachother in rights and treatment, and deserving the same dignity which any other would. And I count this principle to be innate and universal, the basis of all moral behaviors itself, such as Justice, and not one born from mere cultural preferences.

Also, you ask how I "know" society was wrong about the issue - well, how would you know the Bible is right about it? You can't appeal with circularity here, i.e the Bible is right because it says so, the Bible is right because it's the Word of God and God is infallible, the Bible is right because it's the very standard of "right", etc. How exactly would you demonstrate that the Bible preaches a more correct moral system than one made by human society?

>>12871244
>a more correct moral system than one made by human society

I can guarantee you that practicing religious students do better than atheist students. It's already well documented that religious schools outperform public schools academically, how would you explain that?

Fuck niggers and fuck jannies

>>12871258
>can guarantee you that practicing religious students do better than atheist students
There is a large positive correlation between education and atheism. That is pretty well know.
>It's already well documented that religious schools outperform public schools academically, how would you explain that?
Because religious schools are just normal private schools with already outperform public schools anyway. That is, again, well know.
Not him, by the way.

>>12870176
if God is omnibenvolent, he can't increase the sum of good by creating. so suffering can't be necessary for or outweighed by any extra good. so all suffering is gratuitous, so God can't be omnibenevolent.

>>12871258
What are you asserting? What relation does academic performance have to our discussion, which regards morality?

>>12871281
>a large positive correlation between education and atheism

What does that even mean? Orthodox christians on average are more likely to be educated than atheists, so if you're implying the opposite is true, you are wrong.

>>12871287
I believe proper upbringing implies moral uprightness and being educated implies a proper upbringing.

>>12871308
That applies to pretty much all of the western world, and honestly the whole world if use IQ as a proxy for education. It might be different in the mad max wasteland of post soviet Eastern Europe, but even then I doubt it without seeing some actual statistics.

>>12870775
The theists were arguing from the premise that the observable good the came from religion through the ages - the foundation of modern society in many ways - counts as evidence of its "truth." That is, that it creates real, positive effects on the world is the most obvious demonstration of its truth. While Hitchens and Dawkins were arguing: what do we see under the microscope? Are the cells dividing or is God pointing down from the heavens and willing the new cells into existence?

>glossing over christian approach to gays
Christianity prescribes killing homosexuals. They prescribe this because they believe that homosexuality is harmful to society. That's about as blunt as it gets. What am I glossing over?

>>12871244
I'm not claiming the Bible is right on anything just because it says so. I'm just pointing out that you were doing the same thing earlier, just replace Bible with enlightenment principles.
I'm personally of the opinion that society is too complex to understand, especially without any historical distance. I'm not a big fan of any sort of claim of the superiority of one historical system over another (barring stupid shit like communism where it obviously collapses and fails). Society went on just fine for x-thousand years with Christianity (or any religion in general). Whether or not it will go on without it remains to be seen. But to claim that, in some way, enlightenment principles are superior to traditional thinking— I don't buy it. Maybe in some aspects, but I don't think you can weight systems as a whole like that. My justifications for anything usually don't go any further beyond (shrug) "it works," maybe it's just poor philosophizing but I don't see a point in devolving to disagreements on axioms, which is what these arguments always turn into anyways.

>>12871362
They debated both, didn't they? Metaphysical realities, involving logical argumentation and empirical support, alongside the merely cultural aspects you mentioned. I was only saying that you seemingly criticized Hitchens for one dimension, as if he were totally out of touch with who he was debating, but weren't mentioning the equal platform he stood on for the other aspect of the discussions. Regarding the cultural aspects, I somewhat understand what you mean, but still hold him to have stated many valid points regarding the flaws in Christianity's cultural aspects as well. I'd have to go back and remember what exactly they were though, since I haven't watched his debates in a while.

And you were using terms like "unbridled", which implies the statutes on homosexuality incorporated the volume of the activity, and were put in place to suppress it from reaching destructive levels. When really the penalty was against the practise itself, full stop, and therefore had no relation to "unbridled" homosexuality and any consequences thereof, but merely against the activity entirely. Murdering individuals for an activity is not "bridling" a behavior - which would be something like the limitations placed on alcohol blood concentration for drivers - but fundamentally preventing it from existing at all. Maybe I misunderstood your use of the terms.

>>12870342
Prove why you need evidence haha

>>12871505
>/lit/ is actually retarded enough that I don't know if this is bait or not

>>12870310
If you cap out the maximum amount of prosperity in a 0 to 100 system the only way to make it more great is to cap it in the other direction making it -100 to 100

>>12870502
How many years did it take you to learn to get high off of the smell of your own asshole? You're a peasant with an iPhone. The idea that you would have anything of value to contribute to anyone even 50 years ago let alone thousands of years ago when these religions were forming is laughable. You have access to the freest and most unlimited source of knowledge that has ever been available yet have the absolute arrogance to write off hundreds of generations of human intelligence because they didn't come to your conclusions. Seriously consider doing the rest of the world a favor and kill yourself.

>>12871711
Ah, a true man of God.

Dumb niggas, it's all aesthetics. Your suffering is beautiful, not beneficial and neither is it a test for the afterlife. This universe is to god like a painting is to an artist. The ultimate medium. Ultimately 'pointless' but beautiful nevertheless, even if you're too retarded to see it's form. Waaahhh 10 year olds get cancer!!! Lmao

>>12871117
imagine being such a brainlet that you ascribe your petty moral judgements to God, so much so that you cannot possibly see, why for certain temporal reasons certain customs, given the ill adjusted nature of humanity and lack of labor saving devises, and so forth. Idiots like you would be young earth creationists if it was trendy because this is the sort of dumbass logic you exhibit. you have an shockingly low IQ and poor impulse control, your entire post is just some butt hurt moralizing about a God whose omnipotence you cannot even fathom. fuck you and fuck your hero, Hitchens. guess what? Slavery not just existed but it was an inevitably in the course of human development. by the way, slavery is not nearly as bad as you think it was. Their owners had an incentive to feed them, clothe them, and keep them alive as best as possible. especially in a context in which it was condoned throughout most of history. The same cannot even be said for employerers today, who's obligation stops at the dollar. this isn't to advocate it but getting butt hurt about the acceptance of it in the past or it being in scripture , is one of the most possible brainlet stances you can have.

>>12869837
God is great

>>12869845
>They didn't know the periodic table so religion is bad
Lol

>>12871057
Honestly, thank you for all that greentext, even if it isn't yours originally. It's important at least to laugh at Hitchens once in a while, to rip away that seemingly impenetrable intellectual superiority obtained by us only seeing him argue against morons (as in the vid).

i can't believe people are still debating this garbage in 2019. there's no fucking god and religion is a scam. it shouldn't need to be a discussion

>>12872322
Ok but earth is flat.

>>12869845
Gonna be a yikes from me my man

>>12871057
I never realized Hitch was this stupid.

>>12872322
Explain how you know this is definitely true

>>12872410
>There are multiple baseless claims
>They are almost all mutually exclusive
>Therefore we know for a fact most, if not all are wrong

This is basic anthropology, human tribes make up deity stories for cultural reasons, however the members of said tribe believe the stories are factually true. The stories contradict one another, therefore showing a flaw in the human propensity to believe untrue "holy" stories, basically along tribal lines

>>12872436
Are you one of those types of people where if I said "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" you would start searching for the bird, and upon not finding it claim I'm wrong and making things up? Your theory of knowledge is juvenile. The law of non-contradiction is a tool we use for math, not some ultimate measure of reality.

Supposing God exists, why would it be Yahweh and not Brahma? Why would it be Allah and not Osiris? Why opt for one and disregard the others? What if there's life on other planets, would Yahweh send his son to a small community on that planet again to teach his way? While what I'm about to say is a vast oversimplification, it's nonetheless true in its essence - some religions spread like wildfire because they provided sweet psychological comfort, especially regarding the question and nature of death.

>>12869895
>As a philosopher, Hitchens is abysmal
hitchens wasn't a philosopher, he was a journalist
you don't need to be a philosopher to realise religion is a pile of shit

>>12872491
And yet he does such a bad job at it, it makes religion looks credible.

>>12871611
An almighty god, that controls the very fabric of reality is supposed to be confounded to simple arithmetics and logic?
If he truly is omnipotent, he should be able to do anything, including creating any kind of system and make it logically consistent (like statements that seem very much illogical to us like: 1=2), like a universe where despite you not feeling pain or despair at any point, you'd eternally feel happiness/pleasure.

>>12870143
Because small little sniveling assholes like you deserve it, and more.
>>12872510
God made a world that makes sense according to an internal logic decided by him. He will not change this logic for your convenience.
Muslim don't believe this, ask them If You want to ask someone.

>>12869845
No wonder the tips fedora meme can kill this even that image has more power

>>12872612
Amazing display of the noble and peaceful Christian temperment right here :^)

hitchens died in 2011 and here he is triggering religitards and pseuds over seven years later
may nonexistent god bless ya, ya beautiful contrarian old sod

>>12871742
I'm not a "man of God", but I'm also not such a masturbatory asshole that I assume my understanding of reality is the one true understanding, and that any peoples who didn't come to this understanding of reality are primitive morons. You couldn't achieve even 1/10th of the intellectual accomplishments of the church father's given their significantly more limited access to information, so stop pretending like you're "enlightened" in some meaningful way because you bought into the default belief system of your age.

>>12872793
I merely pointed out to that anon that if the Bible is to be solely taken on the claim of it being "divinely revealed", and unable to even be viewed as a normal historical document, and judged as such - which is what the Christian anon there said - then it becomes much harder for Christianity to support itself, since there are far too many inherent contradictions to it being of such a status. If you can't simply evaluate it as a product of human wisdom - like I myself conceded it to have, and Hitchens would have too - then this only deals a blow to Christianity, just like Islam's similar claims do for it. A theological doubled-edged sword, basically. I'm also not an atheist, so my beliefs are not the "default for my age". Not to mention that your belief-system has been the Western default for nearly 2000 years now, and still the most popular theology, so your remark to me is more relevant to yourself. And my personal accomplishments, relative to the church fathers, isn't relevant to my original comment.

>>12872612
anon...easy on the compassion...

>>12872612
I deserve cancer, and more? That's a really awful thing to say, anon.

>>12871048
You stated nothing, yet said everything, my friend.

If you're a fat bourgeois hedonist, I can see why the promise of relief from the hardship of life rings hollow. If believing the world was made in six days helps relieve a night-time shelf stacker from the drudgery of his existence then let him have that belief. The existence of Wagner or whatever High Culture or learning these Atheists doesn't help him at all.

>>12871048
Based

>>12870194
>>12870203
this type of theodicy has been deliberated upton in classic books like the Confessions and TBK.
I think, if we seperate our experience against our reasoning, in other words, if we are to incise every idea, belief and hope with Hitchen's own razor, what kind of world are we left with?
World in which the world is no longer beautiful but rather only a reminder of our own solitude. Our emotions, behaviour and thoughts are mere by products of evolution and a certain chain of neurotransmitters and neurons. In that infinite solitude, if one is to truely cut out this truth of life and consume it, I dont think we can stand anymore. Everything beautiful and every suffering become a cruel emergence of arbitrary "being". As Kerouac said, "GOD IS EVERYTHING ", because in our experience of life, that razor seems ridiculous.

>>12873353
I haven't read those, and I'll try to. But how does it answer the question? I don't personally believe in a blind, mechanistic universe like evolutionary worldviews entirely subscribe to - I'm a pantheist and panpsychist, seeing reality as itself divine, and virtually everything within it as such, and intelligence and consciousness both being fundamental properties of it - but I still don't have a personal answer within my worldview, to the problem of pain - why pain, disease and all the other horrors we endure happen to exist at all? But how exactly do those books address the question through a Theistic framework?

>>12873411
youve made your own God then havent you what basis is there for you to believe in this pantheist and panpsychist world? Anyway, the Brothers Karamazov has the character Ivan, who argues things in the exact same vein as you. Not to spoil it too much but he famously rejects God politely because if the suffering you mentioned. There is no convenient answer because the question of suffering is the question of God. The Confessions does attempt to answer this and I think it does a good job I think. Basically, God, like a master potter, made the world perfectly. However, even the most perfect creation can be broken, like a perfect vase. This does not detract from the perfect intent and achievement of the creator

>>12870333
A lot.

>>12872460
Because He explained everything when He spoke to Joseph Smith (PBUH).

>>12873411
>I'm a pantheist and panpsychist, seeing reality as itself divine,
oh god this is exactly like saying "oh i'm not really religious but i am very spiritual"
what you actually are is a me-ist

>>12869837
If Hitchens is so sure God isn't real, then why wouldn't he just kill himself? His only justifiable reason for writing this book is to kill the faith of others and force them to share his existential dread. This schadenfreude isn't logically inconsistent when you assume there isn't a God. I just find it frustrating that he won't admit the sole purpose of this book is to rain on other people's parades. But I guess that would lose his the Redditor secular humanist crowd pretty fast.

>>12872444
Ah yes, because of course no one actually believes Jesus was dead for 3 days and actually came back to life, it's just metaphorical! And no one believes Mohammad flew to the moon on a winged horse, because people are rational enough to know these are just fun stories with metaphorical meanings, never to be taken literally.

Are you for real kid?

>>12869837
>Dude like, if God be so good how come my peepee small? Checkmate christards

>>12872503
>Hitchens did such a bad job he made religion look credible

>>12873119
thanks anon. you're a cool guy

>>12874390
If God didnt make your peepee big, that means its how its supposed to be. Its good in the large scheme of things.

>>12874354
lol, if god doesnt exist everyone just kill themselves. that's the stupidest logic heard in a LONG time.
>state of /lit

>>12873439
Because it corresponds to personal reasoning and experiences on the nature of consciousness and ego, along with the nature of the natural world, and other aspects I won't get into here. Again, it's just a personal belief. And that explanation doesn't really square with how, if reality is a closed-system, suffering and imperfection crept in after the initial flawlessness - nor of why God, if God is indeed omnipotent, does not clean up the mess through those powers he has. Taking disease, for example, we firstly ask whether God created it or not - if so, well, that's pretty bad on him for doing so. If not, how did it come to be? And why are human doctors here, working on and often successfully reducing it, if there's a transcendent being up there who could do this instantly? By this token, the creations are being more benevolent than their creator. Again, I'm open to new views, and read into different theologies. But I haven't yet seen, from the apologetics I've watched online for example, satisfactory answers to questions like these. More than just the PoE though, is the question of the rest of the universe being what it is, and I personally find greater explanations in non-dualistic answers rather than dualistic ones.

>>12873756
>accuses a random stranger of narcissism for not following his own personal theology
The irony.

>>12872977
I'd suggest you look into the field of historiography. Most of what we consider historical works from a similar period has many of the same issues the Bible has as a historical document. Yes, the Bible is not an empirical account of the literal creation of the material universe nor literal human genealogy, but its value as a historical document is not as a literal record of historical events but rather an extremely helpful piece of context for understanding of the cultural practices of innumerable societies both predating the development of the old testament shortly after the end of the bronze age all the way through the present day.

>>12870143
because matter doesn't matter

>>12871265
Based

>>12871095
The best thing to do is check out the sources at the bottom of the Wiki entry on such things. There are great websites and resources down there you can follow up on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle

>>12874494
I would agree with all of that - it's the anon I was responding that you should disagree with, who was declaring the very opposite - that the Bible can only be taken as an "all or nothing, Divine or human, true or false" scriptural ultimatum, whereas I personally consider it to have much wisdom in itself, and a very valuable literary and cultural product that people should still try to follow in some regard today, since it'll benefit them - and which should not be sealed off like the above binary would have it be - it should similarly be criticized for possible shortcomings it might contain, and overall be looked at without either religious or anti-religious prejudice. Any Christian who disagrees only does their own culture a disservice.

>>12874544
I actually started looking into them on my own, after you told me. I looked into the Lanciano one, another one, and a modern one. Now, these miracles, if legitimate, really only stifle my understanding, rather than clarify it. Namely, if God is willing to violate natural laws in such dramatic ways, however infrequently and seemingly randomly, why does God not reveal himself even ONCE to both believers and non-believers in an explicit manner? I used to think that Theism's best justification for itself was that "if God revealed himself directly, everyone's behaviors would now only be moral out of the certain knowledge of a transcendent Judge overseeing them". But that doesn't apply anymore, since miracles are a more minor yet still clear example of God's intervention in the world, plain for any to see, and I can't square these facts. Christians often go through intense doubts over their faith - something which I, as a non-Christian but person of empathy feel sympathy in seeing them go through - but why, if God can do these supernatural parlor-tricks for anyone to see, can he not do something to directly comfort the souls of his own followers?

Also, what dictates these miracles? Is it based on the soul who sees them, and needed to for their own sake? Is it totally arbitrary? You might not know this, of course, and may just say "only God knows". I've heard about a Bible in USA that apparently leaks oil, endlessly. Again, as someone who isn't either athiest or theist, neither theologically religious nor religiously scientific, how am I supposed to rationally assimilate these deviancies into my worldview? Even if I accept them as "supernatural" after my research of them, it genuinely doesn't leave me with any satisfactory answers regarding the nature of a Theistic, Christian God.

>>12871057
I don't know. I feel like this is a far more reasonable application of feminism than what we get today in America. The idea that women in third world countries should have basic human rights and that this might improve overall living conditions doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

>>12874685
Not him, but these are good questions. I don't know anon, I guess I never really thought about these points before.

Hitchens was an entertaining guy. He wrote okay books, won many debates, and knew (some of) his stuff. His greatest 'sin' was vitalizing the toxic culture that grew around him - the midwits who came in droves to see him "Hitch slap" whichever anosognosiac zealot or Jeebus stooge his publishing company put in front of him. Treating religion like a problem that had only just reached critical mass was stupid. He poisoned the dialectic.

The amount of table-turning that's happened since 2006 is amazing. Most have lost their appetites for his kind of smart-assery. Even pseud circles have distanced themselves from popular atheism: "I'm an atheist" is no longer a point of pride, but a shameful admission.

There is a type of person who uses very glib reductionism to give himself a kind of counterfeit swagger. He imagines himself as Rustin Cohle, Tyler Durden, or some other "wasteland poet" who's too clever for the world. To keep up this ruse, he must constantly remind himself (and others) that:
>(a) there is no mystery
>(b) existence is meaningless
>(c) biology is law
>(d) your "faith" is actually weakness of spirit
>(e) all of the above (and more)

This is the stereotypical Hitchens fan, who is now ridiculed by even "normal" people for blithely violating the social contract. Hcold materialism, despite being what's underneath our reality, is a kind of "shared secret" among adults - rarely brought up, never discussed at length, and /never/ used as a weapon.

>"We bear the stamp of our lowly origin." - Charles Darwin (something everyone realizes and nobody likes to be reminded of)

>>12874438
lololol great argument

Bump.

>>12875260
Bump.

>>12870409
>speaking a different language
Not literally speaking different languages, but looking through entirely different lenses. The specific example I mention was believing that if something produces good, the good it produces validates its truth. This isn't a materialist perspective, this is a subjective notion of wisdom as truth. When I watch Hitch debate a Christian, it seems like he is addressing whether the Bible and its description of the creator of the universe is factually true and logical, while his opponents seem to always be starting from the premise that it IS true, addressing instead the question of whether what the Bible prescribes is GOOD.

It's possible, of course, that the teachings of the Bible could be both false and good, or false and bad, or true and good, or true and bad. Hitchens seemed to assert the second choice while many of his opponents seemed to imply that it is GOOD and therefore TRUE...they are not quite answering the same question.

>unbridled homosexuality
What does it say is the reason for homosexuals to be condemned, other than that it offends God? Does it offer a tangible, real-world justification, or is it merely, "It's bad because I said it's bad."? I think that they it reads unequivocally because the people who wrote the stories of the Bible (yes, PEOPLE), simply wanted to convince the readers to avoid and discourage homosexuality at all costs.

Also see my other reply: >>12871362

>you sound to me like a Christian posturing as an atheist
Not at all. I've been an atheist since I was 18 or 19, am a particular fan of Hitchens (I'm usually the first one to post a list of reasons he is based and a good writer in the Hitch threads here). My criticisms aren't criticisms of his thoughts, per se. I just believe that his thoughts on God are purely materialist and not quite philosophical. They're more tangible, real-world explanations. Nothing inherently wrong with that.

My other "criticism" of his isn't even really a criticism - it's that his writing about religion is the least interesting and captivating of his huge body of work, most of which I've read.

>>12873353
I agree. That is the sad fact. I no longer criticize or lament people's beliefs in God or the afterlife. Holding such beliefs tells me you at least still have a concept of hope.

>if we separate our experience from our reasoning
Yes, that would create a sad state of reality. But, to quote a nasally jew: "Facts don't care about your feelings." So the conclusion one must draw is not to intentionally delude yourself, per se, but to not put "absolute logic and truth" on a pedestal; don't make it the sole purpose of your life because a) it probably doesn't exist anyway, and b) it will drive you literally insane

>>12876029
These are all fine points, and I understand where you're coming from. My bad, for pinning you as a crypto-Christian. I don't really feel any further need to discuss with you, since I don't feel we're at odds on these subjects. I also agree in your first post about his nature as somewhat disingenuous, in that it felt he affected a character for the sake of his role within culture, the kind which might be described by the phrase "intelligent, nihilistic and with a wicked sense of humor", and later became the general template for characters like Rick from Rick and Morty. This side of him, though it made for more entertaining debates, is something I wish he would have subdued, for the sake of professionalism. I am not personally a huge fan of him, though I admire his tremendous verbal eloquence, and think that him and Dawkins and the rest of their entourage did a solid towards destroying highly troubling and puerile theological narratives - while simultaneously creating a new monster of a culture itself, with a fanbase as rabid as those they were debating. I myself am not Christian, but appreciate Christianity for its spiritual, cultural, social and aesthetic value, while believing that any doctrines found within it which blatantly contradict either empirical realities or empathetic, humanistic reasoning, should rightfully be questioned for their ideological soundness and sensibility as literal narratives to be followed and believed in. Just my opinion.

>>12872277
nice

>>12872436
this doesnt prove theres "no fucking god," your original claim. in fact this only seems to relate to the various organized religions.

>>12876151
Yeah, I think we're more or less on the same page. I will admit that, though I'm still very much an atheist, my understanding of the *functionality* of theistic belief has grown recently and I find myself inching closer to apologetics, rather than that rabid, dismissive nihilism that, let's be honest, is a logical conclusion of atheism.

I don't think Hitch did anything before 2003 simply for the appearance of it. He was a long-time heavy drinker, traveler, journalist, and lover of books. How those things all came together, especially as a number of his close acquaintances became world-famous fiction writers, lead to him probably feeling compelled to play up the role as time went on. Plus, his agent probably told him that his demeanour sells books, so "don't stifle your natural demeanour!"

>>12874685
Can anyone please answer me here? I'd genuinely appreciate some responses.

>>12876249
I'm sorry brother, I only give (You)'s to the most abhorrent of shitposters. People who are genuinely looking to achieve a better understanding of the subject matter don't need any additional (You)'s from me. They are much lower on the hierarchy of needs, just like how black people are oppressed despite massive amounts of both money and time being expended to uplift them on a national level in cooperation with nearly every facet of the status quo, especially in areas in which there is significant evidence that these efforts are especially wasteful and the least likely to bear fruit.

>>12874386
Surely no one believes that a plan of free and open immigration from parts of the world in which people are both biologically incompatible and socially unlikely to be willing/capable to integrate would result in anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Surely no one believes that race and gender are fundamentally social constructs rather than very visible products of basic biology. Surely no one believes that things have actually been getting better over the last 50 years despite massive increases in deaths of despair, social unrest and a decrease in the average lifespan estimates for the millennial and generation z in comparison with their parents. Surely no one believes you can just throw a bag with $1000 in it at everyone and that will solve the fundamentally paradigm shattering economic/political/social challenges in the near future.

Do you actually think your beliefs are any less silly?

>>12873104
Everyone deserves cancer

>>12869845
is this actually from the book?
I write shitposts like this to false flag atheistfags and make them look even mord retarded than they already do but if this is actually how one of their flagship authors writes then holy fuck atheists need to unironically neck themselves.

>>12877678
Compelling rebuttal.

>>12876249
I'm the guy who first told you to look into this stuff. I'm actually very happy that you didn't just totally dismiss the possibility of them out of hand. I get that a lot when I bring up miracles.

But if you're willing to accept that there might be something to all this Christian stuff, I would say that the best thing for you to do is start searching the sources that are available. Read the Bible, especially the Gospels. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try to find a priest to talk to. I'd personally recommend a younger priest over an older priest, because younger priests tend to be more traditional and less "modern." If you know of any Dominican priests you can get in touch with, I'd particularly recommend them. Dominicans are very good.

I'm sorry if this seems like me dodging your questions, but I've been pleasantly surprised by your response to this stuff, and I don't want to risk telling you something that isn't true. I'm only an enthusiastic layman with simple faith; I'm neither a priest or a theologian. If you really want to know just how your questions have been answered over the last 2000 years, go to the ones who can answer them best.

If God is so good then why don't I have a girlfriend

>>12876172
Original post wasn't me, but if you know human beings are prone to a specific error in forming this kind of belief, and someone is making a factual claim along the lines of such an error, it is logical to dismiss that claim unless it can be proven. The only alternative to this is to have some kind of subjective criteria as to why you accept one certain claim in this area and not others, and we can show for certain that this is the path to self deception

>>12877855
this is a legitimate question that no one can satisfactorily answer.

how could a good god allow for inequality in such an essential thing like love, especially when it would supposedly cost him *nothing* in way of enacting this condition.

his active refusal to satisfy the needs of the very things that he created as they wallow within his creation is an absolute condemnation of any notions that god is "good". at best he is a disinterested mechanism that causes the universe; at worst he is a sadist and it is the moral dury of any intellect capable pf grasping this to rebel against what is apparently the basis of pre-rational existence (the long repeated mythos of prometheus, lucifer, etc.)

>>12877964
Are you actually that myopic that you think some petty thing like equality is required in order for the concept of a benevolent deity to be reasonable? Yes, there is suffering in the universe, and it is unironically your problem to experience that suffering and come out the other side of it as whole and decent of a person as you can.

Basically you just sound like a pussy who doesn't have any real problems and is so concerned with his own inability to gracefully attract women that he is unable to actually assess that situation in a pragmatic way. Sure, life is fundamentally unfair, but the idea that this personal unfairness (especially over something as fundamentally probability based as love) is a reflection on the creator of the universe is very solipsistic. You're basically saying "I'm not happy with the conditions of my life thus no God" which is a pretty pathetic response.

>>12869837
christians never want to argue with athiests, and just keep to themselves most of the time, yet atheists constantly start fights with them.. I wonder why that is?

speaking on the behalf of religions everywhere... fuck off, athiests.

>>12869837
He’s not a scientist and doesn’t actually know anything about the subject, he just parrots what scientists say. Not only that, but any honest scientist will tell you that science cannot speak to the existence of God.

>>12879245
>science cannot speak to the existence of God.
it btfos the Christian version though

>>12876988
>listing beliefs that have nothing to do with me
um.. okay?

although globally speaking things have been getting better in the last 50 years but mostly in Africa, so maybe you don't care. sure, there are very real problems and certain problems HAVE gotten worse in the time span, but personally speaking there is not any other time period in history I'd rather live in. I'm a millennial but my life is actually fantastic, mainly due to technology. lots of the things you listed are complicated problems, but some of the ones you listed are in fact along the same lines as I was mentioning earlier, when people deny scientifically verifiable evidence in favor or a tribally formed belief (no such thing as biological sex, ect.)

>>12878623
>TAX
>EXEMPT
>CHURCHES
"but muh christians just mind their on business and don't ask for special privledges"

fuck off apologist

>>12869837
It makes a 2d adolescent paper tiger of the divine,m then proceeds to shred it mercilessly with debonair panache and aplomb. Hacks do this to make money. Fair play to Mr Hitchens. Not sure how God took it, but He'll probably let him know.

>>12880243
>TAX
>EXEMPT
>ABORTIONS

autism is caused by atheism.

>>12880483
>abortion can't be rationally opposed on secular grounds
>religion doesn't support abortion [open your Quran!]

>>12880243
1. fuck you
2. most churches struggle to make ends meet as it is, considering how much they actually give back to the community. but you wouldnt know anything about that, would you?
3. taxation is theft, retard. we need less, not more of it.

>>12871244
>M-my morals are objectively correct!
>See! I have LAWS of equality! You c-can't argue against that!

>>12869837
Okay, here I go.

>God
>if real
>is great

>>12880506
>>abortion can't be rationally opposed on secular grounds
What if I believe that all humans deserve the same rights? Embryos are scientifically human, so it would logically follow that you shouldn't abort
Btw, I hope you don't unironically believe that you can "find morals through logic"

>>12880943
>all humans deserve the same rights
So you think an eight-year-old should have the right to own a firearm, drive a vehicle, vote, or consume alcohol?

I'm morally against abortion myself, but your logic does not check out.

>>12880982
Natural rights, not legal or political rights

>>12870298
Not a real point to refute. It is beyond self evident that the quote is untrue

>>12871057
Jesus fucking Christ
this guys more insufferable than a religiontard.

>>12881297
>Natural rights, not legal or political rights
Legal and political rights are a result natural rights. The catch is the """""natural""""" rights are bullshit.

>>12871244
>And I count this principle to be innate and universal, the basis of all moral behaviors itself, such as Justice, and not one born from mere cultural preferences.
you must be a pretty big retard then

>>12881297
Alright, now that I know you weren't talking about the rights given to us and maintained by our elected bodies and are instead talking about a subjective; who decides what constitutes a natural right?

>>12880813
>>12881628
Oh sorry, morality comes from GOD right? My mistake. Innate values? Nonsense. GOD answers it, like He answers everything. Hallelujah.

>>12876195
>>12876195
I'm not atheist personally, I'm a panthest, so my life still has as much meaning without any transcendent creator. Be careful not to let the allure of religion get to you, regarding your reversion to apologetics. What do you even want to do, regarding them? Become a cultural Christian, and defend the culture either online or in-person? Again, don't sacrifice your genuine rationality for the sake of being reactionary, and forget why we left much of religion behind in the first place.
Defend what is worth defending, without being pulled to that side completely. I agree regarding Hitch. Are there any other quality New Atheist/anti-Abrahamic speakers today, who I could watch debates of?

>>12870143
Because he could. In a world where God actually exists, if a child dies you would know it's going to heaven

>>12882081
Why are doctors curing diseases that God is Himself handing out? Who is the benevolent one in that scenario?

>>12882002
>Oh sorry, morality comes from GOD right?
no, but at least that’s a less retarded answer than “universal moral laws XD”

>>12882129
It's "less retarded"? So lesser animal species are confirmed to follow moral patterns, but humans can't have these also without TRANSCENDENT SKYFATHER? Human infant studies display a moral compass very similar to the adult one, proving it being largely innate, but morality is still just, like, your preference bro? How is there moral behavior in the first place, without innate values?

>>12882129
>Universal morality is retarded
>Moral relativism makes sense
lmao