RELIGION ABSOLUTELY BTFO!!!! HOW CAN THEY EVEN COMPETE

atheism is the easy way out

Theism is the easy way out.

nah

>"If you took every book and record of every religion and destroyed it, 1000 years from now, those religions would NEVER return as the same. Ever. There might be religions, but they would be different.
If you took every book and text about science and destroyed it, 1000 years from now, they would ALL be back. Exactly the same with the exact same information."

>mfw this is an actual argument from the book
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

THAT is hilarious.
>implying we would get the same answers if we used a different number system

Zen Buddhism is a religion, what the fuck are you talking about?
They have literal demi-gods

So what's your counter argument.

We'd still have 10 fingers so we'd probably still work with a similar number system.

I never mentioned monotheism. Egypt, Greece, and Rome are all better examples of successful polytheist societies than Japan.

A natural theology which holds that God is the anima mundi is still... theology. So there goes China. And I'm not sure if this was in dispute but Shinto is plainly a religion.

We don't exist in a cultural-historical vacuum. Since you're likely a determinist, how can you discount Christianity as a causal element of Western prosperity? The notion of atheism as somehow contributing to a productive way of living is ridiculous. The West would totally flop if the ghost of Christianity weren't there to hold it together. Even returning to a pagan civic religion would be infinitely preferable to accepting atheism; atheism is inherently anti-social.

Also
>peak of human civilization
this isn't the 19th century anymore man, nor is it the zenith of Athens or Rome.

>So what's your counter argument.
presenting a counterargument to this trash degrades my point of view by presenting yours as though it were worthy of debate. you are not worth arguing with. if you like take that as another internet victory. I don't care

They dont treat their own "pantheon" in the same way a lot of other religions do though. The buddhists "gods" are either beings of different planes of existence which are subject to the same rules as us mortals, or are manisfestations of the "Buddha Nature" canonized by their followers. In that case they are revered more as symbols of their ideals then as literal saints and whatnot.

Granted, that can be said about other religions if they are taken in a more secular way, but Zen buddhists are usually way more chill about their own "beliefs". They have strayed a little too far from Mahayana Buddhism by now.

>how can you discount Christianity as a causal element of Western prosperity?

Because every progression made in the west towards where we are now was accomplished by either breaking away from Religion in some way or embracing humanism.

>The West would totally flop if the ghost of Christianity weren't there to hold it together.

I'm unconvinced on that front.

>Also
>peak of human civilization
>this isn't the 19th century anymore man, nor is it the zenith of Athens or Rome.

How you enjoying that computer there buddeh? How about dem modern medicine. Pretty swell if you ask me.

>presenting a counterargument to this trash degrades my point of view by presenting yours as though it were worthy of debate.

Well, excuse me. I'll take my trash elsewhere, sorry for trying to degrade your point of view.

>Because every progression made in the west towards where we are now was accomplished by either breaking away from Religion in some way or embracing humanism.
Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Presuming I agree with you, tension and conflict has made the West great, and in this process Christianity has played a central role.

>I'm unconvinced on that front.
Tell me where morals come from, and how society can function in their absence. And before you meme me with "just be a good person lol" try to define what Good means? And where did you come to know the Good? How does an atheist account for the existence of Goodness?

Is Goodness merely the result of social pressures? If so, why not rid ourselves of it since it is irrational? Furthermore, why did we come together as societies in the first place? To protect ourselves from threats? If we were not Good how could we have stayed together in times of peace? How can atheists feel compelled in and of themselves to do Good when it's not in their own self-interest?

>How you enjoying that computer there buddeh? How about dem modern medicine. Pretty swell if you ask me.
This is the argument of an immature intelligence.

If my computer were not necessary for me to get along in the world, I would happily do away with it. I would just as happily consort with Socrates and Pals at the tables of the money-changers as I do with Anonymous on Veeky Forums. I am ambivalent towards modern medicine, because I do not fear death. Besides, all medicine has managed to do (besides play catch-up with the afflictions of industrialization) is to reduce infant mortality.

>Well, excuse me. I'll take my trash elsewhere, sorry for trying to degrade your point of view.
it's ok. we can still be friends if you want

>They have literal demi-gods
wtf are you on about? Are you thinking of Tibetan Buddhism?

Feser go awey

>Presuming I agree with you, tension and conflict has made the West great, and in this process Christianity has played a central role.

Elaborate.

>Tell me where morals come from, and how society can function in their absence.

From a mix of philosophy and our natural instinct as a social species.
>If my computer were not necessary for me to get along in the world, I would happily do away with it. I would just as happily consort with Socrates and Pals at the tables of the money-changers as I do with Anonymous on Veeky Forums. I am ambivalent towards modern medicine, because I do not fear death. Besides, all medicine has managed to do (besides play catch-up with the afflictions of industrialization) is to reduce infant mortality.

Wow, such beautiful deflection and mental gymnastics. The fact that you wouldn't mind living in Ancient Greece doesn't change the fact that our society is superior to theirs. I also suspect that you have a romanticized view of that period of time. I mean you are aware that most people weren't Aristocrats and philosophers. And that they used slaves?

There's something I really don't get

If the existence of god can neither be proven nor disproven then why would anybody ever want god to not be real?

You get what I mean? Like why would you ever want to believe that when you die you're just gone forever and your body rots away in the earth?
Isn't it worth at least believing in an afterlife just for the sake of staying positive? Life is so much nicer when you always have something to look forward to and well, what do you have to lose really?

loool Pascal go awey

its hard for most people to willfully delude themselves - it's actually a great matter of contention whether it's possible to lie to yourself or not

I mean, in the book he says Catholics have to eat fish on Fridays. The fact this incorrect statement made it through editing says a lot, but Hitchens is the first to admit he threw the book together quickly and really just regurgitated old Enlightenment points with his own style and humor.

That said I enjoyed the book when I read it as a teenager.

Religion is a useful lie needed to keep low-IQ proles engaging in socially benefical behavior.

Theism has an easy way out, and a hard one in.

We all know agnosticism is the easy way out.

>Elaborate
aeon.co/essays/how-did-europe-become-the-richest-part-of-the-world

>From a mix of philosophy and our natural instinct as a social species.
And what if I reject that morality? Should I be punished for not conforming to societal norms?

>Superiority as a function of technology
>Social hierarchy and slavery as absolute evils
this really doesn't merit a response.

Fatalism it is, then. Everything is to be regarded as meritocracy.

>If the existence of god can neither be proven nor disproven then why would anybody ever want god to not be real?

If you are not assured felicity after death what incentive have you to curb your material self-interest?

You have to bank on the afterlife being real or else you'll take your payout now. Time Value of Money/Expected Value

The hidden joke is that time is the only thing that has only the value of use. However, this twisted time is warped so that everything else is to be regarded as per its usefulness - including truth.
Of course, ideological usefulness trumps all others.

Mind will always be over matter, in reality and in fiction.

arguing that this is the peak of human civilization because we have like, apps, is really stupid. judging the "peak" of human civilization on technological achievement will always end with you determining the present is the peak, since technology is always accumulating

>always
In the event that it wasn't, we'd have lost writing. Of course, there has never ever been a time without it, so of course it has always accumulated.

>says Christianity is bad
>by supporting an ideology that killed more people in 5 years than Christianity in 15 centuries

We should eradicate those who want to expand their ideological domain by violence. It's the only way.

>this isn't the 19th century anymore man, nor is it the zenith of Athens or Rome.

>double the lifespan
>child mortality decimated
>literacy rates at record high
>criminal offenses and homicides at their historical minimum
>war related deaths, idem
>standards of living not even kings from two centuries ago could imagine

How the fuck is the 19th century, Athens or Rome any better. Please explain.

Then only the Amish and the Mennonites would remain and the entire human population of the world would be religious.

>double the lifespan
On average, due to child mortality. If we were to count abortion, we'd be probably even lower.
>child mortality decimated
By killing all the babies and fetuses. They're not human, they couldn't even vote.
>literacy at record high
Understanding at record low. Information at its peak. Odd how it goes like this.
>crime at its lowest
1950s is long gone. Utopia. Crime doesn't obviously happen in no-go zones. Fetuses aren't human, so you can't murder them. Killing a pregnant woman is double homicide, though, because women have two bodies, one of which is 'a clump of cells' (why not both?).
>war related deaths
In millions even today. MAD is keeping us safe from WW3 at the moment. No other reason. Not a single one.
>standards of living
Stopped caring about architecture, virtues, family and civilization.

Abdul will have kids in Europe 200 years from now. You?

Ben Stiller pls go

bc hitchens is pop philosophy, and had he actually read some of the canon he was attempting to grapple with, he would have known that theoretical arguments to 'disprove' god's existence were btfo by Kant some 200 years ago, and rly driven home by kierkegaard.

read the fucking canon you pleb

fuck off to your contaiment board.

Eternity scares me plenty.

Show me a moment without eternity.

Not an argument.

>Show me a moment without eternity.
That doesn't mean anything.

Oh, but if fear is given power over eternity in this instance, is the fear not meant to be eternal?

The success of Islam proves that even the scarecrow variant of religion is better than atheism.
>produce no books
>literacy is irrelevant, as long as some hold it enough to chant old memes
>no technological advancement
>no value given to labor
>art is gimped by weird rules
200 years, and atheism will simply be remembered as yet another curse of Allah to the infidel.

>In all seriousness, Hitchens' roast of religion is pretty solid.

It really isn't.

t. Atheist

Fauerbach did it better

>>double the lifespan
war/child mortality. adult lifespan is static

>>child mortality decimated
only arguable 'improvement'.
youtube.com/watch?v=BiRG_nQTvdQ

>>literacy rates at record high
which has lead to the degradation of higher learning. Most people would be better off having never touched a book.

>>criminal offenses and homicides at their historical minimum
Assuming this is true, peoples hearts haven't changed- they only fear punishment which the state is ever more capable of inflicting.

>>war related deaths, idem
soooo glad we have nuclear weapons :)
wwi wasnt that long ago my man.

>>standards of living not even kings from two centuries ago could imagine
on the backs of the third world poor! What joy! My central heating has brought me pure happiness!

Your post wasn't an argument either. I provided facts, you regurgitated reactionary memes you can't really back.

Feel free to believe the Average Giorgos from classic Athens had a higher """understanding""" and gave two fucks about architecture (the neo-conservative obsession with architecture as a vessel of degeneracy is fascinating though).

...

>50% of the Western world atheist since the late 1800's
>Fedoras appear in 2010
>"Wow look at how many people are atheist because of us! I guess we're really the new, better atheists! Good job us for changing the world!"

I do love me some taco bell

Theism and atheism are both comforting ideas to distract you from ackowledging that there's no universal rationality and human nature to go back on.

>war/child mortality. adult lifespan is static
adult lifespan isn't static, it has improved greatly .and how could it not for fucks sake. violent deaths are rarer than ever; medicine does the rest.

>only arguable 'improvement'.
I don't even know what you're trying to prove with that video, that that kid would be better off death? The improvements have been drastic for the vast majority of children who are able to reach adult life and live a normal life.

I really don't get this tactic of resorting to anecdotes when discusing massive trends.

>which has lead to the degradation of higher learning. Most people would be better off having never touched a book.
Debatable. Opinion.

>soooo glad we have nuclear weapons :)
Yes, I somewhat am too.

>wwi wasnt that long ago my man.
WWI was a lot closer to "peak of civilization" 19th century than it is to 2017, so I fail to see how this harms my argument in any way.

>on the backs of the third world poor!
What? Standards of living and wealth have improved everywhere. More than a billion people have been lifted out of poverty in the last couple decades. That doesn't mean all is good and nice but it is very much factual.

This is hilarious even for a borderline-satirist like Hitchens. All major interpretations of the Divine and the Human Spirit are the foundation of all Human thinking. Literary recurrence is irrelevant, as is initial occurrence. Religious texts are the lowest byproduct of Numinous experience. In fact, you could destroy them all and, across the collective Human Spirit, the things described in the texts would move one step closer to their hypostatic origin now that the frayed ends of their refraction have been cast off.

And as for the second part, what Information is he speaking of? Materialism has yet to define Matter. Rationalism has yet to define Reason. Positivism has yet to define proof. Objectivism has yet to define fact.

>adult lifespan isn't static, it has improved greatly .and how could it not for fucks sake. violent deaths are rarer than ever; medicine does the rest.
Suicides are higher than ever. Medicine is more needed than ever, as the business requires constant growth. Population growth has given us many diseases formerly unknown.

Dentists, however, are God's gift to Earth.

where is your god now

It's not actively wanting god to not exist (although some say this is preferable) its more the lack of evidence of its existence

There are no atheists in a fox hole. Go out of your safe space.

>atheism is an ideology
>atheism is the ideology that caused that and not communism
Wew

Hitchens was a communist. So was his brother, they were Trotskyists. His brother, who lived in USSR in its autumn years, is now a Christian.

One was pro-war, Iraq especially. Try to guess which.

>no atheists in fox holes
Oh for fucks sake. Even in Hitchens autobiography he writes about an atheist soldier who contacted him you're seriously fucking delusional if you believe that shit
>safe space
Oh no you've hurt my feels oh woe is me your amazing argument has converted me

The New Atheists have a narrow conception of religion. The alternative to religion isn't atheism, it's idolatry. We all put our faith in something or else we would cease to go on living. Some of us devote our lives to the pursuit of wealth. Others believe science will redeem them and the human race. Similarly, there are leftists who believe "the revolution" will redeem them. There are narcissists who worship the image of themselves. Others live to get high. Some find solace in living for their children. The point is that it's impossible to not have faith in something.

Hitchens was I know man I've read his shit and understand his stance on Iraq. My beliefs are more in line with Peter at this point and I'm an atheist but Hitchens support for Iraq wasn't due to him being an atheist

>Hitchens was
One is Peter, one is Christopher.

USSR reversed its policy on religion due to atheists having shit battle morale.

>Hitchens was
I use the past tense as he is dead
>USSR reversed its policy on religion due to atheists having shit battle morale
Be that as it may the point I was making is that there are atheists who fight in war and it's delusional to say there aren't

>Be that as it may the point I was making is that there are atheists who fight in war and it's delusional to say there aren't
Do you take statements for their boolean values only?

No

Good. Principles of life will be broken by people. That's what free will is.

Now, I could have lived as a nihilist agnostic for as long as eternity goes, as long as I was comfortable enough. I don't know what it'd take to destabilize you and have you accept another stance to life and reality, but war is usually the one. Capiche? That's why it was written as a point. Not because there are absolutely zero atheists in a fox hole. Atheists are not unicorns.

>it's a "19 year olds debate about the existance of God" episode

Atheists have to understand that religoin is only an applied model of spirituality, and spirituality is an integrel part of human experience wether you believe in God or not, so unsuprisingly there are many people who treat spirituality as an important element of their lives in any of the different common and uncommon intrepretations.

Fair play that was what I meant as well. I don't try to make people stop believing or having faith it's none of my business as far as I'm concerned. I doubt war would change my outlook on life or that I would last long if an international conflict broke out

>I don't even know what you're trying to prove with that video, that that kid would be better off death?
Yes. We intervene too much. If letting a child die is too much for your culturally governed moral sensitivities, think of all the 70+ year olds going through chemotherapy right now. Sometimes it's better to just die.

>Debatable. Opinion.
Then you concede that literacy isn't a good in and of itself.

>WWI was a lot closer to "peak of civilization" 19th century than it is to 2017, so I fail to see how this harms my argument in any way.
That's the point- it represented the collapse.

>What? Standards of living and wealth have improved everywhere. More than a billion people have been lifted out of poverty in the last couple decades. That doesn't mean all is good and nice but it is very much factual.
The increase in numbers of suffering peoples as a consequence of """development""" far outpaces increases in quality of life. The magnitude of suffering is ever-greater.

>Dentists, however, are God's gift to Earth.
we wouldn't need them if not for the agricultural revolution.

what did he mean by this?

basically this

Believing and not believing is the easy way out.

Wait till you reach Satori bitches.

>we wouldn't need them if not for the agricultural revolution.
That, too.

>I doubt war would change my outlook on life
Been to any? It's not just a chore, unless you are on the overpowered side. Say, you shoot some shepherds from a heli.

When you are against equals and people die like flies. That's when you start really appreciating the life you have. Maybe more so than that ego of yours.

I want to believe in God. There's so many things that can't be explained by science alone, and less so by the current materialistic approach to science people have (You don't have any material proof of your experiences? That means there's no God, everybody dies and it's the end and there's no higher purpose/eternity). Current society is so concerned with their material well-being they don't give a fuck about the spiritual because it's the easy way out (I can do whatever I want, my life choices don't matter because everybody dies and there's no punishment/reward in any other life).

I find that as big of a leap in faith as the one most religious people do. Maybe I need more faith and compromise.

>And what if I reject that morality? Should I be punished for not conforming to societal norms?

Yes. A murderer goes against the norms of society and is thus punished. I do however believe that that is not an absolute statement since I'm a big fan of John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism.

I'm also a bit ambivalent about the existence of absolute good and evil. I will however say that slavery tends to be a bit more on the evil side than the good side.

>Superiority as a function of technology

The beneficial effects of technology are hard to deny. Because of the leisure that mechanical muscles provide endless possibilities are open to us. We can travel the world and get educated. The average adult could barely read back then. A 7 year old today could beat him in a spelling bee.

Why do religious people think that the only two options to toggle between are theism or nihilism.

I also want to say that there's a difference in believing in god and believing in a personal god.

>Why do religious people think that the only two options to toggle between are theism or nihilism.
Theists derive their values and oughts, nihilists in denial take them for granted and pretend that they don't need to back anything up.
>Morality is good because the X states so
Bible says so and you say so are equivalents.

>why do religious
I'm not what you would exactly call "religious", maybe I was when I was a children but not currently
>the only two options to toggle between are theism or nihilism
I'm not saying they're the only two options but nihilism is so attractive because it appeals to people's egos. They're their own "god" and it makes them feel powerful. So most of the current western society chooses Nihilism as their outlook. Only when they're faced with the prospective of death (when they're old) they start to think about spirituality.

I'm guilty of that (I'm not old but I had an epiphany some months ago).

The Rage Against God demolished the arguments in that book.

It's not to do with ego and I don't mean to come across as flippant. I just don't think it would change my worldview

>"I used to be an atheist, but then I saw a big scary painting!"

> I just don't think it would change my worldview
The reason you say that has everything to do with your ego. I'm not even the guy you're discussing with, but atheism/agnosticism caters to people egos.

...

>They're their own "god"
>The Rage Against God
more proof that theists are incapable of thinking of atheists as genuinely atheistic

Arguing with authentic meat blobs is a bit like shadow boxing.

To me, the problem with new atheism isn't that its criticisms on religion aren't valid (many of them absolutely are), the problem is that it never suggested what to replace religion with, which means that new atheism was inevitably going to be bogged down and stagnate or be taken over by zealots who do offer an alternative vision (in this case, feminists/SJWs).

This means that at best, you'll be stuck with Christianity-lite, or some other derivative of some earlier worldview, and at worst, your worldview will completely devolve in full blown nihilism which is even worse than the very thing you tried to remove

nobody is genuinely atheistic. Atheism is a leap in faith. Atheists take science as their religion, as a form of dogma. Materialism is their outlook.

Or are you going to tell me "There's no God. You die and there's nothing afterwards. There's no higher end, purpose or idea for human beings and consciousness" is not a belief that requires a big ass leap of faith?

even more proof
tell me more about how the lack of religion is a religion and how the lack of belief in a god is belief in a god

In mathematics and philosophy, there is no such thing as universal truth to a statement. Every theory must start with a list of unprovable axioms, and then the truth of statements is determined in context with these axioms.

For example, the statement "the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees" is true if you start from Euclid's axioms of geometry, but not if you consider a different set of axioms.

Religion is just philosophy starting with some version of the axiom that states "God exists". Debating the truth or falsity of this axiom is pointless, since it is simply assumed to be true.

In mathematics there was a large debate over an axiom of set theory, the Axiom of Choice, regarding whether or not it should be included in our standard model of set theory. The Axiom of Choice was proven to be logically independent from the rest of the axioms of set theory, which means we really do have to assume it to be true if we want to use it (it doesn't follow logically from the other axioms). It turns out that this axiom is so useful that almost all mathematicians DO accept it, although there are some who try to proceed without it.

The existence of God is an axiom independent from science, and so you can either accept or deny it. Depends on what you believe, and which outlook is most useful to you. Both stances lead to valid, logically sound philosophies.

Is it not written in your law, ye are gods?