"Is there anybody here who believes in God?"

GET #HITCHSLAPPED

God, NuAtheism didn't age well did it?

Hitchens was an ex-Trotskyist. He was a communist in his youth, so it makes sense he was also an atheist.

Best Hitchens, though both are good.

I'd love to see how Christopher would react to present day events. He'd probably be branded as a rightwinger by many these days, given how wary he was of mass Islamic migration to Europe

It's true though. There is no point in discussing religion with a believer because they have been conditioned from a young age to be too scared to question it. You can not discuss something with someone whose mind is completely closed to looking at something realistically. For anyone to know that thousands of gods and holy books have been created over the course of human history, all plagiarising form each other and not one of them being original in its claims, but to believe wholeheartedly that theirs is the only true one just because of the pure accident of being born to a country that traditionally brainwashes youngsters with that particular brand, can be described as nothing other than stupidity.

I am the son of god. There its written down. You all have as much reason to follow me as you do Christianity. It's all about faith remember. Put your faith in me or burn in hell. I perform miracles and my mum was a virgin. Give me a logical reason why I'm wrong but some arab writing it 2000 years ago is DEFINITELY right. Why would you follow that nonsense and not me. I have offered you as much proof as the bible. You can't disprove me any more than you can disprove that other guy claiming to be me that's in the bible.

>give me a logical reason
so this... is the power... of rationalism... woah...

No rationalism is believing some medieval nonsense because it's brainwashed into you as a child and are taught to be so scared of it, that you never question it. No matter how ridiculous the notion is. That is rationalism.

You come to a thread about the existence of a god and expect rationalism?

If you want rationalism, you should read the bibl... oh no wait.

You're right. What I typed was very irrational. That was the point. But if you can give me a reason as to why the bible is right and not me, please do. Yes, you would have to be very stupid to believe me and follow me, just because it is written somewhere. Are you following me here?

oops I suppose I maybe should've written positivism instead desu lads

Peter doesn't seem to approve of make a big emotional display to prove to the world how grief-stricken or excited you're feeling or whatever. He's expressed disapproval over the world's reaction to Princess Diana dying before, I figure it's that kind of thing. He'd probably find the idea of making a big speech about how much Christopher meant to him on tv disingenuous and in poor taste.

Really not one for doing a lot of thinking for yourself are you?
Is there a reason why it is more logical to follow Christianity (because someone once wrote it down) Than it is to follow me (because I just wrote it down)?
No it is not. In fact I bet you think it's probably stupid to believe me just because I wrote it down don't you? However you don't apply the same reason to the bible.
That's the point I'm making. Not on 17th and 18th century musings on the word rational. Were I trying to argue something so ridiculous, I too would deflect right away from the point too.

>believe in God
>can't control yourself in a debate and think you'd "end up screaming and have to be restrained"
what??

why would it be more logical? well it says smarter things than you innit?

If you believe in deities, that's your problem, and usually due to early conditioning as a child. If you believe in deities and can't see how absurd that is from an outside point of view, you're beyond hope. Either way, it's literally quicker to wait for you to just die off than to try to argue you into a skeptical mindset.

i'd suggest you read kierkegaard, but it probably wouldn't do you any good right now. maybe you should finish high school first.

>I almost wish Hitchens was still alive solely so I could get into a debate with him on the subject of God. We'd probably wind up screaming at each other and having to be restrained.
You should wish your sky daddy to bring him back. That he hasn't answered any of your silly prayers is proof enough that god is a myth for people who aren't strong enough to life free without any shackles.

I still believe there's a God, because I don't think human logic is as flawless as we make it out to be. There's just so many possibilities, making an absolute judgement on the existence of God seems so childish

lmao, I love this copypasta, truer than true

Is there really no dedicated fedora-tipping board for this rubbish? Why do you feel compelled to create these threads on Veeky Forums? Reddit might be a better fit for you. Or just get new hobbies or a job.

>Funny thing to say, because he was raised as a Catholic, being top of his class in Bible studies. He said his breaking point was when his teacher took them to a forest and said "Grass is green because green makes us feel good; God made it green with this in mind".
Prove that God in his holy generosity and kindness didn't make grass green because green makes us feel good.

>inb4 "can't prove a negative"
I knew you were a pseud.

"Disprove god exists without using logic and reasoning".

Like talking to a muslim.

Who are you quoting?

The moron who thinks saying >inb4 "can't prove a negative" is a counter argument.

It's not. It's a shortcut taken by pseuds.

>t. owner of the ReasonAndScience channel.

Hey guuuuiiiiissseee

be nice to each other please desu~~~

My opinion on the matter is the following.

If you take "truth" as any belief that helps you better anticipate experiences, then no, you need no god. We try to be scarce with our beliefs here because a needlessly complex world model is harder to use without any benefits. Since there is no predictive power gained by believing in god we don't do it.
In other words: Okhams razor.
In more different words: If there are two possible worlds with equal consistency with our data, we pick the simpler one. Which is the one without god.

That being said, you can still "believe" in things if they make you feel good. That is although more the "make-believe" kind of belief than the "legitimately considering something true"-belief. Since this is of course not a flattering categorization we get threads like this one, where atheists are attacked with stawmans.

playing chess with pidgeons/trolls I know, but maybe someone legitimately interested can use this.

>If you take "truth" as any belief that helps you better anticipate experiences

That's a horrible deffinition of truth. I don't comprehend why someone would believe that. If someone says to you that they had a magic vision of you dying in a plane crash and then you die in a plane crash, listening to the guy would have helped you make the right predictions, still that's no proof that the guy really had a magical vision.

tip: When you make deffinitions like that you should explore what kind of conclusions you can derive from them. If you get to absurds, then you made a wrong deffinition.

where were you when this handsome man raped hitchens?

I was in the kitchen watching the deabte when the sound was heard:
""God lives""
wow

No one said anything was more logical. The question is asked, why is it more logical to follow a religion when he has said exactly the same things that religion claims. Essentially what you are doing is taking the claims of men over the claims of men, those claims being exactly the same. The only reason anyone can give as to why they choose to believe the bible over any other nutter claiming to be the son of god, is that they have been conditioned to believe it from a young age. Hence why the question is always avoided. In your case to the extent of reading a question and taking some kind of statement from it. If a Veeky Forums post can leave you that confused, you should probably re-read the bible, because there is a strong possibility you have misinterpreted it.

The other big flaw in your deffinition is that when you assume that ""truth" is any belief that helps you better anticipate experiences" you're putting any belief that does not helps you better anticipate experiences as false. This is an absurd, a statement such as "a boar is a boar" or "a whore is a whore" is clearly a true statement, but it will not help you make any prediction whatsoever.

After what I said in:

It's clear that the fact that believing in God does not help you make better predictions about the world does nor make believing in God illogical, just as believing that a "boar is a boar" is not illogical. Also believing something to be true just because it leads you to better predictions would lead you to falsehood. Astronomers supposed that there was a planet called Vulcano shifting Mercury's orbit because it was a model that lead to better predictions, but it was a false assumption as we know now. Your argument tho is generally used by people to justify the belief in God as non-scientific, and I think that this direction is much more adequate for such argument.

i said: why would it be more logical to follow the bible over you?
and i said: because it says smarter things than you innit?

>because a person or group of people have stupid beliefs about God, you can't yourself believe in God
Never understood this.

But that is in hindsight. If the guy had no record of making good predictions there would not be a reason to believe him - and if he did had such a record, my fault for still getting on that plane.

>a statement such as "a boar is a boar" or "a whore is a whore" is clearly a true statement, but it will not help you make any prediction whatsoever.
In fact it will, it will help me predict that in fact, a boar will behave like boar and a whore will behave like your m... a whore (sorry, was just too obvious :3 Just a friendly joke, no animosity).

This is why I believe that x = x for all x.

>Astronomers supposed that there was a planet called Vulcano shifting Mercury's orbit because it was a model that lead to better predictions
I am not familiar with that example, but I guess that as more data came in the model without Vulcan (I think that should be the name, to be in line with the naming scheme) fitted better. Just like the data collected by science fits better with the scientific consensus instead of some antique/medieval worldview - I am not calling contemporary theists antique/medieval here though; I mean a literal worldview that consists of a flat earth, people literally made from mud or lightning being thrown by some big fucker on a mountain. But this is also the problem I have with contemporary theism - it feels like some left-over from something that once made sense but gradually shifted into a virtual dictator and drugdealer, which is why people get still bullied (by peers as well as themselves) into not just dropping it already.

But the important thing is that yes, what is considered true shifts. We never quite reach final certainty, but we can still get closer by debugging falsehood after falsehood. There "could" be a god, yes, but there could be all kinds of things, including the polar opposite of what the bible or whatever the source of your beliefs is, so they cancel out.

>Your argument tho is generally used by people to justify the belief in God as non-scientific, and I think that this direction is much more adequate for such argument.
Scientific means true, it is right in the name. Yeah, my definition of truth is the scientific one - if you have a different one and can argue for it, please do! I am unironically interested. But I can't find any other arguments than anticipating experience or direct effect of belief on experience.

>Spend your life proclaiming yourself a 'Marxist'.
>Spend your dying years warning about the danger of the hordes of Muslims that were brought into Europe by your political allies.

Seriously, why doesn't he get more shit for this?

>. There is no point in discussing religion with a believer because they have been conditioned from a young age to be too scared to question it.
I converted from atheism.

Because of an emotional need.

Because Orthodoxy presented a intriguing perspective on a religion I found pants on head retarded in all other iterations

youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

Genuinely one of the top 10 speeches of the 21st century so far

Are you implying that Marxists can't hate Islam?

>Be an edgy atheist in high school
>In my 20s realize God is real
Wow...!

Religion is actually dumb though. I don't understand how somebody in the 21st century can deny atheism and moral relativism. Yeah, it's scary. But that's life. Beliefs change; nobody is a pagan anymore. This is the next step in the spiritual evolution of humanity: we will have to either become more profound or die.

Nope. Because it turns out that there are still a few people around who prefer treating others with respect and dignity no matter what little silly things they believe in.

I, for example, am appealed by our delusion of going into debt simply because a FRB declares they are the only ones who can print "real" money, so that we can spend more than we have of it on increasing our methods for killing more and more people from greater and greater distances in less and less time. But if I rant about that I seem like I believe silly little things, meanwhile people get into arguments about whether or not Gods exist which impossible to prove either way. The FRB exists, and they are fucking everyone in the ass.

But hey, let's have a civil war about whether there is a stature, or whether men can """"marry""" men, or whether God God God Islam Islam beliefs God God gods Islam christfag Islam God gods.

>be virgin with no redeeming qualities
>pretend to be religious so you can feel superior to people

wow good show deus vult etc etc

Your thinking as to why people would be religious is shallow, which is typical of angry atheists who want to be the smartesterest.

If your actually interested in why people might become religious you should think about it as an adaptive trait that helps bind communities, and keeps it's members acting in a way that keeps the society stable.

"They believe in god cuz there are dum" is an back patting view that I'm getting tired of seeing.

For all the "reason+logic=perfect" that shit tier atheists spout off they never want to spend even a few minutes thinking about something if there is and opportunity to suck their own dick and get all emotional instead.

T. Fellow atheist

where are you good works? where is your following? and desciples ? where are your miricles? we are not just following a book as if it was written yesterday remeber that these tradition have been going on for years even thge cult leaders today (look at india) youtube.com/channel/UC9OM-qeiYIPtAkBe9veG5uw have massive followings and charismatic as fuck and atleast offer some seblence of good to their followers weither there intent is monetary gain or w/e
nigger you have no charisma to be the leader of anything, but tbf you are the son of god so mad respect there brother

>get girlfreind spend $100s to entertain and keep her interseted
>have to put on an act around her
>dumps you for chad
>cry yourself to sleep
>think of creepy ways to get her back
>never do
>go online and tell people there virgins for being religious

desu i read kierkegaard IN high school—he was the one who pulled my out of my edgy teenage nihilism

Let's look at religion beyond literature. As far we know, most cultures were polytheist at some point, usually before monotheism. Now, why would this be? You could write it off as extreme storytelling if it wasn't so common and similar throughout time.

This leads me to believe that ancients actually interacted with something; either supernatural or something super advanced. I personally believe it was "aliens."

Eventually, aliens wanted to leave earth but didn't want a history or whatever, so they created monotheism, and the modern branches are just shitting contests to keep people divided.

There is a "God"; but it is the force of the universe and any manifestation of that. Nature, specifically, here on earth. It does not care about morals or anything but it exists regardless of being acknowledged

Funny how many people need Spinoza in their life, including all the meme atheist philosophers and most of the posters in this thread

>Posters who decry Reddit make a r/Atheism thread.

Like pottery every single time.

>Have absolutely no Christian upbringing
>Find emptiness in my life
>Do my own reading and find God myself
>Actually have a sense of understanding with people and genuinely feel happier.

Guess it's just an outlier or society or whatever bullshit you'll explain it away as but I found a sense of fulfilment and purpose and I don't even have to be a cunt about it on a Burmese jungle wood bartering website.

>Because Orthodoxy presented a intriguing perspective on a religion I found pants on head retarded in all other iterations
What are you talking about?

retard.

this is the single most retarded argument used by atheists. do you think atheists are born and raised atheists, mongoloid?
people change their faith over the time because they see things they couldn't see before. I was raised catholic, became atheist on 7th grade by my own because I used my logic and my reasoning (it took me a while to realize my logic was obviously flawed because of arrogance, because I though atheism was the supreme truth therefore I did not need to study the matter) and later on, when finished high school I started studying the topic and simply found myself not being able to be an atheist anymore, simple as that.

if that argument was correct, hitchens himself would not die an atheist, since he was raised catholic therefore "was too scared to see the truth"

>"Is there anybody here who doesn't believe in God?"
>nervous silence from the audience
>"I ask again, otherwise I think my job here will be even easier than I assumed it would be."
>the audience laughs nervously
>"Is there anyone here who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the word of his biblical teachings?"
>guy raises hands
>the audience, shocked, stares at him, with a look on their faces similar to one you'd give a man about to be executed
>"How dare you. I repeat, how DARE you enslave your soul to this cynical worship of logic, this tragic maxim of Darwinism! I assume you'd kill your children if it would bring you wordly gain?"
>the audience cheers, claps and yells in unison, a festival of mockery ensues. A loud laughter can be heard from those who are already familiar with the Ches and knew what to expect. The guy is not given a chance to reply or elaborate on his specific philosophical views because who cares he's probably stupid anyway. Atheism is deemed too stupid for discussion, that particular segment of the entire event is published separately in a collection of essays under the title "The Crime of Spiritual Suicide by a Maniac" and distributed to every seminary in the country. Chess is hailed as one of the greatest orators since Cicero. Christianity prevails, atheism fails, sorry, deal with it, bye bye.

quality

Is this meant to be a quip towards current year race realism or am I overanalyzing this?

The Biblical God died in western philosophy a few centuries ago. Your best bets Panentheistic monism or hegelian idealism.

I dislike this argument, it's basically an ad hominem and it's like the mirror image of christcucks "they don't want to believe so they can be evil"and it's just shit

>good works
>miracles
Do not test the lord your God, and don't be a doubting Thomas. Just have faith in me

>disciples
Everybody today is flawed and has strayed from true Christianity so they are unfit to be Christians. I can only do so much, remember when my dad genocided an entire race because they were too far gone? Yeah, that's me

>we're not just following a book as if it were written yesterday
No, you're following a book as if you were born yesterday

>the forces of globalised capitalism bring cheap labour to developed countries for greater profits
>this is somehow caused by marxists and the great jewish conspiracy

Liberal and conservative responses to immigration are both retarded and reactionary, kill yourself.

>being a weak minded individual who can't find happiness for yourself and have to find it from external sources in the form of doctrines created by others to subjugate you

>how DARE you submit to this heavenly totalitarianism, this celestial North Korea!

You did your research.

I have faith in you. I shall be the rock your church is built on as soon as you die for our sins. Just let me know, k?

atheism prevails yet much of so-called atheism is just christianity with divinity removed and some other bits mixed in. It doesn't really overcome it, in an ideological sense.

He makes some kind of point though, if you've ever interacted with a religious person or any other secular fanatic. You'll find they cannot comprehend their beliefs being untrue or misinformed, it is ingrained, they can't even begin to question even the most outer reaches of their faith. It's like a wall that resists even a passing inspection.

>find happiness for yourself
spooked

Hitchens and his ilk might be annoying, but smug post-ideological atheists who are so much better at being atheist because they've read medieval philosophy and Kierkeegard are even more insufferable.

How is that a spooked statement?

Zizek go to sleep

Except without the faith aspect it's literally not Christianity and in substance is just borrowing accidental properties of Christiany without the core.

>I assume you'd kill your children if God commanded you to?
Abraham tried.

god I wish that were me
t. kierkegaard