Irrefutable

I'm not even a Fedora but come on! All the counter-arguments reek of cope.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not going to take a materialist seriously in the year 2024.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Me neither, I mean if you’re gonna be a skeptic either be agnostic or a deist or frick off.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      *in the year of our Lord 2024.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Being this attached to your illusions
      ishygddt

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Rare Freud L, despite his writing in CAID, which was an otherwise insightful book.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "God" being a magic father figure in the sky is so far into Freud's wheelhouse it's not even funny. Society projects an authority figure who knows all and sees all and either punishes or rewards actions of it's "children". How much more on-the-nose can it get?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Jung was Freud's God-the-gaps made flesh.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God - Man
            >Society - Individual
            >Father - Son
            >Superego - Ego
            The microcosm-macrocosm nesting doll nature of the world. That's evidence for a creator.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's evidence for a creator.
            It's really not

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the only authorities atheists have are israeli perverts
        Makes you think.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ironic since Christianity is based on the israelites

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Neither Judaism nor the israeli race existed until after Christianity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You shouldn‘t pretend to know anything about race if your definition is that it‘s formed by rejecting your favorite rabbi.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"NOOOO NOOOO, I worship Hebrews, it's totally different than israelites"
            Cope and seethe LOL

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the only authorities atheists have are israeli perverts
          *Blocks your path*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            he was a deist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A deist who eviscerated the cringe that is Christianity

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Deism created the globohomosexual masonic hellscape we live in now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And Christianity was no bulwark against it. In fact, the Christian would be forced to view globohomosexual as part of God's plan.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wait, do you agree that thomas paine was instrumental for globohomo?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity is consistently to most anti-hlobohomosexual religion. So much so that freemason homosexuals like Paine had to undermine it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Saying that christianity correlates with people who have a national instinct while the clear reality is observable that such sentiments are safely cordoned off from enacting real change is not the own you seem to think it is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Deism created the globohomosexual masonic hellscape we live in now.
            You do realize that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy right? This is like claiming
            >The Printing Press created the globohomosexual masonic hellscape we live in now.
            Christcuck morons can never explain how the rational position that we should reject divine revelation and religious authority *inevitably* leads to child trannies and multiculturalism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            remember when being pro-gay was pushing the overton window and all the people with actual morals said "next they'll be advocating for pedophilia and beastiality!"

            and then morons like you said "sLiPpErY sLoPe FaLlAcY"

            and now theres people on twitter trying to advocating bestiality and re-brand pedo into "minor attracted persons".

            kindly shut the frick up about "logical fallacies"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >doubles down on his moronation
            oh no! some random person on twitter said something! I guess we better throw out all rational thought and start worshiping your dead israelite on a stick...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Adding dated /misc/ lingo ("israelite," "cuck") to your parlance of dumb atheist buzzwords "magic cloud sky daddy fairy" doesn't make your 2000s atheism any hipper for the IQfy crowd, homo.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Go frick a Bible

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You could have just said
            >tips fedora
            like your other christisraelite morons. Either way, it's still not an argument for why people should believe in your israeli slave religion.

            It's amazing that the old atheist talking point in the 2000s was "Christians are too radical," when all the atheists themselves ended up eventually turning into either trannies or nazis (or both lol)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And none of that makes god real.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What a reevaluation of all values does to an mf

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You could have just said
            >tips fedora
            like your other christisraelite morons. Either way, it's still not an argument for why people should believe in your israeli slave religion.

            hello projection

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Agnostic and Atheist separated

            Into the trash, as usual.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There’s the classic motte and bailey
            >God isn’t real!
            >oh no, everyone thinks i’m an insufferable moron!
            >What I meant to say is we can’t know if God is real!

            Last time I checked agnostics don’t have this sad devotion to crying about religion either. You are distinct from them in terms of what you claim but also culturally

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah they’re… 4% less pozzed. Kek. The more atheist you are the more gay you are apparently

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Case in point, there was a graph that has been posted many times on this forum that apparently lgbtbbq identity has an inverse relationship with religiosity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Atheists are generally the most serious Christians in the world. When they discarded their religious beliefs, they only threw out the theological nonsense while doubling and tripling down on the moralism. They have internalized Jesus's moral teachings so thoroughly that they don't even consider them christian, but synonymous with goodness itself. Look at any shitlib belief and you will find something that Jesus preached. The reason "Christians" don't support progressive policies as much as atheists is because the theological BS about believing in Jesus distracts them from his actual teachings, which are largely about subverting your ethnic interests in favor of foreigners.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            While atheists are fundamentally Christian they don't really follow the teachings of Jesus very much because Christians themselves fail in that way also.
            A lot of what you see are natural conclusions that could arise in any sufficiently advanced society where women are allowed to dictate according to their instincts. All the false empathy and interpersonal leveling are great tools for raising groups of children but become ridiculous nuisances when allowed to scale up through institutions arbitrarily.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can see that, have you read Le Bon?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >in any sufficiently advanced society
            In any Christian society it may look like common sense to a lay person yes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not just that, standard modern English was heavily shaped by: the KJV, the book of common prayer, and the sermons distributed during the reformation. English Christianity is literally baked into the language.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are there any books that talk about this topic? It sounds interesting

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In the Beginning: the story of the King James Bible and how it changed a nation language, and a culture by Alister McGrath.

            It's also obvious if you grew up going to Anglican Church, because the Book of Common prayer and the liturgy is packed full of stuff you hear all the time. Plus tons of authors from the past, when most people were Anglican (as required by law) mention it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Women in power is a problem too, but their morality mostly comes from social cues, which are almost entire shaped by thousands of years of Christianity. Communism is literally the meek inheriting the earth.The message of The Good Samaritan is "you should be more accepting of hostile foreign ethnic groups because some of the individuals are ok". Libtards whose kids get murdered by illegal aliens always forgive them - who came up with the whole loving and forgiving your enemy thing? A woman's natural instincts are to want protection and to protect their kids, which is very far from what we're seeing now. It's Christianity that twisted them into their current state.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >i choose my religious beliefs based on how closely they correlate with my political beliefs according to polling data
            So I take it you're a Free Will Baptist then? This has to be one of the most moronic christcuck talking points. I fully admit that most atheists (I actually consider myself a Deist, but whatever) are liberal (i.e. secular christcuck).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You could have just said
            >tips fedora
            like your other christisraelite morons. Either way, it's still not an argument for why people should believe in your israeli slave religion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and now theres people on twitter
            So nobody important is advocating for those things. No slippery slope here

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do you watch Weltgeist?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this was refuted by a polyamorous trio of gay men in California adopting a child a few years back. turns out religion carries most of the weight for civilization.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this could be the plot of a israeli comedy for the goyim and the women

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's never been a single instance of sexual misconduct in the entire length of christendom.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        open sexual misconduct is a completely different story

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Those gays were sentenced for rape so how is any of this comparable?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            they weren't in my example and they aren't comparable so i don't know why you made the comparison. a community observing christian values can only have perverse behavior occurring in secret. men are flawed but christianity mitigates what they are capable of drastically.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ?????
            Do you think they were raping their adoptive sons in the open? Why do you think this is a scandal?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            can't explain shit to a wienerroach that feeds on it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Is that Christopher molesting Peter?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >polygamy
      bad
      >polyamorous
      gud

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Toleration of gay polycules adopting children is downstream of Christian exaltation of the weak, deformed, sickly etc., an actual scientific materialist would just pull up abuse rate stats for gay adoptions and conclude it probably isn't a good idea.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >something un-christian is actually christian!
        lol

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >is downstream of
          Once gays started to be branded as historical victims by the late 1960s or so, anti-gay sentiment was doomed in Christendom. The fact that Christians online present themselves as a bulwark against Globohomosexual (tm) and not much else just shows how far fallen the faith is - the rest of it got absorbed into social democracy and socialism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That was a gay couple of Australians in California in 2012 had their 6 yrs old adopted son taken by child protection because they had offered him to pedos or something like that. It's easy to look up

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How does that prove Christianity? The New Testament explicitly says not to participate in the government multiple times, and while it says, vaguely, something about a specific type of gays not going to heaven in Paul's epistles it doesn't say anything about actively doing anything about things in the world. The maximum Bible based Christian solution would be to avoid those types, as Christianity has no, biblical, solutions to any problems other than you will go to heaven if you are a good boy. If anything trying to save the world of stopping bad things might be bad in itself based on the New Testament. Obviously, like the whole Jesus not actually returning in the first century, as explicitly promised in the New Testament, Christianity had to adapt to this later and just used Aristotle for its ethics. Nichomaxhean ethics is key.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you want religion to just be a worldly political project sounds like Islam is more your speed.

          >Obviously, like the whole Jesus not actually returning in the first century, as explicitly promised in the New Testament
          This never actually happens, the "not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God" line is literally Jesus alluding to the Transfiguration that happens on the very next page. Jesus never actually says when he's gonna come back, he explicitly warns people that they won't know when it's gonna be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >something literal is not literal when it turns out to not be true
            Kek, 2,000 more years Christisraelite.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It wasn't "literal" you just have no context or reading comprehension
            >israelite
            see

            Adding dated /misc/ lingo ("israelite," "cuck") to your parlance of dumb atheist buzzwords "magic cloud sky daddy fairy" doesn't make your 2000s atheism any hipper for the IQfy crowd, homo.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think so. The gospels are crystal clear on this. Please explain what this could possibly mean other than he is coming back in the 1st century, why would most taste death but not some? How is the Kingdom of Heaven simultaneously imminent and taking more than 2,000 years to arrive?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus is standing with his apostles and crowd
            >Jesus says some (but not all) present will see Jesus' power fully revealed before they die
            >crowd goes away, next page
            >Jesus goes with his closest apostles alone to the top of mountain
            >reveals his full power in the Transfiguration
            Is this really that hard to follow?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He says the kingdom, not his full power. What wild translation are you reading?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Please explain how βασιλείαν does not refer to a literal kingdom?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Same word is used in John 18:36 when Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world. It doesn't mean a physical realm, it means the act of being a full king.

            Also it's important that Jesus explicitly refers to himself as "the Son of Man" which has important specific context in the Old Testament prophetic literature, hence Jesus being seen as recognized with authority at the Transfiguration by Moses (the giver of the law) and Elijah (the most important prophet) is so important.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He says:
            νῦν δὲ ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν

            In the sense that his kingdom hasn't arrived yet, but will be present in the world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The statement has a practical level and a prophetic level. The practical level is that he's trying to disspell the israelites' false charge against him to Pilate, who doesn't know anything about israeli religion and is just worried about stopping a political uprising. On the prophetic level, though, Jesus is fulfilling the prophecy in Daniel 7:13.
            >13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

            The Septuagint Greek for this passage in Daniel has the same word for kingdom. And no one who was reading Daniel thought it was literal, Daniel uses very speculative apocalyptic imagery just like Revelations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            νῦν δὲ ἡ Implies that he will, literally have his kingdom, and while it's not presently here, it will be, present in a literal sense. However, coupled with the ἐντεῦθεν, he is referring to his impending kingdom. That is coming very soon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Christian would say it did come, it came when he died on the cross. It coming =/= it being a physical thing in this world. The Transfiguration made its promise temporarily visible in the physical world whereas the Crucifixion made it manifest in the spiritual world.

            The spiritual dimension of "kingdom" is also made apparent in Luke 23 when the penitent thief asks Jesus to remember him in his kingdom, and Jesus said that he would go to today to Paradise (heaven, not a physical kingly paradise). Ambrose says that "the kingdom" is being with Christ.

            Maybe it sounds like "the real kingdom is the friends we made along the way" nonsense but that's how it's interpreted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well yeah, that's because the entire interpretation, and the written gospels, are designed to cope with the fact the kingdom never came. I am treating them like their was an initial "says of Jesus" and not an ur text here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            dark ages are a myth. in actuality there was a thousand year reign of the holy spirit on earth, all in accordance with scripture

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You mean a thousand reign of boy fricking popes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >countless textual and material attestations to mass greek and roman boy molesting
            >countless textual and material attestations to medieval gay burning
            >i-it’s the middle ages that w-were gay!!
            holy coparoni

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So weird to see apologetics for an obviously corrupt institution. Medicci popes, concubines, boyfrickers, non-scriptural teachings like purgatory and indulgences. Even the Catholic church had to acknowledge it was wrong with the council of trent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >disagree with what you’re claiming
            >OH WOW HOW COULD YOU DO THAT? IF YOU ACCEPT MY CLAIMS, WHICH YOU DON’T, THAT MAKES YOU AUTOMATICALLY WRONG

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >purgatory and indulgences
            In Maccabees, which Protestants took out because they took medieval israeli canon that didn't have it as more important than ancient Christian canon that did.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Indulgences are massively overblown. You paid monks to pray for your soul, that’s all it was. Catholics believed, since the start of the middle ages, that prayers for your soul could ease your time in purgatory. So you could pay for masses to be held in your name if this worried you. It’s not honestly that bad at all and was extremely common for nobility

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Indulgences are massively overblown.
            No, corrupt popes would send fire and brimstone preachers to scare peasants into funding their vanity projects. I was sympathetic to the Catholic church until I actually started reading about the Reformation. It's disgusting the evils the catholics practiced

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no, they wouldn’t. this simply did not happen. the “fire and brimstone” preaching was not a fricking thing until at least the 18th century, it’s more of a modern phenomenon. and either way, why the hell would they do this to peasants? peasants certainly could not afford indulgences or masses to be held for them, that would be ridiculously out of their pay grade- plus they were tithed. you clearly didn’t really read about the reformation since you’re spouting vagaries and myths

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Where did you read about it? Monty python?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry about your dad, anon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's coming back, I just don't know the hour or the day.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you can want the world to be better and be religious too y'know. imagine if the spanish justified their miserable state of affairs by saying "christ will send the heretic moslems to hell in due time", they wouldn't be around today. for the record though i don't think you can arbitrarily prop up a religion either, because yeah like with progressivism people will just pretend to believe in it. it would need to be integrated bottom up throughout communities.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists are so gay and I hate having to be associated with them as a humanist. Humanism should be like nietzschean ayn rand shit not this homosexual fedora crap.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Humanism was invented by Catholics you fricking moron

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well, you're not that great yourself, Mr. Hitchens

    Hitchens states that John Wycliffe and Myles Coverdale were burned alive by the Church in the 14th and 16th century, when both died of old age. (page 125)

    In the previous sentence, he claims that "There would have been no Protestant Reformation, if it were not for the long struggle to have the Bible rendered into 'the Vulgate'" ([sic], he means vernacular, vulgate refers to a specific 4th century translation of the Bible... in latin), even though a German translation had existed for centuries, and Gutenberg Mentellin printed his German Bible in 1455 1466, nearly fifty five years before Luther's 95 theses! (p.125)

    (And speaking of Martin Luther, he is famously said to have spoken the words "Here I stand, I can do no other" at the Diet of Worms in 1521, not in Wittenberg and not in 1517 as Hitchens states. He also did not nail his 95 theses to the door of "Wittenberg Cathedral", which had and still has no Cathedrals, but to the door of All Saint's Church) (p.180)

    The entire section about the alleged refusal to translate the Bible is a gold mine of major mistakes. Hitchens states that "all religions have staunchly resisted any attempt to translate their sacred texts into languages 'understood of the people'", which is so incorrect I don't even know where to start. Not only is this reductive to a single stereotype about the Bible, completely ignoring basically every other holy book and text in the history of the World, but it's not even true of the Bible! Allow me to quote William Hamblin on the subject: "The Bible was the most widely translated book in the ancient world. It was translated into Greek (the Septuagint, second century bc), Aramaic (Targum, by the first century bc), Old Latin (second century ad), Syriac (Peshitta, third century ad), Coptic (Egyptian, fourth century ad), Gothic (Old German, fourth century ad), Latin (Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, late fourth century ad), Armenian (early fifth century ad), Ethiopic (fifth century ad), Georgian (fifth century ad), Old Nubian (by the eighth century ad), Old Slavonic (ninth century ad), and Arabic (Saadia Gaon’s version, early tenth century ad). " (p.125)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hitchens concludes that Buddhism is anti-intellectual based on a written sign he saw at Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh's (Osho) Ashram... Who was a Hindu. Or rather, a cult leader who was barely recognizable as even a Hindu. So much for his ten pages on the "Eastern solution". (p.196)

      He states that Jesus Christ was actually born in 4 AD... When all the serious scholarship I found on the subject agrees on a date around 6 BC, and definitely before 4 BC (which is when the infamous King Herod died). (p.60)

      He misattributes a quote to Thomas Aquinas (famous for his breadth of scholarship) of "I am a man of one book" as proof of his narrow-mindedness... When the real quote is "I fear the man of one book", and even that quote is highly suspect considering it first cropped up in the 17th century. Hitchens himself however seems to be the only source for his version of the quote, as far as I can tell... So where did he get it from? (p.63)

      Hitchens gets Bart Ehrman's name wrong ("Barton" Ehrman?) multiple times despite quoting him extensively through his book, misattributes work to him, and claims he's Christian when he's long identified as an agnostic atheist (he's still alive today, he really could have just asked him). (p.120, 142, 298)

      He claims that the early Church burned and suppressed the works of Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks, which is not only complete fabrication, but especially egregious since the only reason so many even survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire is that the (Christian) Eastern Roman Empire and Christian monasteries in Western Europe actively preserved and copied both, and often incorporated their thoughts into their own philosophies and scholarship. (p.25)

      Hitchens gets even basic names wrong while talking about the book of Mormon: "Nephi the son of Lephi" is in fact the son of Lehi, and the "made-up battle of Cumora" would in fact be made up since it's the battle of Cumorah. So much for his alleged "close and erudite reading of the major religious texts". (p.163, 167)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        afflingly, he gets the date of the American Civil Rights Act wrong in the same section, "1965" instead of 1964! Where was the editor!? (Especially since the Mormon revelation he tries to place before the passage of the Civil Rights act was actually 13 years after his own incorrect date, in 1978) (p.167)

        Hitchens calls John Adams a slaveholder, even though Adams is famously notable for being one of only two among the first twelve US presidents not to own any slaves! (p.181)

        This one is just incredible. Hitchens classifies the great (agnostic) physicist Fred Hoyle as a "creationist" for supporting the "Steady-State" theory that was the main rival to the Big Bang theory... When it reality Hoyle opposed the Big Bang Theory partly because of its implied confirmation of Genesis 1:1 (According to Hoyle, it was cosmic chutzpah of the worst kind: “The reason why scientists like the ‘big bang’ is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis.”)! The Big Bang Theory which was first hypothesized by Georges Lemaître... a Catholic priest!!! Not only was the Steady-State theory perfectly legitimate and respected in its time (before it was disproven by Hubble), but Hitchens has somehow taken an agnostic physicist opposing a physicist priest's theory because it sounded too theistic, and turned it into a creationist's dogma-fueled denial of the "true" science! It would have been impossible to be more wrong had he actively tried to be! (p.65)

        Hitchens claims he was a "guarded admirer" of pope John Paul II. This seems to be at odds with his previous writings in the hit piece he wrote at his death in which John Paul II is described as, I quote "an elderly and querulous celibate, who came too late and who stayed too long", and suggested that the only reason he would not burn eternally for his crimes was that he was too rational to believe in Hell. (p.193)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          he Arian Heresy never taught that the Father and Son were "two incarnations of the same person", as Hitchens claims in passing snark about Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un. In fact, it taught the exact opposite, that the Father and Son were two wholly distinct entities, with the Son begotten by and subordinate to the Father. (p.248)

          He claims that the Rwandan genocide, where one Catholic ethnic group tried to exterminate a different Catholic ethnic group, was caused by religion on the basis of an obscure prophecy uttered by a fringe sect leader (whose nickname he gets wrong as "Little Pebbles" instead of "The Little Pebble") seven years before the genocide and at best briefly co-opted by the Hutus, rather than the perfectly secular ethnic tensions most historians agree are the cause. I have been able to find no actual historian seriously naming the excommunicated mystic as a cause of the Rwandan genocide other than Hitchens. (p.190)

          Hitchens affirms that Protestants were forbidden from holding office in Maryland, when that was actually Catholics. (p.34)

          He repeats the tired myth of Pius XII being a "pro-nazi" pope when his only source (in a rare instance of him naming it) is John Cornwell's infamous book "Hitler's Pope", which was criticized so much by the historian community that Cornwell was forced to publicly back down from his own claims in 2004, three years before Hitchens would quote them extensively in god is not Great. (p.239-240)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In a similar vein, he writes that "Benito Mussolini had barely seized power in Italy before the Vatican made an official treaty with him, known as the Lateran Pact of 1929"... Except Mussolini took power on October 29, 1922. Seven years earlier. (p.235)

            Hitchens claims that theists "yielded, not without a struggle, to the overwhelming evidence of evolution", when Darwin was a Christian convinced that God was the "First Cause" of evolution, and though he later became agnostic, he stated that "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God", and the Roman Church never opposed the theory of evolution. Not only that, but he conveniently ignores that the field of genetics was founded by Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian Monk. (p.85)

            He calls T. S. Eliot a "Catholic intellectual" even though he was an Anglican (probably on the basis that he once described himself as "Anglo-Catholic", but that is a current within Anglicanism and most certainly not a profession to Roman Catholicism) (p.237)

            Hitchens snarks that all the splinters and nails of the True Cross, if put together, would make a "thousand-foot cross", but a 19th-century painstaking cataloguing of all known splinters by Charles Rohault de Fleury found they a total mass of about 4000 cubic centimeters. For reference, that's almost precisely one American gallon. (p.135)

            He quotes the controversial Fawn Brodie's equally controversial claims about Mormonism by referring to her as "Dr. Fawn Brodie"... Even though she's never held any sort of doctorate. (p.162)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            e states that Orthodox israelites have sex "through a hole in a sheet". None of the three branches of Judaism have any such bizarre impositions, and any amount of research should have disproved this tired old anti-Semitic myth of sexual deviancy from a religion notable for actually encouraging husbands and wives to make love as a point of doctrine. An especially head-scratching passage considering his copy-editor and publisher were both israeli. (p.54)

            Hitchens affirms that religion is necessarily hostile to medicine, when both Christianity and Islam were building hospitals and at the forefront of furthering medical research, which he conveniently ignores. (p.46-47)

            He claims that "a papal army set out to recapture Bethlehem and Jerusalem from the Muslims, incidentally destroying many israeli communities and sacking heretical Christian Byzantium along the way", which must have made it an army of prodigiously long-lived individuals, since those are events from the First and Fourth Crusades, over a hundred years apart. Not that even this is relevant, since the Rhineland massacres were perpetrated by the People's Crusade that was most definitely not endorsed by the Pope, much less a "Papal Army". (p.23)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Perhaps not a "false claim" so much a particularly ironic erring: "The loss of faith can be compensated by the newer and finer wonders that we have before us, as well as by immersion in the near-miraculous work of Homer and Shakespeare and Milton and Tolstoy and Proust", as of these only Proust was not devoutly religious (and not even an atheist, an agnostic): Homer's tale is entirely inspired and animated by the gods, Shakespeare was a conforming member of the Church of England, though some historians suspect he was secretly Catholic, Milton's religious views inspired many of his greatest works including the explicitly religious Paradise Lost and, particularly ironic, Tolstoy rejected Hitchens's thesis that the meaning of life can come from art or philosophy or science, stating instead that "only faith can give truth". (p.151)

            Hitchens affirms that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was "announced or discovered" in 1852, and the dogma of the Assumption in 1951. The dates he was looking for are 1854 and 1950. (p.117)

            He repeats the schoolyard myth of ancient theologians arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin even though it's common knowledge that it's a satire of medieval "scholastics". (p.68)

            Hitchens makes the baffling claim that "there is no country in the world today where slavery is still practiced where the justification of it is not derived from the Koran", conveniently ignoring China, Brazil, and arguably the USA, among many others. (p.181)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And lastly, though this is most certainly not my area of expertise, a New Testament PhD scholar found in god is not Great fifteen "factual errors" in addition to sixteen that he believes show "a substantial misunderstanding or distortion of the evidence", which it's probably better for you to read there rather than hear from me. The most egregious though is when Hitchens claims that none of the four gospels can agree on "anything of substance" when three of them largely share the same text, and all of them agree on the most important facts of Jesus' life, such as him dying in Jerusalem at Passover under the authority of Pontius Pilates with the complicity of local israeli leaders. Unless Hitchens would somehow consider this unarguably central part of the story to be "unimportant".

            https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/god-is-not-great-by-christopher-hitchens-a-response/

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            how fricking high do you have to be to reference Tolstoy of all people in this context

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus christ how embarassing

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It gets worse

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Holy shit what a pseud

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >e states that Orthodox israelites have sex "through a hole in a sheet". None of the three branches of Judaism have any such bizarre impositions, and any amount of research should have disproved this tired old anti-Semitic myth of sexual deviancy
            This is true i saw it on curb your enthusiasm

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Again, so what? God is still not great.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Osho didn't even consider himself a Hindu. He was running his own cult and frequently sperged out against Hindu and other Dharmic scriptures, gods, sages and gurus.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pedantry and nothing else. None of these inaccuracies make God real.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I could use empiricism as a standpoint and doubt the physical existence of ‘you’ because I can’t tell whether you’re a bot or not. It would be an exercise in pedantry but religion and god is a feeling you either get, or don’t. You can’t weasel a believer out of faith with reason. I’m the farthest thing from atheist but you should drop it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I read a nominalist empircist argument that denied identity all together

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Again, so what? God is still not great.

        cope & seethe

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I love this pedantic troll like you wouldn’t believe

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You do good work, anon. Keep at it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > Hitchens states that "all religions have staunchly resisted any attempt to translate their sacred texts into languages 'understood of the people'"
      str8 cap
      Cyril and Methodie are a great counterexample

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Now imagine if the author of that article treated the Bible with the same level of scrutiny

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hitchens concludes that Buddhism is anti-intellectual based on a written sign he saw at Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh's (Osho) Ashram... Who was a Hindu. Or rather, a cult leader who was barely recognizable as even a Hindu. So much for his ten pages on the "Eastern solution". (p.196)

      He states that Jesus Christ was actually born in 4 AD... When all the serious scholarship I found on the subject agrees on a date around 6 BC, and definitely before 4 BC (which is when the infamous King Herod died). (p.60)

      He misattributes a quote to Thomas Aquinas (famous for his breadth of scholarship) of "I am a man of one book" as proof of his narrow-mindedness... When the real quote is "I fear the man of one book", and even that quote is highly suspect considering it first cropped up in the 17th century. Hitchens himself however seems to be the only source for his version of the quote, as far as I can tell... So where did he get it from? (p.63)

      Hitchens gets Bart Ehrman's name wrong ("Barton" Ehrman?) multiple times despite quoting him extensively through his book, misattributes work to him, and claims he's Christian when he's long identified as an agnostic atheist (he's still alive today, he really could have just asked him). (p.120, 142, 298)

      He claims that the early Church burned and suppressed the works of Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks, which is not only complete fabrication, but especially egregious since the only reason so many even survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire is that the (Christian) Eastern Roman Empire and Christian monasteries in Western Europe actively preserved and copied both, and often incorporated their thoughts into their own philosophies and scholarship. (p.25)

      Hitchens gets even basic names wrong while talking about the book of Mormon: "Nephi the son of Lephi" is in fact the son of Lehi, and the "made-up battle of Cumora" would in fact be made up since it's the battle of Cumorah. So much for his alleged "close and erudite reading of the major religious texts". (p.163, 167)

      BASED.
      Frick Hitchens.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based. Fedora tippers who regurgitate into the idea that the Bible wasn't translated in order to keep it's content secret from laypeople are complete morons (i.e. the vast majority of people were illiterate and if you weren't odds are you were educated in Latin).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Greek (the Septuagint, second century bc), Aramaic (Targum, by the first century bc), Old Latin (second century ad), Syriac (Peshitta, third century ad), Coptic (Egyptian, fourth century ad), Gothic (Old German, fourth century ad), Latin (Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, late fourth century ad), Armenian (early fifth century ad), Ethiopic (fifth century ad), Georgian (fifth century ad), Old Nubian (by the eighth century ad), Old Slavonic (ninth century ad), and Arabic (Saadia Gaon’s version, early tenth century ad).
      Not European vernaculars lol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >old german is not european

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I’ve just remembered that i’ve seen plenty of anglo saxon copies of the gospels too. I think hitchens just saw that the entire bible wasn’t translated and assumed it was hidden

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Slavonic
        >Not European vernaculars lol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >German
        >Latin
        >Georgian
        >Slavonic

        >not European vernacular languages
        what are you even doing on a literature board

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >In the previous sentence, he claims that "There would have been no Protestant Reformation, if it were not for the long struggle to have the Bible rendered into 'the Vulgate'" ([sic], he means vernacular, vulgate refers to a specific 4th century translation of the Bible... in latin), even though a German translation had existed for centuries, and Gutenberg Mentellin printed his German Bible in 1455 1466, nearly fifty five years before Luther's 95 theses! (p.125)
      So the Bible translation into vernacular has preceeded Protestant Reformation, and Hitchens refers to it as a key cause of the Reformation.
      Where is the contradiction?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, they banned translations into the vernacular at the Council of Toulouse (1229) and actually banned lay people from reading existing vernacular translations.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Heretics will be the first ones to burn in the fifth reich

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    turns out an atheist who is famous only for being a quipping little c**t was a moron that couldn't do the simplest of fact checking, who knew? get some better idols reddit.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If atheists are so convinced God doesn't exist, why don't they kill themselves?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Erm, because they don't want to die?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why not? Everything is meaningless and there is no life after death: kys.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Everything is meaningless
          (not true, by the way)
          >and there is no life after death
          ...so they enjoy this life instead. That wasn't so hard to figure out, was it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But it's all just chemicals, it's not real.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            he's probably 15 and hasn't grasped what the worldview he adopted to spite his parents entails yet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not my problem.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Kys

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, I don't think I will.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            how are you going to explain to christ come judgement day why you "poorly" attempted to pressure someone into such a grave sin like killing themselves?

            >And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
            >It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That I did it to some soulless bugman who would be better off dead anyways

            No, I don't think I will.

            You should though. What reasons do you have to keep on living?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What reasons do you have to keep on living?
            Spending time with my family and my friends, pursuing my interests, experiencing/discovering new things? And that's just the absolute basics. Are these things all foreign to you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I will pray for your soul, anon, you clearly need it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Chemicals are what make things real

  8. 1 month ago
    Sage

    Atheistlets...it's time to get some new material...

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hitchens is a product of the media industry. Like a Perterson 30 years ago. It belongs to the trash

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    New Athesits haven't changed one bit since the 2000s. Most people have moved on to other trifles, but they still carry on as though Bush was still in office and Hitchens still walked the Earth. How can they not see the mileau changed around them?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's a significant portion of people who lived through the early 2000s and were convinced by media and entertainment that it was the end of history. They cannot move past this point ideologically.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He was wrong about Mother Terresa, and his debates give me no reason to think this work will be the product of better research. Hitchens was a polemicist first and a truth seeker second.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And you are just a coper.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >look mom I said it. Hey is dad back from the store yet?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Free will does not disprove existence of God.
        Assume for a second God exists. Would you like lightning to strike you as you fornicate so you go to hell immediately? That's a sin too. Most atheists like to pick some sort of evil that "good God wouldn't allow" as an argument against Him, ignoring all the evil they support or do. But God is patient, merciful and capable o producing greater good from great evil (providence), which gives them too time to convert and be saved. I hope you do so.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you've never read it, Simon Leys has a spectacular essay about how Christopher Hitchens got basically every major point in The Missionary Position completely wrong.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'll look it up. Thanks.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I would have a lot more respect for Christopher Hitchens if he hadn't become one of the most vocal supporters of America's invasion of the Middle East after 9/11. He went from "all religions are poisonous tools to control the masses" to "Islam specifically is the only bad religion, please pay me for speaking appearances so I can keep slobbering Christian Imperialist dick" practically overnight.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist here. I'm not a fan of Hitchens. Whenever I hear him talk or read something he wrote it can be boiled down to "Some Christians do bad things in the name of their religion so Christianity is false," when in reality all that proves is that humans do terrible things sometimes. It doesn't disprove the Bible itself. I'm an atheist because the Bible is loaded with contradictions and historical/scientific errors, not because people do bad things in the name of religion.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're anti-christian, more like. Christianity is not he only religion.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine still being a militant fedora atheist in 2024.

    Even your old role models think you are fricking cringe at this point.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      W*men just default to the men's opinion around them, she hangs out with Peterson so of course she became a Christcuck. Doesn't make your magic sky daddy any more appealing, idiot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't it a school night, kid?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Christianity is cringe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yeah posting 5 year old wojaks after getting btfo for an entire thread will really convince people

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >getting btfo
            Here we see the delusion so typical to Christcucks

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >posts more redditjaks instead of arguments
            this is why why you’re the only one defending the midwit hitchens itt. you’re stuck in the past

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Christian beliefs are so abhorrent to the normal moral conscious that you have to be deeply delusional to accept it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the normal moral conscious
            ie made up arbitrary bullshit by your own definition- why would I care? appeal to crowds all you want, I don’t need to believe they’re right because they outnumber me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bro, even ancient Greeks like Aristotle knew that virtues could be discovered by reason. Don't act like they are arbitrary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            aristotle assumed a telos to justify his virtue ethics. i’m clearly arguing with a moron, kek. baked into his moral system is the idea that things are literally created and constantly formed with an end, a purpose, a final cause. central to his system was the first mover, ie, literally a god. you citing him (aristotle actually doesn’t share your view on biology at all, he doesn’t think beings are the product of random evolution or self interested chemical processes) isn’t an argument in defence of your own views either. you can’t coherently explain to me why morality is a compelling or objective system under materialism. nobody has ever been able to do this

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Morality is a utilitarian way of maximizing things that we want to have happen. This is perfectly justified under materialism along rational grounds. The moral compass which has evolved around fairness and compassion is exactly tuned to the necessary prerequisites for a functional society. It's not surprising to me that you can't comprehend this though and require a divine father figure to mandate that certain things are good before you'll accept them, you don't seem like that bright of a cookie.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Morality is a utilitarian way of maximizing things we want to have happen
            How exactly is that not arbitrary? That means it could basically be anything and shift with the trends. If that is what morality is then morality doesnt matter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Morality is a tool that is used on the societal level to mediate negotiations between people. Good morals facilitate fruitful and ongoing relationships. Bad morals inhibit this. What do you not understand?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Morality is a utilitarian way of maximizing things that we want to have happen.
            People want different things; moron.
            > The moral compass which has evolved around fairness and compassion is exactly tuned to the necessary prerequisites for a functional society.
            No such "moral compass" exists, and that's an appeal to consequences fallacy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The vast majority of people want basically the same things. Even monkeys have a moral compass and can gauge fairness. It's all game theory and the negotiations of mutually beneficial interactions across time. If this is too hard for you to comprehend then there is no helping you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you can’t coherently explain to me why morality is a compelling or objective system under materialism. nobody has ever been able to do this
            I don't know why "morality" would be any less arbitrary bullshit under anything that's not materialism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Bro, even ancient Greeks like Aristotle knew that virtues could be discovered by reason.
            They can't. Aristotle was wrong lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's scholasticsism bro and it's basically the Pelagian heresy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >arbitrary
            You don't know what that word means.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If not underageds I think it's pajeets who post this shit, it's always the same four or five wojaks and overbearing spamming of "christcuck" whilst never actually adding anything of discursive value.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Richard Dawkins is one of the most effeminate men alive, though

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Atheists are generally homosexuals

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because the only arguments against homosexuality are religious

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not really. There has never been an actual case made for homosexuality not has the natural law view ever been refuted. All refutations of the natural law view just base themselves on either misinterpreting the natural law view or calling it stupid and sulking.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Christopher Hitchens lol
    >*drinks furiously*
    >there has never been a more ferocious, more savage, more brutal tyrant than the great cosmic despot in the *belch* sky
    >*really chugging it down*
    >he who plagues children with bone cancer and *hiccup* condemns gays to hell
    >*opens 2nd fifth of gin*
    >and...and..*hiccup* and he's...woah...uh he's a FACKING c**t, A FACKING STUPID c**t. HAHA, YOU HEAR THAT DAD? HAHAHAHA. YOU CANT GET ME NOW DAD. IM *BELCH* IM A MAN NOW DADDY, HAHAHAHA. YOU CANT GET ME. FACK YOU AND *hiccup* FACK GOD
    >HAHAHAHAHAhaha...hahaha...ha....
    >*starts crying*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      *projecting this hard*

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        My dad and I are cool and I've never had alcohol problems
        Christopher Hitchens was a fricking miserable loser and most men who reject God have father issues
        Guy was also a drunk

        Hahaha holy shit Hitchens was so fricking stupid and annoying to listen to

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          My man, "The Heavenly Father" is undoubtedly the mother of all father issues. Especially one that demands your peepee get a trim.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Really only a Protestant thing, it doesn’t really exist outside of it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            eeh, the way i see it, "storing up treasures in heaven" in Christianity is basically done through a combination of self mastery of the will and being a kind and loving person to the people in your life. not exactly what i would call "life denial", its just a different kind of lifeltyle that has less superficial aims than indulging in vanity and egoism and pure sensuality. if that kind of stuff is all you care about then yea, i guess its "life denial", but it seems to me like most people who are into that kinda stuff generally end up destroying themselves and/or other people around them and all around being miserable and spreading misery

            Yes, when you ignore the words of Jesus and just make up whatever you want, it can be anything. My point is that the further you get away from the text of what Jesus said or the doctrine of any particular church, the more reasonable you become.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah
            I agree. The further you get from the sermon on the mount, the more reasonable you become. Same with the Commandments.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            why did you reply to my post with this? what i posted is literally just a summary of how jesus said "storing up treasures in heaven" is done; by having faith in him, loving eachother as he commanded, and controlling your self destructive wordy and egotistical impulses. this is straight from the gospel.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No. Atheism is. The Heavenly Father is a father who loves you and expects the best from you on the soul level, without God a man has no innate value. Thus he will seek his value through externalities, like deeds, possessions, and status. All of which are intended to be bonuses on top of serving the innate value of the inward treasure. Life.
            Men who don't have God have no innate value thus they live like frightened children who are unloved, lashing out and the like. Having no God is spiritual fatherlessness, and we know the effects of earthly fatherlessness. This is the same thing as that, only worse.
            And how could a man who has no Father in his soul, be a good father to his sons? The cycle thus continues until one looks at his broken father on Earth and says, I have my father who art in heaven, and the one I have here on Earth suffers for the same reasons I do, we have both lost our patriarch.
            Love is impossible to give if it isn't felt securely in ones self. The only secure love that defies all circumstance is God. Without God people don't feel like they have innate value, and they treat themselves, the world and one another as such.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The Heavenly Father is a father who loves you and expects the best from you
            Yes, a fantasy father who both loves you and whom you are meant to fear. This speaks to major daddy issues.
            >without God a man has no innate value
            You clearly don't know what "innate" means, since it cannot be granted by the existence of an exterior thing.
            >Having no God is spiritual fatherlessness
            >"Having no imaginary friend is imaginary friendlessness"
            You are really stuck in a childish mindset, aren't you?
            >The only secure love that defies all circumstance is God. Without God people don't feel like they have innate value
            Fantasy love is a delusion and is therefore not secure. The only real love is from our fellow human beings who we can see, touch, and who can intervene in our lives to help us. On the other hand, you have a made up fictional character who not only refuses to act (mostly on the account of not existing), but who you also suppose to be the reason for all the suffering on Earth anyway! You imagine that this "spiritual father" purposely put you in a situation of suffering and then demands you submit to him. It's perverse and would only appeal to someone who has deep psychological issues and can't imagine relating to one's father as a man, as a friend and equal, as actually grateful to that father for one's upbringing. Instead, people like you think it's natural and normal to be heavily abused by one's father, to be thrown into the world with no succor or solace other than a vague impression that he "expects the best from you". A good father does not merely "hope", anon, a good father helps you and demonstrates his love for you by being there and caring. I am sorry for you that you can accept a literal absent father (God, since he doesn't exist) and still think he's the ultimate form of fatherhood. It truly is heartbreaking to see.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >a good father helps you and demonstrates his love for you by being there and caring.
            He did demonstrate his love. He came and suffered with us. He emptied himself and was humiliated and died for us. He taught mankind by providing the perfect example. God is not an absent Father.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have no sense of poetry? Of love? You're mind is stuck in the realm of the economy. Tit for tat, quid pro quo. Stop trying to calculate everything. God's demonstration of love to mankind seems absurd because love is absurd. It is absurd and beautiful. God is crazy in love with you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            lol. lmao.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Fedora
    Why are you even acknowledging this shit? These religious morons don't even know the difference between a fedora and a trilby, so I'm not surprised evoking some random image of a fat neckbeard guy is still the only "argument" they have after all these years.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him.
    --Voltaire

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that's what Biden said about Israel

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    do people actually take this guy seriously or is it just a meme? it’s all youtube tier polemic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      cope

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are you acquainted with the beliefs of Christians? It's a cult of cannibalistic human sacrifice where most of the adherents just decided to chop up their baby sons' dicks when they are born because the israelites do.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this is exactly what I mean. using silly language to describe anything is a way to exacerbate incredulity. it’s polemic. it’s not an actual argument
        >most
        you mean specifically american protestants, last time i checked most christians are catholic. but please by all means make it clearer how much your childhood “trauma” poisons your amerimutt judgment

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >most christians are catholic
          Yes, and Catholics consume the flesh and blood of a God made human. Thus they are literally a cult of cannibalistic human sacrifice. This isn't a polemic description, it is a literal one. There is a long history of magical thinking that sacrificing a human being will cause magical effects, Christianity is just one of the enduring delusions. Read a book.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >read a book
            >cites moronic proto campbell tier comparative mythology that has been repudiated by every accredited historian for the last 50 years
            i’d rather read actual books.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"B-bu-but that's been deboooonked by accredited historians!"
            gtfo you moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the book is literally on the level of the stuff you’re trying to criticise. i’m sure you haven’t actually read it at all
            >the fishier king is totally a fertility ritual if you ignore 90% of the context around it
            it’s fricking moronic. it’s taking butchered quotes from random shit and forcing it with other ones through a tortured modernist narrative. there’s a reason nobody born after 1950 cites it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It references a huge number of examples of many things including kings who are sacrificed when they become too old or there is a blight on the land as a magical remedy, and how this was then transposed onto the son of the king. There are also similar things in Greek and Egyptian myths. You are just coping and seething, Christianity belongs to the same anthropological tradition of deranged people deluded into thinking that the ritual murder of a human being can cause magic things to happen. You are a primitive mind who has accepted primitive beliefs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ie, the same thing “zeitgeist” does. I guess im primitive because of what that shit said too

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >moron: read a book [tips fedora]
            >anon: that book is bad though
            >moron: HISTORIANS PFFFF!
            The unearned/false intellectual pride of fedora tippers is always good for a laugh. Never change.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's infinitely amusing that someone defending the belief that a magic Heavenly Father had a human son who he had born in order to be ritually executed as a sacrifice to atone for his creation eating a fruit he created and put in front of them so he could forgive them of doing a crime before they had the knowledge of good and evil and thus incapable of Mens Rea, and who held untold number of future generations responsible for that crime will then accuse others of having too high an opinion of their own beliefs. It's amazing to behold.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >fedora sperg
            LOL! Thanks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >(You)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Thus they are literally a cult of cannibalistic human sacrifice
            that’s so erotic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Golden Bough
            Refuted by Girard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God made human
            Begotten, not made. moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Begyatt*

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this is exactly what I mean. using silly language to describe anything is a way to exacerbate incredulity. it’s polemic. it’s not an actual argument
        >most
        you mean specifically american protestants, last time i checked most christians are catholic. but please by all means make it clearer how much your childhood “trauma” poisons your amerimutt judgment

        It's not american protestants, it's just Americans. Even secular or atheist Americans circumcise their children. Its caused by the corrupt nedical industry profiting from selling the foreskin which is full of stem cells. Circumcision is explicitly ended as a practice in the New Testament

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's the fault of gullible women and their engagement with israelites. Replacing women with artificial wombs and sex bots = men get their foreskin back. Its really that simple

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >we want to have happen
    ie, appeal to consensus argument ad populum
    >perfectly justified
    stating something doesn’t make it true
    >fairness and compassion
    not absolute unchanging concepts, they vary wildly through history and different societies. chemcial emotional in itself, even if it was universal, which it isn’t, wouldn’t be compelling either. evolution and brain chemistry is utterly meaningless, it’s the result of atomic collisions which are completely amoral
    >functional society
    appeal to nature / efficiency
    >you can’t comprehend
    sure thing pal

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      kek, you literally can't comprehend anything. Game Theory is not variable, the same outcomes will result from the same givens. And I literally said it's utilitarian and you accuse me of appealing to efficiency? LOL. Human beings desire certain things. There is a certain code of morality which facilitates this the best. Therefore there is an objectively optimal moral code which will best allow the most people to obtain the best outcomes for them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I make up an arbitrary consensus about what people want and apparently mathematical formulas can provide us this.
        barring this moronation, the is ought thing is a massive stumbling block for you. these observations aren’t a compelling reason for me to do anything nor are they an objective law. they’re suggestions based on the data of utterly meaningless conditions

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >is ought thing
          Meaningless. People do desire things and there is an optimal way to fulfill these desires.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay. I desire for you to be dead. What is the optimal way for me to fulfil that desire? What’s your address?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your aggregate desires will suffer by this course of action, therefore you won't do a damn thing. b***h.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            a mother desires a social life, she kills baby, she makes national news and is exonerated by a moronic jury, desires actualized.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So in summary: The action was against the code (law) and most people condemned it? One person's desires can be filled at the expense of another, but it is in the meta interest of all members of society to uphold a standard of fairness so that they benefit individually from society. There are cases where justice is not served or that individuals get away with selfish actions, but the arc of history truly bend towards justice.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well I agree with him I do think the book is trash. Demon haunted world is a better read.

    Also a lot of Christians don’t care about finding proof or god actually existing or not. For them it’s a cope and will only care about theological debates.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    sometimes i wonder if the age of atheism was a necessity. all my life ive witnessed (and back in the day, participated) in this thing playing out, and the defining feature of the collective atheist culture has always been about these vague grievances about how religion was holding us back and that sometimes people commit violence in the name of religion etc and the grass was always greener on the other side. perhaps we as a society needed to experience first hand what religion was "holding us back from" and what the real secular core of violence is, until we are collectively so utterly sick, virtually in a state of mass psychosis onn the brink of self-destruction that we go crawling back to the traditions and the spirituality that at least attempted to keep us on the straight and narrow path, even if it wasn't always 100% effective

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Religion is no bulwark against our "mass psychosis onn the brink of self-destruction". In fact, Christianity is life denying, it is a delusion focused on existing after death, a patent absurdity. It fosters infant genital mutilation. It opposes contraception, fosters the oppression of women, and general morons society.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        why the frick is it that i come to IQfy and regularly see unapologetic redditors posting here like anyone gives a frick about your gay little high school opinions? yeah man jesus outlawed condoms and beat up women nobody cares shut the frick up homosexual kys

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          kys idiot, isn't that what Christcucks secretly want, since Heaven must be better than Earth? And if God punishes suicide, then you must secretly hope a semi truck takes you out, nice and quick fast track through this veil of tears to the arms of Jesus? You Christcucks are a million times more insufferable than redditors.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Christianity is life denying
        What does that even mean?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He has a gnostic perspective of the faith built out of ignorance when it was condemned by the Council Of Nicea

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Christianity demands that you forsake this world, this fallen world, and "store up for yourself treasures in Heaven". You can't escape the words of Jesus, he plainly says to take no thought for the morrow, to sell your possessions and give to the poor, to abandon earthly pleasures for the sake of an imagined afterlife, one which Jesus very clearly thought was imminent (he said that there were those among his followers who would live to see the final judgement day, Christians are forced to hand wave this away, just as they do for earthly pleasures since they all actually prioritize their selfish life over they laughably childish religion)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            eeh, the way i see it, "storing up treasures in heaven" in Christianity is basically done through a combination of self mastery of the will and being a kind and loving person to the people in your life. not exactly what i would call "life denial", its just a different kind of lifeltyle that has less superficial aims than indulging in vanity and egoism and pure sensuality. if that kind of stuff is all you care about then yea, i guess its "life denial", but it seems to me like most people who are into that kinda stuff generally end up destroying themselves and/or other people around them and all around being miserable and spreading misery

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, Christianity teaches that this world is permeated by death so pursuing the world as your end is in vain. Instead pursue the next life, which is eternal. That doesn't mean to live in a cave and be an extreme ascetic. We will be judged for actions in this world. Therefore live well so you can die well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would I want to live forever? Be it heaven or hell, they both sound like suffering to me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think "eternal life" in heaven is going to be just modern day life dragged out to infinity. That might be the way it gets marketed by some Christians but I don't think it's possible to really understand what it would actually entail just like there's no way for an ant to understand what it's like to be a human.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thats a you problem

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >laughably childish religion
            >our entire study of ethics and morality are just footnotes to the sermon on the mount
            Anon please. Also the idea that Christianity is false because Christians are sinners is silly, it's the entire point of the religion. If people could live truly sinless lives then Jesus wouldn't have been special and you could say the religion is fake

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity is false because by its text alone, the kingdom of heaven was supposed to have happened in the first century, then when it didn't, they wrote the Apocalypse of John to try and explain this away, but it's wild that it's prophecy didn't happen, and somehow two thousand years later it's still chugging along. Christianity has been on end times are near for 2000 whole years, given that the biblical date of creation is 3761 BC that's a pretty long time to be waiting, particularly when you consider the exodus was in 1440 BC. That means the distance between the exodus and Jesus is less than Jesus and the supposedly very soon second coming. Which is even more surprising when you consider that the exodus is treated as a very ancient event in the New Testament. That's why it's a silly religion. If Christianity was sooooooo important to western ethics, why do Christian ethics rely almost entirely on Aristotle?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >by it's text alone
            >doesn't post the text
            Jesus refused to tell anyone when, that is what is written in the text. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How come in Mark 13:30 he says he is coming back in a generation? Why to Christians just cope and seethe about the literal text of their religion, quoting their prophet saying he will be back soon, and mentioning the hour or the day but not the year let alone millennium? I wonder when the last Christian will die off? 3,000? 4,000? 40,000 years from now still thinking that he is going to be back soon? Can all Christians just decide that if he doesn't come back by 2036, more than 2000 years from the latest possible date of Crucifixion that they will just stop?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Circumcision is not even necessary for Christians. Shows how much you know.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every kid has their rebellious phase and unfortunately for those of arrested development it goes beyond it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is literally what the apocalyptic prophecy is

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >if god real then why bad thing happen
    I'm the first one who thought of this. I'm a genius. Origen? Thomas of Aquinas? Saint Augustine? I don't need to read those guys. They haven't thought as deeply about
    >if god real then why bad thing happen
    As me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If god real why he let bad thing happen but also intervenes randomly?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        God only intervenes when it comes to truly important issues, like football games.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    every single thread about religion is low iq christians being btfo'd. literally every single time
    no wonder they create so many threads. "maybe we wont get shit on this time"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yeah you samegayging to cheerlead yourself is really convincing bro

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    only good things about hitchens were his support of palestine, support of same sex marriage, gun rights support and being against serb ultra nationalism
    other than that he sucked

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't you read a real scholar, instead of a TV celebrity? This is like getting your religious opinions from Conan O'Brien.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hitchens is a smart guy to dumb guys. he's all rhetoric and no reason.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now write about the Muslims

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I watched his debate with William Lane Craig and it was obvious that Hitchens was way out of his depth.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Name one argument
    >t-t-t-his one
    One that wasn't brought up by peasants in a field hundreds of years ago and answered by the church

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What a moronic book. The argument that disproves Christisraelitery is this:
    >accounts of the Christian god were created by israelites
    >israelites lie
    >if israelites told the accounts of the Christian god and israelites lie the accounts are a fabrication
    >if the accounts of Christianity are false than the religion's bases is in a lie
    >if a religion is based in a lie than it is a false religion
    >Christianity is a false religion
    You can only refute this by tell me that israelites tell the truth, which is a very israeli assertion. Christisraelitery BTFO.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >All the counter-arguments reek of cope.
    Ik,r?

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He makes a mockery of himself and you can't take this book seriously when he claims that MLK and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were not true Christians because a genuine Christian would be violent and murderous like the God of the Bible. Honestly, from an academic point of view one sees (since Hitchens never provides a definition of religion; if he did, he would never have succeeded with this tactic) that his entire argument amounts to “Religion ruins everything because I label everything ruinous as religion”. He presumes that whenever something bad happens because of religion, that’s somehow what religion is really about, and when something good happens because of religion, then that’s not really because of religion. The main argument is simply circular logic.

    Regardless for the people left in the threat, religion this religion that following a religion is stupid anyway you would be a fool to blindly follow a religion. Follow Jesus Christ and people like this have no arguments to use against you other than seething because you won't stoop to their level and say it's ok engage in the fantasy that we all get to do whatever we want and engage in any sinful pleasure we want and then get to turn into fertiliser when it's over

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do you think Cormac McCarthy wasted his time reading Christopher hitchens?

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    6
    I never really understood why Nu Atheism always had this big pedantic stick up it's ass about the term agnostic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      because agnostics are the actually reasonable, respectable ones so militant atheists desperately want to larp them into the same lump as them, despite the fact that agnostics specifically name themselves to avoid this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because they defined their identity around actively NOT believing in God and something that was functionally equivalent but slightly more intellectually honest hampered that sense of community.

      I think "agnostic" is a dumb term and that agnostics are literally just a type of atheist btw

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >refutes cucktianity before its inception.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >evil exists
      False. Evil is absence and non being.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Is there absence and non-being in this world?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Your mothers pussy after everything I put it through

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no, which is why there’s no evil. just lacking good

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no, there is no absence, just the absence of good

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            saying something doesn’t exist isn’t saying non existence exists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You just conceded there was an absence of good one post ago.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            as in, evil is not a quality or a positive existence. something can be good, or lacking goodness, but lacking goodness itself is not an ontological thing. it would be like giving positive status to darkness which is not materially anything, it is just not light

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And is there darkness in this world?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is not light. I’m not trying to make this a semantic game, my point was material. What actually is darkness? Is it a quantifiable entity? No it isn’t. Is it an observable thing- your intuition may tell you yes, but this is wrong. You don’t see darkness because darkness is simply not seeing. It doesn’t positively exist, it’s a name given to the sensation of lacking light.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And my point is, why is there an absence of good at all?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t know, I would say that to be a discrete, contingent being, there is a necessary element of limitation. As in, to be an individuated thing, there needs to be a boundary and things you are definitively not. And so while we are composed of and share in the divine attributes, like goodness, we cannot have their totality, because that would entail being a totality, or being being itself. And since God is being itself, he can be identical to goodness or possess goodness maximally, of which we being discrete, limited and parasitic on him, possess in part or to varying degrees. I’m basically falling back on plato here i’m realising, but it has its logic to it. If everything they’re maximally good, it would be God. Since we are separate and contingent on God, we possess goodness according to the limitation of our being as individual things. It’s half 4 in the morning here so that might all be schizophrenic nonsense

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I’m sorry sir, we’re all out of cream, can I get you a Coffee with no milk?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "x IS non-being/absence" was refuted even earlier, lmao

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >X doesn’t exist
          >so you’re saying non existence is a property of X?
          >no, i’m saying X doesn’t exist

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So people can't be evil and perform evil acts?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No but they have vice

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    bex owes me sex my entire life

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All this lazy shithead did in his life is swoon the crowds with a never ending appeal to emotion.
    He made millions by inventing a million way different way to say "if God real then why doodoo peepee?
    You have to be mentally challenged to take this mong seriously.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a million way different way
      frick
      a million different ways

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    could you summarise the most important arguments for me OP?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Some people do bad things in the name of religion, therefore God isn't real

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am a non-believer purely on the basis that I don't believe in anything supernatural. Anything beyond that is just fussing over details.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *