Really makes you think.

H
HO
HOW
HOWD
HOWDA
HOWDAR
HOWDARE
HOWDAREY
HOWDAREYO
HOWDAREYOU
HOWDAREYO
HOWDAREY
HOWDARE
HOWDAR
HOWDA
HOWD
HOW
HO
H

>>1246770
I don't believe even Christopher Hitchens is stupid enough to say that.

>>1246790
All religions are man made and too often, political, exploitative and corrupt.

>>1246790
>google it
>see it listed as attributed to Christopher Hitchens in atheist sites and media
>don't see it's origin

I suppose it's possible.

File: 00001.jpg (26KB, 506x615px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 506x615px

>>1246805
>>1246790
Wait, no, here is the full quote:

>Gullibility and credulity are considered undesirable qualities in every department of human life — except religion.... Why are we praised by godly men for surrendering our “godly gift” of reason when we cross their mental thresholds? ... Atheism strikes me as morally superior, as well as intellectually superior, to religion. Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong. Does this leave us shorn of hope? Not a bit of it. Atheism. and the related conviction that we have just one life to live, is the only sure way to regard all our fellow creatures as brothers and sisters.... Even the compromise of agnosticism is better than faith. It minimizes the totalitarian temptation, the witless worship of the absolute and the surrender of reason.

Christopher Hitchens, "The Lord and the Intellectuals", July 1982

>>1246770
>fedora tips for attention
>gets throat cancer

Kek

>>1246828

>his brother praises G-d
>is enlighted by his morality

I'm not seeing counter arguments

All of them are distractions from the one true religion, Scientology.

Fucking cuck can't even get this right.

>>1246856
Because there isn't much there to begin with.
Disagreements and multiple coexisting ideologies about the nature of reality don't serve to dismiss any core notions between them. This goes for religious and non-religious worldviews.

Just because a lot of people have an idea about how the world works doesn't mean they're all right or they're all wrong. Claims of validity simply do not follow the premise. He's saying just shit, not actually making an argument.

>>1246867
Even the pope believes in evolution - which I'm sure must really piss him off. But he has no choice because evolution is fact, not theory, and he can't afford to deny evolution -otherwise folks might doubt his intelligence.

>>1246867
The underlying point was that it is ridiculous to be oblivious of how many people think their religion is THE religion and that there isn't really a way to say which one is true and which one is paganism so.in orther to bring consistency with religious beliefs, it must be then that everyone should be right, if not, why wager yourself into a what may be a false promise? And the conclusion is that it is more sensible to think all of them are wrong.

>>1246770
Well, he wasn't wrong.

>>1246880
How does that relate to anything you're talking about?

>which I'm sure must really piss him off

Why?
When did Catholicism have any problem with evolution?

>>1246881
Well the underlying point extends from a context completely missing from the quote. The quote, standing on its own, is a fallacious mess.

And even the context you give it is lacking. There are numerous ways to dismiss/parse through religions by speaking of their foundational ideas and not characterize them as one entity. Hitchens does focus on individual foundational ideas himself so I don't know why he'd speak against the idea now. And it's not like you don't see just that in interfaith discourse.

More importantly, the talk of perennialism comes entirely out of left field and isn't necessitated upon anything at all. And no, it's not sensible to think they're all wrong. By the premises you gave me, there's just no reason to believe they are right.

>>1246828
would the cancer be due to his atheism or the 3 packs a day routine?

No. Wait. Stop!
I know. God made him a heavy smoker so he would get the cancer. And he protects people of faith from getting sick at all.

Isn't god great?

>>1247108
calm down m8

>>1247091
>How does that relate to anything you're talking about?
Simple, accepting scientific facts dismisses theological theories,unless you believe God created the world in 6 days,which I assume would be a pre-requisite for being a practicing christian.

>When did Catholicism have any problem with evolution?
Good to hear it doesnt,say hello to your relatives next time you visit the zoo

>>1247153
>Simple, accepting scientific facts dismisses theological theories

That's a massive generalization to go from evolution to all beliefs in religions generally.

>unless you believe God created the world in 6 days,which I assume would be a pre-requisite for being a practicing christian.

But it isn't and hasn't been. stop identifying evangelicalism as Christianity as a whole. You look like a dumbass.

>>1247164
Forgive me, but I assumed the christian god created Adam and Eve as humans, give or take a rib, Is this no longer that case?

>>1247176
Stop

File: image.jpg (158KB, 595x668px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 595x668px

>>1247153
>unless you believe God created the world in 6 days

>>1247091
The necessity doesn't come from an actual logical consecuence, but rather, what are the best options to explain why isn't there a one true religion out there. Why are there Methodists, Calvinists, Mormons, orthodox, etc. How could someone ponder about which path is the right one? Maybe you could say that morally, it feels like this pack of doctrines must be better than the other, but ihf God is all knowing, you don't really have much ti say in the issue. How can you live knowing or feeling that you are on the right path without being empathetic with all the other people who would also die for another set of doctrines? If everyone has the same omniscient, omniwhatever God, then everyone feels that they cannot be wrong because of what God is. So speaking about foundational ideas really isn't speaking about the problems with many religions around the world.

I know it sounds shaky, but I think it is a fair point because there's a clear global contradiction that people experience every day which is about the nature of God an not it's existannce. An ontological argument.The paradox comes from the fact that philosophically, there is no need forr a god to be a certain way because he is way above anything we could comprehend in our imperfect form. So why should someone adhere.to a method instead of the other method with exactly the same validity? Just because they grew up like thay? It doesn't sound like the choices of a critical man. So a man truly devoted to spirituality and religion should clearly try or be very knowledgeable of the other claims and methods to find God. So it ends with someone desperately jumping from dogma to dogma with the crippling sensation that maybe, some kid that will be born in 2000 years will change the whole face of.religion on earth and that he may have been the true spiritual saviour. It follows then that if God is really all the things people claim him ti be and every method to get to him is valid, every religion must be right.

File: A Hard Night with Kirby.jpg (58KB, 648x648px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 648x648px

>>1247176
>early Christian scholars up and down knew better than to assume the creation texts in Genesis were trying to be history out of hand
>St. Augustine affirmed he did not believe in a literal six day creation in the 4th century AD and wrote at length on the parts of Genesis
>Hellenistic Jewish thinkers affirmed this in the BC era
>The age of the earth was confirmed to be in the millions of years in the 17th century and the Church did not throw a hissyfity
>The Church did not throw a hissyfit over Lamarckian evolution
>historically ignorant Evangelical Protestants now throw a hissyfit
>"is that no longer the case?"

>>1246856
If I accept his argument, I most also accept that his argument is likely wrong.

Since it is obviously inconceivable that all arguments can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.

File: 1461748382532.jpg (98KB, 1024x494px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x494px

The Hitchman said some pretty retarded shit (used to be a Marxist) but ultimately unlike most on the left he knew the truth about the civilizational struggle between West and Islam.

>>1247201
>>"is that no longer the case?"
Do you know how to give a straight answer?

>>1247206

>autistic tripfags
>straight answers

Pick one

>>1247206
But he did.
Can't you read?

File: 1448580225790.gif (351KB, 213x222px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 213x222px

>>1247186
he looks like Spede

File: penguin.png (227KB, 484x458px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 484x458px

>>1247187
>The necessity doesn't come from an actual logical consecuence, but rather, what are the best options to explain why isn't there a one true religion out there.

You haven't established or even claimed to establish until now that there is no one true religion. All you said (I would say incorrectly) was there was no way to discern truth between them.
This perennialism is still assumed out of hand. The argument is stupid and fallacious.

We know why different sects appeared historically and surely you grasp that, despite there being one reality, there are thousands of worldviews out there that are wrong.

>How could someone ponder about which path is the right one?

By examining the foundational principles in it. Like, say, if you were a Protestant Evangelical and they asked about your soul you would look into the idea behind the Evangelical's grasp of the soul (cartesian dualism) and the like.

>How can you live knowing or feeling that you are on the right path without being empathetic with all the other people who would also die for another set of doctrines?

The same way you hold a belief strongly that others are strongly against, obviously.

>If everyone has the same...


We aren't speaking of religious conflict. We're talking about discerning between them. How the lay feel about things personally isn't relevant.


>I know it sounds shaky, but...

Maybe because "God" isn't a class of being but rather "god" and "deity" are umbrella terms for a lot of different types of things altogether and multiple people have different understandings of the same thing (which is extremely common of just about everything).

>there is no need forr a god to be a certain way because he is way above anything we...

I'm reading this as:
>there is no need for God to exist in a certain way
>because God exists in this sort of way

And you have a very Abrahamic-centric view to talk about "religions" with, Anon.

File: Cutie Fusilier.jpg (76KB, 600x593px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x593px

>>1247206
Maybe...?

But seriously, I felt that was straight enough for you.


Church historians (besides Evangelicals and other Revivalist Protestants) tend to be in the same position modern scholars are on the subject and assert the Adam and Eve story's genre under the title of "myth". But "myth" in an academic sense does not mean "made up story" but an embellished story based on some historical truth. Many would point to the names Adam and Eve themselves (man and life, respectively) and several other elements of the structure of the text to assert that the poetic nature of the parts of this section of Genesis (Genesis itself being a collection of texts) are not intending to be historical biography by any means.

However, the church does hold to the view of a "fall" occurring through two historic individuals from whom people descended as part of the truth that the story is ultimately based on.

The view of literally a tree and the biting of an apple are seen as part of the poetic nature of the text. This is a very longstanding view within most of Christianity, despite the people who wish to assume this to be a kind of modern development/rationalization.

>>1247322

>But "myth" in an academic sense does not mean "made up story" but an embellished story based on some historical truth.

False. The word 'myth' comes from the Greek word 'mythos', which means 'story'. The idea that stories must be tied to a historical truth is a modern invention that isn't found anywhere in the ancient world. In fact, most myths in ancient times were used as tools of self-reflection and contemplation, not as a discription of events.

>>1247322
Mythic figures can be useful artistically/imaginatively, but they are our imaginative creations, not our creators.
They are basically fantasy fictions which people have over-invested in and have forgotten are man-made (and I say 'man' pointedly, given that the dominant ones are largely vectors of misogyny). Stop pretending they are 'real'; accept that all gods that ever were are creations of the human imagination, as real and unreal as our favourite literary characters. They have no power over us: it is we who have power over them

>>1247322
>>1247201
Ok, what creation story has replaced Genesis for Christains? Also, forgive my lack of biblical savy, isn't Jesus said to be a descendent of people from the OT who in turn were descended from Adam&Eve.

File: atheistshibe.png (136KB, 361x293px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 361x293px

>Since it is obviously inconceivable that all scientific theories can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.

>>1247357

>what is testability

>>1247333
I may be wrong to say that they necessarily has a basis in historical truth but it is still a form of myth and how the church has understood it, longstanding.
Fair enough, man.

>>1247355
Nothing has replaced Genesis. The fuck are you talking about.

>>1247338
>this absolutely massive jump in topic

>>1247364
Something entirely irrelevant to the quote's logic.

>>1247371

Not really, since religious claims by definition aren't testable. That's why you can't equate them to scientific ones, which by definition are

File: HEY GUYS LETS REVOLT.jpg (505KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1024x768px

>>1247376
>testability isn't relevant
>yes it is because you can test things

You fuckers are Australian, aren't you?

>>1247365
I'm asking what explanation is given for our existence, if Genesis literally isn't true, as it isn't, and Christians pass it off as allegory now, what explanation is being offered in its place?

God created us? When/how/why etc, evolution is far from biblical and faced a lot of opposition from the Church but nowadays figures like William Lane Craig claim that it's proof of God creating man.

>>1247365
>Nothing has replaced Genesis.
Well most evolution theories claim that we came from some sort of fish or gorilla or something, if thats the case then God did not create man. If thats the case then Genesis is incorrect all the way around.

>>1246770
"the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong"
>huuuuuh?
Wouldn't the most reasonable conclusion be that somewhere along the way, such an astronomical event took place that created something we now call religion? Whereas, people manipulated the idea to how they saw fit. Through time, greed, and sheer stupidity, people have succeeded in turning religion into a joke whether it be a new "idea" of their beliefs, or a neckbeard sitting on 4chan.

OP's pic is irrational.

>>1247388
>and Christians pass it off as allegory now,
>now
Are you stupid, or acting in bad faith?

>>1247393
>Well most evolution theories claim that we came from some sort of fish or gorilla or something, if thats the case then God did not create man.
Welp, just stupid.

>>1247393
Genesis is incorrect but the way you described abiogenesis is laughable.
P.s. abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing.

>>1247393
There's still the 'gap' for God in abiogenesis.

>>1247396
see >>1247201 and >>1247322

If we look at Genesis from a literal standpoint, we know it is objectively false as life existed on this planet 200 million years ago and there was no garden of eden and no man in sight.

If it's not considered allegory I'd like to know what the explanation for our beginning is now.

>>1247417
If it's considered allegory, rather*

>>1247405
God created Adam and Eve as fully grown adults,how does this fit in with abiogenesis?

>>1247433
It does not but you still described abiogenesis and not evolution.

>>1247417
The main thing from the first 11 chapters of Genesis is that man was created by God, and that man was punished. The sin of Adam is borne by all his descendents, all of humanity, I will turn to science for some answers about the physical world, but the Bible is the only book which teaches Justification by Faith in Christ and him crucified.

File: tacticsogre01.jpg (376KB, 750x850px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 750x850px

>>1247388
Evolution has gotten a lot of lenience and support from the Catholic Church down the ages as parts of their old theology on Genesis (like you'd see with Aquinas or Augustine) support the possibility of it. John Henry Newman is one of the earliest mainstream Catholic scholars to have spoke approvingly of the acceptance of evolution in modern science. Thats around the 1870s (I believe). Not sure if any big names in the church made any statements prior.

I'd be speaking as a Catholic (or at least generally as an Apostolic Christian) to assert that creation is understood as mainly ontological (in the sense of the doctrine of Divine Conservation) but also temporal as well. I'm not sure of the clarity in views over the manner in which temporal causation is to be conceived but that's the basics of creation.

As for Adam and Eve in the Catholic Church I cannot say I know all the details of how the church teaches the story and all they hold to as truth from it but the most bare details is:

>the two historic pair of people from which now all people descend from (with no word on the sense in which they are)

>that they are confirmed truly human by them being endowed with rational souls (soul in a scholastic sense rather than modern)

>that there was a fall (Not sure if they go into the details of it but I believe they do)

>that we are effected by this fail (the traditional understanding of original sin not being some trait placed upon you but a privation of a previous gift, the details of that I'm too tired to get into currently).

Heading out in a minute. Anything else?

>>1246813
I think it's mostly badly phrased and comes out too strong. What he tried to say, in my opinion, is mostly that while it might not be impossible for one (or more) to be incorrect, the fact that they all cannot be correct at the same time and that they contradict eachother would suggest that not believing in any of them is the best/most rational conclusion from that fact.

I've seen him utter his statement poorly a few times and I think this might be one of the cases, but I think what he meant, despite being slightly doubtful, is still mostly acceptable.

>>1247492
>the fact that they all cannot be correct at the same time and that they contradict eachother would suggest that not believing in any of them is the best/most rational conclusion from that fact.

When you have a lot of people with different views on how the world works it does not follow to say they are all wrong. It's literally a complete jump in rationale.

Thank you for trying to elucidate this better, but this really does seem like Hitchens being a dumbass.

I'm out.

>>1247498

Didn't Hitchens also write an entire article on Newsweek proclaiming competition as badwrongfun because it brings out the worst in people?

>>1247203
underrated post

>>1247498
I think it tries to ellude to the fact that there are so many religions that you could choose/pick from that just flat out get contradicted by others left and right that it's too difficult to expect to be correct, thus obstaining from such opinion would be the most rational option.

Of course this argument ignores any exterior investigation and focuses only on sheer number of options to conclude that choosing the correct one is not to be expected.

I do think that while it is rational statement on its own, it totally ignores reality we live in and is ridiculous when set in real-life enviroment. At least that's how I think Hitchens meant the argument, though it still might be misrepresentation of what he tried to say.

File: 1445583320235.jpg (114KB, 576x1024px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 576x1024px

>>1246770
>dhamma
>false

religion is a coping mechanism once you face your failure of your life, just like other contrived fantasizes, your faith in the scientific method included.


Religions are meant to leave material-bodily hedonism, travels, concerts, foods, sex and so on, for a spiritual hedonism, through prayers for theists and mediation for atheists.
Plenty of material hedonist love to think of themselves as less hedonistic than they are, since it improves their hedonism in thinking that they are not animals...most people who claim to be religious are not all, it is just the way they are.
In buddhism, you even leave this spiritual hedonism, after you have gained it, which is called jhanas, since you understand that this bliss from prayers, which is just a great, but not perfect concentration-stilness, are not personal nor permanent and that you are still prone to avidity and aversion.

>>1247186
>Christian God not capable of creating world in 6 days
This is why Islam is the true faith

>>1246790

There's nothing stupid about that statement.