I'm not sure were to start, I'm quite impressed by the time and effort people here put in to prove "God is Not Great". A book many here might have read..? Christopher Hitchens brother however, Peter was maybe an even more dedicated atheist, whom took a longer steep of faith in his "religion" that states "No God, happy world, or something"? But the atheist paradise which then was called "The Soviet Union" just proved to him how very broken this world is without God.
Bad company fallacy wrapped around an appeal to authority. Your argument is invalid.
So what about Peter Hitchens? Why should I care? The only reasons he's mentioned is that he is the bother of someone famous...and that he agrees with the majority, i.e your view.
And the Soviet Union? The primary reason it was so bad is not for its atheism, but for its secular religion: Leninism. Complete with accepting dogma over evidence, martyrs, schisms, and revered dead leaders.
Certainly there is no perfect christian civilization ether, but if you please prove to me better civilization, I might listen with another excitement.
With the exception of the United States, there's a pretty high correlation between secularism and quality of life. Example would be Modern Japan, Scandinavia, Norway, and so forth. Where highly religious countries like Mexico and Uganda are not terribly nice places to live.
I believe the greatest issue in the dialog between Christians and atheists are the very different question we have. When the atheist looks for a better theory of how life came about, the christian looks for better testimony of how Gods love could be shown.
So an atheist looks for facts, a Christian confirms his own bias...I agree that is your problem.
Jesus stated "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."
And Spock said the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Good sentiment, but not a great argument for bowing down and asking Spock to save you.
You see most Christians have in some way had an "spiritual" encounter with God, that gives some feelings to Gods love, and not just a theory.
No to be a theory it would have to be falsifiable and supported by facts. So it doesn't meet that minimal qualification.
Of course in a worldview with no spirits, that encounter is most likely to be interpreted as a mental breakdown. But what can I say? You are very eager to say that other peoples experience is wrong, because you never had it yourself.
So I do so because it is indistinguishable from delusion, hallucination, and so forth. I do so because I am aware of the minds inclination towards credulity, especially towards things upheld as a societal good.
And the debate ends up in many other stupid things, like Christians being against science, when most Christians are very happy about science.
Yes they are, unless science conflicts with their delusion...from Galileo to the absurd "teach the controversy"