/lit/ - Literature

>>19445758
My diary desu, but unironically.

>>19445758
They convinced everyone they could, and they aren't getting new converts. They sorta won (for now at least), because religion isn't the political force it used to be.

>>19445758
They killed themselves

There's no reason to live if you don't believe in God, it's the one self aware cope

This hat

>>19445758
It becoming fait accompli. Now it's the tradcaths who are the annoying internet weirdos.

>>19445758
People were fed-up with religion because it was preachy and told people how to act. The New Atheism movement presented itself as relief from that. Once they built up steam, though, they also began to get preachy and (by conflating itself with other political movements) also began to tell people how to act. It's sincerely
>It sucks now that it's popular.

>>19445758
Youtube atheists. Once it reached peak cringe, it turned off everyone.

>>19445758
It was intellectually bankrupt.
It’s proponents were the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, a joke of an academic and a journalist.
Their arguments were weak, they refused to engage their opponents in good faith. For example, they claim Christianity caused the “dark ages” and retarded scientific development, completely ignoring how monks painstakingly transcribed ancient Greek sources while also engaging in alchemy (chemistry) and astronomy. For gods sakes, the guy who discovered genetics was a priest!
Also they are intellectual cowards.
They only criticize Christianity because they know they’ll take it on the chin.
When was the last time atheists criticized Judaism (and Israel for pursuing a theocratic policy by extension), Islam or Scientology?
They don’t because they know those groups will go after them so they do not dare pipe up.

>>19445758
God became bored with this momentary novelty.

>>19445780
A lot of the annoying tradcaths (or whatever other denomination they become autistically, personality-definingly obsessed with) were annoying atheists about 6 years ago.

no one killed it, it was only popular because bush was president, an evangelical, so the media gave them air time, when obama got in office they had nothing left to do so they fell off, this is when sjws tried taking over the atheist movement

>>19445758
everyone being a spaz about it

woketards

>>19445758
reddit killed it not even joking

>>19445758
It got infiltrated by SJWs, and the infighting between the original fat white incels and rainbow coalition caused it to fly right off the rails.

>>19445758
New Atheism was a failed hamartiology, most of them transmogrified into radical progressives

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/

>>19445758
anti-religious sentiment was transferred into the religious elevation of western liberal ideals (liberal in the broad sense of liberal ideology, not in the narrow sense of a political affiliation)

>>19445758
Existential fear makes people believe foolish things.

>>19445758
atheism attracts those who reject their common humanity for a sense of election and thus is doomed to the same irrelevance as veganism, holistic medicine, and anarchism

>>19445758
Nothing, it grow every year as more people become more educated. The only reason those men say that is because they grew up in a time that reinforced a religious understating of reality. They where practically the first people to do science so they had not yet over come there illusions of faith. Also its not a movement just the expansion of truth.

turns out science itself is one of the shadows of God. blind faith that the truth will help us. Nietzsche warned us about this

>>19446182
>tesla
>heisenberg
>einstein
>dirac
>first people to do science
What a disappointing bait, you overshot the goal.

>>19446182
As evidenced by today's hangers-on coming from the lowest of the low i.e. third-world countries and /pol/ trad-larping.

>>19445758
I think when the skeptic movement realized it had no answer to politics and everyone in the movement had to move to political sides to close the gaps (as you can only be skeptical of so much until you start requiring answers) and once that happened it opened up a wider world that needed to be explained (like how cultures use ethics, what defines science etc) and religion seemed like it had obvious benefits.

>>19446195
>>19446207
I said practically

>>19445869
>>19445780
What is this crap, I've never experienced what y'all are speaking about and in any case it's nowhere near the issue of what new atheism was. They would need a christopher hitchens fellow. Orthos kinda got that in Jay Dyer (not in any real respect except some celebrity) but I haven't seen even a Dyer step for caths.

>>19445758
atheism

Many of them were threatened to believe in god. In addition, most refer to the god of Einstein which I think is the gif of Spinoza. They refer to the beauty in nature, not a sentient being. Also Tesla was atheist IIRC.

>>19445758
Atheism in general didn't really die, though I do think it has an ongoing problem in not recognizing that the dionysian part needs of humanity can't be ignored. New atheism in particular died because it's followers embarrassed themselves on the internet, and since then having atheist be an identity that you adhere to rather than just a mild belief has been a social faux pas. The biggest way to make people dislike something is to defend it in an embarrassing way. I think in retrospect all the big new atheist names calling for the middle east to get glassed probably hasn't helped their longevity in the public sphere either.

>>19446253
Oh and to add, the new atheist intellectual leaders never really engaged with any kind of serious theology, they just laughed at retarded American evangelism. Not a lot of staying power for an MMA fighter who exclusively fights people with no arms.

>>19446240
I've seen a lot of attempted "skeptic debunks" of Einstein in that very annoying manner they do it. Like extreme life-or-death individualism combined w some jealousy. They're kinda like this site desu and rwers in general but skeptics were going to blow over at the first wind. It's a hell of a case of priviliege for that type of subculture to exist.

>>19446253
>>19446267
Atheism intellectually rested on nothing except the rejection of a God or gods they could never define. None of the adherents read books. Besides Dawkins I'm actually a bit curious how they got Hitchens and Harris. They're not like geniuses but they do stand out from literally every online atheist.

>>19446284
I think Dawkins got tired of the aforesaid evangelists trying to fight him on evolution being real.

>>19446192
This, and nu-atheists are still blissfully negligent to this fact.

>>19446323
I mean maybe as a foremost expert on biology (at least by celebrity?) he would face this but that conversation was a century old at this point.

>>19446351
It was one of those things that flared up in the Bush/Cheney era. Lots of stupid "there were no dinosaurs" type textbooks in the American south became newsworthy. Dawkins pithily shat on them, and over time essentially made a side business out of being Professional Athiest Man. Outside of his own field of biology or the beating up intellectual cripples, his lack of expertise started to show.

>>19446401
Yeah maybe it was an early internet thing. I had a foster father who was saying crap like that in mid 00's but in any sense atheism seems like such a step down for the gelian, marxist hitchens and for Harris I don't really see many ppl go to India for x odd years then still accept the teachings but go in a heavy direction towards atheism. I wonder if it was college that did that? In any case nobody shares the same idiosyncratic demographics they do or definitely no online atheist does.

>>19446401
>>19446421
I mean again these aren't geniuses of any sort. I wonder if it was the only real culture war left after the cold war was won by usa. Even as a christian, I do cherish the single narrative everyone accepted then.

>>19445758
>What killed the atheist movement
Look at this fat sack of shit. Look closely.

Unironically I do blame edgy atheists. I cringe at other Atheists so much I wish I was religious, genuinely. Devout Christians don't think they are geniuses and they keep to themselves for the most part. Vocal atheist on the other hand are cringe, it is a cope for double digit IQ retards who don't realise they are in over their heads.

>>19446211
Checked and based. There was definitely a union between left and right wing atheists which has since evaporated.

>>19446267
Literally. It was retards laughing at retards. There never was a modern movement on the ground, just some authors

>>19446401
>intellectual cripples
Kek, you made my day.

>>19446466

>>19446455

>>19445758
Never happened

>>19446494
It happened in a few formal proofs on twitter.

>>19446421
>>19446430
I think part of it as well was the west (America in particular) losing its collective fucking mind after 9/11. The unity of the left and right wing atheists was in some ways the unity of America after the towers fell. We look back on Afghanistan and Bush/Cheney as collosal failures, but there was overwhelming support in the beginning. Even when Dawkins and Hitchens and their ilk would shit on the early tea party types and the neocons connected to them, they still wanted the middle east wiped of the fucking map which seems insane in retrospect. I remember watching a documentary where one of them (I think it was Hitchens, might have been Harris) literally talked about how it was us or them and they all have to go.

>>19446455
Not believing in God is a really simple idea and people who attach themselves to it think it gives them automatic IQ points. Simple ideas ingrain themselves in someone's worldview very easily, especially when it actually takes work to make the case of their opposite, and the idea one is intellectually better than others means they tie it to not only their self-esteem but also their general sense of self. So ingrained by the ideology, these types of atheists want to debate because for them the idea is as simple as "why don't you believe in Zeus" and they can never lose. If you go at them patiently the best you'll get is an overly emotive reaction because you're poking at their core--challenges to the worldview is a challenge to their sense of self.

The above is a recipe for insufferable faggotry and it's situated at the core of the New Atheism movement. Dawkins et al. wrote midwit tier shit that not only brought people like that into the movement but also centered them as figureheads by giving them literature to rally around. It was only a matter of time until those types of retards burned themselves out and, by lowering the bar for conversations about religion, there was nowhere to go afterward.

One last note, Jordan Peterson played a big role in undermining the New Athiest movement in two ways. First, it's arguable that he provided a counterpoint to people like Harris/Dawkins and slightly elevated the conversation (as far as public intellectual talking heads go). Second, instead of midwits flocking into Dawkins they began moving towards him. (Note: I actually like Peterson, I had him as a professor before all the self-help crap, but I'm still 100% certain that he attracts people similar to those that were attracted to people like Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens circa 2008-2014)

>>19445758
???
nothing
no sensible person believes in god any more
religion is only growing in the parts of the world where people struggle to comprehend how the sun rises every day
in most educated countries the only people who believe in god are third world immigrants
in the end they will probably win, by demographic displacement. but by then the planet will be uninhabitable anyway

>>19446517
Yeah I mean it was a rather special time. Reagan brought new democrats to be the main "lw" choice and neocons weren't far from center then even w proto-trump politician dubya. Nowadays the crap you could get away w then you simply can't today.

>>19446525
Like Dawkins, Peterson is public intellectual of moderate charisma who has respectable expertise in his field of study but obviously flounders outside of it. They even have their own groups of easily dunked on ideologues to fight (Creationists for Dawkins, and bottom of the barrel SJWs for Peterson. Neither of them really engaged the higher theory behind these ideologies).

>>19446525
I think you're overstating Peterson's case but I agree w you on the rest. Peterson used milquetoast "anti-sjw" talking points that everyone in the know could use verbatim. I also think christian celebs happened before and after but at that particular moment the "anti-sjw" movement wanted to hear that. It was not too long after Peterson did his interview that Dave Rubin sorta cemented a call to cultural christianity at least.

>>19446546
Yeah I suppose the question is whether anybody wants anything other than that. Just a passing of the cultural guard w no real advances in thinking. I think it's by mistake when we stumble on a paradigm.

Normies coming on the internet. There's an essay that describes it all happening in detail, how all the "atheism" personalities and websites have since turned into generic social justice sites.

>>19445758
I don't care if there is a god or not but from my experience, atheism will ultimately lead you to believe in the same thing hitler or niezche believed in. You can NOT be a moral person by simply using science.

>>19445758
This >>19445778 is a large part of the answer. Anoher large part is the aalewis redditor quote:
>Just to be clear, I'm not a professional "quote maker". I'm just an atheist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. That being said, I am open to any and all criticism.

>"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am englightened by my intelligence." - Aalewis

>Eh?

This is very rare, because it is perfect cringe. Run-of-the-mill cringe is only felt by those who disagree, and hence, being accused of posting cringe is usually a completely idle insult that does not translate to much more than "I don't like that".
Perfect cringe, on the other hand, is of such severity and potency that everyone feels it, and everyone feels it viscerally. The hat is near perfect cringe. The quote is perfect cringe. Aalewis managed to not only deliver perfect cringe, but to do so in a manner that that is brief, succint and easily sloganized, allowing anyone to wield it against atheists by just replying "euphoric" to whatever trite and oft-repeated argument the atheist would post.

This caused a dialectical turn, which will soon be reversed again. The internet tradcaths are close to reaching the cringe singularity just like the internet atheists did, and all it takes is a manifestation of perfect cringe, which may at this point manifest at any time.

>>19446585
This was the dumbest response. You've succeeded at tearing the building down to the foundation. You now have nothing left. It's ironic that to reject an atheist that you must reason like them.

>>19445758
>What killed the atheist movement?
leftist retards who could not handle uncomfortable truths of life such as genetic determinism.Atheism however has morphed into several powerful forms today such as race realism,hereditarianism,eugenicism,etc..

>>19445758
New Atheism is best understood as the American left's reaction to Bush-era geopolitics, the influence of evangelicalism/pentecostalism in US internal matters, and of course, post-9/11 fear of religious extremism. After Obama got elected New Atheism didn't have much in the way of reason to exist anymore, and the whole movement fizzled out, naturally. Most of its remnants transformed into the emergent idpol crowd after the Occupy Wall Street protests (in all likelihood due to corporations using idpol as a tool to fragment the then growing anti-capitalist/anti-globohomo crowd), while a smaller portion of it shifted over to the also emergent "alt-right" as a way to continue being contrarian to the mainstream current of US politics. It's also worth mentioning, IMO, that New Atheism was never fated to be anything more than a fad that lasted a couple years - atheism just doesn't have enough "internal social glue" to sustain itself in the long term like religious or quasi-religious (political) movements do.

>>19446595
>cannot distinguish descriptive from prescriptive
oh god oh fuck start with the greeks

>>19446556
Nihi sub sole novum. Honestly thats been a comfort to me as I feel like everything I value is collapsing. The imprint changes, but the wax stays the same.

>>19445758
What bible do I buy?

>>19446585
>>19446596
Y'all can only eat each other for so long. You're going to hate basic human responses in ppl and become monsters but I think y'all've already accepted that of yourselves

>>19446603
Maybe I do think progress happens tho but most of everyone just gets dragged along.

>>19445758
It wasn't killed, it's still alive right here: >>19446528

>>19446551
>>19446536
>>19446517
>>19446401
Not everybody is american, how can you always forget that?

>>19445758
Nothing 'killed' the atheist movement. By the atheist movement, presumably, you mean the 'New Atheists', Dawkins, Hitchens, and the like.

They were prominent in the 2000's because the president of the United States of America was literally a religious zealot, invoking religious justification for foreign wars, implying that atheists don't count as citizens, and generally doing a litany of shitty things under the guise of religious belief.

A lot of newer posters on 4chan aren't old enough to remember Bush. In most ways, he was, from a liberal perspective, objectively worse than Trump. People protested his actions in the millions, in the streets.

On top of this, there was a serious push by the evangelicals to do things like teach young-earth creationism in public schools, and most people engaging and active in the Atheism movement were also reacting to the Moral Majority and Satanic Panic that preceded Bush.

It's really hard to overstate just how hated Bush was by the people that disliked him. As much or more than Trump and significantly more justified.

So we have a situation where:
>The leader of the USA is a religious zealot
>Religious groups are clamouring for control over things like science curricula
>The actual consequences of this are a destructive and pointless foreign war
>9/11 is fresh enough on people's minds that calling out Islam doesn't get you canceled for insensitivity

Into this void stepped the anti-theists. They spoke loudly and clearly, and offered a reason why everything was going to pot. Religion.

The news loved them because they generated so much controversy and most of the public hated them. But they had a platform, and they succeeded in convincing the left that it was absolutely necessary for the USA to be secular.

If you look at what they were trying to do, they succeeded. The USA hasn't had a religious president since. Obama and Trump were obviously faking it. Creationism in schools is a dead issue. The Creationists lost firmly.

Every youth questioning their faith that could be reached was reached. Everyone that would turn from religion had been informed of the option to do so. Secularism had one a great battle against the worst religion had to offer.

Suddenly, there were no more enemies. Of course, there were still fundamentalists, but they had minimal sway in government, Islamists never repeated anything on the level of 9/11. Within the Blue Tribe the New-Atheists belong too, there were no religious left. and the New Atheists and anti-theists were left with a question.

What next?

Most of the prominent voices by this time were old and stepped back from the public, except for Hitchens, who continued until his death to decry religion. But his pointed criticism of Islam as worse than all the others(justifiable) became unacceptable to the same groups that ten years earlier were worried America would become a theocracy.

>>19445758
A few pictures of a fat guy wearing a hat. Pathetic really.

>>19446616
I get a big kick out of walking through France and Germany post ww1. They all wear JEANS! Imagine that. I hear they all eat mcdonalds, use facebook. Hell I heard the biggest new atheist celebrities were very centered in American culture. Geez and their biggest opponents were there two. Gosh, imagine the possibilities

>>19446621
As for the supporters, they did two things. Those that were in it for atheism simply went on and lived their lives, happy they had fought back. The ceased to be a political force because their goals had been met.

But a significant portion were doing this because they needed a cause, and the next cause was, sadly, 'anti-racism,' and they ended up immediately co-opted into destroying the Occupy movement, and then the powers that be used them successfully to reach our current situation, which is that the people in control of the country have captured the left as firmly as the right for the first time and control the what people can and cannot have a platform to say more firmly than ever.

>>19445758
Retard strength is undefeated.

things are exciting when new, but become mundane after a while

atheists opening blaspheming god with their names attached to their faces was exciting
famous scientists coming out and declaring god non-existent was exciting
video debates between atheists and non believers was exciting

now that shit is all commonplace and no longer exciting, so smallbrains think the movement is "dead" without realizing its no longer a movement...its just the norm

religious is all but dead in the west. look around you: nobody with an iq above room temperature believes in god

>>19446621
>>19446635
You should really not post w an agenda. As much as everyone dislike Bush it was nowhere near the level of Trump and nobody viewed atheists as having an answer so much as being a gadfly or a given. 90s and 00s tv shows regularly lampooned christians (donnie darko, malcolm in the middle) but those were done entirely without any "atheist intellectuals"

>>19446652
There were literally millions of people protesting in the streets, specifically against things Bush did. At one point his approval rating was 22%. Trump never got close to that low. Don't confuse the screeching on Twitter or the way certain portions of the media vilify him for an accurate summation of public perception.

>>19446668
What protests are you talking about? Occupy Wall Street far exceeds any activism done under Bush. After 9/11 he had very high approval rate. The fact that the war wore on everyone was a strong contributing factor but the start of the great recession was what really weakened him. The economy was all Trump had. He had protests from the day he was elected plus violence against voters. You did not have that w Bush even given how the 00 election was decided. Gore stepped down and dubya's polls were high due to will ferril on snl doing a good impersonation of him.

>>19446616
Thinking the whole world is America is a big pet peeve of mine, but despite a lot of proponents of new atheism being British, it was very much fought put in an American context.

>>19446621
You're kind of right but the New Atheist stuff (Amazing Atheist and darkmatter type people, the infamous aalewis quote, /r/atheism), really peaked in 2010-2014 before collapsing soon after.

>>19446697
The movement was already dead by 2012, which is why it was an object of mockery on reddit among the very types who would have supported it previously.

>>19446225
>>19445869
>>19445780
>tfw raised Prot
>remain a Prot
>now people tell me I'm doing it ironically because they can't imagine I didn't become a countercultural atheist in my teens
>if I bring up becoming a prot minister, I'm told it's a weird cope I picked up after allegedly converting
>people have never believe that I'm a third generation Mexican prot with multiple ministers in the family
it's all so tiresome

>>19446744
Ig it's a bit odd but no odder than being a third gen orthodox

>>19446645
Maybe but then you have people like jordan peterson that seemed to have gain a liking from people that used to be big fans of sam harris. My guess is that there is a need for people to be "spiritual" and to conserve certain beliefs from religion like the patriarchy.

>>19446744
>>19446753
Tbh when I lived there I had no idea how much y'all's culture mirrored ours. Ik emos and punks were there, even metal but damn if I didn't know y'all had a huge 80s movement, 90s, early 00s etc. I think supposing prots are in mx isn't a culture shock for me

>>19446759
peterson got his following from his bill c-16 stance

he literally had thousands of hours of video on youtube before that protest that nobody gave two shits about

he used that momentum to propel himself forward and release books, do talks, etc, before people figured out what a dipshit charlatan he is

>>19446782
I personally do not find him to be intelligent but if you read the comments and listen to the people that like him, he seems to attract atheists or ex atheists because they realize that the idea of no god can be quite terrifying/depressing, they need to add meaning to their lives

>>19446792
Those were mostly older kids or young adults right?

>>19446753
It's just annoying that people assume I'm lying about religion because they believe EVERYONE must have had an atheist phase.
>>19446764
It's a bit of a conflict since you don't want to be a Malinchista but you don't want to fall behind everyone else culturally.

>>19445758
>Isaac Newton quote is the same as Albert Einstein quote
Weird.

>>19446796
A mixture of both. I thin it all comes down to a number of things happening. Atheism questioned religion/marriage--->no longer need to wait to get married to have sex---> hedonism--->trouble creating families when you have to choose a woman with a past--->feminism---->men feeling like they dont have a purpose/underappreciated--->lack of religion--->no moral support from community--->sense of loneliness and no direction

this is just a small explanation as to why i think atheism is "dying" or at the least people seem to want to keep some form of religion in their lives

>>19446798
I mean I think it's pretty normal to have your teenage rebellion or we phase have some atheism but sometimes it's just whoring and lots of drugs. Back in the day it was kicking you out of the tribe for two weeks to see if you would survive in the wild. In any sense I don't think that should be held against you.

I think y'all are at the precipice of influencing American culture more but we don't have the best solution to things so y'all are going to need to find that cause I'm sure we're not looking so probably not too bad to be a malinchista a bit

>>19446824
Yeah atheism is, again, just a rejection of anything they try to associate as God(s) since they can't properly define it. It can't build or create even terribly. It's like nihilism, anarchism, any a-xism. The issue is we don't fail automatically because the economic response was never surpassed so we look like we did good in that when it was really the same shit as we did w anything

>>19446826
To be against malinchism a bit*
That means like general weeabooism for y'all?

>>19446551
He was on TVO (Canadian/Ontario PBS) giving lectures about Christianity and Psychology as early as 2011 (I think the lecture was filmed around 2005ish and it was replayed quite a bit even before he became internationally famous). Anyway, the point is he now has a similar role as someone like Dawkins or Harris and he played a major part in undermining the popularity of the New Athiest movement by pulling away potential converts and offering a message that was at an inverse to it. I think it was basically on its way out anyway but Peterson hastened its conclusion by acting as a figurehead that offered counterpoints to people like Dawkins/Harris etc. He's at the level of broad public discourse now so I don't think it's fair to go at him on that level without that recognition of that qualifier. As far as talking head public intellectuals go there's A LOT worse out there.

>>19445774
>There's no reason to live if you don't believe in God
Nick Land => Gnon, overcoming monkey trap, positive-feedback AI-terminator loop from the future

Just find something *interesting* to do, faggot.

>>19446845
Yeah I mean I agree so maybe I'm just having trouble seeing the symmetry you mean. None of their cohort really attracted the same attention that the new atheists did in any unified manner. The political movement they provided was brief and rather void of any real cultural input. I'd almost say if Hitchens survived then Peterson would have never become a celebrity but a lot of their cohort may not have. Rogan would have and Harris and Rubin had their own means but it's just hard to say they're symmetric.

>>19446546
He actually has a tonne of charisma. He was famous on campus before he blew up and it was difficult to get into his section of Personality Psych and his upper-year seminars (I only took Personality and wasn't interested in going further than that with him). Before I took his class, I was pretty snarky and condescending to people who looked up to him and raved about his classes. Afterwards, I got it though.

As far as self-help public figurehead shit goes I'd say having a 20+ year background as a clinical psychologist goes pretty far as a qualification. People just have to keep in mind that he's a public persona now so what you gather out of YouTube videos and media appearances is a shallow representation of what he's actually like as a person. (FYI: he was actually a bit of an asshole when it came to personal encounters I had with him; he gave me a hard time about getting an extension on my term paper when a close family member went on their deathbed/croaked).

>>19446844
Yeah basically, but it has more offense since Malinche helped the Spanish to the detriment of her people.

>>19446874
Ahh I wish we had a general word besides the awkward xenophile. At least it wasn't English though, you'd be in the same boat as us and you couldn't get out.

>>19446865
Peterson becoming internationally famous was a total fluke. He was literally just walking outside of where he held his classes and decided to speak out at a bunch of retard SJW students and the video went viral.

However, I think his impact has been and remains fairly large. The MSM attempted to mute him at every turn and they weren't able to do so. It's impossible to subtract his personal impact from the wider political narrative that is still ongoing. Canada has become radically ideological in the last 10 years and he definitely voiced opposition to certain elements of it and helped give such a wide public audience. (As far as that discourse goes--just this week a local of the Ontario Teacher's Union enacted a motion to weigh the votes of white members less than those of POC. Shit like that is rampant and he's someone with enough of a public platform to bring that insane shit into the public forum...as far as I know he hasn't commented on that though).

Atheism was a fad like any other. Once it got subsumed into the mainstream, everyone just stopped caring. No one even thinks about religion these days. People will hardly notice if you're wearing a cross, for example.

>>19446605
>Y'all can only eat each other for so long.
lol,eugenics is already happening in front of ur very eyes dumb nigger,with a majority of pressure being exerted on men.Look at the rise of incels in asia,murrica and europe.Latin american women are literally importing white seed and are going to ensure the genetic death of latino men.

>>19446910
true. anyone ITT that talks about the "fads" of atheism and religion on the Internet have never left their basements in the last five years.
nobody really gives a shit about faith anymore, at least in the Western world.
For the last 50 years, the world is unintentionally but surely destroying all concepts of traditional faith. I don't know if i should celebrate this or not.
>>19446896
>just this week a local of the Ontario Teacher's Union enacted a motion to weigh the votes of white members less than those of POC.
Huh, source?

>>19446896
Sure and the only real thing I wish he would do is actually give a response. Obv most subcultural groups don't but the whole peterson saga leaves distaste in my mouth. The sjws were beaten soundly and he pretty much said everything's okay just do self help. Self help is shallow by definition. I mean we're literally forced to be in perpetual political war w ppl w him. I think the sjws were shown to be able to outlast the criticism by virtue of having a position. I'm a bit older and not canadian so I don't have those benefits going for me in terms of seeing his worth from inside that cultural bubble. I definitely don't think he dismantled new atheism but I think he was the right kind of person in the right place at the right time but I would've preferred some catholic wittgenstein or even a hitchens.

>>19445758
New Atheism is dead partly because it succeeded in normalizing atheism and scientism to a great degree. Atheism is pretty normal and omnipresent now.
Additionally, it stopped being in vogue for the same reason the 'alt right' is no longer in vogue. Contrarian teenagers have simply moved onto other, more novel movements.

>>19446910
>>19446934
>>19446947
The world is not scandinavia. Nobody cares about your liberal church burnings

>>19446934
>Source
https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1461847160253779974?s=20

>>19446953
The west has a pretty uniform culture.

>>19446978
Yeah I agree but that makes it sound like we're almost all atheists when they're a small group

>>19445758
If you mean movement that's a bunch of contrarian reddit spergs being vocal about their atheism it died because they got quiet out of being shamed with memes that made fun of them and being associated with profiles who shoved bananas up their asses. Atheism is still dominant everywhere except in contrarian circles such as rw twitter and tradlarping /pol/acks who are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

>>19446953
>The world is not scandinavia.
Damn, sucks to live in the world then.

>>19447051
Probably not as much as you think

>>19446970
>https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1461847160253779974?s=20
lol that's absolutely mental

>>19446980
>they're a small group
only about half of people in the EU are godbotherers

>>19446614
but i'm not a "new atheist". i've just pretty much always been an atheist. as a kid i went to a faith school where bible stories were taught as literal truth. i think that's what did it for me.

>>19446596
Hit the nail on the head

>>19446086
>In this moment, I am enlightened...
That made me realize what a wankfest it was. Not religious still but not an atheist either. Praise the Pancreator.

>>19445758
Atheists

atheists don't have kids so who cares about what they think lol

>>19445758
>>19447237
>Praise the Pancreator.
When a meteor strikes the earth, Gnon is the meteor
When bacteria become immune to antibiotics, Gnon is adaptation
When a new paradigm causes a nonlinear increase in wealth, Gnon is capital
When you bankrupt yourself trying to feed the whole world, Gnon is the ravenous horde.

Gnon is Malthusian limits
Gnon is climate change
Gnon is cold
Gnon is brutal
Gnon is patient
Gnon is unforgiving
Gnon is never merciful
Gnon is just
but his justice demands perfection.

When you push too far against the limits of nature, Gnon sees your hubris, and it is delicious to him, so he devours you. That’s the god that I believe in

>>19447114
didn’t expect czechia to be the most euphoric country in europe

>>19447440
You care enough to post here. You don't have kids either

>>19446585
I really like your witty writing style
You should write a book or something

>>19445758
Nothing. They won. Somewhat, I mean; while people didn't adopt the smug fedora outlook explicitly, pretty much everyone acts as if God didn't exist and religion barely plays any role in politics anymore. There is no reason for an "atheist movement" anymore.

>>19446585
I really hate your shitty writing style
You shouldn't write a book or anything

>>19445758
They won (in the West at least) - Christianity is nowhere near the political and social force it was outside of the most backwards areas. Post-2014 or so everyone was moving on from the religious debate and the diehards who kept harping on about the "sky fairy" became increasingly cringe and out of touch with real societal concerns.

>>19447114
Tbf that 20% doesn't even necessarily mean atheism.

>>19446455
>devout Christians
>keeping to themselves
Lel

>>19445758
1. Things like pic-related, cringy internet atheists and general unpleasantness. The cringe became too much.
2. New Atheism was really a response to a problem that barely exists anymore. Back in the day, evolution was the #1 issue that atheists loved debating about. However the majority of Protestants today - yes, that includes evangelical christians - don't really care about evolution, and it has been the official position of the Catholic Church since the early 20th century. In addition, the moral guardians of the 90s who called D&D and rock music 'satanic' are barely a thing anymore, not to mention that they're overshadowed by secular SJWs these days.
Now that the creationists are barely in the spotlight, New Atheists don't have easy targets anymore, and are having to argue with more sane Christians. This forces New Atheists to reveal that while they may be good at pop science, they aren't so good at philosophy, theology or ancient history (see Dawkins awful arguments in his book as an example. If you submitted it as a postdoctoral thesis, it would be failed).
3. Many people are starting to see what society without objective morals or values looks like, and they are not pleased. When people question the trajectory of society and try to engage in a serious discussion of values and morality, internet atheists/nihilists will often obnoxiously insert themselves into the dialogue and stubbornly assert that there is no objective morality and that you are a retard for even entertaining the idea. They argue that everything is fine and will become extremely nasty towards anyone who challenges their ideas. Nobody likes an obnoxious prick.
4. Part of it is that people began to take exception to the hypocrisy of many New Atheists. People like Hitchens always claimed to have the moral high ground, but would go on to enthusiastically support the wars in the Middle East for seemingly no other reason than wanting to war on the religious.
(1/2)

>>19447923
5. People like Jordan Peterson making writers like Dostoevsky more well known amongst younger people in the West.
6. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, many atheists are just milquetoast Christians in everything but name. You are afforded a culture that is wealthy, safe, and generally teaches Christian ethics. You start to believe God-given autonomy of early liberalism is some kind of foundational, evolutionary drive that instinctually instills these natural ethics into you, and thus that is what is Good in the world. You look at the world around you and conclude this is all there is, the purely material. You then feel that you know it all, because you can see the world the way it truly is, and you're not a hopeless nihilist because you believe in a dreamy sense of scientific progress and liberalism as the penultimate goal and natural instinct of man. You don't realize how much of your beliefs are guided by a faith afforded to you by your culture, and you become insufferably smug about it. You initially can't sense the looming nihilism of it all, and when you do start to sense it, you ignore it. You ignore the slow realization that if this is all there is, there is no point to any of what amounts to your milquetoast Christian values.
You can then go the Nietzschian route, which is more respectable then the fake Christian route, but you need a strong stomach for it that most don't have. Because of this, more of them seem to be taking the third option: the pseudo-Nietzschean (hedonistic nihilism) route. And then they act surprised when people don't like them or the direction that society has been going in.
7. The general movement against modernism (e.g. increasingly popular movements against modern architecture, modern pop music, over-sexualization of society, lack of any real universal values, etc.)
(2/2)

>>19445758
It's very easy for it to become a self-destructive ideology.
>Atheism leads to nihilism (they essentially go hand-in-hand)
>Nihilism can easily lead to anti-natalism
>No children=no passing down of values/beliefs

>>19445758
Atheism itself, their cringe behaviour was a clear indicator on their cringe ideas and people abandoned it completely
Also todays godless society and its many sins is blamed on the atheist movement

>>19445790
Hitchens slammed Islam just as much as Christianity.

>>19448003
That's why he's the only prominent new atheist that I have a little bit of respect for. Alas, he would probably be blacklisted from every major university today if he was still alive.

What religion should I start to follow and why? I believe in god but for me following man made religion with all my heart and soul will never be doable. God would see me as a fake just trying to save himself from damnation.

Most people cared about the end result of religion on society, which they saw as harmful both physically but more so because it places limitations on a subject. Those in it for purely philosophical reasons were few and far between. However more than just religion places limits on the subject's agency according to various other ideologies, and so religion became just one star in a constellation of barriers against the emancipation of the liberal subject from the shackles of history.

>>19445758
Itself.
It pretty much won before dying, though, so it’s death didn’t really matter.

>>19446970
What the fuck. If I didn't know any better I'd think white women were trying to start a race war to get rid of minorities.

>>19448024
Dawkins and Harris also did, again most of that group wanted to bomb the middle east into the stone age.

>>19445758
>What killed the atheist movement?
This image

>>19448067
What drivel.
The post-Hegelian world, everyone.

>>19446585
The only good post in this thread. Made me nostalgic.

>>19447923
>>19447972
Unironically these.

Well your very first quote is a lie, Heisenberg never said that.

>>19446207
No one on pol likes religion

when will religious people accept it's over, the most degenerate western nation is also the most religious

>>19448236
Dawkins didn't go after Islam nearly as much as Hitchens did, and he has gone full SJW recently. Hitchens never backed down from his stance on Islam.
>most of that group wanted to bomb the middle east into the stone age.
Which is one of the reasons why people became disillusioned with the new atheist movement. Supporting the Iraq (or even Afghanistan) War is very unpopular.

>>19448245
But it is true. "The church harms gay people" transformed in to "Society harms gay people" to "The nuclear family harms gay people" and now "The family harms society" is beginning to be pushed.

This is just one example. Black Lives Matter simply couldn't of found the traction it did without the legwork put in by those passing through the new atheism movement.

Another way of phrasing it is that the de facto utilitarian ethics of liberalism, harm reduction and pleasure maximization, merely intersected with an ongoing debate which allowed it to rapidly metastasize and become the meta-cultural substrate of all popular discourse. This is also what spurned the rise of the Trad-Caths and more broadly the Chad-Yes/Nordic Gamer meme as they are both attempts to get outside of, and find ground other than, the utilitarian calculus of the dominate mode of ethics, either through something transcendent or post-ironic brute assertion.

>>19448024
>he would probably be blacklisted from every major university today if he was still alive.
What for? Genuinely curious

>>19446585
The only bad post in this thread. Made me neurotic.

>>19448304
The USA is religious the way Iran is. It's political 'Christianity'. The only sincere believers are the Amish.

>>19445758
There's really no such thing as an atheism movement. Atheism is a simple binary position to take on the question whether god exists or not. That's not really enough to have much of a unified intellectual movement. There were a few popular authors of the last 30 years known for their atheism but obviously they had other ideas they were known for. Today it is uninteresting to argue for atheism since many are not concerned with the question at all as society is the least religiously theistic it has ever been. This has made the surviving theists more radical since all the moderates were either peeled off to atheism or agnosticism, or are believers but indifferent to participating in the debate

>>19448342
1. His support for the wars in the Middle East. Not only was he a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, he thought that it didn't go far enough. He was against Obama pulling the troops out. Even back then, this was an extremely controversial position.
2. He made some very 'colorful' statements about Islam and Muslims throughout his career that would make him persona non grata in today's political climate.
3. He was anti-feminist.
4. He was a white British man, which would make him a 'racist imperialist' in the eyes of mainstream academia and culture due to his attacks on Islam.
5. Being right wing in almost every way expect for religion.

>>19448394
>right wing
>just the opinions of the previous decade
>would be blacklisted in this decade
Every time. And none of you ever learn

>>19445764
politically no, but in terms of being in vogue and acting as the new counterculture, yes. atheism is no longer a rebellion. Faith is. being religious is now cooler than being atheist so i don't doubt the pendulum will swing back.

also atheists desperately try to cope too hard for not having meaning in their lives with materialistic, superficial and vapid ambitions. this doesn't do anything for them in the long run and they sense it so they try to cope harder instead of accepting a higher power. picrel.

>>19448394
He would also have conversations on his NBC show with controversial figures (e.g. actual neo-nazis). This would get him accused of "promoting hate."

>>19448411
>also atheists desperately try to cope too hard for not having meaning in their lives with materialistic, superficial and vapid ambitions
This weak escapism is the mother of theism. Create your own values instead of denying reality please

>>19445758
They are nutty.

>>19448368
> The only sincere believers are the Amish
>entire way of living is built to divide their group from society, meaning members lives are held hostage to the lifestyle as their entire worldview, social circles, education, skills are extremely limited and incompatible with Amy other way of life
>sincere

>>19448417
>actual neo-nazis
Link?

>>19448336
Dawkins did always play the field a little more. I remember finding out that he had little dinners where his fans could pay thousands of dollars to have a meal with him.

>>19448433
Okay but for the lower right, cast iron is great. I have a Dutch oven and making bread in it is amazing.

>>19448436
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7R-X1CXiI8
If you don't have 40 minutes, he talks with John and Tom Metzger, major figures in the American neo-nazi movement at the time. He remains calm and composed throughout the interview while also challenging the two of them. Regardless, you would never get away with a stunt like this on TV today. The most comperable incident I can think of in recent years is when a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir (an extremist Islamic group) had a shouting match with an Australian journalist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvjudQmPSWg
>>19448439
Dawkins was only ever in it for the money. His book proves that he is a midwit at anything other than biology. He saw that the new atheist movement was popular and jumped on the gravy train and milked it for as much as he could while it lasted.

>>19448433
You've made my point for me. If they didn't fervently reject the society they isolate themselves from sincerely then they wouldn't do it. Who else has the will to forego their microwave oven or laundry machine for the sake of their beliefs?

>>19446744
I'm sorry anon, I don't make that assumption about religious people that i meet in the real world but on a literature board that gets routinely flooded by "trad" twitter using 17 year old contrarians it's easy to start making assumptions.
>>19446225
>I've never experienced what y'all
>y'all
Speak English, nigger.
>in any case it's nowhere near the issue of what new atheism was.
I agree but that doesn't stop it being annoying, even if less so than atheists still are, and there must be fewer tradcaths than there were atheists because i've never had to interact with a preachy tradcath zoomer the way that preachy atheists were around every corner of my social life when i was at university.
>no hitchens parallel
I don't think an annoying subculture needs a figurehead to be shitty and annoying, it usually just means the culture is smaller.

>>19448465
That second video is giving me high blood pressure. Why did they think it would be a good idea to have that guy on?

>>19445764
This.

But only against a subset of religious people. To be religious is a common human trait, and if they lose their attachment to one religion they will pick up another, hence ideological fervor and "witch hunts" are as alive as ever. The promoted religion is corporate now.

>>19448516
>y'all
I'm from Texas. Y'all have odder second person plurals like in Chicago w "yous guys(es)".

I think for at least one or most of the group to be heads and shoulders above everyone it would need some development. I mean an organic hitchens not a deus ex machina hitchens which wouldn't alter the group as you've said

>>19448562
To give some context, this was when Islamic State had captured large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq and proclaimed a caliphate. During this period, a number of Australians traveled to Syria or Iraq to fight for Islamic State (dubbed "foreign fighters"). Hizb ut-Tahrir was seen as encouraging this behavior, and so one of their spokesmen was invited to give their position on the issue.

>>19445758
>the exact same quote attributed to both Newton and Einstein
Really doesn't speak well for the credibility of this image

>>19448465
I think with Dawkins there was probably at least some initial frustration with young earth creationists, but once the speaking engagements started I wonder if he was secretly grateful to them.

>>19448741
Dawkins obviously really likes fame. He has 3 good books about evolution but everything else he wrote, the atheism books and the other evolution books, are just pointless attempts at getting money and attention. He hasn't published anything of worth in 20 years because hes just concentrated on this meme stuff.

>>19445758
liberalism. anti-theism was at its most potent when it was associated with the socialist movement like marx and bakunin

>>19448741
>I wonder if he was secretly grateful to them.
Of course he was. It's like a pro boxer being paid to fight a midget with no arms and one leg. It was a grift, plain and simple.

>>19445758
What is "the atheist movement"?

>>19445758
Seeing several UFOs killed the atheism in me

>>19446585
Don't manifest perfect cringe tradcath bros. Lay low for a while.

>>19445758
>What killed the atheist movement?
It's stronger than ever and is growing year-by-year. If you can't see how society is increasingly secularizing with every new generation then you're blind. The whole "New Atheist" thing ended because they largely won and culture wars themselves moved on.

The 00s were dominated by a war against Islamic terrorism led by an Evangelical Christian president who said God told him to invade Iraq. The biggest culture war issues were abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia: for example Terri Schiavo was a national issue with the president and SCOTUS weighing in. All of this is unimaginable now. Since the height of its influence in 2004 the evangelical movement that Reagan had birthed slowly declined in cultural power. Gay marriage was legalized without much of a fight. Obama liberalism took center stage and race became the hot button culture war issue. The right turned to Tea Party libertarianism and then the not-very-Christian Donald Trump.

In the 10s it became passé to define yourself as anti-religious, because politics was no longer inflected by religious conservatism. The main issue in cultural politics after 2014 was the "Great Awokening" and BLM, immigration etc.. No-one was mad about religion stopping gays from marrying anymore because they lost.

>>19448843
I agree with you. The majority of my friends are atheist or agnostic. Most of the European students studying abroad I know are atheist (and I had to hear about how they bullied the one British girl that was a Christian).

The thing is, as stated in these posts, >>19447923 >>19447972, it's starting to collapse on itself, because people are checking out of the society without objective morals, e.g. where girls can joke about dead babies while playing "Cards Against Humanity" and simultaneously get offended by a joke about them belonging in the kitchen.
The "reaction" is then seen from the growing muslim communities in the west and "tradcaths" or outspoken Christians in general that are seeing the cracks in the armor in the secular society.

>>19446604
No need to buy, it's online
Biscuit Tin Bible
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/18411/view/1/1/

>>19449173
>it's starting to collapse on itself, because people are checking out of the society without objective morals
They are? What, you don't think the fundamentalists were always there? Or that secularism has its own morality? (It of course does, you just disagree with it, which does not make your morality any more objective). The fundamentalists are the only Christians/Muslims left in many cases of western religiosity. The moderates don't care enough about their religion to turn on secularism, or they don't want to be associated with the fundamentalists and leave. Secularism is as strong as it's ever been while the religious are fewer in number, but more consistently religious. This is something Ratzinger wrote about somewhere before becoming pope iirc; A smaller more faithful church, to put it on their terms. Question becomes, does this leaner more fundamentalist religion outcompete secularism at winning adherents now that it offers an obvious difference? For a counter example, of what an obvious difference does not look like, of what has little hope of competing with secularism because it is secularism, think of all those progressive churches with rainbow pastors and ecumenical or interfaith outreach—these cannot be told apart from the ESG landing pages of Amazon, Goldman, or Boeing. And people are not necessarily checking out of these secular institutions either, but as they have become the new church authorities and swepled with baptism rolls, the membership has become larger and less zealous than before as the founding apostles are crowded out by their own success. It's the ones pretending to be old and new at the same time who are going to have the most apathy of all due to poor messaging. "Yes we're Christians, and yes, we stand for nothing Christians historically have stood for?" So why bother? The secular institutions evolve more easily and with less confusion, because they are either responding to public opinion or an arm of influencing public opinion. The fundamentalist churches are neither, they have no relation to public opinion any longer except as cartoon villains

>>19445778
You make a strong argument.

>>19449269
Theist bros...

>>19449269
>They are?
When people are giving up on getting married or having kids because they've been brainwashed into thinking that life is endless suffering and that they're all going to die from climate change, and the only thing they have to look forward to in life is the next Marvel movie, then yes.
>Or that secularism has its own morality?
You mean the milquetoast christian morality that secularism borrows from?
>Question becomes, does this leaner more fundamentalist religion outcompete secularism at winning adherents now that it offers an obvious difference?
Given how most atheists are antinatalists, in the long term the answer is yes, like Qadaffi said, the victory will come from the womb, not from guns or swords.

They won? Barely anyone is sincerely religious anymore.

At the end of the day, the fundamentalist religious types can point to birthrates. Who's having children? Religious Jews, religious Catholics, religious evangelicals, religious Muslims, and religious Mormons. Who's not having children or being significantly out-competed in the having of children? Atheists, agnostics, nihilists, etc.

half those quotes are fake. stop lying op

>>19449347

Enjoy your Quiverfull of queer kids.

>>19449388

Yeah, fundamentalists have more and more children who want the benefits of tolerance and secularism. Great idea, guys.

>>19449424
Not if religion is an evolutionary group strategy ie hereditary

>>19449440

Yeah well you don't fucking genetically inherit religion, do you?

>>19449460
Religions and cultures evolve the same way species do. Religions and cultures die out if they cannot reproduce through the people who adhere to them.

>>19449347
>Given how most atheists are antinatalists, in the long term the answer is yes, like Qadaffi said, the victory will come from the womb, not from guns or swords.
They don't need to have children, they just need to convert the children from religious families, and statistically speaking they're doing a good job. It pays to have the whole education system and media on your side.

>>19445758
Demographically, non-believers are at an all time high in the USA and across Europe. New Atheism has been exceptionally successful because it's argumentation is unassailable. Look at the main criticism, the fedora, which is essentially saying "look, some cringe people are associated with your movement, therefore checkmate!". It's entirely devoid of actual merit. No one in this thread has even attempted to address the main points of New Atheism, except to appeal to the very thing which Freud pointed out would cause the illusion of religion to continue: the fear of death and the desire for a divine projected father figure to take care of them. At this point, with all the knowledge you have access to on the internet, if you still embrace this ultimate delusion it does reflect poorly on your ability to reason and assess your own paradigm.

>>19449486

Religions and cultures don't physically reproduce through people. Fundamentalists aren't automatically spawning additional devout adherents.

>>19445758

There is an "atheist club" on most college campuses in America. Also "video game clubs" which attract the same type. A collection vicious genetic garbage far beyond any other social group found in America. Worse than antifa I mean it. That may be why lmao

>>19449509
euphoric

>>19449520
>euphoric

>>19449269
>"Yes we're Christians, and yes, we stand for nothing Christians historically have stood for?"
"Cretins" are billions of people throughout almost two thousand years, they have stood for countless varying shit across the ages, including nazism, slavery, revolutions, helping orphans, curing the sick, waging wars, protecting political dissidents, etc

The books: read them.

>>19449269
What is a secular ethics? And don't say "humanist" or "liberal" ethics. What are secular ethics? How can secular have any ethics when it's literally just "not religion"?

>>19449347
Secularists are all ex-fundamentalists, genealogically speaking (as you seem to agree), but this is precisely because of a failure of fundamentalists to pass on their values. In fact, we can only speak of "fundamentalists" at all due to the victory of the first apostates in reproducing themselves by means of converting the children of the religious, such that all that remain are those rustic—you might even say "pagan"—folk in the countryside, those non-metropolitans who still believe the old religion. And what is their fate but to diminish in influence? As secular people spreading out from cities settle down on top of them, bringing their social patterns with them, will fertility be enough to offset the ease with which a fundamentalist's child can be reeducated to be a fundamentalist of a different (secular) sort? If religious fundamentalists were more plural, that is to say skeptic enough to be confident that no one has it 100% right, they would probably be more robust against conversion attempts, but all secular culture has to do is outmuscle them in delivering on what people desire, and from there it is obvious what one should be an uncompromising zealot of.

>>19449486
Literally read the meme chapter in the dawkins book

>>19449537
>it's another episode of atheism-must-be-nihilism
Oh where to begin? I feel like I'm about to sing the animaniacs song with all the countries. There are infinitely many values to build an ethics around. Did you miss all the ongoing "isms" of the democratic age?

>>19449549

That's why there's a damn distinction between memes and genes, you dip. Secularism has proven to be a way more competitive meme.

>>19449569
I asked a straightforward question. What are secular ethics, not what are other ethics, what are secular ethics? Humanism can be religious ethics too

>>19449509
>No one in this thread has even attempted to address the main points of New Atheism
To be fair, that's not the point of this thread. It's asking why the movement faded, not whether they were right.

Largely you're correct though, they won the argument. Religious believers in the West today are 1) Backwards hicks unable to use reason 2) People scared of death who want the comfort of religious belief 3) Believing out of lethargy, family background, or recent arrivals to the West who haven't be exposed to counter-arguments 4) Edgy contrarians who oppose all prevailing cultural trends (basically all Christians on 4chan fall here).

>>19449575
Secular ethics is any ethical system which does not require god as the lawgiver. Tons of these exist.

>>19449587
Or to be more precise, does not require a god and/or a religious institution and its scriptures

>>19449549

Oops, my bad. Missed the (you).

>>19449587
Well they could just as well require God any one you name. Again christian humanism is a thing.

>>19449601
Christian humanism is almost not secular, as something of a cynical example of a religion attempting to recapture relevance by subsuming itself under secular authority. A Christian humanist has conceded a great deal to keep his church doors open, but at the cost of offering nothing you couldn't get elsewhere. One has to wonder if the christian humanist is just an atheist, like the unbelieving priest in Zarathustra.

>>19449623
Now that's not really the point. The point is nothing in humanism excludes even satanism from being compatible w it.

A bit more of an apology for christianity, literally almost every concept of humanism is derived from christianity in some form. The concept of "objectove justice" is a monotheist development and humanism developed under the purview of christianity.

The point is there's no such thing as secular ethics. Nothing is exclusively "not" religious.

>>19448445
I just got a cast iron dutch oven from a family member. No clue what to do with it. Can you give me your bread tips friend?

>>19449720
There should be Dutch oven bread recipes in lots of places, and it's extra good for artifical bread a no-knead breads. What they're really good for is baking the bread evenly, and giving essentially any bread that lovely crackling crust. Try a few recipes, just remember that in baking it's much more important to follow the instructions than with cooking.

>>19445758
me

>>19449795
Artisinal bread, not artificial.

>>19449795
>>19449802
What an exciting time. Since posting (>>19449720) I found a couple. I really look forward to how this turns out. I used to be a lab chemist so I am very anal at following instructions, don't think I'm particularly worried in this sphere.

>>19449509
I agree that "atheism" is taking over and I don't see how it will change unless we discover that the alien phenomena/reincarnation is real.

However, to say that atheism isn't getting any pushback is stupid. Or at the very least that atheist talking heads aren't as popular is a misunderstanding. The reason there is a pushback is because with the rise of atheism so has feminism increased, divorce rates, hedonism, lack of a stable family, and a number of other things. It makes some question if we should completely get rid of religion or if there are positive aspects of religion that are essential to having a happy/stable life.

>>19449821
You should feel right at home! Don't be too hard on yourself if some of your efforts don't turn out, when you're learning there's no such thing as wasting ingredients.

Have you seen church and mosque attendance figures?

Atheism is trending so heavily that it can’t be transgressive anymore rendering people like them obsolete

>>19449859
Not that anon but divorce rates have been declining during the new atheism period.

>>19446970
What does racialized even mean?

>>19450463
That is due to a large amount of people not getting married, which also correlates to the amount of children being born out of wedlock.

>>19449859
The Baby Boomers had the highest rates of divorce and they are also generally more religious than the younger generations.

>>19450811
So you accept that you were wrong to say that divorce has increased with the rise of atheism?

>>19446182
>goethe
>atheism

>>19450998
he was , you faggot

>>19448420
You use the word reality as if it has any weight to you. The escapism of the atheist is found in their reluctance to acknowledge that they stand on the shoulders of God-fearing men and, further, their reluctance to sacrifice. Whatever moral values you derive from yourself were already communicated to the world by God and whatever hedonistic values you hold, are manifestations of the temptations of Satan. Accepting that and sacrificing your free-will to instead worship your creator is salvation.