/lit/ - Literature

They went bananas

>>21223499
Eventually, people realized the arguments were kind of cringe and didn't really bother to debate theologically with theists but rather just called them sky daddy believers over and over.
the people who realized this was stupid stopped being so militant about it, but the ones that continued went further down the rick & morty is high iq complex

Lazy atheism won out instead.

The New Atheists had actually principled reasons for disliking Christianity and disbelieving in God. What won instead was "Man, I want to jerk off and smoke weed and sleep in in Sunday, fuck this shit."

That's exactly why everything is such dogshit right now. The wrong kind of atheists won.

>>21223498
Because it's entirely built off of pointing out contradictions and paradoxes of either bible stories or the concept of God using first grade critical thinking skills, and doesn't hold much philosophical substance within itself that doesn't just devolve into hedonism and nihilism. They dismiss the Ideal of God because they find that too abstract, but also reject the Material history of religion and its development for not adhering to their personal dogma. It doesn't get much deeper beyond pointing out that god isn't literally a man in a cloud, or just a criticism of the church which is something that other Christians do anyways.

Anyone in that movement who wasn't a complete egomaniac soon found that religions all across both Eastern and Western theology and philosophy have already asked these questions, and provided much better answers.

>>21223498
This guy is dead
The Biologist is a braindead guy
The Neuroscience is a materialistic spiritualist
The Old fuck is a one trick pony who doesn't have the capacity to grow

>>21223534
/thread
atheists today don't even consider themselves atheists, they just don't like religion because of apathy, the least respectful kind of person

>>21223498
can't even address the last 1700 years of theology/philosophy on the subject.

Some of the most brilliant minds in history dedicated their entire lives to these questions, and ignorant rubes actually thought these shills were saying something substantial by strawmanning (lying about, actually) the most simple reductive idea of religion possible

Also none of these people are philosophers, likely just paid actors to make a lot of demoralizing noise against normal 88 IQ religious Americans

>>21223646
>normal 88 IQ religious Americans
Sounds horrible. Think of the dumbest person you know, who is still functional, and then hit him in the head a few times, and that's who you're lionizing here

>>21223534
What reasons did the new atheists have?

>>21223646
Harris does directly address it.

Denett is a retard. Dawkings ignores it. Hitchens thinks its all bullshit.

>>21223498
skip the Anglos and go back further

They made the mistake of believing that because they were qualified to speak on one thing, they were qualified to speak on many things.

Dawkins and Harris made SJW hay obsessing over blue hairs when new-atheism became YouTube videos obsessed with owning anti-feminism. Skeptics then became cringe and they stopped being taken seriously the more they spoke on things outside their field by the centrists and progressives who supported them in the first place. Even Hitchens had his embarrassing support for the Bush admin when Islam scared him enough to forget his political views for a decade.

They became the dark web (aka faggy midwit losers who thought they were somehow the smart cool kids) and each one of them put a foot in their mouth till none were left uncringe.

You tell me you like Harris, I know you don't actually read.

>>21223664
Nominally, quest for truth and brave rejection of traditional beliefs in adherence with scientific method in all inquiry.
Really, it was mostly young men trying to appear intellectual by dabbing on the lowest hanging fruit

if hitchens had lived for another year he could've defused elevatorgate and kept the movement from fraying. fortunately, he didn't.

>>21223659
>Sounds horrible. Think of the dumbest person you know, who is still functional, and then hit him in the head a few times, and that's who you're lionizing here

more like some of the last functioning people still able to get up and go to work without taking SSRIs or overdosing on drugs

>>21223667
Harris unironically has the same view as the sophists

>>21223499
or perhaps the banana went into them.

>>21223498
They started worshipping Science™ and Accademia™, and waged a crusade against everything alternative. Sin became conspiracy theories, heresy became pseudoscience.
The fact that many of its adherents are actually ignorant in non mainstream religiosity, and often think their arguments against the abrahamic god are good arguments against religion in general, made them a new form of normie along the adherents to the religions they managed to actually debunk.
They're slaves to capitalism. Atheistic materialism fights alongside abrahamic pseudo spirituality against the uplifting of mankind.

>>21223498
This is gonna be based on my memory so bear with me if im making connections that aren't there. New Atheism ran into a number of issues. The most major being they got put in the same bed with dogs so they got fleas. What happened is that New Atheists were extremely militant in their approach and wound up being associated with other ideologies that evolved to be political. Long story short the people making videos against God were lumped in and often shared spaces with the people making the sjw owned compilations (think owning religious zealot videos right next to classic shapiro "facts and logic stuff". Of course this i dont believe was intentional but it happened none the less. The issue on a smaller scale was the people who associated with New Atheism being the worst possible representatives. New Atheism or just atheism caught the worst case of PR possible by being associated with the neckbeard crowd which wasn't liked for a number of reasons (side note this is back when these guys were "THAT GUY" that all the memes made fun of and you could legit find them in real life sometimes) so that means that you're movement is associated with the biggest fucking social outcast possible so you get the blame too. In terms of philosophy im not positive i never really dug in to deep with their points but that wasn't the reason they fell apart. What i personally think the reason is for them falling out of fashion is because they didn't really add anything to society. Like their whole goal was to improve society by removing at the very least the zealotry from the public conscious and if that means religion as a whole has to take a hit then so be it the problem was that they didn't really add anything. Like we know that organized religion is relatively important for social cohesion and all that but they never provided some advocacy for the practitioners to latch on to aside from maybe better arguments to be a jackass with at thanksgiving? So the conclusion is that they didn't really add much and had the worst associations possible supporting an audience that could not have been worse to be at the time.

>>21223498
For the previous generation, the existence of God was still a valid debate and something that was a meaningful pursuit. Zoomers are so detached that they don't even care enough to label themselves atheists, it's not something that's even worth considering to them. On the flip side, there's been a resurgence in tradcath larping on the other end of the spectrum, so make of it what you will.

>>21223748
>here's been a resurgence in tradcath larping on the other end of the spectrum
Has there though or is it just incels online who are trying to cope?

>>21223753
Could be. In any case, that's why I used the word larping because that's exactly what it is.

>>21223740
I remember going to a Unitarian community meeting and it was pretty bad. I was just looking for rationalists, but it was neckbeards. Most of the people there were really fucking weird. It turned out to be an excuse for shut-ins to meet up and drink. So it didn't bother me. Also untainted by women except for girlfriends. As a general rule, I can't hang out with fat people.

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

>>21223740
>Like we know that organized religion is relatively important for social cohesion
I'd argue the new athiets/sjw/most normies don't agree with this.
*Likely* due to how organized religion has been considered in dealing with modern issues and all around just being a bit shit with the pedo stuff / abortion stuff etc.

>>21223499
Well played

>>21223757
>I used the word larping because that's exactly what it is.
Imagine being so afraid of authenticity you need to believe anyone who has real faith is "LARPing" because you're simply unable to fathom how they can't be a pathetic nihilist like yourself

>>21223498
It got rolled into the broader "Science Enthusiast" movement.

>>21223783
He probably means the idiots who are ultra aggressive online and don't actually care about others, hence larping as someone who's religious.

>>21223740
>>21223740
accurate take. I remember it was also a reaction to the perceived bigotry of religious zealots, and as already mentioned since the neckbeards adopted an extremely vague understanding of le science and logic as part of their adolescent individuation process it got mixed up with a sort of generational culmination of the excessive ignorance of the hubris of youth, which was extremely cringe.

>>21223783
That's a lot of assumptions to make in just one post, anon.
>>21223794
Exactly. We could argue about who has "real faith" as the other anon dubbed it, but with my previous posts I was simply referring to the development of mentally online people who suddenly embrace Christianity and then continue their ways.

>>21223791
perfect summation

>>21223775
Actually this is a pretty solid take. I guess i was being to intuitive with my reasoning that since organized religion and its impacts seemed prevalent. But if you're whole stance is that religion isn't that important or is just outright bad then i can see who this take makes sense

>>21223498
It's cringe

>>21223498
>philosophical movement

>>21223534
>The wrong kind of atheist

>>21223498
Atheism is a perennialist philosophy
Don't expect good new concepts every couple years

>>21223576
>i-its hedonism!
I'm not the one hiding his alcoholism behind "uh, i'm actually accepting jesus christ sacrifice in my own body and soul"

>>21223498
then it was edgy to be atheist. now it's edgy to tradlarp. so it goes.

>>21223679
>they were qualified to speak on one thing
they were never qualified

It was a moment within liberalism that was sparked by the 9/11 attacks and the general rise of Political Islam or Islamism or Islamic Extremism or whatever particular phrase you prefer. Liberals like Dawkins and Hitchens sought to define and protect western liberalism (defined in terms of rights earned through the victory of reason against superstition and despotism) against a form of Eastern superstition and despotism, and also to critique it where it remained in the West (Evangelicals, Zionists and Tradcaths etc.). However, there was a tension within liberalism that arose out of the more left-leaning anti-imperialist wing that sought to defend what they believed was a beleagured part of the world suffering under the machinations of American Empire, and thus came to find anti-bigotry of all kinds the more compelling moral crusade than anti-theism/supestition. With the rise of Trump and the media's cynical description of working class resentment as emergent fascism, useful idiots of the anti-bigoted wing were fueled to pursue this mode even further and it became such that any critique of Christianity was particularly through its anti-sodomy or patriarchal elements. To these people, Religion and Christianity as such were not the problem, as many of them affirm the more progressive elements of Christ and some even became progressive Christians (though it should be stated that they are undoubtedly heretics, as the exoteric practices of Christianity are an essential disciplining of the spirit). The liberals of today are focused on bigotry, and anyone who focuse purely upon anti-theism will find themselves to be accused of religious bigotry or islamophobia more specifically.

>>21224592
>there was a tension within liberalism that arose out of the more left-leaning anti-imperialist wing
The famous left leaning anti imperialist wing of liberalism
Meds

>>21224608
What is your objection? Would you not consider them to be liberals? Simply substitute whatever term you prefer, be it 'woke' or 'postcolonial' or 'leftist' or whatever.

>>21224618
>Would you not consider them to be liberals?
Hmm, no? Liberalism is the ideology of american imperialism, it's not anti imperialist, for fuck's sake, and not leftist in the slightest, either
As previously said, meds

>>21223498
Reddit atheist into reddit commie pipeline happened.
Maybe humans need something to believe in.

>>21224633
Anyone with a brain knows that the term 'liberalism' has many different uses. Such that most leftists are ultimately liberal in their assumptions, even if they display illiberal tendencies. Also, I assume you're fully aware that many of these useful idiots are also mobilised to become 'imperialists' if they're dangled the key of 'women's rights' in nations such as Iran or Afghanistan or whatever. Yet these same people will complain about muslim bans if that is the key that is jangled. I'd be happy to abandon the term 'liberalism' if I simply state that many people who started out as anti-theists gradually came to replace that with anti-bigotry. Yet is is liberal priors that led them to that shift.

>>21223498
It got gobbled up by the woke movement almost entirely. I was your typical smug college atheist and watched in real time as so many big personalities either put on their clown makeup, faded into obscurity, or died like Hitchens here. Turns out that hinging your entire identity on the negation of norms makes you uniquely susceptible to political extremism; a lesson with countless examples in the 20th century that nobody bothered to learn.

>>21223498
Atheism is the new norm.

>>21224660
>Such that most leftists are ultimately liberal in their assumptions
Remember: not everyone is american.

>>21224688
We are talking about a movement that occured in the west, so your reminder is irrelevant.

>>21223783
>pathetic nihilist
Well, that's what christers actually believe, that nature is going to be overturned by Yahweh so they can all live forever in Astral Disney-World, and that the reality we live in is really just a waiting room for you to choose the right religion or be sent to the time-out chair. It's one of the worst forms of nihilism because it considers the most nihilistic of its claims to be evidence that it is not nihilism at all.

>>21223498
>the biggest philosophical movements
stopped reading their as it wasn't a philosophical movement or particularly important.
Dawkins and Hitchen's riled up some American evangelists by stating the bloody obvious.

>>21223498
>one of the biggest philosophical movements

Sure anon, anything is a philosophical movement if enough people talk about it. Let's call dark academia a philosophical movement

>>21223498
Why is atheism a decided category though? You have many forms of atheism throughout history but these people are subscribing to the same rhetoric. None of them today are considering metaphysics and the imperative is science due to some need for reverence.

Why does nobody pick up Sartre or Nietzsche or something and tell people what should they do and believe in beside the narrative of religion? Instead you have people like CGPGrey who tremble because of their mortality and shill science because it'll solve it (namely).

>>21224529
>alcoholism
Do you understand that this is less than a teaspoon worth of wine, about twice per year per lay adult for the average Catholic parish, right?

What the fuck are you even taking about

>>21223498
>In the early 2000s it was one of the biggest philosophical move-

>>21224688
Yeah, I'm sure European leftists are so against liberal idpol. I'm sure none of their socialists are obsessed with racism and trans rights.

>>21223664
In the end?
Dawkins disliked the starwmen he, himself, erected and Hitchens couldn't believe that Mother Teresa wasn't secretly a bd person.
that's about it

>>21224592
Only good answer in this thread. Christian larpers here trying to pretend that it was because of cringe or somehow lost the debate against their apologetics are just showing how off the mark their thinking really is on most issues.

>>21223498
I remember the howls of laughter from theologians when Dawkins released the God Delusion.
Why?
He was "refuting" positions no Christian has ever held. A Catholic theologian I know explained it like this
>"Imagine a grown man comes to you and tells you he can prove modern medicine is wrong. You ask him for proof and he tells you that babies are too heavy for storks to carry, so we need to ignore all the OB/GYNs as superstitious. The God Delusion is like that, but worse."
When the mockery was at its height I remember PZ Myers tried to invent a new fallacy, the Courtier's Reply and HE got mocked into orbit over thinking 'you should actually be familiar with the topic you are writing about' is a fallacy.

>>21225296
I'm the guy you replied to.
I'm a Christian.

>>21223498
It died out.

>>21225387
subtle

>>21223498
New Atheism morphed into the online dissident right and the online establishment left

>>21223498
I'm from an evangelical family, so let me answer:
No one cared.
The mistake the four horsemen made was assuming people spend a lot of time and energy thinking about and researching their beliefs. They don't. It's half comfort and half tribalism, but most just continue with their behaviors and beliefs until they're forced to adapt.
No one who watched any of their debates with an open mind would sided with the theologians. They probably could have picked better ones to debate against, but half of them (Turek, Craig, D'Souza, etc.) didn't understand the middle school tier science and logic that was being used and only had cringe-tier apologetics.
Yet most of my friends and family from back then didn't even listen to their work before denouncing them as dumb and wrong. To them, this was someone who was attacking them personally, and so their work was not to be engaged with except with derision.

If you don't believe me, go to your local church and talk to some of the people about the problem of evil and see how often they shrug their shoulders and say something about mysterious ways. Most Christians I know haven't even read the Bible, let alone thought deeply about the contents and implications.

>>21223534
Pretty much this, but I would append most people are incredibly lazy about their religion. The only thing that changed is now religion isn't hip with the youth because it consistently doubles down on outdated tradition.

>>21225585
>the problem of evil
meme-tier psudo-philosophy.
In his own life Epicurus was widely mocked for being, essentially, a dumbass and his "Problem of Evil" was a joke to the Platonists, Cynics, etc.
When I took Philo 115 on the first day the prof stated,
>"At the end of this class if you can't figure out why the Problem of Evil isn't sound you will fail."
I have never, and I ean *NEVER*, met someone who thinks the Problem of Evil is a 'good argument' where that same person isn't also
A) retarded
B) effectively illiterate in philosophy
C) both A & B

david bentley hart bfoed it

>>21223498
They won.

The fact that even jbp treats the bible as allegory and retards here claim "no one takes it literally" are the symptoms of decrease in the key element of faith - literally believing the story. Which none of you do anymore.

>>21225620
>meme-tier psudo-philosophy.
That is my point, the average religious person couldn't even engage with it because most religious people are only in their congregations because they were born into them.

>>21225699
>there is a totally bullshit argument only retards believe
>when people blow it off it is because they have the dumb

>>21223499
Heh

>>21223534
they weren't principled, they were paid shills
when the goal was achieved the shekels were given to different groups instead

>>21223498
It died out.

>>21223498
Everyone is forgetting that this moment was born because American Evangelicans were trying to shoehorn intelligent design and creationism in the school biology syllabus as an alternative to Evolutionary biology.

Other than that This guy>>21223740
is mostly right. The new atheists and skeptics on internet also happened to be the people who criticized trannyism, feminism and wokeism. But wokeism won out and the atheist movement died with it.

At the end of the day, they won. They managed to remove intelligent design from biology syllabus and religious tradition is dead in the west.

>>21223534
>there weren't lazy nonseculars before the 2000s
you were probably born in the 90s and think the world is very different now, because "kids" these days got it so wrong

>>21226355

This probably played a subtle part which many people don't realize as the connection was never explicitly pushed in the media. When that pedo was caught and hanged himself those who associated with him thought its best not to have too much public attention.

The other big part as many have pointed out is that the biggest thing that 'won' out in the end was simple apathy. A massive apathy driven by consumerism, short term pleasure seeking (e.g. social media driven algorithms), various social movements consuming the political oxygen and overtook 'public debate' (see: SJWs, wokeism, BLM etc). The West (and societies which increasingly adopt the Western modern lifestyle) as spiritually dead and are suffering the consequences by shattering one of the great glues that held communities and societies together since the dawn of social structure. Whether you actually believe in a relgion or God is irrelevant for most - it was the tradition and spiritual fulfillment (no matter how shallow - that was of value. Now all gone and apathy, pessimism, and hedonistic consumerism rules.

Hitchens wasn’t even a philosopher, he was the lowliest creature on the planet: A journalist

if there was no internet and no new method of mass communication, there wouldn't have been a new atheism. it was because of the information explosion that people talked about these higher topics for a while.

>>21225585
>problem of evil
Please tell me why any God-fearing Monergist would find a problem in the "Problem of Evil".

People realized they were just another rendition of the protestant reformation

>>21223706
>atheists have the banana in them
>they’re going to Hell anyways for their unbelief
>they fuck themselves twice

>>21223498
There’s a lot of reasons. Mostly, the Bush years ended. At the time new atheism was popular, Americans were deeply troubled about Islamic extremism. Evangelical voters had had a major hand in the election of the sitting President. New atheism was a reaction to these circumstances, and its popular success is otherwise inexplicable imo.

This came at a time, too, when it could still reasonably be argued that society was on track toward long term secularization. Religion, it could be said, was an atavistic, vestigial feature of social development that science and reason would inevitably overcome in the post-Cold War era. This position is almost completely untenable today.

>>21223534
It also because subsumed into the culture war. There's a loud faction of social liberals who are into new age and Wicca bullshit which, for them, is part of feminism. So from their perspective, skepticism is anti-feminist and beyond the pale.

>>21224871
>Catholics don't take communion at least once a month
is this true?

>>21223671
>Assmann

>>21227750
A lot of people don’t take the wine as frequently as the bread

new atheism is a cia op

>>21223783
based and redpilled anime poster

>>21227750
You’re required to partake in the Eucharist atleast once a year

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

You may enjoy this OP. It's been a while since I read it, but he makes the case that New Atheism was co-opted by the emerging SJW movement. Essentially it became much more of a catch-all movement rather than the focused anti-religious movement it initially was.

>>21225313
Alright. What's the argument for the Christian god existing as portrayed in the Bible? It seems like the texts are a bit distanced from observed reality. The most common answer I get is faith doesn't rely on evidence, which is a complete cop out. Do you have anything better?

This is the correct answer >>21223513
This is the answer that got more attention because atheists are retards >>21223534

>>21227891
God isn't a scientific hypothesis. Simple as.

>>21227926
What is God to you? I can see it as many different things. Maybe the grand creator, in a higher dimension running us like a simulation. Maybe God is just a personification of nature. Maybe God is the collective soul of Life. What is it to you?
Aside from that, the God depicted in the Bible is impossible. It's fiction.

>>21227939
There's history in the bible so it isn't just fiction and its parables have been meaningful to generations of people going back to preliterate society (i.e. time immemorial) . You can sperg all you want about proof by your myopic modern standards but God isn't a scientific hypothesis. Simple as.

>>21227948
>There's history in the bible so it isn't just fiction
History gets mixed with fiction all the time. Some matchups in the stories doesn't mean the entirety of it is legit.
>and its parables have been meaningful to generations of people going back to preliterate society (i.e. time immemorial)
Sure. I'm not arguing to toss them out. Simply to view them as the mythology they are.
>You can sperg all you want about proof by your myopic modern standards but God isn't a scientific hypothesis. Simple as.
Correct. It's fiction.

>>21227926
Bro literally Aquinas said otherwise, wtf

>>21227756
Start with the Assmann, egyptologist Jan Assmann.

>>21227988
I never made the argument that fiction never involves historical cues and was merely responding to a (false) blanket assertion you yourself made. God isn't a scientific hypothesis. Simple as.
>>21228013
Modern science existed in the 13th century?

>>21228055
>God isn't a scientific hypothesis. Simple as.
So what is it?

>>21223499
lol nice

>>21223534
Man I'd take militant-yet-articulate atheists like Hitchens any day over retarded new-age zodiac 37 genders motherfuckers.

>>21223783
>anime
everytime lmao
truly we are wretches compared to our mighty forefathers. how pathetic.

>>21228075
Introspection, reflection, and faith. A good place to start is the recognition of the value of humility and then reflect on how pride can damage your character and turn you into a tool.

>>21223498

Most of it seemed to be tried to disgust at George Bush, and his peculiar brand of Ziocon Evangelicalism. Once he exited office they lost their main rallying point.

Are flat-earthers the inevitable antithesis of New Atheism ? It’s all so Hegelian.

>>21228138
>Introspection, reflection
Processing pattern recognition. This keeps you alive. What use is it once you are dead?
>faith
This is a willful disabling of your critical thinking.

>>21228150
There are plenty of things that don't keep you alive but give you a reason to live; there's a poverty of description when you fall back on Scientism (hence the suggestion you reflect on pride). Also, if you think faith negates critical thinking you have a pretty shallow understanding of both (hence the suggestion you reflect on humility); doubt is studied theologically and is a central theme in religious literature.

Gamergate happened, which leads directly to online trad christianity

>>21228181
>>21223498
Forgot to link

>>21228144
No. Hegel never used the word antithesis

>>21228185
thesis-antithesis-synthesis ? cant tell if you’re actually a pseud or if your reply is a deliberate shitpost, there’s no way someone with your lack of knowledge would ever be on /lit/, right ? I mean, this is introductory level stuff.

>>21228204
That’s Fichte. Hegel used the concepts of limited abstract, Aufhebung and speculative or the positively reasonable. You should read Hegel maybe

>>21225585
>If you don't believe me, go to your local church and talk to some of the people about the problem of evil and see how often they shrug their shoulders and say something about mysterious ways. Most Christians I know haven't even read the Bible, let alone thought deeply about the contents and implications.
I made the point previously
>>21223775
The whole new atheism thing imho centered around most religious people not being as thoughtful about things as those attacking them (for the obvious ploy of making religion look dumb). But this seems to generally be the case, I know a lot of lovely Christian people but I doubt any of them have read any theology or thought hard about these types of things. It simply doesn't matter or doesn't make its way into their lives.

Organized religion has it seems failed not only on moral authority but also on intellectual authority.

>>21228242
No, it’s Hegel and The Science of Logic, it’s how he bootstraps his conception of essence. How about you come back here after you’ve educated yourself a little, champ ?

>>21223498
atheism won and no one cares because theists aren't a threat in the west. Every years millions leave Christianity and atheism is rising everywhere. Not saying its a good thing but it is what it is.

>>21228268
No, the other anon is right. It's Fichte.

>>21228268
Hegel uses the concepts of dialectics, which, by the way, have been a thing since Aristotle. But not once in his works (in German at least, I don’t know what kind of retarded translations anglos come up with) does he use the terms thesis, antithesis and synthesis. They also don’t do his thoughts justice. The word Aufhebung alone contains much more than just antithesis

>>21228307
Firstly, dialectics have been a thing since Plato. Secondly, you can samefag all you like, you can split hairs all you like, but the fact of the matter remains: You knew exactly to what my use of ‘antithesis’ referenced, if you’re familiar with Hegel at all (are you ?) and yet you characterised my statement as false. Furthermore, the use of ‘antithesis’ within Hegelian thought has been established practice in the past and is excusable parlance, much as with Kant and noumena and ding an zich. Finally, 你不知道怎么读德语,吧。

>>21228138
>Introspection, reflection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_neglect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Unreliable.

>the recognition of the value of humility
"I'm humble" => "I ain't worth shit" => "I can't find what I am good at" => "Nothing is of any value. Life is meaningless"
Yay?

>and then reflect on how pride can damage your character
reflect how humility can damage your character, slave.

>>21228318
> You knew exactly to what my use of ‘antithesis’ referenced
Yes because every pseud that boasts about „Hegelian“ uses that word. But, as I said, it’s just wrong. The reason we associate Hegel with dialectics is precisely because his thought encompasses much more than just „oh it’s two different things that make a third thing“. Hegels Aufhebung, just as a small example, implies, among other things, that the process includes both dissolving the limited abstract, as well as containing the dissolved, because the German word can be used for both. It is also in conjuction with hegels very complex ontology, and it isn’t just simply antithesis.
Also, just as a further „gotcha“ in this retarded Reddit debate, dialectics have supposedly been used since Zenon of Elea, but Aristotle was the first to write at length about them

>>21223498
>What happened to New Atheism?
1. It still clung to the same values as christians did. So it could not blurt out anything new. And they are no Nietzsche, to offer an alternative set of commandments.
2. Modern christians are christians in name only. If you claim a miracle happened and god talks to you, they'll just send you to the psychiatrist. Medicalization apparently is more important than Jesus.

>>21228343
> Modern christians are christians in name only. If you claim a miracle happened and god talks to you, they'll just send you to the psychiatrist.
45% of Americans believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old. Though, knowing Americans, this doesn’t necessarily mean they’re Christian, they can also just generally be uneducated

>>21228342
seethe more. I’ll still be here tomorrow, and the next day, and the next..

>>21228351
That’s sad honestly

>>21228354
if you say so m8, dont let the door hit you on the way out now x

>>21228333
>Wikipedia articles outlining various concepts in (soft) science
Like I said, God isn't a scientific hypothesis.
>I'm humble" => "I ain't worth shit" => "I can't find what I am good at" => "Nothing is of any value. Life is meaningless"
That isn't humility.
>reflect how humility can damage your character, slave.
You don't understand the difference between humility and self esteem.

>>21228318
He was right. It's Fichte.

>>21228494
>Like I said, God isn't a scientific hypothesis.
But your introspection (or rather LACK of capability to perform it) is. You are telling me to use some tools, which we both know are rigged.

>You don't understand the difference between humility and self esteem.
"Self-esteem" is whenever you are pointed at the negative consequences of humility and start screeching "NOOOO, this is different!". Because such traits are easily definable, right? And with your magical "introspection", no less?

New Atheism successful prevented any sort of religious revival in the West.

>>21228349
>Source: I made it up

>>21228659
>prevented any sort of religious revival
No nietzschean Dionysus for you, kids, no lovecraftian Azathoth. and definitely no nicklandian Gnon/Axsys/Katak,

>>21228668
All we have is those wretched YouTube vids of Hitch's bloated visage.

>>21224688
HEIL

>>21228668
It's called "the Mickey Mouse problem". Mickey Mouse has an elaborate mythology and fanbase, but is he considered an object of worship?

>>21227891
>The most common answer I get is faith doesn't rely on evidence
No Christian denomination ever taught this.
That is the point that makes Theologians laugh. semi-literates like you think
>some dude in comments on reddit
=
>Christian dogmas
Let me ask a simple question and answer without looking it up:
Does the Catholic Church believe that human reason/logic alone using only the material world as evidence can prove the existence of God?
Yes or no.
No looking.

>>21228013
Aquinas
>Logic
Science
>The Scientific Method
you meatheads keep confusing Science
>which is a process of comparing measurements with theories
and Logic
>formal reasoning with principles of validity, proof, and inference
They aren't interchangeable. That's why mathematics is technically not a science.
Does science use logic? Sometimes, but frankly? Not that often.

>>21228150
>>faith
>This is a willful disabling of your critical thinking.
Ah, yes, the "I have zero idea what the word 'faith' means" trick.
So when you sign a legal contract in good faith, did you disable your critical thinking?

>>21229473
>They aren't interchangeable. That's why mathematics is technically not a science.
Musacchio J.M. - 'Contradictions. Neuroscience and Religion' (2012)

"The empirical origin of geometry and arithmetic is clear in their elementary forms. The fact that the axioms of Euclidean geometry were derived from experience is quite evident in Hilbert’s work [23]. He had to add more than 30 axioms to Euclid’s list to justify geometry with what he thought were truly*axiomatic axioms*. Actually, Hilbert unwillingly showed that the Euclidean geometry of flat surfaces was implicitly learned, and that Euclid’s five axioms were not sufficient to justify it. Obviously, nobody learns geometry by derivation from axioms. Elementary geometry is implicitly extracted from the geometric environment. Similarly, reason itself—our capacity to think logically—does not develop without experiences. Reason is implicitly developed in dealing with the objects and the processes of the external world. Philosophers have failed to justify the nature of the relationship between reason and world events. They have never explained why reason can deal with Nature or why reason and causality are isomorphic and justify each other. Causality is not a metaphysical invention"

"It could be said that the formulation of a true proposition is a psychological process, but the verification of the truth of propositions is the exclusive domain of logic. This is a fallacious conclusion that subdivides and compartmentalizes natural processes to the point that the views of different specialists become unacceptable to each other. Frege believed that what is true is true independently of the people who recognize it. However, what Frege did not realize is that*only a person with a physical brain*(or a man-made algorithm fed into a computer) can formulate or verify the truth of a proposition."

"In an effort tode-psychologizelogic, Bertrand Russell stated that arguments are valid by virtue of their form, not their content <...> The denial of the relevance of psychological and empirical concepts to philosophical issues is completely unjustified in light of what we now know about the development of logical notions, implicit learning in children, and the physicality of the mind. This denial has contributed to slowing down the progress of philosophy."

>>21228528
Read a fucking dictionary.
Humility - noun - freedom from arrogance and self-deprecation; acceptance of your objective good and bad qualities
"Humility" doesn't mean 'I am a piece of shit'. 'Humility means 'honest self-appraisal of your own character and capabilities'.
>https://positivepsychology.com/humility/
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility
>https://www.verywellmind.com/why-is-it-important-to-be-humble-5223266
RAFB

>>21229478
>Ah, yes, the "I have zero idea what the word 'faith' means"
>So when you sign a legal contract in good faith
I have zero idea what "in good faith" means.

>>21229499
>Read a fucking dictionary
>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility
"Dictionary definitions accentuate humility as a low self-regard[2] and sense of unworthiness."
"Nietzsche views humility as a strategy used by the weak to avoid being destroyed by the strong. In Twilight of the Idols he writes: "When stepped on, a worm doubles up. That is clever. In that way he lessens the probability of being stepped on again. In the language of morality: humility."[62] "

>>21228177
>There are plenty of things that don't keep you alive but give you a reason to live
Sure. But once you are dead, a reason to live is meaningless since you no longer have the option.
>there's a poverty of description when you fall back on Scientism
We're using the same language. We might have varying lexicons, but feel free to bring yours to the conversation.
>Also, if you think faith negates critical thinking you have a pretty shallow understanding of both
Enlighten me. To me, faith is a suspension of disbelief. It is a position made with no evidence, or at best a gamble made with partial evidence. There are plenty of things we must hold faith in to keep our sanity, since without it we'd freeze do to our incapacity to always have the full picture. However, faith is blind to truth and is the opposite of critical thinking.
>doubt is studied theologically and is a central theme in religious literature
Doubt is that critical thinking I claim is the opposite of faith. Doubt is uncertainty, while faith is active suppression of uncertainty, as opposed to verification.

>>21229494
**yawn**
Pop culture pap is being posted because...?

>>21229458
>No Christian denomination ever taught this
They all teach this. You are lying through your teeth.
>Does the Catholic Church believe that human reason/logic alone using only the material world as evidence can prove the existence of God?
No, because a Yes would force them to actually put forward a proof.

>>21229510
>cherry picked one of 8 definitions ignoring the many links
>"A sperg lord *also* got the definition wrong1" as support
English major, right?

>>21229520
Because it was published by Springer, and in that particular chapter analyzes the nature of logic/mathematics.
Because logic/mathematics is a natural phenomena, and not some magical ectoplasmic domain, that you by sheer miracle have access to.

>>21229478
>So when you sign a legal contract in good faith, did you disable your critical thinking?
"in good faith" means that you are assuming that the other person is acting honestly. That is an assumption, not an established fact (from your perspective), and thus holding it is taking the uncritical position. Bad faith goes the same way, but instead it's an assumption the other person is acting dishonestly. Good faith is necessary because you don't have direct access to the other person's intentions, but still have to make a decision with limited information.

>>21229512
>faith is active suppression of uncertainty
Why is it that atheists never read what religions or the dictionary say?
You have have faith in your military commanders - that doesn't mean you stop thinking, or that you stop evaluation.
You can have faith in your wife - that doesn't mean you suspend rational thought, never feel dount, etc.
But for some unknown reason when an atheist hears the word 'faith' they SPERG OUT
>herp derp no thinkee! NO THINKEE!!!!
and then use that as an excuse to pretend they won something

>>21229526
>>cherry picked one of 8 definitions
because only the definitions YOU like, are the correct ones, right? Because the very act of questioning of the validity of your definitions does not in any way problematize the nature of the phenomena in question? Because your magical introspection is that infallible and you won the Magical Lottery Ticket, yes?

>>21229529
>Because logic/mathematics is a natural phenomena
...and no one implied otherwise?
I stated
>"Logic is distinct from the Scientific Method. Logic is not Science and Science doesn't use Logic as often as you might think"
The end.
Your head canon isn't real, respond to what people actually write

>>21225699
This is true. While catholics tend to have a decent idea of what they beleive, since they have religious schooling in addition to just going to church, Protestants have no clue. I once asked a Baptist why she believed and she said "I just do". I then asked if she could understand how I, someone on the outside, could view that answer as brainwashing. I mean she sounded like she was so disconnected from what she believed that she couldn't even identify what she believed, let alone why. Moments later she was crying and calling me a very rude man.

>>21229535
>Bad faith goes the same way, but instead it's an assumption the other person is acting dishonestly
That isn't what "bad faith" means. At all.
'Bad faith' - to pretend to hold a position/belief you do not actually hold/believe; to make promises you do not intend to keep'.
'Good Faith' does not mean you assume the other person is honest, it means YOU intend to keep YOUR promises.
Neither involves a suspension of critical thought, which was the point.
JFC, did you people go to school?

>>21229540
1) I am not the introspection anon you think I am.
2) You aren't 'questioning the validity of my defintinn', you are ignoring the fact that the word 'Humility' has multiple meanings and you are refusing to use the meanings associated with religion, psychology, and personal development because your only argument is 'nuh-uh'.

>>21229543
>this is unique to religious people
Ever talk to a staunch supporter of a political party and ask them actual questions about positions?
Same, if not worse.
and so on.

>>21223498
Why do we have this thread every week? It's not an enigma

>outlived its usefulness, since New Atheism started as a lefty reaction to the influence of US evangelicals and neocons in US politics, served no real purpose after Obama got elected
>when the ship was clearly sinking most hopped over to the emergent SJW train to continue fighting for lefty causes, the minority who were into it for the contrarianism became alt-right to continue being contrarians
>started to lose credibility because their ideological commitments forbid them from criticizing muslims and jews
>it was philosophically vacuous and unoriginal (most of their arguments were literally just recycled liberal protestant talking points from the 19th century) which made it sure that after the initial momentum died it had no means to reform itself or attract new followers

>>21229537
>that doesn't mean you stop thinking, or that you stop evaluation
I'm glad you stated that, since this is the slippery bit that seems to be forgotten when I talk to most Christians/Jews/Muslims on the topic of religion. So many believe that "faith" is good enough on its own and is often used to shut down the conversation.
>You have have faith in your military commanders
>You can have faith in your wife
The trust and loyalty you have in those people is reinforced by their behavior. That faith can be broken if they behave in ways that hurt you greatly.
However with the concept of God, there is no behavior to point to in order to establish or break faith. There is nothing to anchor your faith to. There is nobody to hold your loyalty, aside from other people in your flock.

>>21229556
>the fact that the word 'Humility' has multiple meanings
implies the arbitrariness of all its meanings. Because your intentional toolkit is shit.
If "Humility" can mean whatever one wants it to, then "Humility" is not an answer to anything, but a retroactive placeholder, akin to New Guinea savages' explanations of their "gift economy" via something called "hau".

>>21229458
>No Christian denomination ever taught this.
Ok so let's see some evidence which faith would be based on. Keep in mind that evidence has to be observable or verifiable, and not "just trust me" documentation produced by cult members

There is a fundamental disconnect between atheists and religious people as seen ITT.
Dawkins has it and its why the God Delusion is total shit.
Funny story I learned from a professor
>In 1979 Hitchiker's Guide to the galaxy was published. In the opening chapters the author wrote a funny little bit about 'faith' being defined as 'belief without any evidence'. It was part of a joke that was, in fact, mocking atheists and their refusal to accept ANY logical argument for the existence of God and the author's assumption they would likewise reject ANY physical evidence of God, too. Lo and behold 20 years later that definition was added to the dictionary,. Very natural that pop culture slowly creeps into language, but it confused people.
>"Why? Because no religious person thinks there is no evidence for God. Religious people are religious *because* they think there is evidence for God. Talk to any priest, minister, etc and you quickly learn that they use "faith" the same way they always did - to mean they are convinced God will keep his promises to them so they owe God loyalty.
>But atheists don't grasp this and, frankly, seem to refuse to. They took a joke at their expense and now it has confounded them so they can't even talk to religious people in a meaningful way

>>21229578
You are horribly misguided. Repent!

>>21229548
It's a matter of perspective. You know whether or not your are acting in good or bad faith, so your motives are certain to you. You don't know the motives of the other person, so you assume good or bad faith with limited information.
>Neither involves a suspension of critical thought, which was the point.
I didn't think you'd take the first person view of it, since you aren't putting faith into anything aside from yourself. You are in control of your own behavior. Critical thought of your own motives is your own responsibility.

>>21229581
Repent for what?

>>21223498
It was primarily an internet phenomenon, and a way for outcasts and misfits to feel intellectually superior and find some semblance of community.

It was unironically ruined by the redditor aalewis, who made the quote:

"In this moment, I am euphoric
Not because of any phony god's blessings. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence."

That's it. This killed internet atheism. It is the most potent cringe ever penned by man. It is perfect and pure. People will disagree, they will insist on some sort of human dignity of spirit that disallows a single instance of giga-cringe from shaping the course of intellectual history, but that insistence is just vanity and cope. aalewis took the magic mirror and brought it up in front of the faces of these misfits and malcontents, and they saw what horrifying cringe they had become, and dropped the very performative anti-religious sentiments.

However, the outcasts and misfits yearning for a sense of intellectual superiority and community still exist. Their internet atheism was just an incidental consequence of this much more basic drive. Today, they have done a full 180, and will instead tie their entire identity up on being extremely cringy about Evola, Mark Fisher, or tradcath LARPing. Each of these new currents of cringy internet intellectualism is ripe for their own aalewis, and the day will come.

>>21229556
Humility at its extreme is nihilism. The universe is insanely big and you are insignificant. The radio waves from time when we invented radio haven't even left our galaxy.

>>21229569
>However with the concept of God, there is no behavior to point to in order to establish or break faith
this might be the most retarded thing I've seen in this thread.
For two reasons!
1) Not only is the 'loss of faith in God because someone is convinced God betrayed them' a Thing it is *so much* a thing that it was one of the most common tropes in literature, movies, etc. for CENTURIES and is still a trope in entertainment to this day! 'The believer who lost faith because of loss/tragedy/unaswered prayers' is dirt common from music to Dungeons and effin' Dragons. SO saying
>religious people do not judge God for His loyalty in Faith
is so egregiously stupid I am wondering if you're an atheist troll or just an uncultured swine.
Second, you're begging the question. You are assuming
>no one can prove God's existence, so there is no God, therefore there is no anchor for faith...
and so on.
Religious people are certain of God's existence. Logic can prove the existence of God. The fact you reject that and demand only empirical evidence *is the point*

>>21229571
>If words have more than one meaning they have no meaning
Wait'll you learn about words like 'cleave' you mong.
The religious definition of 'humility' is about 3,000 years old and consistent. Your ignorance of that is just ignorance, not others being arbitrary
>New Guinea savages
Oh! you're a Middle Class Liberal White Guy!

>>21229599
So if I become obese, will I become more significant?

>>21229578
>Keep in mind that evidence has to be observable or verifiable, and not "just trust me" documentation produced by cult members
translation
>Scientism demands only Materialist evidence
The Quinque Viae and the Ontological Argument are quite old and I suspect you've encountered them before. You will dismiss all Logic as "not real" when it suits you, of course, then go back to demanding Justice, Equality, and Human Rights in the next thread.

>>21229584
FFS, read the dictionary. You are still getting the two definitions backwards, you tool.

>>21229580
>no religious person thinks there is no evidence for God. Religious people are religious *because* they think there is evidence for God
The religious idea of "evidence" is scripture or mystical experience. Of course, that doesn't count as evidence to the non-believer, who may for instance consider scripture to be a work of fiction produced by cult members and mystical experience to be a psychological or chemical phenomena read through a cultural lens. It's dishonest to say atheists don't understand the theist's definition of faith. Generally what is happening is an abbreviation—since the supposed evidence is garbage, faith is reckoned as belief without evidence.

>>21229599
>The radio waves from time when we invented radio haven't even left our galaxy.
Son, they haven't left the *local bubble*
>Humility at its extreme is nihilism
So you think an objective assesment of your own capabilities = nihilism?
You need to up your game

>>21229624
>Justice, Equality, and Human Rights
No, you ought to be locked in a monastery against your will.

>>21229618
Yes

>>21229631
>The religious idea of "evidence" is scripture or mystical experience
An unsupportable position. The Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, and Orthodox Christian denominations all state that their members are to believe that human reason can prove the existence of God without recourse to scripture, mystical experience, visions, prophets, etc.
Indeed, the Catholic Church states that to be a member of the Catholic Church you *MUST BELIEVE* that the existence of God can be proven solely from the material world via human reason.
>It's dishonest to say atheists don't understand the theist's definition of faith
Yet ITT I consistently see atheists assuming religious people use the incorrect definition of faith.
>since the supposed evidence is garbage, faith is reckoned as belief without evidence.
All you say here is that you are begging the question and close-minded
So everything you said is wrong, and you are provable too ignorant to discuss what religious people think and believe.

>>21229637
>not realizing he has tacitly admitted such concepts are not Materialist....

What I love about these threads is that within 72 hours the atheists prove themselves to be uneducated, semi-literate, close-minded bigots, all just because they are incapable of anything else.

>>21229644
>reason can prove the existence of God without recourse to scripture, mystical experience, visions, prophets, etc.
Ok go ahead then. No leaps of faith, just give me the facts. Prove to me that since the god of Greek philosophers "exists" that he is actually Yahweh-Yeshua

>>21229606
>Not only is the 'loss of faith in God because someone is convinced God betrayed them
This assumes they believe God exists, but realized his biblical incarnation is a royal asshole. It's a bit understandable when you start looking at his actions and motivations in the stories, then look out into the world and see shit like harlequin babies and pic related.
My position is simply that the biblical God doesn't exist whatsoever. The Bible is a grand work of fiction, iterated upon for millennia.
>religious people do not judge God for His loyalty in Faith
I didn't say that. Do they judge God for His loyalty in Faith? Seems like a bizarre statement, especially given the Books of Genesis and Job clearly point out that God has no loyalty to humanity and will fuck with them on a whim, regardless of their opinions of him.
>no one can prove God's existence, so there is no God, therefore there is no anchor for faith
My view is slightly different. It's closer to:
>no one can prove God's existence, so God's existence is irrelevant, therefore there is no anchor for faith
I can't prove there isn't a God. However, given our current situation, his existence has no bearing on reality, aside from the actions of the people holding such beliefs in their head.
>Religious people are certain of God's existence. Logic can prove the existence of God.
What makes you so certain? Provide me the logic you used to reach this certainty? I've heard plenty of claims for this, but nobody has been able to further elaborate.
>The fact you reject that and demand only empirical evidence *is the point*
Empirical evidence grounds it in reality. It provides your logic with anchor points to what is or isn't real. Regardless, I'd like to see you try and logic your way to certainty of God's existence without it.

>>21229656
>anyone who disagrees with me is uneducated and breathes through his mouth
this but unironically

>>21229614
>The religious definition of 'humility' is about 3,000 years old and consistent. Your ignorance of that is just ignorance
The geocentric belief is also thousands years old and the Ptolemaic model was consistent enough for calculations. Yet once you disclose some awkwardly persistent empirical facts you ignored, it suddenly stops being true.

>>21229629
Good faith is not an assumption in the first person, since you know your own motives. It's a willful action. Whether or not somebody else is acting in good faith is where the assumptions start coming in. Learn to read, retard.

>>21229648
Where did I say anything about being a "Materialist"? Stop using a cheat sheet to respond to people you stupid tourist. If you have evidence that can be discussed by two reasonable people present it. If you hand me a copy of Alice in Wonderland and tell me rabbits can talk I'm going to be curious how else we can verify that. You appear to be using materialism as a slur or buzzword but if by materialism you mean empirical evidence then go stand in traffic to affirm your own position

>>21229635
>So you think an objective assesment of your own capabilities = nihilism?
You look at the grand scale of the universe and your own capabilities aren't jack shit. All memory of your existence will be completely erased within a millennium. There will be nobody left that holds any recollection of your existence. Nobody left to hold the meaning of your finite time as a person.
On a personal level, it's a huge weight off my shoulders. My successes and failures don't matter in the grand scale, but zoomed into my own personal scale, they matter exactly as much as I want them to.

>>21223534
Lmao at being this delusional.

Atheism has ALWAYS been based in degeneracy, Hitchens, Dawkins etc main complaints was that religion restricted "free love", LGBT, etc.

I mean atheists have 0 issue accepting progressive beliefs, despite the fact those cant be empirically proven either, so saying they seek "the truth" is largely bullshit.

>>21229644
>Indeed, the Catholic Church states that to be a member of the Catholic Church you *MUST BELIEVE* that the existence of God can be proven solely from the material world via human reason.
Got a quick rundown on how they achieve this? Since it's mandatory to be part of the religion, I'm sure at least one Catholic has made such proof available for all of us to scrutinize.
>All you say here is that you are begging the question and close-minded
How? Words in a book aren't sufficient evidence that something really happened. This is precisely why Christians/Jews/Muslims get laughed at when they try to act like scripture means anything to anybody that isn't already balls deep into their ideology. Belief that scripture is sufficient evidence is pure delusion.

>>21229705
Christians were the original atheists denouncing both the Greco-Roman gods and abandoning the laws of Judaism. So whether one was a convert from either side to this new religion, one was, in a very literal and very Latin sense, a degenerate.

>>21229705
>based in degeneracy
How does "free love" and "LGBT" degenerate society? If anything, it just gives people more options. At worst, it degenerates the fictional portrayal of society as dictated by your scripture.

DEBOOKING God became DEBOONKING Christianity (specifically Protestantism, I (((wonder)))) why?) became DEBOONKING Bush became DEBOONKING stupid internet videos became DEBOONKING Brufpm became DEBOONKING literal nobodies (Walker, Greene, etc.). DEBOONKING - NOT EVEN ONCE!

>>21229705
>in degeneracy
>"free love", LGBT, etc.
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/are-we-in-a-500-year-religious-revolution
"In the last decade we’ve seen the emergence in the West of a strident new ideology of “Social Justice” which, despite its self-conceived secularism, many observers have now convincingly argued bears all the hallmarks of a new religious cult, complete with a new metaphysics of truth and reality, a concept of original sin, a new hierarchy of moral virtues, a self-constructed canonical liturgy and a strict orthodoxy, a de-facto priesthood, sacred spaces, self-abasing rituals, a community of believers, linguistic shibboleths, blasphemy laws, and excommunication – among other giveaways.
But, quite notably, this “New Faith” seems to have, consciously or unconsciously, modeled most of its belief system and ritual practices straight out of the Christian tradition, from an overarching preoccupation with the weak and the victimized, along with an emphasis on atonement (though any conception of grace, forgiveness, or redemption is notably absent), right down to specific forms of ritual, like the washing of feet or the symbolic reenactment of martyrdom."

https://unherd.com/2021/11/theres-nothing-woke-about-crypto/
"“Wokeness” isn’t an upstart faith. It’s a secularised, mutant form of the Protestantism that began with Luther. It’s the creed of our current elite establishment, with near-hegemonic power, and it’s subject to many of the same critiques as the then-hegemonic Catholic Church was in Luther’s time, down to the selling of indulgences. In this story, “wokeness” isn’t the schism; it’s the established church."

>>21229737
>blame stops at Protestantism because I'm lazy
just like a first mover having no cause!

>>21229722
>Christians were the original atheists denouncing both the Greco-Roman gods and abandoning the laws of Judaism
>Christians were the original atheists
Are you sure you know what the word "Theist" means?

>>21229737
Belief in God isn't required for an ideology to be delusional and uncritical of its own practices. If anything, this is just more evidence that the tactics and arguments of the religious are just as retarded when wrapped in a secular skin.

>>21229773
They were atheists toward all the gods that a civilized member of society was expected to honor. They were degenerates. And they only met at night under the cover of darkness, to celebrate a cult whose rituals were about eating God and calling everyone brother and sister.

>>21223534
On the contrary, both are highly correlated to one another. Lazy atheism is the offspring of new atheism, at some point, most of the millitants just stopped giving a shit once christianity lost its mainstream hold.

>>21229803
>once christianity lost its mainstream hold
Has it though? Sure its relevance is dwindling, but let's not pretend it's not still the most mainstream religion in the Western world. It's the main reason we still treat the concept of sex and nudity as memetic hazards.

>>21229725
>how does promoting the behavior of mentally ill people and literally tearing apart the foundational fabric of civilization degenerate society
gee that's a thinker anon


do you think it's just a coincidence premarital sex and high partner count correlate strongly with high divorce rates

and that single parent households are slowly becoming the majority

and that children raised by single parents are dramatically worse off in every category from education to happiness to health to wealth to time in prison to civic particiation

I won't even go into details about the diseased homosexual child rapists you advocate for, gays have ludicrous amounts of sexual partners and STDs and rates of child rape compared to regular people

There's no physical evidence of God.
Burden of Proof.

It is one thing to prove that God exists, that it is an absolute certainty, as that is quite a mountain to climb but you can easily find reason to believe.
For instance, Watch Maker argument. Does this universe look like it is designed more so than it looks like the product of random accident?
If so, then there is probably a God, if not, then there it seems less likely there is a God.

There is a simple elegance to nature that seems to espouse the brilliance of a deity. At least I think so.
As far as evolution goes, it can be considered as useful in an intelligently designed universe. Given enough iterations, enough mutations occurring over time, certain forms are statistically likely to occur. The eye has developed independently 25 times or so. One could argue that evolution is a method God used to develop life naturally as it is reasonably successful.

>>21229907
>Does this universe look like it is designed more so than it looks like the product of random accident?
Your parents meeting each other and not other people is pretty much a random accident.

>>21229894
>do you think it's just a coincidence premarital sex and high partner count correlate strongly with high divorce rates
Only when you conflate sharing the same household roof with genital friction obligation.

>single parent households
Once again, it is a problem of people not cooperating as a group.
Single parent households are becoming the majority, because the so-called "nuclear family" that existed in the "American dream" of the 50-s, was in fact a non-blood-related extended family

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/
"a “modified extended family,” as the sociologist Eugene Litwak calls it"
"even as late as the 1950s, before television and air-conditioning had fully caught on, people continued to live on one another’s front porches and were part of one another’s lives. Friends felt free to discipline one another’s children."

>that children raised by single parents are dramatically worse off
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_choice
Yes, they are, but how does this argument follow?

>>21228528
>You are telling me to use some tools, which we both know are rigged.
That's begging the question. Religious views don't necessarily entail flaws in reasoning or critical thinking.
>"Self-esteem" is whenever you are pointed at the negative consequences of humility
Negative self esteem and personal humility arent the same concept. Further, you can exercise great humility and it can actually be beneficial for your self esteem.

>>21230002
You didn't answer a single point you just threw a bunch of copes and irrelevant links around.

>>21230024
No dude, you need to explain the mysterious connection between more single parent families and sexual liberation, I mean what could possibly be the connection? I mean why would the stork bring those kids to 1 parent only?

>>21229894
>how does promoting the behavior of mentally ill people and literally tearing apart the foundational fabric of civilization degenerate society
People acting on delusions they acquired through works of fiction sounds like promoting the behavior of the mentally ill.
>do you think it's just a coincidence premarital sex and high partner count correlate strongly with high divorce rates
No. However, I also don't attribute the reasoning behind the correlations to be because of some divine being's rules. It's more that people feel less trapped in a situation when they have more experience. Not all marriages are meant to last.
>and that single parent households are slowly becoming the majority
Blame our shitty welfare system for financially incentivizing it. Granted, I don't have a better solution either without fucking over the kids born into such situations in the short term.
>and that children raised by single parents are dramatically worse off in every category from education to happiness to health to wealth to time in prison to civic particiation
And? What does this have to do with free love or LGBT? Fags are quite capable of running a two-parent household.
>I won't even go into details about the diseased homosexual child rapists you advocate for
There's plenty of diseased heterosexual child rapists out there. I advocate for neither. It makes more sense to go after the rapists, rather than going after fags.

>>21230002
ywnbarw

What are you two retards arguing about? If "theism" prevents "degeneracy," why is there no fertility rate in South Korea, a country which has become increasingly Christian over the last few generations? When they were mostly Buddhist (atheist), children were still being born. So if that's the variable what's going on over there?

>>21230077
>Buddhist (atheist)
Stopped reading there.

>>21230087
The Muslims who invaded India recognized that Buddhists were atheists, and I think they knew a little bit more theology than you do.

>>21229512
>But once you are dead, a reason to live is meaningless
That reasoning can't explain meaningful actions that result in the death of a person who perceived those actions to be in the service of a higher good/value. You can rationalize those actions and restrict the locus of perception to the deceased person, but the actions themselves don't cease to be meaningful upon the agent's death and the meaning of those actions, even as perceived by the agent, don't evaporate.
>We're using the same language.
Not an argument. There's a poverty of language and description when you fall back on Scientism. Simple as.
>However, faith is blind to truth and is the opposite of critical thinking.
Again, I told you that religious doubt is commonly discussed within theology and it is a central theme in religious literature. Critical thinking and holding religious views aren't mutulally exclusive.
>Doubt is that critical thinking I claim is the opposite of faith. Doubt is uncertainty, while faith is active suppression of uncertainty, as opposed to verification.
Faith isn't a suppression of uncertainty in the face of doubt. A faithful action can be undertaken in spite of experiencing doubt without involving "suppression."

>>21230077
>Buddhist (atheist)
Buddhism is atheism only among the intellectual elite that has brains enough to comprehend, that sansara is nirvana and everything is void.
To the laymen, it is about praying and performing rituals before the statue of some weird fatso.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_religion#Folk_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_Orthodoxy
Similarly, thus always has been with christians. The overall majority of peasants had beliefs incompatible with bible.

>>21230077
>degeneracy is when fertility rate goes down

Do consumerists really?

>>21225585
>Problem of evil
Btfo by free will

>>21230144
>>when fertility rate goes down
Eugenics
@
Reproductive technologies

Problem solved.

>>21230125
>praying and performing rituals before the statue of some weird fatso
I suppose you think people in the United States worship Santa Claus

>>21230155
>free will
Btfo by the Illusion of Control

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will

>>21230144
>having children is degenerate
For you

>>21230160
google: "the Mickey Mouse problem"

>>21230169
No thanks. Buddhists do not believe a creator god is responsible for the universe. Buddhists believe any such god(s) people worship are subject to the same apparent causality as all other sentient life. This is atheism from the perspective of Abrahamic theology, which is the dominant form of theism globally, even more so if we exclude India (which, while being the homeland of Buddhism is home to nearly no Buddhists).

>>21229907
>For instance, Watch Maker argument. Does this universe look like it is designed more so than it looks like the product of random accident?
I see it as Emergent Design. Simple things interact, creating more complex things that are the sum of their parts. We can fight over who created the rules of physics, but it doesn't really matter since we have no evidence they've tampered with it post-creation. God is simply an extra step. If he can be eternal and without a cause, why not the universe as a whole?

>>21230184
>Buddhists do not believe a creator god is responsible for the universe.
1) The jewish interpretation of Genesis (pic related) does not presuppose the creation ex-nihilo, for example. Things existed way before YHWH.

2) Vedic religion did not believe in a creator god, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta

"6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know."

>>21230104
>That reasoning can't explain meaningful actions that result in the death of a person who perceived those actions to be in the service of a higher good/value.
It's been done, but requires a bit of understanding about the games of genetics/memetics. Pic related is a fantastic read on the topic.
>You can rationalize those actions and restrict the locus of perception to the deceased person, but the actions themselves don't cease to be meaningful upon the agent's death and the meaning of those actions, even as perceived by the agent, don't evaporate.
Meaning is subjective by its nature. It doesn't exist outside the conscious mind. Granted, in the perspective of an omniscient God, all possible forms of meaning would be accounted for in their perspective.
>There's a poverty of language and description when you fall back on Scientism. Simple as.
I disagree. Simple as. You're welcome to use your lexicon. If I'm confused on a word or context, I'll ask for clarification.
>Again, I told you that religious doubt is commonly discussed within theology and it is a central theme in religious literature. Critical thinking and holding religious views aren't mutulally exclusive.
Sure. I'm here to present you with my doubts. If they're commonly discussed, I'm sure you're much practiced in sorting them out.
>Faith isn't a suppression of uncertainty in the face of doubt. A faithful action can be undertaken in spite of experiencing doubt without involving "suppression."
I argue that it is a suppression of doubts that cannot be readily examined in order to mitigate memory leaks in one's decision-making. You can still hold doubts, but when you make the leap of faith, you act is if those doubts don't exist, because doing otherwise could potentially lead to infinite indecision.

>>21230166
>I am influenced by outside factors therefore none of my decisions are my own.
Epic scapegoat.

>>21230184
>any such god(s) people worship are subject to the same apparent causality as all other sentient life. This is atheism from the perspective of Abrahamic theology
Bloodguilt was a mechanistic force of the universe, stronger than YHWH and outside of his control. Therefore, Bible is atheism from the perspective of Abrahamic theology.

>>21230321
>therefore none of my decisions are my own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_rationality
therefore, all of your decisions are dependent on your environment. Therefore, you are not "you", but a superorganism, combined with whatever surrounds you right now.

>>21230211
creation ex-nihilo was a salient Christian doctrine by the time they were in contact with Roman writers, and was one of the main distinctions between their theology and Hellenistic theology. Discussed in the relevant books on this chart. >>21223671

>>21229571
>implies the arbitrariness of all its meanings
Retards always resort to the vagaries of semantics when they're BTFO.

>>21230196
Well, when it comes to the fundamental forces and particles, they all serve a purpose and there is an overarching harmony.
The natural particles : proton, neutron, electron, neutrino all serve a role in a larger scheme. The fundamental forces also all play a role in the evolution of complexity.
There isn't a lot of superfluous parts or aspects to it as a whole. There are by-products such as black holes and neutron stars which seem to be useless, but they are the necessary consequence of the basic design.

If the universe had a lot of purposeless pieces, or seemed to fit together unintuitively (working against its own teleos), then that would be another story. Like if there were very many species of particles in nature that didn't amount to much, or if the whole system seemed chaotic so that a single hospitable planet was against the odds, a statistical anomaly. Rather instead we find millions of habitable worlds per galaxy, a universe that is teeming with potential. It is difficult for one to imagine a more efficient universe.

If the current configuration of matter is most effective for producing life, then one would expect as much mass as possible before gravity would overtake it. That is what we find, a curiosity, an exactly "flat universe".

>>21230246
>It's been done
No it hasn't. You can make post hoc assertions rationalizing the action but they don't address their meaningfulness. Once again you fall back on Scientism--you assert the drive is entailed by a biological impetus but fail to consider moral action in which a given agent may recognize their action is impotent (to give one example). The best you can do is beg that all such things be considered in aggregate but that betrays the poverty of description you cannot address and fail to understand.
>Meaning is subjective by its nature. It doesn't exist outside the conscious mind.
No. That's an open philosophical question. Also, I want you to notice you're making an appeal to absolute skepticism, a common criticsm atheists assert is a key component of religious belief structures.
>I disagree. Simple as.
You make the claim that all meaning is subjective but fail to understand the poverty of description that exists in Scientism? You either don't know what constitutes Scientism or simply fail to construct a nuanced understanding of how language maps to reality.
>I'm here to present you with my doubts
No, the concept of doubt was raised in the context of you assertion that faith and critical thinking are mutually exclusive. I'm not going to slide and you can met that argument in the proper context or move on.
>I argue that it is a suppression of doubts
I reject your terms as they attempt to monopolize semantics while failing to address the context I've already elucidated in prior comments. This is a recipe for talking passed one another and sliding away from the actual matter being discussed. It's another conversation.

>>21230365
You're passing the blame off on to everything except yourself but the fact of the matter is you still made the choices you made regardless of what caused you to make them.

>>21229618
lmao

>>21229693
>grand scale
Irrelevant. The size of the faggot universe have no tangible relation to you or any other human. You are so stupid and brainwashed that you seem to believe human life does not have any meaning unless they are Goku or some shit.
Fucking embarrasing.

>>21230564
>You can make post hoc assertions rationalizing the action but they don't address their meaningfulness
Meaning belongs to the living. Any meaning the dead once had is lost to entropy.
> The best you can do is beg that all such things be considered in aggregate but that betrays the poverty of description you cannot address and fail to understand.
It's less about the poverty of description and more like the actual description expands near infinitely, so we've got to simplify matters. Attempts to simulate chaotic systems (like turbulent flow or three gravitational bodies) illustrate this point very well.
>No. That's an open philosophical question.
Try training a computer how to recognize a face or a metaphor. It becomes quickly apparent that the meaning we give things isn't held as fundamental by nature, but are rather emergent from the increasing complexity.
>Also, I want you to notice you're making an appeal to absolute skepticism
Correct. Upon examination, skepticism is my default. I don't like fitting pieces in my head that don't fit with the rest.
>but fail to understand the poverty of description that exists in Scientism?
Are you talking about science not pretending like it has all the answers and being rather open about the problems in our current models? I trust a guy that knows he doesn't have all the answers more than someone that believes they have all the knowledge.
>You either don't know what constitutes Scientism
I assume you're meaning a world view based upon scientific discovery. If I am incorrect in this assumption, please correct me, but understand my assumption is my own view.
>No, the concept of doubt was raised in the context of you assertion that faith and critical thinking are mutually exclusive.
In the moment, yes. In a compilation of moments they can work together.
>I reject your terms as they attempt to monopolize semantics while failing to address the context I've already elucidated in prior comments.
Is faith not a suppression of doubt in the moment of conducting an action? To put it more specifically, a consideration of doubt in such a way that the doubts are insignificant in stopping such an action.

>>21230668
It means our potential for spreading is hindered, so we have much less potential resources than science fiction would have us believe.

>>21230575
>You're passing the blame off on to everything except yourself
You are dealing with the meaningless outdated concepts such as "blame"

pseudcentral

>>21230696
Kek, your bitch ass talks about fucking machine learning and you expect to be taken seriously? No wonder you think scientists work from a skeptical position and not from pure greed and funding.
How come science ignores the standard weight masses changing over time? Perhaps because it BTFOs their whole position on 100+ million year time scales? You believe in straight bullshit and I can't wait until we are ripping heretic intestines out again.

Atheism is offensive to Islam, it is intolerable in the current climate, especially in Britain

>>21230696
>Meaning belongs to the living.
Again, you fail to address the context in which that point was presented and slide. The claim was that biology explains meaningful actions. I gave one example of an argument in which it doesn't that you fail to address and, as predicted, beg that such things are determined in aggregate. Stick to the context. Sliding is bad faith.
>It's less about the poverty of description and more like the actual description expands near infinitely,
No, it's a poverty of description. The idea that actual description expands infinitely is another issue which I also stated was an unfounded assertion. You address neither criticism and use both points to support one another. That's bad logic. Futher, begging the complex nature of reality as if it supports your conclusions is a clear signal vagarities carry the weight of your argument and not clear logic.
>Try training a computer
We're not discussing computers and computers aren't human beings. I also don't have to argue that absolute meaning is attainable by humans, let alone machines (slide agian). The fact that it is fuzzy and may be meaningfully rendered through introspection and reflection services the idea of faith. I can objectively say that you're taking many aspects of your arguments on faith and point out you're making tautological assertions; from that you should recognize your arguments are dependant on a faith that meaning, while complex, isn't a whim that can be translated infinitely.
>Upon examination, skepticism is my default.
You misunderstand. You don't hold a monopoly on skepticism and critical thinking isn't the same thing as appealing to an absolute form of skepticism from which anything can be proven. You undermine your own argument without being intellectually aware that you are doing so.
>Are you talking about science not pretending like it has all the answers
Scientism is an ideology. People who ascribe to it are usually selectively ignorant of the social influences that guide scientific activity and ignore the fact that scientific knowledge and the means we go about attaining it shift over time. Further, concepts like underdetermination are conveniently forgotten about.
>I assume you're meaning a world view based upon scientific discovery.
No. Scientism was espoused by the New Athiest movement and you've present arguments that demonstrate you're a fellow traveller of an ideology you haven't familiaized yourself with in a critical manner. "People don't have ideas, ideas have people." Start with researching underdetermination or if that's too much right away Thomas Kuhn is a good gateway into such things (its old and isn't an exit point though).
>Is faith not a suppression of doubt
It isn't a suppression and the concept of doubt was brought up in the context that faith is divorced from critical thinking.

>>21223498
It was never sustainable in the first place for two reasons:
1. It placed misguided faith in the masses' abilities to think for themselves and not get swept away by rhetoricians with ulterior motive. Which is very ironic considering this is one of the main reasons the thought-leaders of this movement abhorred religion. What they failed to realize was that religion was never the illness, it was an attempt to work with what appears to be a natural law (people's innate need to conform). Perhaps the idea all along was to start a new religion (atheism), but the problem is if your religion is dishonest and does not present itself as a religion the people will conform to the idea that it is not a religion and that they must think for themselves. This creates an unstable paradox in which the followers, if they are to follow, must not consider themselves followers. It's a recipe for cognitive dissonance and madness.
2. All they did was replace a lively symbol for life/creation (God) with a dead one (big bang, science, whatever etc.)
They didn't actually change anything. Religion aside, the whole "God" debate is pointless since all you're doing is replacing a symbol with another symbol to represent the same thing. Worst of all the symbol you wish to replace it with is far less fitting since it's an attempt to represent life with clinical sterility. It's just dumb.

>>21223513
>people realized the arguments were kind of cringe

>>21229894
Based. They will hate you for telling the truth.

>>21230002
Faggots trying to normalize "chosen family" as an alternative to the traditional family unit thats been the back bone of civilizations since time immemorial. inb4 "There are exceptions that we should promote over the basic fact and established pattern!" (Faggots always resort to that shit--e.g. "say 'pregnant people' because menopause exists!! Her penis!")

>>21223498
We won
Deal with it

>>21230932
>The claim was that biology explains meaningful actions
Meaningful actions are emergent from biology. I don't think biology has a full explanation on its own, but our concepts of meaning have emerged from biological function.
>I gave one example of an argument in which it doesn't that you fail to address
I didn't see it that way, but I'll address it. Sorry for skipping it.
>but fail to consider moral action in which a given agent may recognize their action is impotent
Their action may be impotent to the world at large, but they've made a conscious decision that they couldn't live without doing that action. The action is meaningful to them and results in their death, but I disagree that it disproves my belief that meaning emerges from biology. We aren't fully rational beings. We're driven by emotion, which alters our decision-making for better or for worse.
>and, as predicted, beg that such things are determined in aggregate
Not determined, but observed. Everybody is different, but we can observe the commonalities, including those we share with other organisms, and start to piece together what makes us tick. We all derive meaning in different ways. I'm sure there are plenty of things I find meaningful that you don't give a shit for. Likewise, there's plenty that we both find meaningful that will mean absolutely nothing to someone a thousand years down the road. The aggregate is a zoomed out scope of the distribution in what we as humans find meaningful, but I agree that it oversimplifies matters.
>The idea that actual description expands infinitely is another issue which I also stated was an unfounded assertion.
Every single person on this planet holds a unique set of things they find meaningful. There is plenty of commonality, but there's also plenty of outliers. Biology and communication are both themselves extremely chaotic systems with interconnected layers of abstraction tying them together. We can find patterns, but trying to describe any of it in completion is an impossible task.
>We're not discussing computers and computers aren't human beings
They are far simpler compared to us, but we both function as logical units capable of making decisions.
>The fact that it is fuzzy and may be meaningfully rendered through introspection and reflection services the idea of faith.
This right here is a phenomenal argument and one I don't disagree with.
> I can objectively say that you're taking many aspects of your arguments on faith and point out you're making tautological assertions
I think the disconnect is that I accept faith as something fundamental to the human condition, but I also see faith in the biblical God (distinct from the general idea of a God) as folly.
>from that you should recognize your arguments are dependant on a faith that meaning, while complex, isn't a whim that can be translated infinitely
I'm uncertain of this. Every permutation with different versions of meaning could potentially lead to near infinite possibility.

>>21230932
>You don't hold a monopoly on skepticism and critical thinking isn't the same thing as appealing to an absolute form of skepticism from which anything can be proven.
Of course we gotta set limits to how closely we look at things or we'll stare into an infinite abyss of uncertainty.
>Scientism is an ideology. People who ascribe to it are usually selectively ignorant of the social influences that guide scientific activity and ignore the fact that scientific knowledge and the means we go about attaining it shift over time.
I don't disagree that people do this. This guy >>21231067
actually summed up the problem with this very well in his first line of reasoning. However, science as a methodology, rather than an ideology, doesn't hide from these facts. Any scientist worth their credentials understands there are limitations on what can be concluded from the data they gathered and must do their best to acknowledge those limitations in their publications.
>Further, concepts like underdetermination are conveniently forgotten about.
I agree too many people forget about it. However, such holes in data should be acknowledged and accounted for. A good example of this in practice is the ranges you see when describing astronomical bodies. Astronomers are working with holes in the data, due to the vast distances making things a bit fuzzy, but the ranges of possibilities are narrowed down as better methodologies pop up (although can't be eliminated altogether). You also see this also when talking about quantum mechanics, where things are so fuzzy they just use wave-function diagrams to describe particles.
>It isn't a suppression and the concept of doubt was brought up in the context that faith is divorced from critical thinking
You've changed my mind a bit, but not completely. I still see faith as acting as if one is certain in the face of uncertainty, thus putting a stop to further critical thinking on the matter, but I accept that it is still ever present even when critical thinking is involved. I still feel that belief in the biblical God is an act of blind faith, at least when viewed literally.

>>21223498
They became unnecessary. The work of the New Atheists was useful for freeing people from the vestigal cultural obligations of religion, but the New Atheists were actually arguing for atheism, and more specifically to bring more of life under the purview of science and the scrutiny of scientists. That would actually mean more work for John and Jane Doe than even the insipid head nods most Middle American religion had been tolerating through the 80s and 90s. If you talk to priests and pastors qns theologians, they'll let you know that the "nones," people with no belief system whatsoever, are more dangerous to religion than atheists are. Atheists at least believe something, which a theist can work with even if it's hostile. To truly be free from religion's grasp, you have to genuinely believe in nothing; you need to have no grand ideas about the world or your place in it, which the New Atheists did, because they at least knew you can't replace something with nothing if your goal is to be honest. Most people who used New Atheism to dump religion had already been lying to themselves for years, and it wasn't about what religion they were or weren't, but that they cared at all.

>>21223498
>What happened to New Atheism

>>21231180
>an alternative to the traditional family unit thats been the back bone of civilizations
I think the alternative has been historically called "monastery".

>>21223498
Most of them went to hell

>>21231180
>back bone of civilizations since time immemorial
You forget that in time immemorial nobody had reproductive technologies (artificial insemination, DNA sequencing, embryo transfer, etc.)

But instead of shifting the discourse into the vein of genetic engineering, promoting the research of, say, human cloning and artificial uteruses, and/or searching for better experimental patterns of human selective breeding, clowns resort to shrieks about "degeneracy" and "ancient past was better!11".

Because clowns are incompetent and ignorant of evolutionary mechanisms, and forget that should the environment change (and it did), all the previously beneficial adaptations might suddenly start to backfire. All your traditions are worth shit.

>"say 'pregnant people' because menopause exists!
Say "reproductive tech" because weak shall perish.

>>21223498
It created a power vacuum that was filled by bullshit just as stupid as creationism was.

>>21229907
> simple elegance to nature
Cherry picked evidence through rose colored glasses

All theistic arguments are variations of “science doesn’t know everything, ergo god.” That’s why no theist can differentiate their entity of choice from a metaphor for the unknown.

Personally I wouldn’t worship a monotheistic god even if these boobs could manifest evidence through their constant noise.

New Atheists never had good arguments for their worldview, only arguments against both the Old and New Testament that they didn’t like which was basically against genocide and pro gay marriage. That’s really what it boiled down to.

None of their shitty books have any depth, nuance, or seek to build a bridge with religious communities or even take a serious look at their beliefs or why they hold those beliefs.

Harris books were the best and that’s not saying much, the guy can’t smell his own shit on his shoes.

>>21232375
>depth, nuance, or seek to build a bridge with religious communities
Agreed. There are much better atheistic books for that.

>>21225620
What's the answer to the problem of evil? You can't just say all this and not give an answer.

>>21232405
>What's the answer to the problem of evil?
"For all things are baptized at the font of eternity, and beyond good and evil; good and evil themselves, however, are but fugitive shadows and damp afflictions and passing clouds.
Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy when I teach that “above all things there standeth the heaven of chance, the heaven of innocence, the heaven of hazard, the heaven of wantonness.”
“Of Hazard”—that is the oldest nobility in the world; that gave I back to all things; I emancipated them from bondage under purpose."

>>21225620
The logical problem of evil is bad but the evidential problem of evil is somewhat convincing. I don't know of any knock down argument against either side, but the evidential problem of evil definitely makes me less confident of the existence of God.

>>21232137
They need not be same-sex fags anymore for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Monasticism

>>21232405
The theist could simply say that apparently bad things have good ends. It's difficult to prove that there's no good reason for something to happen, since us mortals have limited knowledge. The problem of evil is a challenge to theism but it's definitely not a refutation.

you have to be hyper cowardly turbo faggot with 70 iq to pile on a dead religion that has been dead for centuries
nu atheists only attacked modern christianity

all these atheists were pretty silent while the muslims were raping children, beheading people, terrorizing cities, reducing the quality of life for everyone involved and uninvolved
while isis was posting 100 beheadings a day, all these atheists could find wrong with religion was some 80 year old harmless priest who fed homeless in some church that had last religious visitor 15 years ago

>>21232364
>t. never heard a theistic argument

>>21232364
Whether or not Thomas Aquinas's five ways succeed, they are definitely not variations of “science doesn’t know everything, ergo god.”

>>21223498
It died cause people realized how dumb it is

>>21223498
people posted things like this unironically

>>21223498
Who do you think SJWs and trannies are? This "movement" died out because they won. The clownworld you see today is their creation. What was going on in the background is now out in the open, because these hedonistic degenerates let them.

>>21223498
Religion is fake and gay and most of Zoomers have understand it. I still baffles me of how many Christcucks there is on this board

>>21223498
Either the audience realized that they share the same morals, and became larping tradcath christcucks (so called "christian atheism")
Or they went full r/Acc, and support eugenics and AI melting humans into computronium in the name of hell-baked Gnon.

>>21223498
It became cringe. The 'movement' was/is (including the main 'gurus'):
>smug ('I am so smart'); midwits
>vindicitve cynics & edgelords (were abused by religous parents, or burned-out hedonists/consumers
>left leaning pedos
They had no vision other then attacking protestants 95% of the time, accomplishing nothing. Apologists will say "but they suceeded!", they'll claim the new atheist stopped a creationist take over (or a religous revival or made society more skeptical), and after literally saving the world they gallantly retired like noble storybook heros.

It's simple. Atheism cannot be the basis for any movement. The only thing atheism can be a base of is atheism itself, since it doesn't have any implication whatsoever. One can be a religious atheist (through monist religions, buddhism, etc), a conservative atheist, and so on. The New Atheist movement was more of a liberal-atheist reaction to the 2000s, so when the conditions we were living under the 2000s ended, so did the reaction.The atheist element of the movement dissipated, that's why those guys are only talking about the political element these days.

>>21228181
>Gamergate happened

>>21230155
>free will
Doesn't exist

>>21232579
Realize that you're agreeing with the views of a generation not old enough to have a single person over the age of 25. Or maybe you're one yourself?

>>21232579
>Religion is fake
Yes, but it has >>21232381 its uses. Falsity of the statement is not necessarily an argument against that statement.

>>21230783
This is a pretty valid explanation, all jokes aside. At least partially, if not largely so. Progressive proclaimed support for Islam as a response to the horrors of the Bush administration, began to outweigh New Atheism (which could fervently be anti-Islamic, remember), so it was forgotten and shunted to the side as a kind of embarrassment. The politically correct necessity to fight for the new designated victim class (Muslims) outweighed the thrills of fighting AGAINST the designated victimizer/oppressor class (European and American Christians). And by extension, other groups like Jews, Hindus, etc. It seems potentially like more punching down than punching up now, and going against the ideals of a multicultural liberal tolerant democracy (which paradoxically has to accept that people can hold differing religious views within it).

Also, perhaps just the fact that the novelty wore off.

>>21232579
>I still baffles me of how many Christcucks there is on this board
2016 election tourists were when they started flooding

There was a good series of blog post essays on what happened to it, forgot the site. Basically the conclusion was that all the atheists who had some moral sentiments quickly became the moralistic leftists we're plagued with today. Atheism took a firm back seat to "social justice" for them, although you can still see the vestiges of it in their frothing hatred for Christianity. But they won't criticize other faiths, even similar ones like Islam.
What remained after this purge were the committed atheists who either weren't particularly moralistic, or were at least much more emotionally invested in the idea that God definitely isn't real than in morals. There weren't many of those types.
Haven't read the thread but I imagine people might blame it on fedora memes, atheism being a very "old white man" movement in a cultural of identity politics, or lack of community but those are all more symptoms than causes of its decline.

>>21228143
>Once he exited office they lost their main rallying point.

I would have thought todays climate would be ripe for a come back - you even have republicans proclaiming some divine right to office openly and their supporters saying they believe their candidate is gods chosen.

>>21234332
Which god?

>>21230564
>Once again you fall back on Scientism--you assert the drive is entailed by a biological impetus but fail to consider moral action in which a given agent may recognize their action is impotent (to give one example)
I can actually give a good explanation for this from my boy Spinoza
>Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage : for, when a man is a prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune : so much so, that he is often compelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to follow that which is worse.

Atheists are not much better than christcucks, they both deny the multitude of gods that exist

>>21229725

>>21234722
That's more about not practicing safe sex than it is homosex in general.

>>21232448
Try to string together a coherent sentence before pretending you’re intelligent

The real issue is that religion, in all it's forms, has always been unfit for purpose. What is needed is an overarching structure that people can reasonably and willingly buy into that will benefit the entire group. Religion has always and forever clung to the most braindead retarded doctrines you could imagine and thereby poison the potential utility they might have had.

>>21234757
Ahh, the age old excuse of the leftist. It’s not the mental disease within the demographic. They just need more education, because they’re just too stupid to figure out how a condom works.

Just like homo pelli nigra is just one more ever elusive handout from achieving civilization. Or how trannies are one elective piece plastic surgery away from being a real woman.

>>21228333
>various midwit wiki links
>Unreliable.
>Translation: the error rate is not exactly 0% which means it's 100% useless
You're a special kind of moron.

>>21230077
>South Korea, a country which has become increasingly Christian
Consoomerist protestants are a joke. South Korea's Christianization is incidental to its Americanization. And the USA is a Satanic plague, intrinsically so.

>>21230365
>he keeps linking wiki articles
lmao

>>21234801
Have you seen the teenage pregnancy rates in the bible belt?

>>21232381
Last part is stupid. There has definitely been genetic selection for religiosity. 10000 years is more than enough time. Speed of adaptation goes up with population size, and human population has been booming since the agricultural revolution. Whoever wrote that simply doesn't know his population genetics properly. He should go back and retake those classes, or re-read some undergrad textbook on the subject.

The imbecile.

>>21234915
Have you seen the black population percentage in the Bible belt?

>>21234942
no

>>21234781
Why would he be mad?

>>21234781
Ah, to be 15 again.

>>21235112
Read the Bible, God is mad all the time. He's explicitly described as vengeful.

>>21235117
Look at Christianity. There are a million sub sects who can't agree on anything and fracture into smaller and smaller groups while hemorrhaging adherents to non-belief. What has Christianity broadly focused it's cultural cachet on in recent history? Fighting evolution being taught in schools, pushing intelligent design as if it's a legitimate scientific theory, and fighting against contraception leading to massively high teen pregnancy rates in highly religious areas. Religion has always been too shackled to dogma and has failed spectacularly in the modern age. This isn't even controversial.

>>21235188
Notice how you only talk about one specific religion's contemporary state 2000 years after the fact, only focus on the dumbest people in that particular group, while also presenting your side as if it's just simply a given?
Here's the thing - I'm not a Christian, I grew up in an atheist household in an atheist city, never even met a single Christian, so I already understand your point of view. It was mine when I was a teenager. Which is why I also know you haven't even bothered to consider the fact that you might just be an arrogant dipshit who refuses to challenge his world-view, as evidenced by the fact that you're only focusing on the easiest targets while also saying your opinion isn't controversial, evoking the name of 'muh scientific legitimacy' and speaking only in talking points deemed "correct" by the powers that be.
You probably think of yourself as open-minded, as most atheists and liberals these days do, but you sure as shit aren't open-minded to anything you don't already agree with, like most atheists and liberals these days.
Really, I say this with earnest; if you truly want to avoid dogma, stop treating your dogma as if it's not dogma. You sound exactly like a Christian from the past presenting his religion as if it's just a given. You've fallen into the atheist scientism "conform to the authoritative world-view as if it's a given" trap.

>>21235250
huh?

>>21235254
>25 seconds between post and reply
Oh, you're a bot.
Cool.

>>21235250
>>21235257
bruh what

>>21235188
You're conflating the religion with the various human expressions.

>>21234764
He wrote in plain english you gaslighting apeman

>>21223498
New Atheism came about during the Bush administration, when right wing evangelicals were highly visible. By the time Obama won his second term the religious right faded into the background of public conversation somewhat. That, along with people getting bored of owning creationists online, put atheists at a crossroads: they could either continue the fight towards other reactionary components of society such as white supremacy and patriarchy, or shift their religion of ire from Christianity to Islam, a growing concern spurred by the refugee crisis in Europe. The former became the SJWs, the latter became the Alt Right.

>>21223498
New age atheism winning is basically the reason we are at where we are right now. Not only did they fail to provide a compelling alternative framework to Christianity, but they destroyed society.

>>21223498
People realized that the existence of God is philosophically defensible whereas atheism isn't.

>>21235250
>you might just be an arrogant dipshit who refuses to challenge his world-view
This can be true at the same time as theism bring false. Let us know when you've got something to say

>>21223498
You are going to get a lot of revisionism in this thread like
>>21223534
New Age Atheism was part of a larger movement that basically destroyed America, but you are going to get a lot of, "Oh, my group of atheists were right and fought the good fight, but the bad atheists ruined it." When in reality, all new age atheists were the problem. It should be telling that most new age atheists were teen white men to looking to appear smart while doing nothing. You will also see attempts to lionize the four horsemen despite them being exposed as complete frauds in recent years.

>>21235379
>try to teach a nigger how to think rather than tell him what to think
>his slave instinct kicks in and he lashes out at you
So sorry! Won't happen again.

>>21235410
You worship a dead hobo who promises to reverse the earthly balance of power in favor of weak and broken people. Talk about slave morality.

>>21235418
You missed the going under part and arrogantly assumed you were already over.

>>21235429
What are you babbling about?

>>21235432
Since you brought up a Nietzschean concept I foolishly thought you had actually read him.
So sorry! Won't happen again.

>>21235437
I don't have every aphorism memorized, but as far as I know nowhere does he suggest we need to humble ourselves before the claims of theism and agree with it in order to avoid being called arrogant

>>21235250
You project a lot onto me in this post which is completely false. Also, "scientism" isn't a word.
>>21235294
Religion only exists in so far as it is expressed by human beings

>>21235400
The main flashpoint of "new atheism" was when creationist Christians fought to have evolution either removed from public schools or to have intelligent design have "equal time". People often underestimate just how brain dead retarded religious movement can be.

>>21235982
Alright, I'll be generous and spell it all out for the slow kids in the class.
Let's take a little look at his post, shall we?
>Fighting evolution being taught in schools
He's going after the lowest common denominator. It's low hanging fruit and is an attack on the stupidity of stupid people, rather than the core ideas expressed by the originators themselves.
>pushing intelligent design as if it's a legitimate scientific theory
He's conflating intelligent design with lowest common denominator creationism, while also appealing to the authority of 'legitimacy' as decided by the priests of his dogma.
>and fighting against contraception leading to massively high teen pregnancy rates in highly religious areas
Again, not engaging with the idea itself and arguing his position, but rather asserting his dogmatic position as if it's a given.
>Religion has always been too shackled to dogma and has failed spectacularly in the modern age
Then after parroting the dogma he's been taught he mocks dogma.
See: >>21231067
>Also, "scientism" isn't a word.
Once again you prove your slavery by not realizing every single word is made up. You fundamentally don't understand when something is simply man-made 'truth' rather than concrete truth. You mistake symbols such as words for being as concretely real as your own flesh and blood. Words are symbols used to represent meaning, they are fluid because they are mere representations subject to change and mutation. English was completely different 200 years ago.
>>21235418
See this anon, too. I never said to become a Christian, but he mistakes my attack of his dogma for an attempt to convert him to Christian dogma, because his mindset is a mindset of slavery to ideas. He has chosen his captors, and sees a liberator as someone from a separate tribe trying to enslave him.
Notice how I explicitly said I am not a Christian, and I also have no intention to convert you to Christianity.
I'm trying to set you dumb niggers free, but your ego can't handle letting go of the ideas you have internalized and made part of your identity. Hearing this may bruise your ego, and that's good, destroy it.
Go under, so you can go over.
Or, perhaps this is a waste of time and you love your chains too much to let go. Choice is yours.

>>21236084
You fall victim to the very critique you are forwarding against me. You say I am appealing to "authority of 'legitimacy' as decided by the priests of my dogma". Again, a kind of Freudian projection seems to be happening here. Remember anon, you should proportion the degree to which you believe a claim to the amount of evidence and the strength of that evidence. No "priests" needed. But you seem unable to actually see that the main criticism of religion is because religion is the largest force in opposition to evidence based world views and they overtly subscribe to a faith based world view. Try and keep up.

>>21236109
>You fall victim to the very critique you are forwarding against me. You say I am appealing to "authority of 'legitimacy' as decided by the priests of my dogma". Again, a kind of Freudian projection seems to be happening here.
Note how no explanation as to why you say this is given. No deduction or reasoning. Assertion without evidence.
>Remember anon, you should proportion the degree to which you believe a claim to the amount of evidence and the strength of that evidence.
You then, in the same breath, parrot the importance of evidence, because that is what you have been instructed to assert.
>they overtly subscribe to a faith based world view
Rather than covertly as the atheist religion has done, which is far more destructive and infuriating to deal with.
You seem to argue out of ego protection, rather than for the truth. You aren't ready yet, disappointing.

>>21235982
>Religion only exists in so far as it is expressed by human beings
Yeah, it's not like we have the founder's words on-paper and countless theologies and traditions for this one religion.
Moron.

>they hated him for telling the truth >>21235250

>>21232230
>baby's first eugenics (but without the mess)
>TRANShumanism (where headcanon goes to cope)
>her penis is evolutionary progress (and natural)
Kek, you're a fucking retard.

>>21236283
>we have the founder's words on-paper and countless theologies and traditions for this one religion
Yes, these are expressions of religion by human beings

>>21236135
>You then, in the same breath, parrot the importance of evidence,because that is what you have been instructed to assert.
You are like a parody of a religious nut. What are you trying to say? Do you disagree that it is reasonable to weigh evidence and make decisions based on that evidence? I suppose, if I am being charitable, I can extend you the courtesy of assuming you are trying (in an embarrassingly clumsy manner) to get at the idea of presuppositions. How does one come to the conclusion that reason itself is reasonable other than appealing to reason and creating a circular argument? You see, unlike your dim perception of me, I have actually considered these questions, and in my view, the only critique of reason is that presuppositions are dangerous areas of blindness with the potential for error lurking in them. The conclusion is to reduce presuppositions to the minimum possible, to assume the minimum level of knowledge possible for a coherent world view to be built. Therefore, the only presuppositions I allow are that the external objective world does exist (and I perceive it through imperfect subjective apparatus) and that it is possible to learn about that external world. However, based on your comments so far, I doubt you will even be able to appreciate this comment, but perhaps it will be edifying for lurking anons.

>>21236665
>You are like a parody of a religious nut. What are you trying to say?
That you advocate the importance of evidence, yet when you 'rebut' my posts, you do not provide evidence, nor reasoning, for your rebuttal.
Do you presuppose there is no merit to religion? Do you presuppose that those who have felt "God" are simply just mad fools since you, yourself, have not seen or felt this in your subjective experience of this objective reality?
Ah, I've just noticed your timing of this post and how limited my time is to now respond. Bravo, asshole. Bravo.

>>21236651
No, they're the ideas that define the religions.

>>21229500
You should probably stop arguing then

>>21229512
>faith is a suspension of disbelief. It is a position made with no evidence, or at best a gamble made with partial evidence. There are plenty of things we must hold faith in to keep our sanity, since without it we'd freeze do to our incapacity to always have the full picture. However, faith is blind to truth and is the opposite of critical thinking.
So, an Axiom?