Was "New Athiesm" a "necessary evil?"
Atheism is a joke and a cringe fest. Imagine devoting your life to getting mad at religion because your parents forced you to go to church once.
>>13284294No, it's merely a symptom of the fetishization of revolution.
the path of a true intellectual:1. believes whatever your parents believe2. juvenile neo-atheism3. adult atheism without adjectives4. mature philosophical theism
>>13284294I reject the evil part, but I think it partly strengthened some Christians from a position of basing their belief on what they deem to be sufficient and sound evidence and gave rise to critical thinking in pop culture. The downside is that it also gave rise to fedoraism, whether it be fedora atheism, or fedora reactionary Christians.
imagine larping as a christian to mask your e-reactionary politics and/or existential dread behind some veil of ancient occultismim sure you all go to church; and if youre catholic - regular confession
>>132843695. You reach adulthood, are less concerned with projecting edginess and revert back to atheism.
>>13284402I've noticed that there are many, many gods. Mammon is perhaps the most obvious one, but Kronos the machine spirit keeps watch in every room, telling you what to do, where to be and many other things.
>>13284402I became Christian again only after i stopped caring what people think.
>>13284429Cool mate. I wasn't serious about my point, just as I hope the anon who listed the 4 before me wasn't either.
>>132844026. You realize you will never be a true adult and cling back to your lost childhood purity which only theism can offer7. And then you become an adult
No, it was retarded. I wonder if people were just forgetting what it was like or maybe they weren't old enough because it was seriously retarded. Their arguments were really bad and the followers were obnoxious as all hell. It was like the few months after My Little Pony became popular but it lasted for years.
>>13284369t. 21 year old
>>13284294dawkins' God Delusion is pretty cringe. but Dennet's Breaking the Spell was legit and worth reading Harris is a pseud
>>13284466Weird.I read the book's premise on the old Wiki and I like it.Then I read the reviews part and saw that all sides ridicule the book.
>>13284466>>13284484Disagree with the reviews on Dawkins and Harris despite their orbiting fedoras, but studying the psychology of religiosity and religion itself as a human phenomenon, an evolved heuristic if you will, are subjects that are often more interesting than the debate itself. Thanks for the rec. Will give it a read. Any more on these subjects?
>>13284484Dawkins is actually a very good writer, he should just stick to evolution. I really like The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show on Earth.
>>13284498>but studying the psychology of religiosity and religion itself as a human phenomenon, an evolved heuristic if you will, are subjects that are often more interesting than the debate itself.The Righteous Mind by Haidt has some stuff about religion, mostly about politics though. highly recommended. that book really changed the way i see a lot of the world
>>13284516Read that one, Haidt is comfy, like him too. Thanks anyway, I'll give that Dennet book a read.
>>13284498Just began reading maps of meaning from Peter Jordanson, it goes quite in depth about the human need for belief and how myths and religion are tied to it.
>>13284325Jesus, get this guy over to the black and white portrait photographer we got to make some wallpapers with this One
>>13284384I just went Monday fag
>>13284294Do you think he realizes he played a big role in Britain and there fore the worlds demise? I do, I feel he has great regret over it
>>13284294The only necessary evil is one commanded by God.
>>13284325>enlightened by my own intelligenceThis is honestly a pseudo-religious statement. Similar to being enlightened by God's reason (nous) in platonism or "I am conciousness" (soham shivoham) in hindu philosophy.
>>13284325This has to be ironic.
>>13284294what's the difference between hitchens and dawkins
>>13284598Cheers, will add that to the list. I know it's an unpopular opinion to have, but I appreciate Peterson's self-help stuff (I don't benefit from it directly, but I know others have), even if it's just a reframing of old ideas - as with anything self-help, it is often the reframing that is of most importance. Having said that, I know he isn't averse to the idea of viewing religion as an evolved heuristic for sense/meaning-making, but whenever I heard him speak along these lines, he smuggles historical Jesus and his resurrection into it, despite not being able to claim a positive belief belief. Not that it's necessarily wrong, just that you can't have your cake and eat it. Which is why I fear he injects god into sensible things, because he's on this continuous path of religious discovery and fears that the Christian god might not in fact reside there. Maybe Maps of Meaning is an exception. Will add it to the list nonetheless.
>>13284325>2013 was 20 years ago
>>13284669Hitchens pretends there is a moral high ground and that atheists have it, whilst Dawkins thinks religion and God are memetic parasites.
>>13284666>This has to be ironic.It wasn't. It happened during the "Faces of Atheism" thing.r/atheism posted pictures of themselves with atheist quotes on them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBEkxMObzKQ
>>13284498The most interesting book I've read on the origin of religion (among other things) is The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. For an atheist reader, it provides a very interesting explanation of where religious beliefs and prophesy come from. For a theist reader, it could explain the mental function that God or the Gods tap into to communicate with people.
>>13284294It was evil, but definitely not necessary.
>>13284369This is real>>13284402Cringe.
>>13284413Technology is god
>>13284413>Kronos the machine spiritWho?