Is “New Atheism” Officially Dead?

These hit it head on, it doesn’t have to be a war if who is right and wrong it's about keeping an actually open mind to the natural and social world.

Did you ever find it intriguing that every single form of ancient human civilization no matter how isolated and remote they were, came to the same conclusions about there being a higher being or beings?
It’s all about civil maintenance.
Those who act smug about not believing in a god contribute more to the problems of civil maintenance then someone who understands it’s importance in our shared history.

People seem to forget we’re all on the same fucking planet, there’s nothing else as far as we currently know.

Richard Dawkins is an example of a germanic-english Roundhead. He is the Oliver Cromwell of atheism.

>God and gods are just representations of something abstract and un-observable.

Yeah knowing us humans we probably call it something stupid like dark matter..... wait....

Attached: 094E60FE-6283-4B61-ACF2-D60363B79FE1.jpg (480x600, 30K)

> true intellectual realizes that God may not be real but necessary for humans
Dawkins

AFAIK Dawkins used to be naive as fuck with this viewpoint but somewhat backpedalled it when he realised the vast mass of humanity doesn't consist of reasonable upper middle class intellectuals like something out of Asimovs foundation series. He was more annoyed at Bible belt wallsharters blocking stem cell research

mobile.twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/1138721063506927616?lang=en

What's your opinion of this thread lads?

No.

Don't read Anglosaxon authors. Anglosaxons, since Locke and Hume, propagate a simple-minded vision of Reason. Instead, Italian, Spanish or German authors are much more pleasant and widen your horizons.

Human rights come from humans. We have the rights we decide we have and can enforce. To say rights come from God is no better than saying they come from the State.

There's some hypocrisy in this though, unless you're being purely Machiavellian about this (which I think you are). If you believe in belief, but don't actually have belief itself, you're creating an internal fracturing within yourself and society in something you fundamentally find untrue but essential, this can have dangerous repercussions.

if you believe in belief, you cannot admit to yourself that you merely believe in belief. What's virtuous is to believe, not to believe in believing; and so if you only believe in belief, instead of believing, you are not virtuous.

That's if you're taking that line anyway. Apologies if I'm misreading.

Once you realize that all the Abrahamic religions are jewish money-grabbing schemes with all the sophistication dusty middle-eastern sheep herders could muster 2 millennia ago, it is impossible to go back to believing in fairy-tales knowing what we know today.

Attached: PissBeWithYou.gif (286x150, 3.91M)

I would also add french authors to the good list. Prior to the 20th of course

Alas, the curious skeptic, after growing tired of the dogmatic fools surrounding him, peaked behind and curtain and stared excitedly into the unknown. Nothingness. He assured himself that this meant his eyes could not be relied on, there had to be a great mystery to be solved, there had to be a greater meaning to it all.

remember when he dunked on the kike that supported circumcision during a debate? good times

Even believing for the sake of believing is better than nothing or even worse this active denial and spiritual rot we have today

The average Christian may be a bit foolish in philosophical matters as well, but they're peaceable and ultimately have better things to do with their lives than pondering bullshit anyway. Atheists only exist because they have a chip on their shoulder over people that aren't interested in questioning too much, yet atheists themselves fail at productively questioning the Theist myths and why they exist.

By what metric?

New Atheism was always just gay scientism.
sidneyrigdon.com/vern/Reuchlin.htm

Now it's time for big boys to take their greenpill.

Attached: 1569027997208.jpg (962x3726, 976K)

"New Atheism" is actually just a weird combination of Anti-theism and Scientism

You can be atheist without Scientism and without being an anti-theist.

You can also be an atheist and still be spiritual. Albert Einstein didn't believe in personal Gods but he was still spiritual and disliked mainstream atheism.

Attached: albert-einstein1.jpg (1296x810, 166K)

lol

>but they're peaceable
Except when they aren't.
>Atheists only exist because they have a chip on their shoulder over people that aren't interested in questioning too much
Or just, you know, don't buy into it.
>yet atheists themselves fail at productively questioning the Theist myths and why they exist.
Seems obvious. They serve the same purpose as any metaphorical text while adding in the comforting illusion of pleasing answers to questions that bother humans.

Why discourage critical thinking? If only more people questioned religion and government.
I'm starting to understand this more and more, but generally the first reaction to understanding god isn't real is anger at the deception. Much like the realization of tyrannical government. When your preconceived notions are lies, you either get pissed for a phase, or you reject the thought completely and post christcuck threads on 4chin.

Molecular biology got me convinced that god/grand architect exists. Religion is faggotry tho

>Insert cliche god of the gaps cliche here

Depends, How many bananas did it fit up it's ass?

Right do come from the state if they are just human rights.

Behold a cuckservstive performing mental gymnastics to attempt to appease his tribe whilst concluding with the same braindead atheistic conclusion.
>me no thinky u wrong
>me thinky u got dur wrong
Neck yourself

>Right do come from the state if they are just human rights
No, because you can overthrow the state. If God decided you no longer had the right to life, would you not? Would you obediently accept it and die?

>Except when they aren't
All people can be not. I'd say it's pretty obvious from the state of modern Christians that they're even peaceable to a fault.
>Or just, you know, don't buy into it
By arguing in the guidelines of a faulty dialectic they are by definition buying into it. Atheism is not an enlightened position.
>They serve the same purpose as any metaphorical text while adding in the comforting illusion of pleasing answers to questions that bother humans
An unavoidable part of being human. Even atheists have their cartoons and celebrities to fill the abstract void of qualities we appreciate as people.

Put it this way, if you believe in belief, why should you encourage other people to believe things that are false, just because the results are more convenient for you?

I'm not really arguing a position here but I'm interested in the morals of this, because you could posit it benefits society but doesn't benefit truth.

Cute, but I think you went a little overboard with the memeflag

Attached: 1511903823484.gif (640x480, 1.17M)

Christianity was created to end barbaric behavior. Without Christian values the world would be acting like one big gay pride parade outside an abortion clinic doing freebies

>Brings Atheism to Younger Readers

They mean that it brings athiesm to millenials because they only read young adult novels well into their 30s

Attached: 1523254385706.png (235x245, 103K)

kek, i remember reading 'the god delusion' as a 13-year-old and feeling like an intellectual

>if you believe in belief, you cannot admit to yourself that you merely believe in belief. What's virtuous is to believe, not to believe in believing; and so if you only believe in belief, instead of believing, you are not virtuous.

Attached: 852CADB6-E618-4A90-93F3-61666D3E551D.jpg (500x281, 20K)

Hes arguing against the literal interpretation of scripture, while saying typical atheists and theists fail to understand what religion really is. I think.

Attached: 1568563627426.jpg (498x482, 58K)

Western civilisation only exists because of philosophy you mindless faggot

>I'd say
You might. I wouldn't.
>faulty dialectic
There either is at least one god or there isn't.
>unavoidable
It isn't.

Or is it dead and alive at the same time in two separate boxes?

this

Barbarism is part of human nature. As long as there are humans, we will still have barbarism.

>if you're going to be a leader, believing in your own kool-aid even if it's wrong is more virtuous than not believing in it and pulling the wool over people's eyes just because you benefit from it

Human rights are only really useful when they are violated, it kinda gives people a chance against the state; even then the state has FINAL SAY regardless.

Justice, isn’t.

>There either is at least one god or there isn't
There is one objective reality. There are many Gods to describe, even one God is different in the eyes of many people. "God" is not what is important here as an existent figure, it is what is unseen that people use God to try and explain that exists as a singular reality. Even the empiricism of science attempts to find this logic with as much veracity as possible.
>It isn't
It is. There is no embodiment of qualities, only temporary representations expressed through the material world. It's why we enjoy things like television or music. That celebrity or politician you see on TV is unknown to you outside of the sliver you are shown. Necessarily you will build these people up with your own imagination into something they are not.

All of fedora-tippers like me found God because atheism was a dead end leading only to degeneracy, nihilism and no morality

Attached: 1472E599-7A54-4958-8D89-DDC0D6F02C18.jpg (548x618, 39K)

It’s a shame, corruption is very prevalent in today’s modern governments.

What actual ways could corruption be solved in a realistic solution?

Administrative AI?

Stuff like this keeps me up at night.

No one cares about God or religion anymore. We are developing a scientific foundation for how people behave and think we don't need fables or stories anymore.

>There is one objective reality.
Agreed.
>There are many Gods to describe,
There are many god concepts. The contention of atheists is that these concepts either (a) cannot be shown to map to objective reality or (b) are useless.
>"God" is not what is important here as an existent figure, it is what is unseen that people use God to try and explain that exists as a singular reality. Even the empiricism of science attempts to find this logic with as much veracity as possible.
"God" as a mystery is wholly unnecessary. Just confront the mystery on its own merits.
>It isn't
It is. There is no embodiment of qualities, only temporary representations expressed through the material world. It's why we enjoy things like television or music. That celebrity or politician you see on TV is unknown to you outside of the sliver you are shown. Necessarily you will build these people up with your own imagination into something they are not.
That isn't necessarily true though. There is nothing inherent to a human which requires them to so this. You can simply not build these talking heads up into anything more than what you observe.

This guy's attempt make religion look cooler and more intellectual than atheism was torpedoed by grug posting.

>The contention of atheists
The contention of atheists is a waste of time
>"God" as a mystery is wholly unnecessary
It is completely necessary because we must build up an image to describe something indescribable. No one knows everything, sees everything, much less multitudes of people. What is unnecessary is arguing with people who accept the mythologies to get along in society because the only thing they care about is finding a mate and working so they can eat and have a place to live.
>There is nothing inherent to a human which requires them to so this
It's called consciousness. That strange thing humans are capable of despite understanding basically nothing of the universe they live within.

>We are developing a scientific foundation for how people behave and think
Yet atheism isn't scientific at all.

>The contention of atheists is a waste of time
Yet here you are.
>It is completely necessary because we must build up an image to describe something indescribable.
No, we don't.
>It's called consciousness. That strange thing humans are capable of despite understanding basically nothing of the universe they live within.
Consciousness in no way requires you to elaborate on people you don't know.

>Athiest
>"Does not believe in god"
That's it, why do faggots keep trying to throw gay nihilistic marx shit into it?

>people you don't know
What do you know in general? Who even are your own parents? What can actually be known?

>We are developing a scientific foundation for how people behave and think
Why the fuck you need to control how people behave and think? Psycho.
And furthermore atheists don't know shit all about science. I've talked to you morons for a long time and it's shockingly bad.
If you dipshits knew a thing about physics you'd probably at least consider creationism. But you don't know shit.
You also tend to still believe in evolution.
The missing ling is still missing. It's still considered a scientific theory because it lacks proof. Bones during their transitions from one species to another should be everywhere.
You're all fucking incredibly gullible and stupid people.

Attached: 1518918156649.jpg (385x385, 27K)

>Reason is the stiff-necked enemy of thought
>See that, stiff-necked? That's lowkey Paul
>Jews can't into thinking
t. Heidegger

Depends on what you mean by knowledge. If you mean the colloquial "confidence" meaning, we can know quite a bit. If you mean a strict philosophical meaning, it's debatable if we can know anything.

Knowledge is knowledge, why are you trying to argue distinctions? You don't even know what knowledge is and you think it's possible to avoid filling in the world around you with your own mind?

It died because saying you're not Christian is not even controversial anymore

Also gender ideology fills their heads now

Yeah I see you nerds got triggered when I said we don't need God anymore. You know God is just a nice little box of things you see is good in people and ideal modes of living, right? We can justify those things more concretely now.

Whatever it isn't like it matters. Most people are never going to elevate above NPC-hood and will just be controlled by whoever is the best at manipulating. Now it's secular think-tanks, bye bye religion.

Adapt faggots

The fedora killed the New Atheist

Jow Forums is way above it

>Why the fuck you need to control how people behave and think?
There so much irony in this post. What purpose do you think religion is intended for dipshit?
Evolution argument is illogical but believing a supreme being created us isn't. Holy fuck being this detached from reality shouldn't be so commonplace.

>Knowledge is knowledge,
Tautology
>why are you trying to argue distinctions?
Because meanings matter if you want to have meaningful conversation.
> You don't even know what knowledge is
It doesn't have a singular meaning.
>you think it's possible to avoid filling in the world around you with your own mind?
Your mind constructs your image of reality. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm arguing against is this idea that we must necessarily idealize others.

You're trying to dismiss what I said on the basis that I'm angry. If I say that I'm not angry, you won't believe me. You are unreasonable, while trying to peddle the merits of science. Can't you appreciate the irony?

Religions start with religious fervour, belief perhaps, and grow (maybe evolve lol) into the societal institutions we know them as. Your questions assume that they start with their power and influence

Atheism should be renamed lazy and in denial.

No; and what the hell is "new atheism"? I didn't realize there was an old atheism.

Or acceptance of reality.

If you're alone except for one other person on a island, do you have the right to affordable healthcare?

Me too I think about this constantly but it’s mostly just lamenting the state of things. If I think about action too much the thought police will get me.

Because modern atheism is not a "lack of belief" in God, it's an immature expression of rebellion against their parents beliefs. You think any modern atheists have considered, studied, and refuted mahayana buddhism, deism, or abstract epistemologies? No, they literally just watched a 10 minute youtube video pointing out surface level contradictions in the bible and thought that parroting those points would make them appear more intelligent.

I'm not trying to peddle science I'm telling you that from science we learned how people work a lot better. We just circumvent the fables and shit and just target people's vulnerabilities directly. Religion is losing and will continue to lose unless its radically violent to all opposing ideas, and even then that can change with a concerted effort in several generations.

Like I said, adapt faggot. Think-tanks > Organized Religion.

Acceptance of an interpretation of reality, you mean. It's impossible to verify what can and can't be real. Atheism is the faith-based belief that what we see is all that's real, and that there's nothing like God dwelling beyond our senses.

>What I'm arguing against is this idea that we must necessarily idealize others
And what I'm pointing out is that uncertainty and what we really "know" is very limited. Without perfect knowledge, whatever that is, you will have a faulty understanding.

Is the other person a doctor?

>dawkins still shilling athiesm while his country steadily becomes a caliphate
strange priorities he has

I accept that I have faulty understanding. I don't see how this supports your case, as I'm aware of it.

All you ever do is shift the goal posts. I came in to tell you that atheism isn't scientific, you called me triggered and changed the subject. I pointed out that you were trying to dismiss my argument erroneously, you decided to restate your position. As I've said: You're unreasonable.

If you haven't heard of Atheism+ and you're not joking, it was when proto-SJW lefties took over the online atheist movement in the 00s and were generally just annoying shrill pieces of shit to everybody.
Unsurprisingly they only attacked christianity and defended mudslimes because muh oppression. Jow Forums is more skeptical and questioning of received modern "wisdom" than any of the skeptic forums were.

You're being an over-intellectual faggot when you don't need to be. That is cope and the sooner you drop it the better. Face the fucking reality that religion and God are not fucking important anymore because we have found MORE EFFICIENT WAYS TO SPREAD AN IDEA AND SET OF BELIEFS. Drop that faggot "intellectual" persona and learn what an actual exchange of ideas looks like. What I am trying to tell you is really fucking simple.

>Atheism isn't scientific at all
Neither is blindly believing in a literal interpretation of a man-made religion.
>Muh irony
>Muh hypocrisy
Stop using generalizations as arguments. The whole atheist movement is grounded in the importance of science, kicking the shit out of delusional faggots isn't the purpose, but it's a nice perk.

Attached: 1568956290348s.jpg (124x125, 2K)

You can make the same argument for us living in a matrix simulation and just as much credibility. Occam's razor.

Atheism makes no sense

>I don't see how this supports your case, as I'm aware of it
I'm simply saying we can never truly know or understand someone else. So when you are made of aware of someone through representation or interaction your understanding of that person is limited. More specifically I think you're saying that you don't "fill in" more about that person than what you're directly shown, but once their existence is known to you and it becomes part of your understanding and what little you know is adapted into your mind.

Why would you base your beliefs about unknowns on what is best for humans, and not on what is most likely? Shut out all the voices pulling you one way or another and just think, just ponder seriously, about what seems the most likely to be true. Whatever requires the least assumptions to be made is probably closest to the truth, and the truth does not care what humanity thinks about it at all. What is, is, and humans arguing about what they think is or is not will never change that.

Again, you try to dismiss my arguments with personal attacks. user, I believe that you can make a post without relying on fallacious reasoning. You can do it. I'll wait for you, for as long as it takes.

Intellectual here. I have also come tot his conclusion.

That’s true, but usually religion comes with practices and those practices should benefit us in some way if we are to perform them.

And muh science man will completely abandon empiricism in zero seconds were any discussion of racial science and differences in ethnic IQ levels and behavior were to come up in conversation.

He's only pro-science insofar as he can social signal to other faggot Boomer liberals how trendy and progressive he is.

All belief is blind belief. There are very few things that are objectively true. Atheism is unscientific because it depends on the faith-based assumption that there's nothing beyond what we perceive to be the material world.

This is actually a really good metaphor for him...