Something that’s has irked me for some time now is how many people latched onto the Atheist movement as an edgy teen but now look back on it in reverence and not shame. This seems to be a common theme in academia and is prevalent even in communities like this one. The lamentation of the “golden-age” of atheism is peak hubris. Dawkins, Hitchens, and crew were deconstructionists of the critical theory variety. Their lives were consumed by the need to disprove God and religion. However these were the shortsighted desires of pseudo-intellectuals, they accomplished nothing productive, and if anything, opened the door for the screaming children that replaced them. I don’t think Dawkins, in his wildest dreams, ever saw his fall come from his own hubris. The intellectual argument over dismantling religion somehow disproving the existence of a god is what fueled the SJWS and their own brand of hubris in the early 2000’s. BTW Dawkins, this is what happens when you remove the “tumor” of religion, you hack. As you see today, Dawkins was swallowed by the stupidity he helped bring about, the Maximilien Robespierre of the modern era, begging for trannies to not cut off his head.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
No, they weren't. They were rationalists looking at ancient dogmas with a rational perspective, running rings around theists who attempted to rationally debate them, because, well, there's very little rationalism in any theistic interpretation of the universe.
The thing is, religion is not really about the nature of the universe. Religion is about controlling people for the collective good of the tribe or nation. What the atheists and theists alike, failed to understand was that is pointless to use rationalism to critique something that exists to control masses of irrational people.
The problem with the outspoken Atheist is that he is blind to the fact that many people are simply incapable of even remotely strict rationality. He thinks that his rationality can be taught to all. It cannot. No more than you can teach calculus to all.
The problem with the debating theist is that when he hears from the atheist that his belief system is designed to control people, he doesn't develop a square jaw, a strong brow, and say "Yes." Instead, without even thinking, he adopts the atheist's position that he must argue the rationality of his irrational religion, when he should instead have been arguing that there are enitrely too many irrational people for them to be governed by a rational system, and that an irrational system is therefore a basic requirement for civilization.
Yes, a critical theorist would have no interest in whether or not the claims of Christianity are true or not. Their criticism would be that Christianity creates oppressive power structures. For example, R. Tolteka Cuauhtin (one of the people involving in creating California's Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum) wrote that the spread of Christianity is Latin America was an act of "theocide" and a way to establish white supremacy.
"This middle-eastern religion that preaches that all men are equal will surely keep the white race on top!"
Meanwhile Adolf Hitler openly lamented the fact the Europe wasn't Islamic.
You’re talking about the same Dawkins that rationalized our universe’s current state as the Infinite Monkey Theorem. What about the infinite universe theory that they have had to hide in to keep denying a god? These modern superstitions are even more of a joke than Scientology. That’s all Dawkins and hitchens were, people with enough ego to believe they were infallible rationalists while spewing ignorant claims that have not aged well. You apparently never read the founding fathers much for your last rant, Jefferson was one of the best religious scholars of his time and most of the founding fathers believed stringent religious beliefs were necessary to make people act rationally. You don’t have to be that bright to realize we are far more irrational today then we were in the 1700’s even with religious dogmas.
You have a problem with that?
???? No, what about it, i am mildly curious, since boundness of universe is not something that can be experimentally verified or falsified given our present knowledge.
You’re kidding right? The infinite monkey theory is borderline retarded, we tried it, the monkeys shit on the keyboard and didn’t type any English words, which is exceptionally difficult considering that a and I are words. The fact of the matter is ancient aliens make a more convincing argument for human sapience than “it just kinda happened bro”.
It's not a theory, it's slightly advanced math (the infinite version, the finite version is middle school level of basic). Granted, result is pretty absurd, but so are conditions of it.
There's not enough cells, let alone living organisms, on Earth for appropriate sense of scale, so nope lol.
Luckily humans are stupid enough that any such argument falls apart because once again, if ancient aliens participated in humans acquiring their sapience... why are humans so stupid?
It was truly tragic to see, during the rise of Atheism+, the proportion of that community who defined themselves by their skepticism and rationality, but were totally unable to apply those qualities when faced with similar dogma in different clothes.