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.
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.