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:
I already told you, I'm not an atheist.
This is why I keep telling you to fucking read.
If the boot fits.
I say the same thing about so-called christians who unironically quote Leviticus 24:20.
Which is most evangelicals, mind you.
The second amendment might recognize your right to own guns, but Christ was very explicit that you have no moral grounds to use violence even in self defense. Frankly, any Christian church that isn't a peace church is heretical IMO.
"Sell your cloak, and buy a sword."
~Jesus of Nazareth
Yes... and?
Having and using are different.
I'll break it down for ya. I belong to what is known as a peace church. Our interpretation of Christ's sermons on the mount and the plain, and his actions ahead of the crucifixion, clearly illustrate Christ's intention that his followers be strict pacifists.
No Quaker fought in the Civil War. Tens of thousands of ex-Quakers fought in the Civil War. They weren't Quakers anymore, because of the choice. Did they fight for a righteous cause? Certainly.
But they still fought.
Christ's example was to win by not fighting. That peace only happens when one side stops the cycle of reciprocal violence.
Is it flawed? Maybe. Maybe it's unworkable. But it's what we believe.
The United States had one Quaker president. Herbert Hoover. You know what his attitude was towards the Communists and the Nazis? Let them fight, and when they've finished destroying each other we'd go in peacefully with food and medicine and win by default.