What are the most based and practical, useful philosophies?

I can get behind stoicism. Never tried Kierkegwaaar tho. Whats he on about?

Stoics
Pragmatists (duh)

Not even memeing, but Stirner can be helpful. He makes shit real simple for you.

Kierkegaard's about reconciling the human thirst for the infinite with the world of time and suffering that we live in. He doesn't prescribe meditations to do or anything but he's a very smart, insightful writer that gets at the heart of an issue in a fraction of the time it takes other thinkers, such as the truly religious man being one who has "drunk the cup of life's profound sadness" but still has the courage to hope for something More than life, instead of trying to argue God into existence or peddling gooey sentimentalist platitudes

This spooky fellow

I thought Stirner was a spook

This. Builder of Western civilization. It was Christianity that promoted harmony between people, encouraged reproduction, made men out of boys and created the most powerful civilization known to man. Now that atheism has removed its place at its heart, the West's moral values will slowly decay until society because so dysfunctional to the point where we are either conquered by an outside force, or that society collapses and undergoes a renewal in faith.

Karl Popper's critical rationalism.

Christianity was a interesting philosophy, but atheism don't appeard out of nowehere, it was just a natural consequece of church authorities actions, people stopped to believe because Christianity was quickly transformed into a tool designed to control low and middle class, people were told not to gather the wealth, but to give all they've got to the chuch, supported with with absurd rites like indulgence (pay for your sins with money). The priests marriage was also forbidden to prevent uncontrolled propagation of church assets.

What does Christianity have to do with any of these things?

>harmony between people
Catholic-Protestant wars.
Unless you mean charity between individuals.

>encouraged reproduction
Humans reproduces on their own. The Church forced many priest and nuns to be celibate and never have children.
If anything you should be praising Christianity for promoting chastity and monogamy.
(and Christianity didn't invent that, Roman already had worship for that, Vestal virgins)

>made men out of boys
literally what?

Most of the Western world is still Christian anyway so I don't get why people are using atheism of all things as a scapegoat.
The decay of the West is a more complicated phenomenon than just Christianity losing some power.

Indulgence isn't absurd. An indulgence is how one clears himself of sin. This can take the form of a pilgrimage, collecting holy relics, or in the way that was made popular in the medieval age, taking an accounting stance and paying money directly.
britannica.com/topic/indulgence

Of course I mean between individuals. Its undeniable that culture has always been a point of tension between nations.

You'd think humans would reproduce on their own, but take a look at today's birthrates. Atheists have the lowest of all birthrates, celibacy was okay for the monks and nuns (a vocation of choice, not force), while for everyone else, its their duty to carry out the will of God and reproduce.

Christianity provided society with milestones such as confirmation, where the boy would be welcomed into the Christian community as a man. Society need this milestones, this cultural events in their lives. Now we have people who live life well into the 20s still acting like children and trying to figure out how to "adult".

I blame atheism for the cultural decay of the west because atheism (as well as agnosticism) is the basis for cultural relativism. Society needs to reinforce either cultural values in order to maintain its self identity. Religion has always play a principle role in this and the ascendancy of atheism runs counter to this.

>what is Greco-Roman polytheism

Honestly, it's like fedora christfags have never opened a history book

I have honestly never read so much horseshit in my life. This stupid post ticks off all the cliches of pseudo-historical pseudo-intellectualism, most notably the linear causality you read into something as complex and as opaque as the history of an entire continent spanning over several millennia. Imagine if something as complex as history was as easy to analyze as a simple linear cause and a simple consequence following each other. We wouldn't need the amount of history books and analysis we have today.

Honestly, you commit the most obvious fallacy in all of historical research. Please, go away and don't come back until you realize that history is extremely diverse, extremely chaotic and extremely dynamic and cannot be boiled down to a simplistic A caused B equation