Can we make atheism great again?

>trying to put people down by calling them fat neckbeards

nice punching down, shitlord

I don't know about Camus or the other guys OP cited, but Nietzsche strikes me as having a profoundly poetic view of man and reality. I mean have you read the last chapters of Zarathustra? He really is an ambivalent figure.

Now what to say about the Dawkins types? They are cultural philistines. It's like they try hard to be the dullest, disinteresting and socially retarded person they possibly can.

For example, there was a music thread a few days ago where OP asked what is the origin of music. Then some guy came in and said something to the effect of Öh it's just like when a dog hits something and he start to shake his bodies to alleviate the pain. Yeah, sure. That exhausts the entire phenomenon of musical production, reception and interpretation... Edgy kids, I swear.

>Atheists now

Being atheist is no longer a notable trait, so it's not really comparable. It's the default for educated westerners.

How is this interesting:
goodreads.com/author/quotes/16593.Sam_Harris

All cheap tawk.

How is it cheap talk when most of the world is more interested in explaining away religious atrocities, than calling a spade a spade?

>Camus
yes
>Sartre
no

Because he never offers any nuance
>le evil religulous ppl vs defenders of science, reason and rationality

That's not true at all, and if you actually believe that you should read his stuff instead of listening to Reza Azlan, Glenn Greenwald and Cenk Uygur.

What this one said .

But also. Outside of several cruel rituals (human sacrifice mainly) I do not see the connection between religion and violence.

Well if you look at his quotes on goodreads there is little nuance.

The best case for atheism to me was never >le science and >le rationality, but the sheer absurdity of reality and suffering, specially when expressed through the media of art and literature.

this dude wrote a book about metaethics (Moral Landscape) while claiming to ignore metaethics.

>Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy ... [but] I am convinced that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics,’ ‘deontology,’ ‘noncognitivism,’ ‘antirealism,’ ‘emotivism,’ etc. directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.

That's because when you live in a country with 90% religious people, you can't afford to try to be diplomatic.

>[but] I am convinced that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics,’ ‘deontology,’ ‘noncognitivism,’ ‘antirealism,’ ‘emotivism,’ etc. directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.

Well, he is right. Most people don't give a shit about those topics at all, they are too busy playing Pokemon Go.

He can still call spades a spade. But he seems to generalize, instead of pointing out the wrongs and goods.

So you're atheist because you're upset at the way things really are?

Not being a smart ass btw, I'm seriously asking.

Well, I'm not American, and I see evangelicals (are they the majority?) tend to be ignorant about their own religion. It's too easy to debate with them. It's like that kid that learns martial arts and goes out beating the smaller kids in the hood.

>But he seems to generalize

Yeah, but that's because you read quotes on Goodreads instead of the whole book.

> to butthurt Christians with no arguments this is a neckbeard

Please explain why Dawkins and Harris are worse than Camus or Sartre, or Nietzsche and Marx for that matter.
Also you forgot the Marquis de Sade in there.

Which one do you suppose I read? Might do it.

And?

If you're writing a book about philosophy, you should give a shit.

That's why pop science/philosophy is cancer. Normal people shouldn't have access to this knowledge. They don't care about learning anything: they just protect their inflated ego.

Atheists, christians, radfems, alt-rightists, berniebots: they're my enemies, and I shall destroy them.

>donates to feminist causes

Subtle. Notice how a good male according to everydayfeminism isn't a male who is a feminist, but one who donates to feminism. Shows how the people who wrote that comic feel about men.

The End of Faith is a pretty good book, and it's not generalizing at all, since it's talking about specific tenets within a religion, and those that follow those specific tenets.

>some women do grow face and neck hair

Christ, you're a edgy teen.

Dawkins's atheism is reactionary. I don't agree completely with Marx's view on religion, but at least he wanted to end class struggle and opression.

Dawkins would claim he wants to end religious conflicts and oppression.

But then he goes full fedora saying that the end of religion will bring peace and progress.

>tfw fat, hairy and ugly
>literally everyone on earth hates me regardless of what I think or say or do

>the end of social classes will bring peace and progress

Why are German Athiests and British Athiests so different?

Why do so many people like Christopher Hitchens? He was a talented journalist and a skilled polemicist when it came to current events, but when he started opening up his mouth about religion he always sounded one step removed from being the drunken uncle who complains about the world.

Holy fuck how depressing

I respect him for his work on Madre Teresa but he just seems so edgy.

I thought he went too far on Mother Teresa. He was certainly correct to point out that she wasn't really providing solid medical care to people at a time when she was fairly universally revered, but he went a step too far in trying to bury her and say she was actively harming them. I'm not religious, but he was utterly ignorant of theology and religious sentiments, and the Mother Teresa thing definitely laid the groundwork for his edgelord atheism later in life.

Modern Atheists arent even bad, it is just a meme war being conducted against them to discredit Atheism to the masses. This only works so well in America because of how many nominally religious people there are.

I dunno, a look at r/atheism makes me think it is in a bad state

Go to /r/republican or /r/democrats

That's a reddit thing, not an ideology thing.

So any other atheist communities I can lurk at and study to gain insights into their beliefs and behaviour?

>this whole comic

wew lad

Nah I'm not an atheist, but these are the things that make me doubt God the most: evil, death of children, etc.

>mostly communists ("secularists" who believe in world government, a la Sam Harris)
>shit on relative harmless Christians all day long while going easy on Muslims***
>***Even when those like Dawkins and Harris do criticize Islam, they would never dare criticize mass Muslim immigration into the west as a policy, even though that will permanently end any chance of attaining an atheist, secular society in the West

Yeah, a real bunch of Great Men these modern atheists are.

Not being so overly agressive about it would help. I saw plenty of atheists who were complaining about religious people shoving their beliefs down their throats yet if someone even quoted the Bible they sperged out and started imposing their ideology. It won't surprise me one bit if one day atheism will turn into some kind of pseudo cult because I noticed a lot of them already act eerily similar to religious zealots and it's the reason why I prefer to call myself a non believer as it has less negative and fedora connotations.

Excellent strawman, Christians are just as barmy as Muslims but for some reason they blow up less often. Harris has said himself that most Muslims will never be compatible with the west. He even cites the hatefacts from that Pew poll.

Dawkins and Harris have no philosophical training, and consistently represent bad arguments that have been debunked long ago, but present them to an equally uneducated audience as fresh revelation.

>Dawkins and Harris have no philosophical training, and consistently represent bad arguments that have been debunked long ago, but present them to an equally uneducated audience as fresh revelation.
I thought Harris has a degree in philosophy.

Then why is he so fucking bad at it? Is it for easy money writing terrible books?

Probably

Fair 'nuff. But the criticism still stands, then.

At the same time, Hitchens was kind of a lousy journalist but one I respected, mostly because he was my kind of asshole. But Hitchens is the same, lots of bad arguments presented without criticism because his audience doesn't know any better.

I'm an atheist, but I've always been of the position that being on the right side of an issue for the wrong reasons doesn't make you particularly bright.

I understand.

It's worth noting that the things you speak of are not the will of God. That throughout that book, his wrath is always in the wake of injustice.

The scary part though is that for some reason we're exposed to every aspect of it all. I think the context of all of this though, is that this is meant to give testimony to the benefit of good and righteousness in the face of death and evil. We're men now, its as if were sent forth into the lions den to learn to be good men in the face of madness. How this comes about though isn't through our will, as you can see man can't even maintain a planet in the vastness without acting like selfish animals. But it's through God and his will, which is righteousness how we not only survive but thrive in the face of death and evil.

It's terrifying though, frustrating to be apart of, but in the nightmare, you can see the significance of good and whats considered righteous and virtuous.