Now that the dust have settled

>It was the Catholic church that invented propaganda as a freaking method
Maybe in etymology, but I find it hard to believe that no Greeks or Romans did what would be known as propaganda today for popular support. It's also unsurprising that a faith focused on evangelizing attempts to do so.

As much I dislike the Peterson shilling. He doesnt espouse dangerous ideas.

Their legacy is that there's now an atheist equivalent to uneducated Fundamentalist Baptists. From a theist's perspective, this has its pros and cons

>What is their legacy?

The shining example of the pitfalls of "pop" philosophy and debate.

His tiptoeing around religion has probably created metric tons of Christians. I know at least one.

I don't think atheism has stopped growing in Western Europe. Or really: stopped Christianity from declining. I'm not even sure if their impact in Europe was that large as compared to the States.
Why shouldn't this be discussable?

Atheism will never take over Western Europe. Islam will. Who gives a fuck about that place now? It's lost territory.

/pol/ plz

>What is their legacy?

Proving their position is a meme by proudly fulfilling all negative stereotypes about STEMlords and nothing else despite total freedom of speech and inept opposition.

Maybe religion does understand the world and explained it to us from multiple points of view all concluding the same yet we never understood religion.

Do I get a nobel prize now?

>becoming christian
>dangerous

>boom goes the abortion clinic
>there goes the heretic's basic rights
>thinks anchoring one's reasoning and life as a whole to tales told by illiterate, poor desert nomads 2000 years ago isn't dangerous

>#notallmuslims

You think these people supposedly being converted by Peterson's vague archetypal Christianity are going to bomb abortion clinics and burn heretics like some medieval fundamentalist? This is a pretty radical assumption considering we're living in the 21st century west with Christianity already being a moderate milquetoast spiritual practice taken only semi-seriously by the broad secularized public.
Also the teachings of Jesus are pretty universal. Your desert retard meme only works for certain parts of OT.

>Peterson's "God is actually just Truth and the Bible is just a book that contains archetypes that are very close to that Truth and Jesus was divine because he knew more about that Truth than anyone else" Christianity will ever make people blow up abortion clinics
Unironically go back to /r/atheism

New Atheism has a largely positive legacy, it seems to me. This is all anecdotal, but me and a lot of my friends and other young people fell head over heels for Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins. Watching videos on YouTube of them OWNING EVIL CHRISTIAN BILL O'REILLY and thinking we were really special. Now, neither me nor my friends are still new atheists. Some are still atheists, but are tolerant of faith and aren't edgy about it anymore. At the least, they're no longer anti-theists. I am now a believing Catholic. But all of us had new atheism as a gateway drug into the world of politics and 'philosophy' - thinking critically about the world, at the least. Many former new atheists, led by the anti-Islam sentiment, are now Trump fans. Many are europhile centrists. So on and so on. The point is, it's not their ideology that has lived on, but their form, which was saying "all these things everyone likes are STUPID".

A prime example is Douglas Murray. Murray used to be a Hitchenite as far as one can tell. Now he tells people to go to church even if they don't believe for the sake of tradition. He's gone with the flow.

I think Peterson delivered a killing blow to new atheism, which was already weakening.

do any of them ever argue against non-abrahamic religions? sometimes it seems like atheists seriously don't know that there are religions outside of christianity, judaism and islam.

Dawkins and Harris got a lot of flak for being "islamophobic". Hitch had no qualms about shitting on any person, group or religion.

i asked about non-abrahamic religions though
as in, not islam, christianity or judaism

They never will be taken seriously except by plebs and wannabe philosophers, and a select group of "go science! cerclejerk 'philosophers'" who add nothing of value to anything. The only good thing about these kind of 'thinkers', is popularizing philosophy itself and intellectual themes to the masses, which I guess is a good thing.

The point of philosophy is not to say how cool science is and to enforce what most people already agree upon, it's to question what we take for granted, it's to shine a light on themes and questions left in the dark, denied, pushed away. For example, in regards to religion, it doesn't bully or mock believers, atheism is already the dominant intellectual position, there's nothing interesting to be gained. What is interesting, is asking what the value of religion could be and if by neglecting religiousness, by denying it, we are leaving behind more than just superstition. Why do all people everywhere always have forms of religion? Where does it really stem from? And another question is, are we REALLY rid of religion and god, or only claim to be and cut off the superficial, but really still live within it's paradigm of thinking? Nietzsche was one of the last to seriously discuss religion, he was extremely critical, but much much more subtle than these four horsemen, who don't even try to know what they talk about when they speak of religion.

I hope that wasn't a mess to read, English isn't my mother tongue.

There's one book that argues that "Why religion is natural and science is not", which is the title. And I would personally argue that even if you are non-religious, you are not more rational. The idea that humans are rational has been disproven by cognitive science.

There is other interesting research going on with political science, or really political psychology, that shows how small biological differences influence whatever you end up on the left or right (please don't confuse it with biological determinism, it doesn't claim that).

What's funny is that the Harris quote is actually pretty accurate. It's simply that there are two moves one can make when one realizes being moderately religious is a sham: one can discard what remains of one's own religion and fully embrace secularism, or one can realize that one's religion is valuable to oneself and cast off the secularism one already possesses, fully recommitting to religious devotion. It's not a one-way street.

What's REALLY funny is the context of the quote. Harris is calling out moderates for not providing a "bulwark against the spread of religious extremism and religious violence".
I don't think he realizes that, if society declared itself an enemy of both "moderate" and "extremist" religious folks, as he himself does, it would inevitably push a good number of moderates right into the arms of extremists. If you insist on "my way or the highway", a lot of people are simply going to choose to take the highway.

Atheism is nothing but a Christian heresy. It's basically just Christianity with the supernatural removed. They of course unthinkingly retain whatever aspects of Christianity that are convenient to them, such as the ethics, despite these being the conclusion of the premise of the existence of God. Of course atheists waste their entire lives with their every thought dedicated to hating Christianity and attacking Christians. They themselves are deformed, anaemic, impotent, failed pseudoChristians. Imagine the envy. Imagine bitterness. Imagine the rage.

Their arguments are fucking awful and are the same old arguments from 2000 years ago.
>moral harm
'morality' is not defined. Humanism does not define it.

Stop shitposting you fucking idiot.
Abortion is murder. 'human rights' are a meme. Reasoning is a humanist meme, the 'tales' were far from illiterate or poor, and their age is fucking irrelevant.

You sound underage.

>Abortion is murder. 'human rights' are a meme.

Wait what

What is your issue?

No, they are perfectly valid. Religion is a cancer to growth and the world at large. That doesn't mean you should be a narcissistic autist about opposing it. Especially when you barely know your own shit.

Murder is a meme

He's not wrong. I mean, abortion as murder is obvious. As to the second point, human rights are extremely humanistic and secular, and place humans as arbiters of the abstract, essentially placing them above God. They're a kind of secular substitution for the virtue of faith.

>growth
Back to /r/eddit you turd.

He is. It's not. Can't be above something that doesn't exist. No.

EPIN XDDD

im sensing a lot of bitterness from your post tbqh family

no u

:^)

Calm down, child.

>Child
t. 19-year-old

Huh, I didn't know Ben Affleck is a part of the four horsemen.

>atheism is already the dominant intellectual position
You have to go back

God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.6%)

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

>ad populum
Bravo, you majestic retard.

The only people they have an effect on is those already inclined to be atheists. So it's pretty much a self-inforcing loop, their ideas aren't converting true-dyed religionists to atheism.

73% of professional philosophers are atheist. That's the dominant intellectual position. The only other positions with such overwhelming levels of consensus are that reality actually exists.

Stay mad friendo :^)

Hey Peterson, what's that up your sleeve? Oh, you've got a gateway to science? Why, I didn't even think about you throwing that in there, what with all present discussion about Neo-Marxists.

Oh look, it's years later and all those Jungian people are now more atheistic than ever - yet they all go to Church.

You have to go back

You're a silly person

>Dennett
Frequently cited philosopher of mind
>Dawkins
The idea of meme
>other fedoras
Nothing

Sankyou

Hitchens is the only important atheist in that list, he was imperturbable in the face of mob onslaught and would often come out on top. Dawkins and Harris can't withstand feeble accusations of islamophobia and Dennet just doesn't give a fuck anymore (not that he was ever relevant).

The new atheist movement collapsed on itself because they thought winning the battle against religious idealism was sufficient. They failed to anticipate the social justice movement and it's assault on reason. Quite ironic that they're forced to ally with former enemies to defeat a new one.

>le witty /pol/tard response
>m-maga..!!

The point is, it's not their ideology that has lived on, but their form, which was saying "all these things everyone likes are STUPID".
Very interesting point. Gels significantly with the state of the GOP: 'anti-liberal' instead of Conservative. Driving through VA, PA, and OH yesterday, I saw more bumper stickers that were AGAINST liberalism than pro-anything conservative.
What similarities of personality did your friends have? Was the dominant ideology repugnant to them? Or did they just not fit in?

Indeed but those people change their beliefs not based on data or experiences, but on feelies, and are therefore children whose opinions don't matter.

Hitchens most interesting work also had absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

Professional philosophers are fucking idiots, they aren't intelligent.
Reality doesn't exist, sorry bub.

Yeah, but most 'dominant intellectual positions' in even the hard sciences will be exchanged for others in a couple of years. Look up "The Half-Life of Facts". The error you make is letting the expert crowd determine your worldview, just like radical believers are wont to do.

New atheism is the second reformation

What's his most interesting work?

I laughed

Have you studied philosophy in a modern university?. Its fucking terrible, tedious and shallow-minded drivel. No one is writing grandly, courageously or creatively anymore in philosophy. If most academic philosophers believe something I found the most suitable reaction is to assume the opposite must be true, or at least something widely different.

*wildly

Their legacy is actually /pol/ despite their christian larping. "Not an argument" meme wouldn't exist if the atheists didn't make arguments an object of value. /pol/'s larping retardation would lead you to believe they are going to resurrect Ray Comfort's banana as a symbol of the west, but deep down they aren't that stupid, and the minute religiosity rears its retardation like that again, they'll be off the wagon.

This is a very shortsighted view. Richard Dawkins' best work had nothing to do with atheism, it was always in biology, and biology is the redpill that /pol/ likes to consume. His legacy, and all of the "4 memesmen" is not the argument against theism, but the argument against baseless stupidity - which the "progressive left" has now taken up. Sam Harris will become very relevant again, I think, when the left really has to analyze the direction they want to go in. Not all democrats are going to enshrine sharia law as a value worth protecting. Hitchens is Hitchens, and I don't think anyone cares about Dennet tbdesu.

If you actually listen to Sam Harris lately, he sounds incredibly alt-right on certain issues.

What is Ben Stiller doing there?

>professional philosophers
ishygddt

>mfw

I thought this too

>Sam Harris will become very relevant again, I think, when the left really has to analyze the direction they want to go in

confirmed for having his whole understanding of politics downloaded from paul watson videos lol

God I love this website

Dawkins and Harris have far bigger problems than just Islamophobia LOL

LMFAOOOOOOOOOO

They just recapitulated the scientific materialism debates of the late-19th century, and they missed the point then just as their forebears did 150 years before them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Büchner

I also don't know why you'd want to argue with the absolute dumbest representatives of your opposition; of course Evangelicals don't really believe anything of any value. But it's easier to beat up on George W. Bush or whatever instead of getting BTFO'd by Alvin Plantinga or Alisdair Macintyre.

I wonder if any of them have/had even heard of MacIntyre.

/pol/ is detached from the pope already. They don't like Jewish goons that pretend to be Christian. They won't just flip out of Christianity, although the Christians may be able to leave Veeky Forums.

Dennett probably has. MAYBE Harris, but probably not. Definitely not the others.

They missed their chance at long-term philosophical relevance by shooting fish in a barrel instead of trying to take on more substantial theological arguments. They criticize completely outdated and goofy ideas that have no relevance, like creationism and homeopathy.

nice

Laurence Krauss is a better scientist than Dawkins, a better scholar than Harris, a bigger rebel than Hitchens... Dennet...Philosophy? dont make me laugh. unfalsifiable drivel

Hitchens had never written anything worth reading his entire life. He was a celebrity journalist, that's it.

Sam Harris is a meme philosopher who occasionally says interesting things on his podcast, but overall a very safe thinker.

Richard Dawkins had written some interesting books on evolution that are probably worth reading, but his other workd, particularly The God Delusion, are dogshit.

Daniel Dennett is probably the only one of them who is worth serious consideration. He is a serious and contemplative philosopher, who has a greater understanding and appreciation of the issues than all the other three combined.

>scientist
He's a meme physicist. He's never actually discovered anything. He just invents theoretically bullshit and the writes fanfic about it.
>scholar
You must be joking
>rebel
>woah bro fuck religion and climate deniers bro im such a rebel amirite?

>that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

pure gold.

RIP Hitchens, you were a great man

> hey bro, dont go outside, there's a gunman out there
>do you have any evidence for that claim, or do you expect to just have FAITH, you pathetic IRRATIONAL pleb?
>uhhh, no? You just have to trust me bro srsly if you go out there you'll die
> HA. I thought so. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, you sky-fairy worshiping scum.
>*tips fedora and procedes to walk out the door*
>*is shot*

>a witness who sees a shooter isn't evidence

Does that mean the Gospels are evidence for the ressurection and all that stuff and that the principle of idenity, sufficient reason and causality is evidence? If so, what's the point of that statement?

No, because the Gospels were written well after the events took place by people who were not the claimed author and were later edited to mean different things some two hundred or so (depending on the individual bit of Scripture) by political actors.

>thinks a witness is good enough evidence
>denies the gospels

I dont think ive ever cornered an atheist this quickly.

>allegorical bronze age stories are evidence

While there's a lot of things about the gospels which you may find problematic, they weren't allegorical. You don't know what that word means.
Does this mean that we have no evidence on anything at all that happened for the entire classical era? All books on events are written after they take place.
>who were not the claimed author
Who is not the claimed author?
>later edited
Any "evidence" for that claim? Especially because there is a plethora of extra biblical authorship which confirms what they meant then and what they mean now. There's no real break in interpretation of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias and Justin Martyr with that which was there 200, 300 or xy years later.

The Gospels were written in the Iron Age...