Guest Post by The Zman
If you are over the age of 40, perhaps a bit older, you have lived long enough to see a great fad get going, peak and then fade away completely. Lots of fads run their course in a few months, obviously, but social movements tend to build slowly and then stick around for a while, before disappearing down the memory hole. One of those fads is atheism, which had a good run in the 80’s and 90’s. It started to peter out in the 90’s, had a brief revival in the aughts, but now seems to be headed to oblivion.
The so-called “new atheists” are not ready to throw in the towel on their reason to exist, as it were, but that’s to be expected. Harris and Dennett moved all their chips into the middle of the table with the atheism stuff. It got them the attention they desired, so as a gambler will wear a diamond pinky ring to recall his one big score, these guys still proudly wear their atheism. All of them have moved onto other things, but they will expound upon their hatred of religion if the crowd demands it.
Of course, anytime the word “new” gets attached to something old, it means that old thing is now dead. It also means that old thing had some serious internal defect that eventually killed it. The “new right” made an appearance when it was clear Conservative Inc. was just a ruthless money racket. The previous iteration of “new right” appeared in the 70’s when everyone agreed the old right was dead. The reason “new atheism” got going is everyone agreed that regular old atheism was creepy and weird.
The central defect of atheism, old and new, is it is an entirely negative western identity and entirely dependent on Christianity. Specifically, it requires people of some status to defend Christianity and the Christian belief in the super natural. Atheism has always been the oxpecker of mass movements. Everything about it relies on its host both tolerating it and thriving on its own. It’s why atheism has had its spasms of success when Christianity in America has had a revival, as in the 80’s and the 2000’s.
Atheists will deny this, of course. They will argue, as Dennett often does, that the steep decline of Christianity is proof their arguments were superior. The reason they no longer talk about their thing is they won and their enemy is dead. The fact that there are plenty of Muslims and crackpot feminist airheads around spouting magical oogily-boogily never seems to get their attention for some reason. The only guy to venture into this area was Dawkins, but the Prog quickly reminded him who pays his bills.
That’s always been the tell with atheism. Belief in something as insane as male privilege or implicit whiteness should get their attention. After all, these are not just beliefs in the supernatural, they are primitive beliefs in the supernatural. Men of the classical period had more plausible and complex beliefs than people like Amy Harmon. She is a click away from demanding human sacrifice. Yet, the new atheists were never much interest in those magical beliefs. They were too busy hounding the last Christians.
That’s another tell. Atheism has always been a popular pose on the Left, because it was a useful signal. The bad whites loved their boom sticks and sky gods. The good whites rejected all those crazy beliefs. It’s why atheists tended to focus on the mainstream of Christianity, like Catholics and mainline Protestant churches. Mormons were always an easy target. They avoided the Jews and black Baptists. Sure, once in while a zinger against the tribe would be tossed in, but the enemy was always white Christians.
The decline on atheism is a good example of the perils of negative identity. When you define yourself as being in opposition to someone or something, you inevitably become a slave to it. Your very existence depends on it. As the main Christian churches collapse in scandal and bizarre attempts to move Left, the enemies for atheists to attack are getting more difficult to find. Attacking Christians is like beating up a puppy. Only the severely mentally disturbed think Christians have any power today.
The other thing working against atheism is it has been mostly male. That’s an interesting thing, given that the American Atheists was created by a woman in the 60’s. Then again, Madalyn Murray O’Hair was just a cat’s paw for the usual suspects. Her role was to be the point the spear in the war to decouple Christianity from American civic and cultural life. Since then, atheism has been a male thing. Given the declining status of males on the Left, particularly white males, it is no surprise that atheism is dying.
Given the state of affairs in the West and the crippling decline in the Christian churches, it is hard to see atheism having another revival. Christianity appears to morphing into a private, bespoke thing in order to survive outside the Progressive orthodoxy. That makes it a worthless enemy for atheists. You can never know, of course, but it looks like public Christianity is done for. That means atheism is done for as well, unless it moves onto Judaism or Progressivism and that will never be allowed.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Christians! PRAY for Hollywood Rob & his like-minded friends … which are Legion here!! His head might explode when he reads this article.
🙂
The first one is Zman and HR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG7LoTezLO8
Not that I care one way or another if atheism is expanding or contracting, but I really want to know, ZMan, how in the hell do you know it’s on the way to oblivion? If Christianity is indeed declining, what’s taking its place if not atheism or agnosticism? Doubtful that Christians are becoming Muslims, Jews, or Hindus. You undermine your own thesis.
What amuses me most about many bloggers is their tendency to make brash assertions without bothering to cite any evidence, such as atheism is headed to oblivion, atheism, is “an entirely negative western identity,” (whatever the hell that means), and atheism is entirely dependent on Christianity. The last argument is complete BS; any atheist I know dismisses the idea of God/Allah/Buddha/etc., and therefore all religions, not any single one.
These same bloggers usually represent themselves as experts in an innumerable number of subjects. Thus lamebrains like Bill Holton or Bix Weir somehow develop a following in one area, say, gold, then proceed to pontificate on international finance, American/European/Asian politics, global warming, and so on. Just the same way Zman spews forth his baseless opinions day after day as if they’re undeniable facts.
This is what TBP does. They reprint opinions not facts, then they call the opinions facts. That is if the opinions match their own. Most people believe in something on the sole basis just because it’s what they want to believe. Ironically, religion follows this same pattern.
If you had been here this weekend, you might have learned that TBP practices teaching via the Socratic Method instead of (or in additon to) deductive reasoning.
“If Christianity is indeed declining, what’s taking its place if not atheism or agnosticism?”
Bob, when he talks about Christianity declining I think — and I’m totally guessing here — he means organized Christianity … like Baptists, Catholics, etc.
In that case, I, for example, would have to be counted as one who “has left Christianity”. I didn’t replace it with another organized religion, atheism, or agnosticism.
But, I never left Christianity. I just replaced it with Stuchenism … my own version of Christianity. For example, I reject the parts I don’t like (the vengeful God in the OT, crazy-assed miracles in the NT, etc.) and keep the parts I do like (like Jesus’ wonderful parables).
Don’t condemn me. Thomas Jefferson did the same thing.
But the question (here rhetorical) is do you believe in God? If not, you’re an atheist.
Stuchenism sounds good to me. Need an apostle?
Stuchenism is generally speaking not a proselytizing religion.
However, we do welcome members who wish to fellowship with us of their own accord.
Just be aware that Stuchenism does adhere to the OT concept of the “tithe”. As long as you are willing to fork over 10% of your income to The Lord’s Annointed (me), well … Welcome Aboard!!
I’m retired, but I’ll pitch in 10% of my earned income. My first cheque for zero dollars is in the mail.
Also, Stuchenism needs you to contribute additional love offerings and you will be rewarded in triplicate. One day in paradise.
Here again, another illiterate who doesn’t know what an athiest is.
Stop “assuming”. That puts you in the same dismal waste of keyboard strikes as whoever a ‘zman’ is.
Funniest part, he won’t even state his own name. Should be your first hint. Just another punter with nothing of value to offer the world but made-up stupidity.
I never left Christianity, Christianity left me. – Stuchen
We’ve never been anything special… less that that actually. (But there could be many of us and there is great strength in numbers.)
1 Cor 1:26-31… “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
Any decline in Christianity the world over is directly correlated to a decline in Bible study. Most Christians can’t even properly identify the book…
And when do you think all that jibberish was written?
gibberish
Me, you are obviously offended, perhaps fancy yourself an ‘atheist’. Stop right now, we have had some of the most illustrious and smart atheists here, you are nowhere near their caliber. Piss off to Erewhon, nowhere man.
If you were born in Israel, you’d probably be Jewish.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia you’d probably be Muslim.
If you were born in India you’d probably be Hindu.
But because you were born in North America, you’re Christian….
Your faith is not inspired by some divine, constant truth. It’s simply a matter of geography.
Don’t limit what God can do.
If you were born in Israel … the One True God would reveal himself to you via the Jewish faith.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia … the One True God would reveal himself to you via the Muslim faith.
If you were born in India …. the One True God would reveal himself to you via the Hindu faith.
What if they’re all the SAME, regardless of geography??
By your logic, then if I was a satanist,then The One True God would reveal himself to me via the Satanist faith? As you say, they’re all the same.
Nope.
If you were a Satanist …. God would reveal himself to you via the Democrat Party.
Identity politics much?
Blow me.
That’s sexual politics.
You fag.
I certainly hope this isn’t expected of your apostles; if so, count me as an apostate.
I thought it was the weather.
Or maybe the bankers?
Here we go! More politics based on religion. Just couldn’t go too long without getting that little bit of stupidity in, could you?
…and what if they’re not one and the same but simply regional interpretations?
If you look at them all along with the classical religious myths of other civilizations from Greece and Rome, there’s plenty of contradiction and borrowed concepts to be found.
The major religions that are fastest-growing are tied to birthrates. Modern materialism and technology has supplanted organized religion in the West and coupled with the low birth rate it makes perfect sense why Christianity, in general, has waned. The contemporary economic and moral corruption within the leadership are symptoms and have pushed away converts and believers alike.
Fine. I accept your statements in their entirety. But what does that say about the truth contained in each of those religions? Nothing. About their cultural and societal utility? Nothing. About the utility to each of individual adherents? Nothing. About the fundamental nature of the Cosmos? Absolutely fucking nothing.
In other words, you have said nothing. Well done.
I pray to Aqualung every night.
I’m fairly sure listening to Aqualung over and over and over (a repeating record player in 1973 for my 12th birthday!) is what is wrong with me now.
Too much: “Shuffling Madness?”
I know the words in my sleep. I am equally messed up. Or maybe my mom dropped me on my head, I dunno.
Ah, the ’70’s!!! The last peak of yet another brief micro-period of Enlightment. Too bad we are stuck in yet another period of Dark Ages.
We did so much back then; we created brilliance, progress, knowledge; all to be lost with the creation of daycare, GenX, social promotion, pass/fail, and Jerry Mandering. Maybe someday we get it all back.
Stucky
“Blow me”
Well that escalated quickly.
He’s triggered easily.
He’s easily triggered.
“Facts” such as they are, may debated indefinitely. Even in best understood physics, point-of-view is critical. Historical “facts”? pushaw. Written by the victors. Now, logic, well logic is universal and we cannot have our “own” logic.
The logical fallacies in this article and thread abound and, as usual, they find their way in through semantic loopholes. Terms are defined erroneously, poorly or, most often, not at all…and the conversation goes nowhere except to the endless swirl of name-calling and shit-flinging. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a good shitfest from time to time, but even the most virulent shhit-flingers among us would have to admit that nothing is ever remotely “solved” or personal understanding ever advanced by them.
So, what is to be done?
First, define terms, as precisely and concisely as possible.
Second, recognize and accept our impossible, literally infinite ignorance.
Third, seek what truth you may with every tool at your disposal (rationality, imagination, horse-sense, whatever) after recognizing the second.
For any willing to play, here we go again:
Definition and synonyms of atheism from google:
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, nontheism, disbelief, unbelief, scepticism, doubt, agnosticism, irreligion, godlessness, ungodliness, profaneness, impiety, heresy, apostasy, paganism, heathenism, freethinking, nihilism.
Will you look at that mess. “God” and “gods” notably undefined, as is “belief.” And the list of synonyms covers a ridiculous breadth and depth of concepts. Yet, somehow we use this word as a perfectly understood label on the thoughts of millions of sentient meatsacks, capable of millions of thoughts over a lifetime.
The author, however, uses atheism an ideology or system of belief or way of thinking or movement or group, well, shit, he’s just all over the place. But I get it. The thing we label as atheism is the very (and quite secifically) anti-Christian, or at the very lead anti-fundamentalist-Christian ideology. Now, it masked in a very well-formed shroud of scientific rationalism, but that takes seconds of solid, critical thought to dismantle. The argument goes something like “Religions are non-scientific, superstitious nonsense. Mind viruses really. There is no all-powerful man in the sky, nor are there any flying spaghetti monsters, teapots orbitting Jupiter or the like. Therefore the Cosmos is made up of material and accidental collision of said material.”
Well, of course, religions are non-scientific. All the major religions of the world were codified hundreds if not thousands of years before science was a thing. Religions, however are a Human Universal, found everywhere, in every culture. Clearly an emergent evolutionary property of we humans. And, of course, the “sky” was the whole Universe to the ancients…but we know better. So, to take religious ideas and expand them out to a cosmic level is a mindbogglingly ridiculous logical misstep, and so far as a I know, not a single atheist speaker has ever been called out on it. Same exact fallacy
Whatever I believe or think has absolutely ZERO effect on the fundamental nature of reality. If all 7.5 Billion of us Humans currently on the planet cried out in perfect harmony and unison that a perfect unified belief, it still would have exactly zero fucking effect on the fundamental nature of the Cosmos. Remember that literally infinite ignorance from which we all suffer?
So, now to circle back around to some old definitions related to boundary definitions I have made here before and have heard no reason to modify (again, I’m setting up a logical framework here, not making any assertions of what I may or may not believe):
Faith – an individual’s belief (a word that can be defined a few ways in itself) of a higher purpose to their existence. Boundary – each and every sentient individual ever.
Religion – Huge array of definitions here. “a particular system of faith and worship.” “A codified system of stories that instruct cultures how to conduct themselves properly.” “A belief in the supernatural.” “Group attempts to define that which cannot be defined.” “The opiate of the masses” “Collective delusions.” I don’t really care as far as it matters here. All of these have occured on this planet during the last hundred thousand years or so (just to make sure all bases are covered).
God – Creator of all things everywhere, ever. If you like (and I do) the notion of a Universal purpose (for lack of a better word) at the heart of reality itself.
To me, the real question of God, is Purpose or Accident? Random or Deliberate? The trouble is that I see both in abundance, when I really look. The underlying foundations of reality are beyond any of us, but to contemplate them is a remarkable ability we have. I just like to do it the best way that I know, beginning with the three steps I laid out.
(Did he take a breathe in there somewhere???)
Firstly, you have the definition of atheism wrong from the get-go. It has no specificity to christianity. Atheists (including myself) don’t believe in ANY god, supreme being or animal (take your pick). There is no heaven, no hell, no supreme being, no satan or evil figure. We were born, will live for a period of time, and hopefully, will do our best to benefit this world. Then we die. Personally, I prefer to focus on each day, and see what I can to make something happen in the days I will have.
That’s all; not any of the ridiculous, made-up non-nonsensical, philosophical tripe that took you paragraph-upon-paragraph to waste our time.
The only tripe is from some douchebag responding to a 3 month old post that is long forgotten. Enjoy winning a debate with no one. If there was a God, he wouldn’t allow low IQ trolls like yourself to live.
In my own defense, I need to write. Anything to avoid visiting my own life. I have even resorted to making up a story about Yokes, how pathetic is that?
“The decline on atheism is a good example of the perils of negative identity. When you define yourself as being in opposition to someone or something, you inevitably become a slave to it. Your very existence depends on it.”
This appears to be an adequate description of how my ole’ buddy Hollywood operates !?
annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum- Saudi Arabia to become heavily involved in the ‘overseeing’ of the Temple Mount……peace deal is coming….Jared Kushner….”In the days of Jared”…and the third temple. Don’t be deceived, the man of peace that is soon to come onto the scene will be the masonic god they have so long awaited-
Zman – You use the names Dennett and Harris like your one of their peers or something. Your writing sucks. You make things up. Your pathetic! Your writing is so opinionated without any basis. Take one page out of a book by Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Dawkins, or any neuroscience writer, and it will have more useful information than all your crappy articles combined. In fact read Dennetts book “From Bacteria to Bach and Back.” It will give you some clues as to why your consciousness is so messed up.
Actually, you’re just giving him an audience. I doubt he has any interest in reading any of them (and that’s a very short list).
I had a half-hour to kill and stumbled on this site. Bye forever.
The real giggle: he hasn’t the brass to put his name on the site.
Nice piece and way ahead of you!
Zman puts out some quality material, but he is no match for the short, concise paper below.
This paper on Atheism attacks and defeats it on a much deeper level.
http://mileswmathis.com/atheism.html
As he also defeats theism.
Pi=4
Dream on Z-Man. You see atheism “peak and then fade away completely.”
You haven’t even defined your term: atheism, so you’re whistling past the graveyard.
The article likes to paint atheists with a rather broad brush. Like saying that all anarchists (folk who do not believe in the need for government and its power/control over individuals/society), are all rock throwing, property-destroying early-20s thugs.
I grew up basically an atheist. My mom walked away from the Catholic church in her early adult years because of many things associated with her mother and her Catholic upbringing. We had a bible in the house and I read it occasionally. I was strongly oriented towards science, got a degree in biology, and generally believed that everything could be explained through investigations, etc. I went to a Catholic High School (a great school academically, and serious religious teachings ended in freshman year and I started as a sophomore). I got to witness the behavior of my “catholic” fellow classmates and was quite unimpressed. Praising the midnight mass because it allowed you to get drunk on Saturday night, still go to mass, and blow off Sunday because you were hung over, didn’t seem like much of a sound religious doctrine. Earlier in life I had been exposed to various religious teachings in a comparative religions class. They all were founded on “faith,” and not anything concrete or something I could experience or put my hands on as it were.
Later in college, I began reading eastern spiritual books, others that spoke of a connection/parallel to the psychedelic experience, and found books by spiritual leaders who were actually having these spiritual experiences, were still alive, and had actually authored the books I was reading. Finally here was a religious philosophy that made sense, addressed the issues of the “unknowables,” and provided direct instruction for the attainment of direct personal spiritual experiences. I was no longer an atheist, but most Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. (but not Hindus or Buddhists, etc.) would consider me a “heathen” or similar.
From my own experience and from sitting on the sidelines watching for so many years, it seems as though the great anger seems to be more about the fact that these “atheists” don’t find anything agreeable with THEIR religion. But it also seems that when atheists criticize religions, they are generally attacking the monotheistic religions of the west, and have little to no understanding of any of the teachings of so-called eastern religions (not they don’t have their own issues). It also seems that the presence of a dis-believer scares believers (as it has for nearly all major religions throughout history). When a religion is based on faith, the presence of a disbeliever interjects a grain of questioning into the minds of others. And no offense, but the vast majority of most western religions are founded on faith in things that cannot be fully explained. But is that a failing of the individual who does not believe, or a failing of the “teaching” he/she is supposed to put all his/her faith in?
Hey, I believe that there is nothing that exists ANYWHERE or at ANYTIME in the entirely of it all, that is not 100% composed of the divine. How could it be otherwise? A 100% turnaround from my youth. I have personally experienced the divine nature of reality in all of its timeless/spaceless/limitless glory. But none of that fits within the framework of so-called western religious teachings. I’m ok with that. I’m no atheist.