The particular neckbeardy, fedora wearing, Sam Harris listening trend of atheism was a pretty clear reaction to the evangelical psychosis of the Bush administration.

Other geriatrics here can attest that the character of Christianity at the time was way different than it is now. These days, the fascists are more "culturally Christian" and avoid overt bible apologism. But back in the day, these people were constantly on TV spewing young earth creationism and other shit, and they were largely taken seriously. It's hard to believe now how much time was spent "debating" evolution back then. The atheist backlash at least affected discourse aesthetically for some time, making these views laughable, which deplatformed a lot of evangelicals or made them hide their power levels on TV.

Some argue that this brand of atheism justifies imperialism. It does so really only in theory. There really is no material basis for atheists in the US to justify an invasion anywhere in the world. The truth is that Christianity is still a far more powerful force for imperialism. Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. I don't see any president saying anytime soon that the US needs to secularize a country through force.

If fundamentalist and political religiosity were defeated, then belligerent atheism would dissolve, but the reverse is not true.

Overall, it really does seem like people over emphasize this group of internet no-lifers because of the cultural cringe they manifested.

  • HarryLime [any]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I get what you mean, but nu-atheism hasn't been a thing for several years, and we're in a different situation now. I saw a clip of a debate yesterday where a bunch of young right wing christian guys were debating with young liberal women and they forcefully argued against divorce being legal even in cases of domestic violence. Religious extremists on the Supreme Court have thrown out Roe. We shouldn't be afraid of making a forceful case for secularism and atheism to counter this.

    • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I think that is undialectical. People need religion, and church. The nu atheists didnt, they were able to tap into tbe power of white privilage to replace all their social and emotional needs. That doesn't work at scale. Christianity offers both, however it is reliant on old technologies of social control. Which does scale, but has negative outcomes. I do like our wet boy's idea that we need a new church based on drugs and podcasts, with socialism replacing our need for religion. :baby-matt:

      • HarryLime [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I think that is undialectical. People need religion, and church.

        The Soviets sure didn't think they did, dude. Every ML state has been officially atheist.

        • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          The Soviet union didn't win. So we have to learn. You can have atheist religions and churches. They are better that way. We just need like... a 4th space. Churches evolved to fill those needs. But we have too much residual fish DNA so we need to have spaces to school occasionally.

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        deleted by creator

      • HarryLime [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1659278274898325516/vid/720x1280/_dyA_F_r5EpXFRY9.mp4?tag=14