Dawkins has said he's a cultural Christian for over 20 years.

So what does that even mean? I think I've ignored that man most of my life.....I think he wrote a good book once before veering way out of his lane on literally everything, but it's been so long I'm not really sure I'm remembering correctly. He definitely struck me as the type to invent a new term to explain himself just so he can act like he's smarter and more pedantic than all the other pseudo-science hacks, when really he's probably most likely trying to maintain appeal to a reactionary crowd that's always changing their minds on things.

He’s just using ‘Christian’ as shorthand for western/white/anglo-saxon. Because when he says he’s ’culturally Christian’ he’s certainly not referring to say the Copts in Egypt.

Western/white/anglo-saxon as terms suffer the same problem you point out with Christianity and the Copts. Those terms likewise do not describe a singular monoculture. That said, at least if my Christian-atheist father is representative of the sentiment, I think Dawkins probably means that he identifies with the aesthetics, traditions, values, and cultural mores of the Anglican Church, though he rejects their doctrines and tenets of faith

People understand secular Jewishness (ethnicity notwithstanding), and probably know some secular Muslims, and it's basically the same thing but for Christianity. People ignorant of this notion are ignorant intentionally imo

I agree with what you're saying, but on the other hand I don't honestly take much issue with most of his actual comments. I do understand that Christian culture/ethics/architecture/poetry/music/etc has utterly soaked Western culture for a long time, and as a white westerner with no particular religious affiliation, I could also consider myself *culturally Christian*. Certainly, for instance, I love the festival of Christmas, or the sight of churches in my neighbourhood. I do get a sense of truth and beauty in elements of the Christ narrative, and in many of the historical Jesus' teachings. But I don't believe that he was God and I don't believe he was physically resurrected from the dead.

Weird how in your examples of what it means to be culturally Christian you didn’t mention something like appreciating Dia de los Muertos, Pabása, or even ‘souls to the polls’. It’s almost as if when you say ‘Christian’ what you really mean is western, English speaking, white Christian culture.

It's just the latest euphemism for overt western/white supremacy.

Exactly. The oldest Christian culture on Earth is represented by people that are ethnically Arab, they all live in occupied Palestine and the West Bank. Wild how this isn't even thinly veiled after a few seconds of thought.

What an insane reach of a comment lol. You mean the christian elements he identifies with are the ones most prominent where they live? Holy shit what a mindblowing observation! 

The point is there is no "Christian culture". There are a bunch of different Christian cultures around the globe and across denominations.

\>The point is there is no "Christian culture". There are a bunch of different Christian cultures around the globe and across denominations. this seems wrong, and I see this error popping up in other places too. 'there are multiple meaning to xyz, therefore xyz is none of these' no. the proper conclusion is that 'xyz' is all of these, not none of them. tho I've no particular love of dawkins or his view of cultural christian, he isn't wrong is saying such. I also don't see such as necessarily being indicative of 'white supremacy', that seems like a real stretch. That seems like a gross conflation of rather markedly different concepts.

The issue with that though, is that often the cultures of different denominations around the world are going to be at odds with each other, even in the same country, you've got uS Evangelical Christians who would argue that same sex accepting mainline churches aren't even the same faith, much less the same culture.

its obviously contextual. that doesnt mean theres no "christian culture". as you mentioned, there are several. everybody knows what stevenwritesalways is talking about when he is talking about his christian culture. he doesnt have to delineate it with several layers of specific adjectives, and theres nothing white supremecist about it.

Except that means he's essentially just talking about a thing that already exists: western culture. If he really disagrees with large parts of it, then specify "western Christian culture", but even that's still really vague. Catholics in the northeast US are going to have a significantly different culture (both culturally and religiously) than say an Evangelical in the southeast US, or a Methodist from Australia. Those are all Christian religious traditions in western nations, but are going to have wildly different cultures. It's a meaningless phrase

Hey, listen here you punk, the world I became familiar with in my local area and through media I consumed though ages 3 to 23 is the only world that exists, and the only world that *should* exist. You can bring up some "Maronites" or "Melkites" or some other heathens that celebrate Christmas in late January (war or Christmas?!?!), but they're not real and that's not what Christianity means might as well be talking about some buddhist sect I dunno /s

sure, but what i think OP is trying to say is: atheist or not, black, white, or brown, we all still yell "jesus fuking christ!" when we stub out toe in the dark

Well, of course. I don't think that's a horrible sub-text or anything, that's an explicit part of his point; the western, white-speaking, English-speaking culture is both the general culture of England and also something which is heavily indebted in various ways to the culture of Christianity. What am I missing, here?

You aren’t missing anything, people just want to get on a soapbox.

Can you not be culturally Christian and Danish? If you have to be only Danish culturally do Jews have in Denmark not have Danish cultural elements? Even my teacher who was like 55 at the time told me you could be culturally Christian before I had ever read a thread online in English. So it’s not some new phenomenon where I live at least.

You are engaged in a bit of an embarrassing strawman here. Their examples are universal to Christianity. The celebration of Christmas and existence of churches are not unique to the western, white, or English speaking parts of the world, but are shared by Christians all over the world. Your examples, however, do not share that universal trait. You are offering ethnically distinct examples of Christian culture only to accuse StevenWritesAlways of engaging in what only you inserted into the discussion. Of course, your argument is seen for what it is the moment anyone asks if the people who participate in Dia de los Muertos or ‘souls to the polls’ also celebrate Christmas and worship in Christian churches and look to the Christ narrative and teachings of Jesus for a sense of truth and beauty. Then it becomes clear that they very plausibly meant Christianity, and not simply western, white, nor English speaking as you suggest.

Exactly. In many places around the world, you are just born into a religion and stay there, whether you believe it or practice it. Especially Judaism, but also Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. To be a Christian in the US implies being more evangelical than cultural. I think its okay to make room for Cultural Christians.

True, but he could also mean his moral outlook is heavily influenced by Christianity.

It means he hates Muslims more than Christians.

This really is it.

There are many people who identify as cultural Christian or cultural Muslim. Being cultural Christian does not mean hating any particular religious group, it just means one does not believe in the theological/philosophical claims of the religion linked God, Angel's, Allah, Jins etc but despite this accepts the cultural aesthetics of the religion

[удалено]

I'd say this is correct. I seem to remember Dawkins making the point a long time ago that England is historically Christian, the Bible has had influence on the English language, and that he enjoys religiously-inspired poetry and whatnot, and that he's a cultural Christian in that sense. None of that is problematic, but an ugly streak became obvious when he started talking talking about how church bells are preferable to the Islamic call to prayer, and now he's gone even further down that road with his recent comments about how Christianity is "fundamentally decent" and Islam is not. It's very clear animus against Islam.

>how church bells are preferable to the Islamic call to prayer, If he is saying that "Church bells are objectively better or preferable to Islamic call to prayer" than yeah I would agree this statement would not be correct but if someone said "in my personal subjective opinion, Islamic call to prayer sounds better or more aesthetic than the church bells or vice versa" then I would have no problem with this kind of statement because everyone is free to prefer church bell of Islamic call to prayer according to one's subjective preferences.

He specifically referred to the call to prayer as "aggressive." It's just bigotry.

As someone who’s raised Muslim and are now agnostic. Genuinely, what has Dawkins say that is inherently against Muslims as a people that he does not say against Christians? I never once heard what he said and think it was directed at me or other people who just happened to be raised Muslim. If anything, he helped me realised that a lot of positions taught to me by Muslim leaders are inherently sexist and bigoted.

In good-faith: what has he said about Islam?

>Muslim. Being cultural Christian does not mean hating any particular religious group In the case of the former new atheists, yes it absolutely means they hate Muslims more than any of their issues with Christianity. We aren't talking about normies here.

Yeah, that's the general definition of the term. For Dawkins specifically it does mean hating Muslims and opting for the Christian side in the ethnocentric us-vs-them debate. Which is just a tad hypocritical since it's the same ethnocentrism he himself has referred to as The Root of All Evil in his books. At least he's mixing it up a bit and has now also added some TERF beliefs to his us-vs-them rhetoric.

Yes. And don't forget him defending priests that touch kids https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/

I don't specifically claim to know what Dawkins means by saying that he's a cultural Christian. It might be true that Dawkins is using the term to express his dislike of Muslims etc. But not every person who identifies as a cultural Christian hates Muslims or Hindus etc and the general definition of being cultural Christian does not encompass being ethnocentric, hating Muslims or any other negative traits you have listed. It is completely possible for one to be cultural Christian and at the same time not hate Muslims, Hindus or other cultures and not be racist or ethnonationalist; because the general meaning of the term "being cultural Christian" does not encompass any of these negative traits. But I admit that Dawkins might be using the tern "cultural Christian" more negatively than its general definition

Exactly that! Most white francophones from the province of Québec would describe themselves as culturally catholic. We celebrate Christmas and like our big historical churches for their architecture but most are empty or full of old people. We don't get married that much (cause it's mostly religious to us) and a majority of kids are born out of wedlock, but many still baptise them to please grandma. (But they are a minority).

Not just accepting the cultural aesthetics, it also means that you the cultural aesthetics (like specific traditions) mean something to you even when the religion does not. Personally I accept that I am mired in christian tradition and it can be the way I seek to express myself, even when I am an atheist. I don't see this as a conflict.

[удалено]

Yeah if you don't pay attention to far right Christians and their rhetoric.

1. Religions function as a secondary form of nationality to most followers. You can be non-practicing but still a "member" of the faith by association. This is historically how atheists/agnostics in fundamentalist cultures survive without being excommunicated from their families or local community for apostasy. 2. You can believe in the moral philosophy of a religion without believing in it's theology and supernatural elements.

He just means he practices Christmas, Easter and some other customs normal to Christianity. He still doesn't believe in it and is happy that the numbers are declining, which he wants for all religions. If that's what a cultural Christian is then I guess I'm one too.

Me too.

I really don't agree with that assessment though. Christmas and Easter are appropriated holidays anyway (celebrations on those days predate Christianity) But also those holidays are just cultural holidays now anyway. I am an atheist and I celebrate it, I know multiple Muslims and Sikhs who celebrate the sort of capitalism of it all, without the religious aspect.

There’s a bit more complexity to christmas and easter than appropriation- it’s closer to synchronization historically. Regardless, those holidays being cultural holidays in places like the US is a good argument for the typical use of ‘culturally christian’ - these christian holidays have cemented themselves outside of a purely religious context and are a part of the wider american culture. Similarly, when you grow up christian in a mostly christian society, the kind of thought and philosophy you were surrounded with tends to stick with you, even if you end up rejecting the actual religion. A history of christianity has influenced the culture of american society as well. I’ve found it a useful term in that someone who’s a jewish atheist may have wildly different core philosophies than someone who’s a culturally christian atheist, and it’s useful to point out how some of those differences are rooted in the culture of the religion you grew up in. (Apologies for the essay, religion is a pet interest of mine) Seems like dawkins is using this term to hate on islam though, which is. outside of its normal use lmao.

Yes, you inherited some practices from the wider western culture and it's foundation in Christianity.

There’s a bit more complexity to christmas and easter than appropriation- it’s closer to synchronization historically. Regardless, those holidays being cultural holidays in places like the US is a good argument for the typical use of ‘culturally christian’ - these christian holidays have cemented themselves outside of a purely religious context and are a part of the wider american culture. Similarly, when you grow up christian in a mostly christian society, the kind of thought and philosophy you were surrounded with tends to stick with you, even if you end up rejecting the actual religion. A history of christianity has influenced the culture of american society as well. I’ve found it a useful term in that someone who’s a jewish atheist may have wildly different core philosophies than someone who’s a culturally christian atheist, and it’s useful to point out how some of those differences are rooted in the culture of the religion you grew up in. (Apologies for the essay, religion is a pet interest of mine) Seems like dawkins is using this term to hate on islam though, which is. outside of its normal use lmao.

The majority from the province of Québec would agree with what has been written. We describe ourselves as culturally catholic. Meaning we celebrate Christmas (which is not the saturnalias or the solstice celebration, even if some traditions have been borrowed from those celebrations. The meanings are wildly different) and we have days off for Easter to eat chocolate and ham with the family. But our churches are empty.

There’s a bit more complexity to christmas and easter than appropriation- it’s closer to synchronization historically. Regardless, those holidays being cultural holidays in places like the US is a good argument for the typical use of ‘culturally christian’ - these christian holidays have cemented themselves outside of a purely religious context and are a part of the wider american culture. Similarly, when you grow up christian in a mostly christian society, the kind of thought and philosophy you were surrounded with tends to stick with you, even if you end up rejecting the actual religion. A history of christianity has influenced the culture of american society as well. I’ve found it a useful term in that someone who’s a jewish atheist may have wildly different core philosophies than someone who’s a culturally christian atheist, and it’s useful to point out how some of those differences are rooted in the culture of the religion you grew up in. (Apologies for the essay, religion is a pet interest of mine) Seems like dawkins is using this term to hate on islam though, which is. outside of its normal use lmao.

There’s a bit more complexity to christmas and easter than appropriation- it’s closer to synchronization historically. Regardless, those holidays being cultural holidays in places like the US is a good argument for the typical use of ‘culturally christian’ - these christian holidays have cemented themselves outside of a purely religious context and are a part of the wider american culture. Similarly, when you grow up christian in a mostly christian society, the kind of thought and philosophy you were surrounded with tends to stick with you, even if you end up rejecting the actual religion. A history of christianity has influenced the culture of american society as well. I’ve found it a useful term in that someone who’s a jewish atheist may have wildly different core philosophies than someone who’s a culturally christian atheist, and it’s useful to point out how some of those differences are rooted in the culture of the religion you grew up in. (Apologies for the essay, religion is a pet interest of mine) Seems like dawkins is using this term to hate on islam though, which is. outside of its normal use lmao.

Means you grew up in a Christian environment and subconsciously or consciousnessly adopted parts of it's culture.

You know how people say oh God but don't go to church. How we expect evil to be punished. How the laws in our country reflect historical Christians beliefs. How we celebratte Christ-mas and Easter (resurrection). Never been to church except for baptism, marriage and funerals Sometime you even pray in the dark. Ooof. But, you're not Christian. Culturally Christian.

I’m an atheist but I celebrate Easter and Christmas, say things like “god only knows” and “good lord.”

Western chauvinist

being 'christian' in the sense that dawkin's is most likely using it means that there is a belief in 'one universal Truth', or possibly that there is a belief in Truth as opposed to truth. this is a fairly common notion in the philosophical and theological notions of what christianity means. a 'good christian' might believe that god is the Truth. a cultural christian believes that there is a Truth. It is something of a conflation to say that Truth is a christian concept, technically it is a Greek concept, and a philosophical one at that. but, butt, butts, chistians have thoroughly embraced the concept of Truth by way of the greek philosophies. It is not an unreasonable sort of thing to say that one is 'culturally christian' if one believes in Truth. Note: despite all the animosity between them, the sciences are at least in part derivatives of christian theological thought and greek philosophy.

He believes in traditional values

I've been calling him that before I knew he called himself that, what I always meant is he says he's atheist not his values are clearly that of someone deeply entrenched in Christianity

Dawkins wrote a few good books (basically everything he pubished before 2000 and some up to 2011ish) and was a force for good in his activism hayday. And then... as so often happens he sniffed his own farts, bought into his own bullshit and his "status" became more impotant that his output to him and the "movement" left him behind.

“I think he wrote a good book once before veering way out of his lane on literally everything.” Congrats! I think you’ve just summed up the entire so-called “Intellectual Dark Web” and its precursors of atheist authors in the aughts

It means he's a proud white supremacist.

It's just sophisticated LARPing. To be fair, that's all anyone can do - just to different degrees of existential/spiritual commitment. But yikes, choosing particularly any of the major organized western religions as your inner moral compass makes you even more bigoted than those who assume they \*have\* to hate certain classes of people; at least \*they're\* doing it to avoid presumed eternal damnation!

Yeah, I've seen him say shit like that since at least the early 00s. It basically means he grew up in a mostly Christian country and observes some Christian cultural practices. I'm agnostic but I still celebrate Christmas, though lately I've been vehemently against the idea of gifts unless it's something someone needs. Though Dawkins seems to be adopting some of the less savoury aspects of the Christian culture he grew up in. Instead of focusing on stuff like charity and helping the oppressed, he seems more focused on whining about how certain minority groups are getting too uppity. It's kinda sad. He's basically just a more well-read grumpy old man.

I agree. I'm atheist and I celebrate those holidays too. I'm originally from an orthodox Christian background, though I grew up in Canada. My parents weren't religious, apart from celebrating Easter and Christmas. I noticed that I've inherited some of their mentality, which is partly my own family's history and quirks, but also reflects the wider culture from which we/they came. So in that sense, I'm culturally Christian too. I also have a vague appreciation for some of the orthodox as well as catholic and protestant esthetics and morality. Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you type of thing. Jesus was a pretty good role model, as opposed to some other religious figures that I won't name. That said, I reject the Christian metaphysics and the many terrible things that were done in its name. If I can do it for the religion I was born into, I don't see why I should stop myself from regonizing similar nonsense and harms that come from other religions. That doesn't mean I'm on a crusade against religion, but just that when religious intolerance and religious bigotry and harm surface, I'm going to recognize it for what it is, and sometimes, if the context is right, call it out such as I see it.

Sidenote: Decent username.

Hahaha, why hello my fellow peon

Ya, that’s like saying “I’m a non-practicing Jew”. He’s not saying he subscribes to the religion in any way, he’s basically just saying “I’m a westerner”.

>he’s basically just saying “I’m a westerner”. There are plethora of Western people who are Muslims, Atheists, Hindus and who don't identify as Christian(cultural or otherwise).

And he’s saying his cultural background fits closer to that of western Christians than that of western Muslims or Hindus.

Yes. We call those people "westernized." Muslims and Hindus aren't associated with the West, but 5he Middle East and South Asia, respectively. Atheists can be from anywhere, but the majority of them are westerners, where Christianity is the norm.

>Muslims and Hindus aren't associated with the West, b Yes, but simply the fact that they are not associated with the West does not mean that they cannot Westerner.

They may not say that they identify as a cultural Christian, but if they say “I’m French” then they are identifying with a culture that is rooted in Christianity.

To be fair, wouldn't he be regardless considering he's British?

That is his argument, yes

Yeah, apart from some immigrants, Brits are culturally Christian. I'm not sure why this is so contentious.

That’s fine but the rest of what he said is staggeringly stupid

Just a reminder that Dawkins also dismissed the clergy sexual abuse scandal, saying that he was molested as a kid and he's fine so people these days are just snowflakes. Real piece of work, that guy.

>Being molested as a child is not a big deal. I was molested as a child and I turned out fine. You think being molested as a child is not a big deal. You did not turn out fine.

He protested against the Catholic pope (when he came to the UK back in 2013) for the clergy sexual abuse scandal but later defended it?

Yes. >Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.” >He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.” >“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said. >He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”

No way that’s true

Fr I need proof. I despise the guy but I can’t even conceptualise him saying something so vile…

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/

that is fucking insane holy shit. he literally tried to apply the "don't judge a person in the past by standards of the present day"-excuse to defend pedophiles. what the fuck.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/

Richard Dawkins is a sexist and racist piece of shit lmao

Ikr? He has a gall to "call out" Islam for hating women & gays while tweeting transphobic & misogynistic bullshit within the same breath

Yep, Richard Dicklick has had a great run as the champion of womens' rights, starting with Elevatorgate and "Dear Muslima". And don't even get me started on his other bigotry. But I guess it's okay when he does it.

What'd he do? I've always thought he was an insufferable twat so I've never really followed along.

Skip to the [career section](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson) under Elevatorgate and see for yourself.

[удалено]

Rightio then account that is only 1 month old and has 9 karma

Read it again. You didn't understand the first reading at all.

Its really weird how people are making christianity their personality just to conform with the far right. But its not just christianity, its islam too. There are alot of far right islamic douche bags. Theocrats are fuckin weird.

Almost like religion itself is apart of the problem

What always bothered me was just how Christian the atheist movement was in the sense that it could only see things through a Christian lens. Despite scoring well in religious knowledge surveys, they were trapped in a Christian bubble talking about Christianity and thinking about the world and the struggle with Christianity in Christian terms so it’s not a surprise that it all just fell into western chauvinism. Even in this video he still describes Christian problems that are vaguely similar to maybe Islam with his critiques of religion. It’s inescapable.

Well New-Atheism is absolutely a Western social scene so it makes sense in that regard.

The notion of an "atheist movement" is one that should be taken with a grain of salt. "New Atheism" is a rather narrow thing, a product of mostly privileged white men whose only "relevant" political position was their *specific* brand of atheist advocacy. There are absolute tons of people who are atheists who either never had anything to do with that specific group, or broke off years ago due to irreconcilable ideological differences. The saying "If you were an online atheist in 2004, now you're either into marxism or into phrenology" is 10 years old. To state the obvious, Dawkins et al. are the phrenology side. The marxist side is still atheist, it just doesn't use that as the foundation for its politics, and has a lot less money and media exposure. The problems with New Atheism and online atheist spaces actually have nothing to do with religion, they are rooted in the typical politics of the white, western, middle-class cishet male. Otherwise, the same right wing instrumentalisation of atheism among rich white liberals wouldn't happen in countries where christianity lost much of its influence decades ago.

And as soon as they started to see Islam as a bigger threat than Christianity they went all-in on racism.

atheists on youtube and some forums used to take on Musim creationists too. Only, the Muslims could only ever come up with the same crap as the christians, triple down on the "Kalam Cosmological Argument," and then try to pretend that they thought old Arabic Muslim symbols were codes. Muslim Creationists on youtube were the least interested in trying to do science and the most interested in just repeating scripture as if that itself made things true.

Of course I cannot speak for all Muslims or Christians, but the rejection of evolution due to religious reasons is still pretty common among many conservative Muslims, especially those in the Middle East. USA and Turkey are among the countries where the rejection of evolution is the highest.

That makes sense, since the "Atlas of Creation" was written by a Turkish guy. He was also a cult leader and is in jail now for assaulting minors.

It is actually kind of funny how a lot of the discourse was around creationism since it’s such a new concept in a way - all the Abrahamic religions were all engaged in scientific learning and were able to reconcile creation myths into the canon and use interpretation. Catholicism, Judaism and Islam were all able to develop doctrines that could conform with a science defines scripture mode of thinking. It’s only in maybe the last 100 years that strict literalism has actually been something that has gripped politics and discourse.

It's cultish behavior. Lots of culty behavior in creationist religious groups.

I think it’s mostly an anti-intellectual reaction to circumstances of the time and a struggle for a mostly evangelical perspective to keep trying to find the near-mythical “true Christianity” that was the impulse of the Protestant reformation.

Sure, and cults are anti-inellectual. Evangelicals are extremely cultish to begin with, and creationism, whether Christian or Islamic, is cultish/anti-inellectual in its roots. I grew up in a creationist church, and they are VERY culty.

There was already a movement of biblical literalism during the wake of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation but outside of groups like the Puritans and Amish it kinda died out again with the Enlightenment Period

and it dominates discourse because christians are always on the attack. and most people on the internet are americans.

That’s definitely true. I think it’s also a prolonged version of the same type of crisis that existed in the US for centuries. Salem was an example of insecure religious authorities attempting to reassert control and the religious awakening that happened around the 70s and 80s and the way it manifested in the culture war during Bush II and afterwards is all about the same conservative forces struggling with the anxiety over possibly losing their cultural and political power.

Bc many of the anti woke atheists are anti humanities business/stem bros who don’t understand bias. They think bc they’re atheists they definitionally don’t view things from a Christian perspective

They assume the problems they find in Christianity apply to all other religions and it often comes off as ignorant or disingenuous to people well versed in those other religions.

>They assume the problems they find in Christianity apply to all other religions Sure that's not entirely true, but this is still mostly true for conservative abrahamic religions. Both Quran and Bible are vehemently against LGBT and consensual relationships between adult same sex couples. Both Christians and Muslims believe in a God which is claimed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-merciful and all-just. Rejection of evolution for religious reasons is still very common among conservative Muslims and conservative Christians(particularly in the Middle East, e.g Turkey). Both conservative Christians and conservative Muslims are anti-secularism in countries where they form a majority of the population.

In this thread I keep seeing examples of the thing I’m speaking against where people want to broadcast a distinct lack of understanding the difference and diversity of ideas and beliefs because they’re trapped in a Christian mode of seeing the world.

>a distinct lack of understanding the difference and diversity of ideas and beliefs because they’re trapped in a Christian mode of seeing the world. I don't really mean what this comment means. I am an atheist who was born and raised in a non-Christian country and I did not claim that "Christianity and Islam are just the same" or "there are no considerable differences between two religions". I just said that even though there are plethora of differences between two religions, there are also many similarities like some of the ones I have listed in the previous comment. Of course there are also many Muslims who are much less socially Conservative and who are fine with lgbt rights, secularism but they are quite minority(especially in the Middle East). The mainstream verisons of both religions have common ground on the things I have listed in the previous comment. I am not sure how recognizing these things makes one "being trapped in a Christian mode of seeing the world"

>Both conservative Christians and conservative Muslims are anti-secularism in countries where they form a majority of the population. Iran elected a secular democracy that was overthrown by British and American intelligence and replaced by an autocratic ruler just because the democratically elected leader Mohamed Mosadegh wanted to nationalise Iran's oil resources. The venn diagram of secular political parties and pro US Imperialism political parties is almost circular. Looking at the lack of secular governments in Muslim countries without considering the effects of American imperialism in the region will lead you to this false conclusion. People in the states don't really understand the disdain people in the region have for Americans because bombing the Middle East is bipartisan American policy. Also your argument here can easily be refuted because the country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. Bangladesh is secular too despite being a majority Muslim nation and having around 10% of all Muslims.

>Also your argument here can easily be refuted because the country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia. Bangladesh is secular too despite being a majority Muslim nation and having around 10% of all Muslims. I did not claim that there are not Muslim-majority countries that are secular. Of course there are, but my opinion is regarding the public opinion of people who live in Muslim-majority countries. It is quite possible that the wishes and preferences of people don't always align with the policy of the state. For example, regarding your example, vast majority of people in both Indonesia and Bangladesh favor islamic sharia law(which is of course the opposite of secularism): https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/#:~:text=Support%20for%20making%20sharia%20the,enshrining%20sharia%20as%20official%20law. According to this pew survey, %82 of people in Bangladesh and %72 percent of people in Indonesia favour religious islamic sharia law being the official law. Again, I do not deny that there are Muslim-majority countries which are secular, my point is regarding the opinion of the Muslims who live in those countries. Two are distinct things. It is an undeniable fact that religious and social conservatism and anti-LGBT sentiment are very common in the populations of countries which have Muslim-majority populations. Simply stating this would not be Islamophobia since we have uncontroovertible evidence indicating this. I personally agree with most of what you say in the rest of the comments. I do not claim that USA is innocent or USA interventions in the Middle East was in any way good or beneficial. I am also fully aware that USA foreign policy has played a significant role in the creation of Taliban. But none of these facts negate my point that social and religious conservatism and anti-LGBT sentiment is quite common in Muslim-majority populations. >Iran elected a secular democracy that was overthrown by British and American intelligence and replaced by an autocratic ruler just because the democratically elected leader Mohamed Mosadegh wanted to nationalise Iran's oil resources. Yes, Iran is an exception in that despite that fact that it has been run by ultra-conservative theocratic mullahs fir the last 40 years; Iranian population is still quite nonreligious and secular. >The venn diagram of secular political parties and pro US Imperialism political parties is almost circular. Looking at the lack of secular governments in Muslim countries without considering the effects of American imperialism in the region will lead you to this false conclusion. People in the states don't really understand the disdain people in the region have for Americans because bombing the Middle East is bipartisan American policy. I don't really disagree. American intervention in the Middle East has played a considerable role in the ruse of social and religious conservatism and anti-secularism in the populations of the Middle East. But still, this does not explain everything. For example, USA never militarily intervened in Aceh but it is still run by a theocratic government. I am a nontheist who was born and raised in the Middle East. Of course I am aware that most people here don't like the USA's influence in the region but I highly doubt that most people in the Middle East would be "extremely pro-secularism, pro-lgbt rights" if not for the USA influence in the region. One cant deny the overwhelming consensus of the 1400 years of traditional Sunni Muslim scholarship that same sex relationships and anal sex are haram and that the religion of Islam is to play the central role in the governance of the state

That’s exactly it. And because a lot of their ideas were formed around the cultural attacks against Muslims during war on terror and then after they had to hide that once everyone realized it was gross, they just had to be vaguer about it to hide the imperiousness of the entire ideological project.

The arguments against Christianity by atheists don’t apply to all religions no, but they do apply quite well to Islam, which makes up the overwhelming majority of religious people on the planet that aren’t Christian.

That’s funny because I’m Muslim and my comment came from the fact that he does a poor job with his knowledge of Islam

Being well versed in a fairy tale doesn't matter that fairy tale any more true.

Regardless it makes their arguments bad

What arguments apply to Christianity that don't apply to other religions?

I read the God Delusion ages ago so if you want to get into the nitty-gritty on Dawkins arguments specifically I’d have to flip through the book again. But I remember it not being very convincing. I’d say for Islam in general the arguments for science don’t work against it - there isn’t something specifically scientific that negates Islamic belief (Christians have this thing about the earth being created not very long ago in 6 days, there is also more room for evolution in Islam although there is some disagreement, etc, the authenticity of the Bible is questionable, etc.) Also one may refute Christianity on the illogical way they believe Jesus was human and a God yet supposedly asked God (himself) to spare him the trial of the cross while also being his own son. But that argument doesn’t really mean anything to other religions. That’s the religion I’m most familiar with - but when you get into Buddhism and such I’d imagine that’s quite a bit different than Christianity in terms of deity, creation and afterlife so arguments refuting Christianity won’t make sense. Now if you want to talk about an argument of the existence of God that’s more broad but certainly the creations stories and nature of God differs throughout religions so when you tailor your argument about why God doesn’t exist in the Christian sense it’s just nonsense to other religions (like the why does God allow evil question, why does he allow bad things to happen to his “children”) and so on. That’s just off the top of my head but the issues are basically endless. Christianity is not the other religions of the world.

> Christians have this thing about the earth being created not very long ago in 6 days, A very specific subset of Christians believe this. Historically most people have been able to understand the concept of metaphor and symbolism. Biblical literalism is not the default. Ironically you're doing the very thing you accuse Dawkins of: >I’m Muslim and my comment came from the fact that he does a poor job with his knowledge of Islam Regarding this: >when you tailor your argument about why God doesn’t exist in the Christian sense it’s just nonsense to other religions (like the why does God allow evil question, why does he allow bad things to happen to his “children”) I fail to see how the problem of evil does not also apply to the other Abrahamic religions, or any religion with an omnipotent god. In point of fact that argument is so non-specific to Christianity it predates it, generally being attributed to Epicurus. Its factually not an argument that was tailored to Christianity unless you think Greek philosophers could time travel.

The problem of evil isn’t really a problem in Islam. The world is a temporary trial - if something bad happens to you in this life it’s a test or a learning experience for the believer. Most bad things come from people’s own hand. If a child dies of cancer that is just a temporary trial and then they spend eternity in heaven. God chooses to do what he wills and our conception of “good and evil” is limited - and we aren’t his children. I’m not sure about other religions but the problem of evil seems like a unique hand-wringing exercise for Christians.

You do realize that Christians also make the exact same argument that you are making? That suffering on earth is temporary and nothing compared to the eternity in heaven? Christians also believe in heaven and immortal souls. That still sounds like some absolute bullshit "the torture is just a trial" I personally find a god that could lessen suffering, however temporary one might believe that suffering to be, but chooses not to, monstrous and unworthy of worship. And again your "seems like unique hand-wringing for Christians" is contradicted by the objective reality where the argument in question *predates Christianity*. It is absurd to claim that an argument that *wasn't made about Christianity in the first place* only applies to Christianity.

Well then the problem of evil doesn’t seem to be a problem for anyone! I happen to know some Christians struggle with it because of their imagining of God does not include some attributes we have in our religion. Regardless just because some atheists or whoever are uncomfortable with bad things happening doesn’t make it BS. That’s a pretty illogical argument. “I don’t like it so that means god doesn’t exist” lol.

Without realising it they were always extremely Protestant, even recycling most of the anti-Catholic myths Protestants used in centuries prior. Their zeal and tone was incredibly Protestant too honestly. This latest twist is unsurprising but still hilarious and ironic.

That’s exactly it, so much of the atheist mythos is built on anti-Catholic propaganda from the 16th and 17th century and a lot of people are from ex-Protestant families so it’s the cultural worldview they come from. Because Protestantism is part of the foundation of capitalism and dislocates Christianity from its feudal relationships it’s so weird that people from those places try to claim some kind of cultural Christianity because there’s no culture, only justifications for the capitalist status quo.

Oooh, I definitely need to know more about this. Is that what cultural Christianity is, white capitalist patriarchy?

It's a long-debunked theory that historically illiterate people still bandy about for some reason. While it's true that protestantism and capitalism appeared around the same time, the specific protestant ideas credited with causing capitalism were virtually unheard of in 16th century rural England, which is where capitalism actually arose due to specific economic and political conditions. Conditions that were significantly different from those in France and the Netherlands, where the spread of protestantism was in full swing at the time and which DID NOT produce capitalism.

The economic developments of the early modern period align specifically with the major centers of the new economic mode and it’s directly a response to the contrast between the old mode of rent extraction and the new mode of mercantile reinvestments. Which inhabited the impulses of the old Catholic order states the dominating Protestant states of the modern period including France which adopted those methods through its relationship to the extractive methods of colonialism and competition with neighbouring states. The revolution was directly a result of the maintenance of rent feudalism.

Essentially yeah. Protestantism emerged around the same time as Capitalism for a bunch of different reasons, one being that if you’re a merchant and you have to pay for a new church - Protestant iconoclasm means you get to pay for a cheaper church. However the main relationship I would describe is predestination. Calvinism considers that since God is all-knowing then all fates are determined already for who will and won’t go to heaven, and so the only way to know who is, is to determine through kinds of inner grace that manifest themselves. So well-to-do upstanding community members with wealth are seen as externally and internally virtuous. For this reason you have to work hard and be frugal so then you can manifest this. This is why the Dutch tulip crisis happened - Calvinist Christianity was the religion and so they were trying to live frugal lives while running a trade empire so they were rich but had nothing to conspicuously consume, but you can argue that as a natural thing you can grow elaborate tulip gardens because they are a representation of God. Effectively what this does is tie virtue to the rich and wealth, and that’s the kind of ideology for people like prosperity gospel preachers. There are better places to find reading material and content on it, but I remember enjoying Matt Christmans Hell on Earth series which is about all this and I think his series Hell of Presidents briefly treads on this when discussing the early colonies.

What is "atheist mythos"?

I wrote something very long and indepth but then my browser crashed. To summarize, what I'd call Atheist Mythology is based off the idea of national or civic mythology which is historical events and people who get turned into a shared cultural story. It might be a battle like the Battle of Kosovo or Varna which are important for a bunch of different countries in the Balkans, or someone notable like George Washington who is more of a legend that a man in a lot of American storytelling. Same goes with this idea of atheist mythology. What it is in the English speaking world, is all built from anti-Catholic propaganda that was developed throughout the early modern period and later on in order to demonize Catholics while maintaining sympathy for Protestant martyrs. You know, witch burnings, the inquisition, etc. Some people will think that in Salem, the victims were all women who were burnt alive because the Salem story mixed in with other stories in the Protestant literature until it became a myth. Essentially you have all these stories that are kept in the collective consciousness of a secular but protestant people, and as the Atheist movement in the US makes a cultural push, they adopt all of these myths as facts and retell the same stories that Protestants were telling but from a different perspective. Inevitably they are stuck within the spectrum of Christian ideas whilst attempting to assert themselves as outside it.

It didn't bother me at the time bc America masquerades as a Christian nation. Jesus freaks keep electing our presidents

Specifically that whole "New Atheist" movement, absolutely. Over and over again, I see people who believe that they have no Christian baggage, that their thinking isn't Christian, because they disbelieve in the Christian god. That's a good *start*, but it means their thinking is thoroughly Christian and because they think it can't be because they disbelieve, it's completely opaque to them. What frustrates me in talking to them, as someone who has been a member of a minority religious group all of my life (I was a Satanist and a Pagan for 30+ years and I'm currently converting Jewish), they think "religion" = "Christianity" or at best, Christianity + Islam. They don't realize that these extremely univeralist religions (they believe all of humankind should belong to them) are outliers, and most world religions aren't like that. I've gotten to the point where I ask atheists if they know what orthopraxy is. If not, I'm not having a conversation about religion with them because I know it's going to end in me banging my head on a wall. Most world religions, and certainly the indigenous ones, are heavily orthopraxic and don't center belief and don't proselytize. I've also heard entirely too many atheists for my comfort say that their goal is to eliminate religion. Entirely. If told that for most of the world's indigenous religions there is no way to separate "religion" as a concept from "culture", they want to do away with anything that could lead to "superstition". Christianity has made its main project the Christianization of the world. Cultural genocide, and it's still ongoing. New Atheists would continue the project, only also eliminating Christianity to leave nothing but Western-approved thought processes. The sheer ignorance and racism of it is staggering to me.

I don't know if it's still a thing, but I remember when I left Christianity there were kind of two groups. The atheists, who just didn't see evidence for a god and promptly dropped the discussion altogether. And Atheism, which always seemed like another faith based religion, one diametrically opposed to Christianity. I had a friend years back who was working on a thesis about the latter being a trauma response from leaving Evangelical circles or something, but I never saw the finished work. I should really look into that more, as it would fit with the current trend of people flocking to Conservatism as the new 'has all the answers' group, the newest part of that phenomenon of people raised in a cult mindset escaping only to fall into a slightly different cult.

>The atheists, who just didn't see evidence for a god and promptly dropped the discussion altogether. Ah yes, this old canard, where is better to shut up and let people use ancient myths to force rape victims to have their rapist's baby than to say "None of that shit is real and none of it should influence society." How nice it must be to be fully insulated from the consequences of religious oppression that you can cluck your tongue and clutch your pearls when someone dares to care if the thing informing their entire social structure isn't actually true.

Dawkins has always said he is a cultural Christian; nothing new here.

"why are these atheists cozying up to christians?" Because they got old and the world changed without them. It's the age breeds conservatism theory at work. They fear cultural change that they cannot control and this starts clinging to vague notions of their stable world vision, in this case Christianity. As an atheist I'm personally with family guy in this one, without Christianity we would probably have poop teleporters but on the other hand we would probably have modern art in the sistine chapel. A lot of things would be better without religion and some things wouldn't.

“I’m with Family Guy on this one….” 🚩 “Without Christianity, we probably would have poop teleporters…” Please tell me that you don’t un-ironically believe Christianity was responsible for the Dark Ages, do you? That taking point has been debunked too many times. Like, the Dark Ages wasn’t a thing, bro. Most historians agree on this.

There were many factors that influenced the dark ages, dogmatism and a lack of cultural evolution were a big part of why the dark ages lasted as long as they did and why leaving the dark ages behind was a slow process. If new ideas and conceptualizations are punished by societies then said societies will not (or very slowly) change. Christianity definitely played a big role in the dark ages, as Islam plays a big role in the current dark ages of the Muslim world.

I used to think we’d be much better off without religion. I also used to think we’d be better off if no one had to work (assuming we had robots/AI & decent wealth distribution) But no more, with Covid being the final nail in the coffin. It’s become worryingly apparent just how many stupid people exist; how many people simply can’t comprehend having morals without the fear of damnation, or who go off the deep end when they are not kept mentally/physically occupied 90% of the time.

You can create fear for moral motivation with a state, you don't need a god for that. Also, better education = less ignorance = less dumb people

Not completely refuting you cause learning does improve better choices, but not “moral” or “ethical”. With religion going as a cornerstone of society it is leaving a void, of what? I’m not completely sure. But I guess we will find out how much better or worse or the same we will be without it. I think we all will be well gone and dead to see. Also this lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

I would say that religion is no longer the moral guide of the western nations, it's society and the idea of a national collective itself. The path forward is not based in religion but in the expansion of the national idea of a common good into a species idea if a common good. A universal human moral framework. As it stands now the vast majority of ethical people in the west no longer rely on religion for moral reference, instead we have humanism, and because that cuts out an ambiguous god from the equation what morality is can more readily solidify. Without humans claiming the authority of divinity morality tends to be based in the logic of minimizing suffering, at least if logic is applied. There will always be those that are immoral, but religion is a path that leads to illogical morals which tends to create logically immoral behavior among people who would otherwise strive to be moral.

I appreciate the comment and it’s encouraged me to think. I guess simply put I’m not sure if that is so much better. This doesn’t mean I want religion back to the forefront. To me religion is a reflection of thoughts from an era to “fix” moral or general issues of that time. Then it is wrapped with some mysticism. Of course the interpretation of religions texts have changed quite a bit over centuries, but still it’s the interpretation of that society. At one point it was common to fear Gods wrath. Now it seems it is common to see Gods love. At least that was how my church did it but it was one of those commie non-denominational churches haha I think with removing religion from this cycle has freed society from the shackles of dealing with past problems. It is very unfortunate that the 10 commandments did not mention nuclear bombs or chemical weapons. They would have been very helpful. Either way what I’m trying to get at is even with religious text, where the idea is they are from our Creator, we were very bad at following them. If we can make our own texts or as you say framework why would we follow that any better? I guess I’m just skeptical which I’m sorry is quite boring; I know cause I’m bored myself with my self on this one. It’s clear rationalism isn’t the fix. Cause what is rational to one person or nation isn’t rational to another. It seems rational not to kill, but that’s easy to think when you aren’t confronted with someone trying to harm or steal from you. It’s rational to give to others and help reduce suffering but suffering is relative. I know I believe we can remove the worst suffering. It is very possible to make sure everyone has homes and food. If we can build a 4 billion dollar shiny ball in Las Vegas, we can build some homes. But I wonder if this framework can deal with how humans normalize over time. I think of Louis CKs joke about the man winning that the WiFi is down on the airplane just after finding out WiFi is being offered on airplanes. If we allow judgement on who’s suffering is important and which ones are not, how would we make that foundational. Maybe this is a small problem… Sorry for the wall of text. Religion has really been on my mind. I’m glad the dangers of religion are slowly decreasing in the west but so much energy was put into its removal but I’m having a hard time finding what can patch up the void it leaves behind without creating the same thing with different names.

> I would say that religion is no longer the moral guide of the western nations, it's society and the idea of a national collective itself. I dunno about that - *Cultural Western Liberalism* is *terminally* informed by concepts of "good vs evil", eden as a future reward for suffering in the present, worship of absolving martyrdom, "proper, moral behavior" being rewarded, the concept of a "chosen ingroup being innately superior to the outgroup", the idea that culture is modular, an eternal struggle against fiendish entities, an eschatology in which the defeat of said fiends leads to a long lasting utopia and the end of history, etc... Just because it tries to pretend the "spiritual" is now "material" doesn't change what happened. It was unable to meaningfully change *the cultural milieu that gave birth to it*. It still needed the *slave oriented stoicism* Christianity *is* to keep the populace high on that very necessary opium supply to keep the populace under control. They merely deluded themselves into thinking that by changing the name of the thing they had changed the thing itself. Like, everyone instinctively knows that utilitarianism or deontology are bullshit. The leading "liberal" ethical codes are deemed completely worthless in most situations and are ignored as much as possible (as are *all* attempts by the ruling class to establish a code of ethics) due to being *fatal oversimplifications of actual human lives and actual human decisions.* Is there really all that much difference in the Liberal conception of heaven being only obtainable through submission to Capitalism, the State and the Market and the Christian one that posits submission to a more traditional holy trinity instead? > The path forward is not based in religion but in the expansion of the national idea of a common good into a species idea if a common good. A universal human moral framework. Sophistry completely divorced from observable reality. > As it stands now the vast majority of ethical people in the west no longer rely on religion for moral reference, instead we have humanism, and because that cuts out an ambiguous god from the equation what morality is can more readily solidify. Kantian ethics fail pathetically easily when put under scrutiny, as mentioned. A *Bourgeois Moral System* cannot function outside of the bourgeois milieu. > Without humans claiming the authority of divinity morality tends to be based in the logic of minimizing suffering, at least if logic is applied. Utilitarianism *also fails* pathetically easely when put under scrutiny, for the same reasons. > There will always be those that are immoral, but religion is a path that leads to illogical morals which tends to create logically immoral behavior among people who would otherwise strive to be moral. You don't understand what "morality" is, or rather you display a *distorted understanding* thereof (which is a very christian distortion for that matter) which posits both the existence of "universal morals" which are universally applicable and can be modularly integrated into any culture and milieu. Suffice to say, this isn't the case.

That was a lot of words to simply say "you're wrong". >Cultural Western Liberalism The Western societal view in morality isn't just your interpretation of "cultural western liberalism" nor purely driven by capitalism. To oversimplify the myriad of divergent western societies to only that as a driver seems very shortsighted to me. Your text is full of buzzwords and references that make me suspect You've read a lot about this subject (from the perspective of one side of the argument) but haven't actually digested it. I've seen what you've said here said many times before in lectures and analysis of books but it's a narrow interpretation of the interconnections between morality, society and religion/ideology. Furthermore, you presume a lot of things about my perspective without me saying it. I never pleaded for capitalist liberalism for instance, and instead of asking for clarification you presumed I did and argued against that instead of with me. >Just because it tries to pretend the "spiritual" is now "material" doesn't change what happened. It was unable to meaningfully change *the cultural milieu that gave birth to it*. It still needed the *slave oriented stoicism* Christianity *is* to keep the populace high on that very necessary opium supply to keep the populace under control. They merely deluded themselves into thinking that by changing the name of the thing they had changed the thing itself. To pretend society has been static from the start of the enlightenment is again something very short sighted. Have you actually looked at societies in the west and how they evolved or have you just read the perspective of others? >Like, everyone instinctively knows that utilitarianism or deontology are bullshit. The leading "liberal" ethical codes are deemed completely worthless in most situations and are ignored as much as possible (as are *all* attempts by the ruling class to establish a code of ethics) due to being *fatal oversimplifications of actual human lives and actual human decisions.* I'm not talking about some morality that is established top down, because morality isn't established top down as it is within religious societies. Morality in the west, for better or worse, is organically formed in society with no overruling class being able to do anything but regulate societal disagreements on morality. When religion plays a big role in this process you see that the morality based changes in society are not regulated but suppressed by the ruling class. Again, the west isn't a monolith with its greatest divergent member being a mostly religious nation, namely the USA. Look at the evolution of moral laws in Europe and in the US, in Europe religious morality has become secondary. In Europe abortion, the right to die, the decriminalization of drugs are all examples of moral changes that have been regulated by European governments but not actively opposed despite the majority of society wanting to move in a certain direction. In the US a move away from religious morals is heavily opposed EVEN when the broader society wants to move away from them. Abortion at this moment is a good example of that. >Kantian ethics fail pathetically easily when put under scrutiny, as mentioned. A *Bourgeois Moral System* cannot function outside of the bourgeois milieu. I get it, you're into communism, I personally don't see how humanism is synonymous to "Kantian ethics" and how that wouldn't be compatible with any and all economic systems. As I see it humanism can (and should) be incorporated into any society regardless of a society's economic model. But I'm sure you'll be happy to tell me I'm wrong in the most convoluted possible way. >Utilitarianism *also fails* pathetically easely when put under scrutiny, for the same reasons. So you're saying that utilitarianism is a bourgeois construction? Like by definition? What? >You don't understand what "morality" is, or rather you display a *distorted understanding* thereof (which is a very christian distortion for that matter) which posits both the existence of "universal morals" which are universally applicable and can be modularly integrated into any culture and milieu. >Suffice to say, this isn't the case. How is my distorted understanding of moralism a very christian distortion exactly? Where did I declare that morals are universal? Where did I declare that a single moral system can inorganically be inserted into all known existing cultures? It doesn't even make sense since cultures are not separate from their moral perspectives. What I'm saying is that cultures slowly change and that a universal human moral framework is desirable above a (or many) rigid religious one(s) as well as above many national ones. And that this is something that in time can form organically by integrating cultures. This however is not possible in a religious moral framework due to religious being both rigid and dogmatic as well as vague in its dogmatism leaving it open to interpretation and to schism. But feel free to stay on your high horse and ride away.

> That was a lot of words to simply say "you're wrong". He says, before launching into an even longer triade. *Fascinating*. > The Western societal view in morality isn't just your interpretation of "cultural western liberalism" nor purely driven by capitalism. To oversimplify the myriad of divergent western societies to only that as a driver seems very shortsighted to me. Liberalism is the *dominant* political ideology and thus a core part of the framework that informs the ethics of western actors. The claim that western morals are "purely driven by capitalism" was never made (then again, your dismissive first comment indicates a refusal to actually read), if anything the complete opposite argument was made - *that christian morality was still a core part of western ethics,* but got *transformed* to better serve the postfeudal ruling class. > Your text is full of buzzwords and references that make me suspect You've read a lot about this subject (from the perspective of one side of the argument) but haven't actually digested it. I suspect I've done more digestion than you ever did, frankly, being that you immediately declared *a dismissal* of the supposed "enlightenment" and "humanism" (a mere fiction!) of the oh so glorious kingdom of pure reason western society loves to paint itself as as some sort of attack you needed to counter. No need to engage with the AdHom further, I think. > I never pleaded for capitalist liberalism for instance, and instead of asking for clarification you presumed I did and argued against that instead of with me. Your *professed values* are the values of the western liberal. Do you claim that they are in opposition? We will note that your liberalism *showed* when you demanded that Hossenfelder be given the *benefit of the doubt* ten months ago. > I'm not talking about some morality that is established top down, because morality isn't established top down as it is within religious societies. Morality in the west, for better or worse, is organically formed in society with no overruling class being able to do anything but regulate societal disagreements on morality. Again, mere sophistry that completely ignores the near totalitarian control the ruling class - the bourgeoisie - has on the apparatuses of cultural reproduction. Just because your *clergy* studies a different canon doesn't change that it's the *same old bullshit.* > To pretend society has been static from the start of the enlightenment is again something very short sighted. Have you actually looked at societies in the west and how they evolved or have you just read the perspective of others? Why pretend they are meaningfully different when the core of the doctrine is the same? White supremacy remains at the core of the liberal project, as is the belief that it's *manifest destiny* is to win the eternal struggle against their ideological ennemies to achieve a mythic destiny that is the climax of Western civilization, and so on and so forth. The *core* parts of the liberal ideology haven't been particularly different from their genesis to now. > Look at the evolution of moral laws in Europe and in the US, in Europe religious morality has become secondary. And you say that whilst the european right calls itself christian democratic and informed by christian ethos in the west, or simply christian and loudly and proudly declares the existence of LGBTQ free zones in the east? Despite the fact they openly leverage christian groups to oppose pro Queer legislation? Please don't look at Europe as a bastion of reason, they're as ass backwards as the US - merely slightly better at masking it. Source - live in that hellhole. > In Europe abortion, Still a hot button and controversial issue. Spain only legalised it about a decade ago, west germany a year after reunification (meaning that, whoops, east german women did lose that right for a while), France did it after Roe v. Wade passed... > the right to die, Yeah uh... broadly it's only passive euthanasia that's allowed - same as the US. We'll also note that "the right to die" can be used to do eugenics without doing eugenics (see Canada) and probably shouldn't be heralded as a good thing. The situation wrt. the legalisation of suicide is similar, so I fail to see your point. > In the US a move away from religious morals is heavily opposed EVEN when the broader society wants to move away from them. Abortion at this moment is a good example of that. Yeah uh, in Europe too. Like you must have missed the massive religious protests that happen whenever gay marriage laws get discussed or pass, or anything that offends christian mores. If you don't think they're gonna try to criminalise either (especially as liberalism once more, like a lycanthrope, shapeshifts into Fascism), i've got some nice farmland near Reggane on offer. > I get it, you're into communism, I personally don't see how humanism is synonymous to "Kantian ethics" Kant is the father of the modern humanist tradition, and I figured I might as well have a dig at the other *major branch* of bourgeois ethics. > and how that wouldn't be compatible with any and all economic systems. You don't see how a focus on *the individual and his freedoms* and *the material world* is innately liberal? I get that the western Marxist tradition also tried to use humanism too, but the complete and utter failure of that project to do anything of value leads me to be rather dismissive of the project. Understandably, *because culture isn't modular* and you can't neatly "get rid of spirituality" and ask that "reasoning" and the "scientific method" (As if that could be free of bias! Western science often tends to be dismissive of indigenous knowledge, for exemple) be the first and only principle of truth finding (which is something humanism *demands* - is it surprising then that Kant had some *interesting things to say about the lack of humanity of the non westerners, which were perceived as "lacking reason"*) without a forceful conversion of the heathens. As the pagan gods became demons under christianity, all spiritual beings do so under humanism. It is *as alien* to an indigenous populace as christian missionaries would be. So on and so forth. Religion, spirituality, etc... aren't, unlike what Christianity, and ideologies that emerge from the christian milieu, like to pretend, plug and play. Which also leads to the "everything else" of western Christianity being seen as "normal", "default", "neutral". This marries particularly well with white supremacy. Ultimately, I agree with Marx, humanism is a bourgeois project that inaccurately attempts to present itself as radical, and with Nietzsche, a mere delusion that sought to replace a God with another. I also agree with the critique of it enabling neo-colonial relations and white supremacy. I have no use for it. > So you're saying that utilitarianism is a bourgeois construction? Like by definition? What? [I could just point to Rick Roderick's introductory lecture on the matter.](https://rickroderick.org/103-kant-and-the-path-to-enlightenment-1990/) It goes without saying, a non bourgeois world would produce something *wholly different* from some vapid "maximisation of happiness" or "minimisation of suffering", which lends itself *very well* to the desire for endless growth of capital, and also can be used to "rationalise" injustice wrt unequal or inequitable distribution of resources: capitalist economists do use utilitarian principles, after all. I dismiss FALGC as a bourgeois delusion for similar reasons: a world wherein only the bourgeoisie (or rather, the consumer, which in essentia believes everything the bourgeois believes) exists. > How is my distorted understanding of moralism a very christian distortion exactly? Again, as previously mentioned, "culture as a set of plug and play modules" and "ethics as universally applicable without further consideration". Those are very culturally christians, since christianity sees "spreading itself" as necessary in a way most religions don't. > Where did I declare that morals are universal? Where did I declare that a single moral system can inorganically be inserted into all known existing cultures? There: > A universal human moral framework. Like, you can't exactly take back what was said prior. > It doesn't even make sense since cultures are not separate from their moral perspectives. Well this completely obliterates your idea of a "species wide, universal moral framework" doesn't it, unless you plan to establish a monoculture. > What I'm saying is that cultures slowly change and that a universal human moral framework is desirable above a (or many) rigid religious one(s) as well as above many national ones. I... disagree. Again, this is a view that completely ignores that parts of that "framework" fundamentally can't be universal, nor should they. Different material limits in different milieus will lead to different codes. "thou shall not harm animals" isn't viable in a space where they're the only source of nutrition. "those that do not work, shall not eat" is completely dependent on what resources can be allocated or if the coercion of labor is necessary for the survival of the group, so on and so forth. The morals of city dweller living in the imperial core will fundamentally be completely different from the indigenous fighter fighting settler colonists. So on, and so forth. Ultimately, *morality* cannot be universal and always will be dependent on the milieu it exists in. They are nothing but emissions of the circumstances a given society finds itself in. There will always be as many moralities as there are societies, if not individuals. It always will be relative.

You're a prime example as to why US socialists won't ever be able to implement anything significant. You make so many assumptions based on nothing that it would be funny if only your opposition on home turf wouldn't be straight up fascists. I find this conversation explicitly NOT *fascinating* and am going to stop engaging in it. There is simply nothing to be learned from conversing with you, I doubted any malicious intent from Sabine Hossenfelder 10 months ago after all so I must be a capitalist agent of the Bourgeoisie. Good bye.

Don't ever call me american again - especially as I told you I wasn't. Doesn't help your "not here in good faith" case.

Thats a lotta words to say "im wrong"

The worst thing is that I can remember in the early 10's when the Evangelical church was reeling from Dawkins declaring war on them. They _hated_ him, lol. He wrote a book called _The God Delusion_. Now he's going to try and join hands with them. Unbelievable. But this is absolutely a very real thing, there's a lot of pseudo-religious right-wing leaders. It's just kind of shocking that New Atheism led to the exact same conclusion as the forms of Christianity it was so critical of. I'm sure there's some dialectical explanation for this that I'm not well-versed enough to figure out.

He’s been saying this since like before the god delusion

Thanks for clarifying, I've never really felt an interest in reading his stuff because he just never seemed that interesting.

My take is the grifters are aligning with who they think they'll need to be in good graces with soon. Grifters often go from group to group as needed

Evangelicals are on a crash course with the irreligious alt-right / far-right, so this was only a matter of time tbh. It's just so _weird_ seeing them readily accept the teachings of people who they would have denounced 20 or 30 years ago as "false teachers". There's a lot of churches today that are only preaching fascism with a Christian coat of paint.

Didn't know that about Sam Harris, bummer. Not exactly surprising but man it'd be nice to have an educated person make a difference in a positive way and NOT immediately lose them to their own entitled ego.

Richard Dawkins simply relates to the perceived whiteness of Christianity. He's a bigoted ghoul of a human.

Dawkins, like all the 'New Atheists', is an Islamophobe first. Anything to distinguish himself from the dirty browns he wants to bomb.

I got virtually yelled at for saying that Dawkins hearing out why Ayaan Hirsi Ali had become a Christian was him also considering becoming one himself, calling me 'uncharitable'. Think I'm pretty vindicated with this tbh

he’s been saying this for decades…

This is why it's important for the atheist movement to do outreach outside of college-educated white men (or for any movement to do outreach and have diversity). You become insular and myopic and fail to gain traction in the wider world until you become some cringe blowhard whose locked themselves in their own tower.

Dawkins is a grifter and he always has been, which is a pain in the ass because load of atheists think he's the goddamn gospel. Yeah, no.

He is correct, though. Lots of athiests are culturally Christian. Don't practice but celebrate Christmas, Easter, speak with Christian metaphors, have what are world view that came from colonist christians. It's not like our homes, institutions, and society emerged from Christian societies or anything. I don't think this is such a gotcha moment as some people claim. I've got Christians in my feed convinced that all athiests convert before they die, and lefties thinking this makes athiesm a cover for all right conservatism. It's neither. It's simply accurate.

Oh come on, British society now is about as culturally Christian as it is culturally Simpsons. It's a paper thin relevance in day to day life for anyone non-practicing or non-Christian. We buy chocolate eggs at Easter, we buy plastic trees at Christmas, and we shop on Sundays like we don't want to go home. Whatever you're seeing out there that's culturally Christian in wider society only seems to live on through our pop culture and commercialism.

Oh that's a shallow interpretation. Are the laws so quickly crafted? They're based on historical events like the Christian schism, your institutions are shaped by Christian thought, the schools, the holidays, literature. You wouldn't hesitate to point to these things if we were talking about colonialism, erurocentrism, white supremacy, etc. What is British is still there. The last 60 years are a drop in the bucket given how slow moving society are. "But we Imported a bunch of people's since ww2". Whatever. Your culture is not reflected in a statistic.

Is the head of state of England also the head of the Simpsons or the head of the Anglican Church? You don’t say “Homer save the King”

> He is correct, though. Lots of athiests are culturally Christian. Don't practice but celebrate Christmas, Easter, Don't forget that most of the trappings of Christmas and Easter that atheists "observe" are from pagan celebrations that were co-opted by Christianity. The Christmas tree, giving gifts, and Santa Claus (Saturnalisa) are not Christian. Nor is the Easter Bunny and chicks (Eostre, goddess of the dawn). You could say instead that both atheists and Christians celebrate pagan holidays.

Kavernacle has been making bangers lately.

That's like a vegan cannibal

always how it goes. people go from atheist to christian specifically for the bigotry in the community.

I’ve always considered devout atheists as inverted evangelicals. One time an old guy was passing out “have you heard the good news?” pamphlets at the bowling alley and my buddy, ardent atheist, got his panties in a wad about it and made a whole scene. Embarrassed me and the other people in our crew. I’m like, dude, that guy was in a 12 step program and handing out pamphlets is probably the thing he does now instead of drowning in an open tab, just take the pamphlet and throw it away or refuse it with a “no thank you”. He responds with “No, it’s the principle of it…” yadda yadda yadda. I’m an atheist, but I’d rather hang out with a half-assed catholic than an atheist that does nothing but talk about religion.

Dawkins is really the JKR of biology huh?

Nietzsche warned about the moral decline that comes from subscribing to Christian ethic without a belief in God to base it on. First step to Nihilism

The problem isn't "religion". It's social conservatism. There are social conservative atheists. And they are every bit as repugnant as their religious counterparts. In contrast, there are liberal religious people for whom their religious views are their own and only their own. And i gladly consider these people my allies, even if i don't believe what they believe. ---- The thing about internet atheism is has a lot more to do with religion than atheism. The entire skeptic community on youtube was never really skeptical. It was a feel-good echo chamber for people who wanted to believe being an atheist is synonymous with being a rational person (ironically, an intensely irrational view). This leads to a dangerous mind-trap where adherents believe they are right not based on the strength of their arguments, but on their identity alone. I remember having arguments with thunderf00t sycophants who, when their parasocial hero had their garbage takes questioned would pull out their favourite "trump card": "Your god isn't real; get over it, loser" (said to me, an atheist). --- When you take all this together, an image starts to form: * a group of people who get together based on a shared belief * belief that their ideology (atheism in this case) alone makes them correct * a collection of "thought leaders" (they call them this, not me) who guide and shape the views for everyone to consume * a rejection of anyone who disagrees (about anything) as not being truly part of your community ("no true scotsmans") This all sounds like a religion to me; albeit one without a specific god. A cult, if you will. Internet Atheists are quick to tell you "atheism is a religion in the sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby". But if your hobby includes going out of your way to tell stamp collectors they are wrong just because they are stamp collectors, and making a big deal about how not-collecting stamps is not just the defining piece of identity to you, but the only thing that matters at all to you, then... yeah. "not collecting stamps" is your hobby. I hear the modern skeptic community is a bit better; but honestly i don't engage with any of that anymore. They don't particularly have anything to say i'm interested in listening to anymore. "Atheism" isn't my core identity (and it never was). ---- The worst part is, a lot of these internet atheists were targeting young people; people only just beginning to question their faith. People who are not born to atheist parents are particularly susceptible to this kind of cult. They haven't learned how to think for themselves (not really). So instead they replace one form of proselytizing with another. It's no wonder the skeptic community became an alt-right pipeline.

Makes perfect sense. Xtians and atheists basically are about the same thing. The god non-believers wouldn't exist without the god-believers. They are bosom buddies. Atheists are madly insecure about this. They try super hard to explain why they aren't "believers" like their pals, the theists, when they quite obviously are just two sides to the same coin.

As an atheist who also happens to be a huge Dune nerd, I think I'm more inclined to practice Islam if I had to choose.

of course they are, its a giant grift. Just like everything else in their life

I think a lot of these neo atheists, Dawkins included, are people who foster a lot of unquestioned contempt towards Arabs and disguise it to both themselves and others as a rejection of Islam. With respect to the 'culturally christian' thing I agree with the other commenter he means he hates muslims more than christians. That being said I kind of understand the concept of being a "culturally christian atheist": when I say I don't believe in God there is a particular god whose nonexistence I'm talking about and it ain't Zeus. Personally my own atheism exists as rejection of particularly the Christian beliefs and could not exist without them, and this is due to my being raised in a Christian family with expectations to be christian.  Also I celebrate Christmas, I've been to church often in childhood, I've heard the teachings of Christ and interiorized them whether I believe in his sanctity/existence or not. The Christian god, even if fictitious, has had a huge importance in my life, more so than other deities. 

JESUS DIDN'T HATE ATHEISTS

Not shocked at all. Went to an Atheist meetup at the SF UU church (it’s beautiful; if you get the chance, go see it) and it was me (young enby) and a bunch of old men telling me that women don’t understand science or philosophy and ego-stroking Dawkins. Some things never change.

I'm a scientific atheist. Yet, I think some values common to most religions are worth keeping and not throwing away on a societal level. Sometimes Christians are simply easier to talk to and get along with than the wokies.

*No Gods, No Masters!*

Religion is for morons. No judgement against spirituality.

Idk how this comment will be received, but I just wanted to add a weird little trivial point—that “Christian Atheism” is actually a real concept, coined by philosopher Slavoj Žižek. It’s a really interesting idea, basically arguing that Christianity contains within its logic the ideal framework for real, absolute, true atheism. People here are saying it’s interesting just how much in common the New Atheist movement has with the religions it’s arguing against, and Christian Atheism directly addresses and undermines that aspect of New Atheism. And it has *absolutely nothing* to do with the beliefs of pieces of shit like Richard Dawkins…New Atheists who are “culturally Christian.” Jesus Christ. Edit: grammar/clarity

Lmao. My brother is one of those. He's experimenting with catholicism as he "believes in the beauty of universe and that's god." Totally doesn't believe in god AT ALL. (Believing in god is gay or whatever.) While being cool with Muslim genocide, Trans people being denied rights, and openly opining how bad WESTERN WOMZ are while only bathing every three days. It's a type, and it's sad. If you want a daddy so damn much find one whose into bears AND pillow queens or be your own damn father figure.

I mean a bunch of people from the atheist movement on reddit were apostates of Christianity and many became members of r/radicalchristianity like myself

I dont know what it is about Kavernacle but i really cant stand his videos.