Thread 18133218

So the athiesm fad didn't even last as long as communism? Kek.

>>18133218 (OP)
Did he watch a based and Christpilled sigma edit?

He is still agnostic - atheist.

>>18133218 (OP)
He's just a cuck to social norms. He thought Atheism was the future because it had a boom not too long ago but he's realizing he bet on the wrong horse. Christfaggotry will continue to enslave the minds of white people for a long time to come if precedent is anything to go by, And this sheep will follow the heard.

https://youtu.be/CmQvoPQALd4
Here it is.

>>18133359
The video starts with the confession that Mr. AOC has had never doubt the idea that Jesus, as a historical figure, did something extra-ordinary. This is, he continued, the reason why he has been worshiped at an early time period.
In my opinion, this presumption already goes in a faithful direction. He just ignored the fact that, from a historical point of view, there have been many figures that get worshiped even if they do not do something extraordinary or supernatural. If you're (mainstream) Christian, think of the case of Prophet Mohammed or Joseph Smith. You obviously don't believe that this person has had some prophetic or magical power, but you must accept that they get a followership.

>It's led me to, well, I used to be quite on board with the new atheism stuff

The problem with the New Atheism was:
The question whether there is a God or not may be an important one. Nevertheless, the answer to this question is neither an entire worldview nor a philosophy. It is, at best, just a part of the puzzle.
For this shortcoming, many so-called "New Atheists" leave the movement after a period of time. Some go ahead and build the point of crystallization of that movement we call "Woke" today. Others, of course, became the propagandists of anti-Woke.

I do not say you cannot establish ethical values without a faith. I just say that it is far more complicated to come to inevitable ethical codes from a New Atheist viewpoint. Historical and social circumstances differ and therefore, things like social norms and social necessities differ, too.
Most holy scriptures conserve the value system of the time they have been created. This is another problem.

>>18133218 (OP)
>grifter switches team when his grift no longer works

>>18133359
>>18133384
I believe, Scott Alexander has wrote a excellent piece on this matter at "Slate Star Codex":
>My solution to both these questions is: New Atheism was a failed hamartiology.
>And so we asked ourselves: what the hell is wrong with these people?
>And New Atheism had an answer: religion.
(Stupid Spamfilter, doesn't allow links!)
(By the way, Alexander forgot to mention the important role that has been played by 9/11. A lot of people have, after this horrible event, started to argue that we should blame religion as an abstract concept for it. They brought other examples, like Crusades, Pogroms, the tensions in Ireland and so on, all as an example of the fact that religion divides people and makes society worse...
It was utopian thinking, even back then. They ignored factors like ethnicity, different economic interests and the terrible cycle of revenge and counter-revenge.)

New Atheism has always been fall short on the side the adapts of this movement were motivated the most, social commentary.

To conclude my sermon:
I do not find anything in O'Connors speak that convinde me. I may be ignorant or a stupid person. However, a interesting story does not replace an actual argument since there has been a lot of interesting stories around the world and we consider most of them as this: Just stories without a thiny piece of truth.

>>18133384
New Atheist movement was literally mostly just people seething at their Evangelical peers and parents. The movement then shifted from even being about "religion" and attacking Feminism and Islam exclusively while bootlicking Jews and Israel as a bastion of Western civilization in the Middle East. I literally back in the day got banned from r/atheism because I was critical of Judaism because I pointed out much of Jewish law was literally just the result of political seething between Judea and Israel.
I'm still as atheist as I ever was, but the New Athiest movement quickly got hijacked by right wingers like the American Enterprise Institute which suddenly had it's figures everywhere in the movement as "speakers".
I'm still an atheist, you cannot seriously give a shit about good history and be fucking religionfag and actually believe the incoherent gobdlygook and ahistorical nonsense that makes up Religious dogma, but I don't identify with New Atheism because it basically was the first volley in modern Culture war.

>>18133218 (OP)
Why is magic flying jews plausible?

>CHRISTIANITY WILL WIN!
No, because all these retarded kids who are "christian" are internet converts. They do not go to church. They do not have a christian community. They are christian online and online only.

When you challenge them on this, they cope about how going outside and participating in building a Christian Community (or participating in an existing one) is bad because of made up reasons that aren't the truth-that they find it fucking boring.

Church numbers continue to dwindle, less and less reverance is being placed on Christianity, and reactionary lashing out in places like the US only turn more people against the faith in the long run because the people who are spearheading Christian "revivals" are usually washed up attention seekers on the internet who lean into the religion grift to stay relevant and to find new fans. Christianity won't win, it already lost.

Except Catholicism I guess, those guys have such a strong community that atheists still go to mass, kekked.

Hang on, is he talking about my specific 20th century methodist church? Otherwise I can't be sure if he won't still burn

>>18133359
>someone did something somewhere and people started worshiping him or the later idea of him.
It's not that strange.

>>18133218 (OP)
I gotta be honest a large majority of trad christians and converts online were just social panopticon'd into becoming religious. If r/atheism didn't exist they would still call it kikestianity.

>>18133419
>New Atheist movement was literally mostly just people seething at their Evangelical peers and parents.

This cannot be true for a single reason.
We found such “New Atheism” even in Europe, and there Evangelicals are a very tiny minority of people. It is hardly probable that a mass movement would arise from the wish to oppose them.

>The movement then shifted from even being about "religion" and attacking Feminism and Islam exclusively while bootlicking Jews and Israel as a bastion of Western civilization

Headcanon that never happened.

Islam has been, in my view, a long time a kind of taboo.
The New Atheists doesn't touch you with a pincers if you dare to criticise Islam with the same harshness as Christianity.

Some "Nov Ateyzt" bow in front of this taboo and they became what is currently known as Woke. Back in the day, they were social justic worrier or terms like this.

The criticism of 3. wave Femimism is partly justified since this movement has a blindspot at biology. They simply deny any meaningful inferences from biology to human behavior. Any kind of inequality between men and women just stems from discrimination. The fact that the sexes/genders have different endowments has been seen as a naturalization of a historically arbitrary situation.

> I literally back in the day got banned from r/atheism because I was critical of Judaism because I pointed out much of Jewish law was literally just the result of political seething between Judea and Israel.

I do not know reddit back in the day.

Maybe, the mods there seem such criticism of the Judean religion as antisemitism and do not tolerant this. I would have no problem with it, honestly.

>but I don't identify with New Atheism because it basically was the first volley in modern Culture war.

Thats the truth and I can agree.

New Atheism was a reaction to the increase of religiosity in politics beginning in the 1980s and culminating in the 2000s.
Why isn't this detail ever mentioned?

>>18133469
It's funny in hindsight now that we know that Dubya was spreading feminism and LGBT in Afghanistan. Christian crusader my ass

>>18133218 (OP)
He should've read Carrier, but he's been buisy sucking of his boyfriend Ehrman for half a decade instead.

>>18133469
Most Nu-Christians were toddlers when that was happening. Also New Atheism won so hard the idea that the religious right was relevant independent of Donald Trump is outlandish now.
>>18133478
That's how he styled himself though.

>>18133292
You must be a very lonely person

>>18133557
Unfortunately negative ontology doesn't work.

>>18133478
NeoCons never hide that it was about "Westian" values like Freedom and Democraty.
>>18133540
>He should've read Carrier, but he's been buisy sucking of his boyfriend Ehrman for half a decade instead.
Carriere is a minior opinion from a outsider perpective. He is motivated by a atheistic agency instead a honest seeking of the truth.
Most actual scholars of the fiel doesn't agree with him.
He is, putting it clear, like a dude that claimed he disprove Einstein while he has a major degree in biology and attac the physicists community of being ignorant.

>>18133850
>claimed he disprove Einstein while he has a major degree in biology
Except Carrier has a Phd in ancient history with a thesis concerning the early Roman empire, and he only began considering the historicity of Jesus because his readers asked him to do it and funded him. So not really like a typical crackpot at all.

>>18133218 (OP)
>muh YouTube clickbait titles
White Christianity is over. The bleeding just won't stop. There's no coming back from this after being exposed for your treachery.

https://youtu.be/p2_p_qwIyZ4
>'The Jews are better than us, you need to accept that' - Christian indoctrination of children

>>18133971
And Christianity is a big enough business that you would expect the scholarly community around it to be somewhat compromised, unlike physics.

>>18133439
Enjoy watching the video. Runtime just got longer

>>18133561
Not him, but it's lonely when you decide not to be a retard like everyone else. Where I live, most people are religious, and they're also obese, extremely ignorant and retarded. Do you suggest I fall in with the herd? No. I refuse to be a golem.

>>18134000
/pol/tranny thinks everyone is neetsoc like him because he doesn't go outside

>>18134068
>it's lonely when you decide not to be a retard like everyone else. Where I live, most people are religious, and they're also obese, extremely ignorant and retarded. Do you suggest I fall in with the herd? No. I refuse to be a golem.

>>18134075
That guy is how the average person (religious) in my local area looks. I'm one of the few people who DON'T look like this.

>>18134073
You are coping. Worshipping Jews doesn't resonate with young White men. All anyone has to do is show typical Christian behavior and it immediately kills the faith. Anyone remaining is a sub-80 IQ subhuman. Christianity has lost the my hearts and minds of young White men. We are witnessing the end of an era.

>>18133971
>nd he only began considering the historicity of Jesus because his readers asked him to do it and funded him
Dude, how do he get this readers at all?
He was some kind of atheist influencer even at the start.
His search for the truth is corrupted by his atheistic sentiments. It's fine, as long as you take in mind his opinion is that of a atheist, not of a scholar.
When he contradicts the resultes of other, more scientific minded scholars, it is very irratioal to take his side.

>So not really like a typical crackpot at all.

Take it. He...
[X] Brings a theory that contradicts the major opinion in the field.
[X] Asserts that the experts or the majority of the scholars in the field are corrupted by some extra-scientific sentiment. Thus, his resultes are true while the major of scholars are wrong.
[X] His theory is a revival of some theories historical discussion and rejected in the field.
[/] He cames from outside the field. Like a biologists who called the General Relativity Theory is wrong. (The jury is open at his point)
[X] He states his opinion to a community that desired his theory to be true.
[_] He brings new evidences
[_] He articulate his theory mere as a proposal.
[_] He isn't a populic figure because of the named theory.
[_] He react on a rational, fact oriented way when he faced critique.

There are a lots of red flags for me. Enough to be special sceptic.
He has a interesting thought experiment, yet his arguments failed.

>>18133455
>This cannot be true for a single reason.
>We found such “New Atheism” even in Europe, and there Evangelicals are a very tiny minority of people.
Europe constantly imports fads and buzzwords from the US even if they make zero sense here. A great example is the fact that European countries are gradually adopting the lines along which American politics is split even though just a decade ago it wasn't like that here at all.

Historically speaking how many generations atheism collectively last?

>>18133455
>Islam has been, in my view, a long time a kind of taboo.
>The New Atheists doesn't touch you with a pincers if you dare to criticise Islam with the same harshness as Christianity.
Btw this claim is just insane. New atheism was a response to 9/11 and the four horsemen were all incredibly critical of Islam.
How young are you?

>>18133419
>but I don't identify with New Atheism because it basically was the first volley in modern Culture war.
How can you call it the first volley when the original issue was Evangelical America's obsession with banning everything they don't like? The first shot was fired by Evangelicals trying to regain cultural power after the majority of society realized that pearl-clutching about rock music and comic books is retarded.

>>18133557
It's mildly funny that Trump has probably done more damage to Christianity than any new atheist by making it about worshipping "conservatism" instead of God. You can see this with how tradCaths only believe the Pope when he says something conservative and then immediately deny him when they disagree with him. Christianity has been rendered spiritually inert by Trumpism.

>>18134176
Fair point.
>>18134187
>New atheism was a response to 9/11 and the four horsemen were all incredibly critical of Islam.
They focus on Christianity and so on.
>>18134194
Sorry but... The beginning canceling of people with unwelcome (and often wrong) opinions has been part of the war.

>>18134152
>>18133971

>>18134229
NTA. Islam essentially didn't exist in the West in the 2000s. That's why they focused on Christianity.

>>18134235
NTA but most Biblical research is being done by groups that explicitly exist to achieve Christian apologetics goals. It's an inherently suspect discipline. Like taking Hindu nationalist scholars seriously.

>>18134237
Either you count Europa not as a part of the West or you're simply not informed enough for this debatt.
And, for the records, Europe get's his terror attacs, too.

>>18134229
>They focus on Christianity and so on.
New atheists focused both on Christianity and Islam. The "movement" started as anti-Islamist after 9/11, got a stronger focus on Christianity during the Dover trial in 2005 and mostly died around 2012. All the four horsemen criticized both Islam and Christianity.
Again, how young are you?

>>18134243
>NTA but most Biblical research is being done by groups that explicitly exist to achieve Christian apologetics goals.
We need to take the same distance to Carrier if we agree to this. He is clearly motivated by his atheist's persuasions.
I mean, you will hardly find an expert who do not have some opion regarding his own field but in this case, we have a consenus of experts and a atheists activist.
>It's an inherently suspect discipline.
Fine. If I accapt your point, it changed a little bit. Yet, the point of Jesus mysticism isn't really good, though.
His ideas are based on some assumptions like words like "the brother of the Lord", refering to Jacob, (Epistle to the Galatians) are just figurativ.
His claim that Cargo Cultes appears without a leading figure who starts them isn't that valid, too.
Unlikely.
Maybe, we should start a new thread?
>Like taking Hindu nationalist scholars seriously.
I would never trust Hundu nationalist as the only scource. But does that mean I need to believe some tin foil hat who claimed that the Hindu culture emeraged from Lamuria?
I hardly think so.

>>18134293
>His ideas are based on some assumptions like words like "the brother of the Lord", refering to Jacob, (Epistle to the Galatians) are just figurativ.
IIRC he actually counts that as a point in favor of historicity when he does the Bayesian analysis, though despite that there are very good reasons for thinking that brother of the lord is figurative because just about every other time Paul talks about brothers, he does definitely mean it figuratively (in the sense that all Christians are adopted brothers of Jesus) except when he explicitly says otherwise by specifying brothers according to the flesh.

>>18134301
He interpret the word "born from a woman" as figurative because Paul used a word usually doesn't use for it.

If Paul sees every Christian (or member of the Jesus-Movement or younameit...) as a brother, there would be no need to emphasize that he met James (sorry, my fault in the last post).

Just for the context:
Galatians 1
>18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.
>19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
>20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

It makes no sense to use "the Lord's brother" here as a kind of "a Christian brother". Especially given the "other apostles".

If we rely solo on the Epistels and other extra-bibilical evidences, we see clearly that something going on there. Paul is obiviously in a kind of conflict with other members of the movement about integration of people not circumcised.

The entire story about the crucifixion doesn't make sense in the lower heavens.
The example of Osiris doesn't help. Osires has been traped in a sarcophagus by Seth. We're justified to conclud that this has something to do with the Egyptian burial rites. The croxx on the other hand has nothing to do with Christian rites as we know them.

>>18134393
You repeating that something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Paul is distinguishing James as not an apostle because his intention in that passage is to say that he didn't get his gospel from anyone else, so he emphasizes how little contact he's had with the leaders of the Jerusalem church.

"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

And that whole assumption Paul is working from, that him having little contact with the Jerusalem church and the other apostles could actually be a point in his favor, it makes much more sense under mythicism than under the historical Jesus. If there were a historical Jesus, it would make more sense to defend his authority by trying to make it seem like he was really close with the people who actually knew the guy, but he does the opposite.

>>18134393
>He interpret the word "born from a woman" as figurative because Paul used a word usually doesn't use for it.
Because the word can mean made rather than born, and in the context, soon after Paul says that, he explains an allegory where being born to one woman (Hagar) corresponds to being born into the covenant from Mount Sinai which involves subjection to the law, and the other woman (Sarah) corresponds to the covenant of Christianity. So earlier when Paul says, "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law." He could be doing the typical Jewish poetic thing of saying the same thing twice in two different ways, so that "born of a woman" and "born under the law" mean the same thing as in his allegory which follows.

>>18133226
Embarrassing

>>18133226
link?

>>18134542
shut up
It has a Crusading GigaChad
I need the link

>>18134293
I don't believe Carrier either. I assume there was probably a Jesus of some kind, much as I assume Mani, or the Buddha existed. It would be weird to make up a fake Prophet instead of simply embellishing a real one. Like imagine a faith healer in Africa dies. And later he gets a post mortem cult following. That is normal. Jesus just clearly got a very large one. Again, barring his miracles being real, the whole story is perfectly normal.

>>18134567
The theory goes that the author of the first gospel, Mark or approximately Mark, is an allegory based on Paul, one of those cleverely devised fables that the forger of 2 Peter feels it necessary to say totally isn't what happened. And then the original Matthew recognized what was done, but he didn't like Paul so much, so he wrote his own version of the story where he has his Jesus overtly disagree with Paul in places. So in a sense, with respect to the post-written gospel Jesus movement, they were embellishing a real prophet. But before that the movement was based around finding hidden messages in scripture concerning the divine messiah and claiming mystical visitations from that being.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15934

>>18134650
*"the author of the first gospel" should just be "the first gospel"

>>18134548
https://x.com/superpaperslap/status/1980399988153950265

>>18134650
*And claiming mystical visitations from a being definitely isn't an unheard of way for religions to start. See Muhammad and Joseph Smith for example.

>>18134657
thanks brother
>first reply on twatter is some kike kvetching about le not sees
lmao can't make this shit up

>>18134650
Ok? But like why would that mean Jesus didn't exist. Like I see no proof for even the crucifixion itself, but like there was definitely a Prophet or faith healer of some kind that this is based on.

>>18134650
Though some portions of Mark seem to fit better as references to Vespasian (Mark wants to present Jesus as a counter-Vespasian) and Jesus ben Ananias IIRC, so it wouldn't be entirely Paul, even if Paul's ideas central.
https://www.behindthegospels.com/p/jesus-and-vespasian-the-public-ministry

>>18134460
>"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

Why is he distancing himself from the apostles?

>>18134790
What I quoted and what you quoted me quoting is why. He wants to say that he didn't get his gospel from anyone else but directly from revelation. That he's supporting this by minimizing his prior interaction with church is apparent from him saying
>my immediate response was not to consult any human being
>I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia
>Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
>I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

Now this is intermixed with him talking about how he persecuted the church in some sense before converting, which seems a bit dissonant with him talking about how little interaction he had with the church as an apparent support of his claim that he didn't receive the gospel from any man. But that sort of dissonance is really common in Paul's letters, and personally I suspect it's down to our copies of Paul's letters being a fair bit more heavily messed with than the scholarly consensus would have it. But that's just my opinion, not Carrier's.

>>18134460
What about this one:
>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
>Galatians 1.8

>And that whole assumption Paul is working from, that him having little contact with the Jerusalem church and
>the other apostles could actually be a point in his favor, it makes much more sense
>under mythicism than under the historical Jesus.
Not necessarly.
You presume a modern-day interpretation that revelation has, at one specific point in time, been given to some people by supernatural means, and subsequently, it has been transmitted by natural means. We know from other Epistles of Paul that this was most likely not the point of view that the early Christians commited to. It appears that things like speaking in tongues, visions, and so on were considered normal within the early Christian community.
For our modern taste, which has been shaped by the Enlightenment and the undeniable success of scientific methods, even in the humanities and arts, this is somewhat embarrassing. We associate this with spooky esoterics. However, we have little idea how humans in antiquity perceived these things.
As far as we can judge by the material we gain about this far past, the people back then has been a lot more superstitious than today.
>If there were a historical Jesus, it would make more sense to defend his authority by trying to make it seem like he was really close with the people who actually knew the guy, but he does the opposite.
We have no idea what the early Christian imagined, or have seen somehow, when they speak about a resurrection body or a "glorified body".

>>18134942
Concerning 'superstition' even the ver, early enemies of Christianity like Celsus IIRC conceded Jesus did real magic, because he prob learned it when he was in Egypt.

>>18134513
>He could be doing the typical Jewish poetic thing of saying the same thing twice in two different ways, so that "born of a woman" and "born under the law" mean the same thing as in his allegory which follows.
This is possible. It is also possible that he means literarly born to a woman.

The crucial point is: We are discussing interpretations of texts here. It is very possible that more than one plausible interpretation exists and that all of them are meaningful. I mean, the Christian Bible has been interpreted differently at various times. Throughout most of history, some form of allegorical interpretation seems to have dominated.
One point needs to be discussion, anyway. What do we mean by "historical Jesus"? Did we assume one specific person or would it be allowed that more than one person would do the acts attributed to him by the gospels?

>>18134567
>I assume there was probably a Jesus of some kind, much as I assume Mani, or the Buddha existed.
One problem I have with this is the arbitrary standard that is employed here. Nobody seriously doubts the existence of a historical Socrates or a historical Spartacus. The same applies to Buddha, Mani, or others. The only reason I see for having special methodological standards in the case of the historical Jesus seems to be to own the Christs. Indeed, in the American Protestant tradition, the idea that Christ has been the only human ever to come back from the dead plays an important role.

If modern scholars are able to establish the existence of a historical Jesus according to the same standards that would be used in secular historical cases, then, I am convinced, we are rationally obligated to accept this as "most likely true".
>Again, barring his miracles being real, the whole story is perfectly normal.
The question of miracles, especially in pre-modern times, shell be a opportunity for silence. ;-)

>>18134978
People actually do doubt a Historical Socrates.

>>18134658
>And claiming mystical visitations from a being definitely isn't an unheard of way for religions to start. See Muhammad and Joseph Smith for example.
Yet, we sometimes see that people who have been quite clearly normal human beings, like Emperor Augustus or Caesar, become deified after their death. The same applies to Imhotep, who built the pyramids.
Carrier implies that this is a one-way ticket. Mythological figures like Osiris are seen as normal pharaohs for some reason. Maybe a mystery cult or whatever. He doesn't say that sometimes, the change is in the other direction, and historically identifiable humans become gods or heroes for generations to come.

>>18134715
According to Carrier, some poeple just claime to have visions from a angel that has been Jesus.

>>18134828
Churches in the modern sense doesn't exists back in the day.
>>18134970
Once you believe in magic, this would be a quite natural idea.
We see this as a problem, because we're changed by the Enlightenment.
>>18135002
For real?

>>18135018
Look up the Socratic Problem.

>>18135002
People also doubt a historical Moses, Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, Osiris, Asclepius, Perseus, and Sherlock Holmes.

>>18135103
Oh and Daniel, to throw in another Biblical character with a whole book for himself.

>>18133218 (OP)
>One (1) skeptic YouTuber says Christianity is "more plausible" than he thought
>"The athiesm[sic] fad" is over
You know we have records of atheists since ancient Greece, right?

>>18133469
>Why isn't this detail ever mentioned
Because the people on this board obsessed with New Atheism aren't from America. Therefore they don't actually know about the cultural context behind it. They think it's still relevant even though it died around 2013.
>>18134000
>>18134075
>>18134099
Stay in Mexico.

>>18135210
athiesm in the modern sense your thinking of did not exist.

>>18135247
Mexico has more religious people than the Anglo-Speaking West combined.

>>18133292
>Christfaggotry will continue to enslave the minds of white people


Most Europeans don't care at all about religion.

>>18133218 (OP)
>>18133419
>>18136616
>athiesm

>>18134194
>How can you call it the first volley when the original issue was Evangelical America's obsession with banning everything they don't like?
The American Evangelical movement's politicisation starts in the 70s with Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. That didn't come out of nowhere by any means - it was a clear reaction to the counter-cultural currents of the 60s and 70s that had completely transformed America in a remarkably short space of time. In about 20 years you had major moral sea changes like:
>the sexual revolution - premarital sex, pornography and homosexuality went from being socially disgraceful to publicly rampant
>the legalisation of abortion after Roe v Wade and sudden widespread access to contraceptives
>the removal of prayer and Bible reading from public schools following Engel v Vitale and Abington v.Schempp
>the rise of feminism, women in the workplace and the Equal Rights Amendment, completely transforming the American family unit
>the introduction of family-wrecking welfare policies - it suddenly paid more to be a single mother than to have a husband looking after you. This destroyed black urban populations in particular and led to rampant lawlessness, immorality and indigence in major cities
>the emergence of a liberal consensus in government and media - secular humanism pushed by a new non-WASP liberal elite suddenly replaced Christian values in public life

>If you're going to believe
>Then it must be Jewish lore.

>>18135002
Unlike Jesus, we actually have proof that Socrates existed; the man was famous in his time. We have the writings of students of his like Plato, Xenophon, and Antisthenes that mention him. Aristophanes, another contemporary of Socrates, wrote a play mocking him. We have no primary sources proving the existence of Jesus. Paul openly admits he never met Jesus in the flesh. And the Christians favorites Josephus and Tacitus were both born after the crucifixion would have taken place, and neither men claim to be primary sources anyway.

>>18133226
>flick through some Chesterton once

>>18133359
I am not going to watch this. Someone give me a non-AI greentext summary that both illuminates and amuses the mind.

>…so anyway, Jonah prayed for 3 days in the whale’s belly
No. Your existential crisis over philosophy is never going to make me pretend to believe in jewish mythology.

>>18137418
Do you think a man could live in a whale???

https://youtu.be/T3JVjhba458

>>18133971
Carrier was one of the New Atheists. He also was involved with Atheism+.

>>18134000
>KnowMoreNews
I'm not a christian but I think that most of Adam Green's ideas are retarded. He also pushes Richard Carrier's ideas. I agree that christianity is jewish in origin but thinking that christianity was purposely constructed by jews to destroy Rome and Europe is a bit too far-fetched. He is also too much tolerant of feminism.
That said what he says makes more sense than whatever nonsense Mark Brahmin spews.

>>18133218 (OP)
haha lol gaytheism

>>18133218 (OP)
For me, it was the atheism/libertarianism duo.

>>18133218 (OP)
>all Christian denominations are free falling in numbers
>non-denominationals are the only "growing" Christian group, but those were just former denominational Christians, not converts
>Millennials and Gen Z are the least religious generations to exist ever in the US and that trend isn't changing with Gen Alpha
>"atheism was just a fad lol"
Is this bait or a cope? This "3rd Great Awakening" that I keep seeing pushed isn't going to happen.

>>18133387
Many such stories.

>>18137602
>>Millennials and Gen Z are the least religious generations to exist ever in the US and that trend isn't changing with Gen Alpha
Then why do I see like ten articles on why young people are becoming more religious every single day when I open my laptop? Somebody is full of shit here.

>>18137034
Were the evangelicals zionist even back then?

>>18137581
It's been overtaken by tradcath Hoppeanism

>>18137636
I thought that was nearly over. Reckon the next stage is some form of neo-Victorianism. Although there are the russian-pilled orthobros which seems to be still a thing.

>>18136616
How do you mean? All I mean by "atheism" is "not believing in the existence of deities", and we have records of that going back centuries.

>>18137614
They've been trying to psy-op a religious revival into reality by repetition.
https://gildhelm.substack.com/p/its-no-great-awakening

>>18133218 (OP)
What do you think it's driving this wave of spirituality lately? I have a schizo feeling that it's a result of a coming tribulation where Christians will be persecuted again and this is the holy spirit awakening on people so they find their faith before this happens

>>18137614
Because the people spamming that line are hoping that they can gaslight enough terminally-online idiots into believing it's true.

The funniest example was the "catholic revival in sweden", where even one of the local bishops admitted that ~80% of the "new" catholics were just FOB immigrants re-registering in the parish of stockholm

>>18133218 (OP)
You really don't need to be vocal about it once it has become normal. New atheism was a hydra of idiots; some who wanted the religious right to stop breathing down their necks (U.Sians), some were Laicite Europoids going beast mode, and people dunking on Islamism during the GWOT. It was a chimeric and unsustainable aberration of a 'movement' that disintegrated as soon as it could.
>>18137614
Third rate Christian periodicals need something fill up their catalogue. And the news of a revival always gets clicks because the faithful (to call them something) are, and I take no joy in saying this, becoming increasingly desperate for a sign that the fortunes of their religion are changing for the better.
They really really really wished the Youth was returning to Christianity. Because it would be a sign that Christianity will stop being on the ebb. Sometimes that sentiment is linked to eschatological thinking and apocalypticism. Like in >>18138891

>>18138891
>What do you think it's driving this wave of spirituality lately?
Hard times making people go after cope mechanisms

>>18138989
>Third rate Christian periodicals need something fill up their catalogue
It's not even Christian sources, that's what confused me. But that doesn't mean it's not a psyop, it could still be a psyop.

>>18138891
The fact that powerful old religious lobbies with foreign government ties have successfully infiltrated the republican party and took control of the presidency, congress and the supreme court while bribing a bunch of social media influences.