Why did atheists think that his books would be life-changing and timeless enough to replace the Bible as the centerpiece of the western culture?

Why did atheists think that his books would be life-changing and timeless enough to replace the Bible as the centerpiece of the western culture?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it deserves to be.

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't believe that
    Dunno who this is
    t. Atheist

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody ever thought that. They thought nobody needed books and that morality was simply common sense and beauty was completely subjective.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >morality was simply common sense
      What if I had to kill you and your family to save my hometown?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        God had to kill the entire planet instead of using his magic powers to reset the good in people's hearts so ask yourself

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't know why you're asking me. Im saying it's what they believe.

        God had to kill the entire planet instead of using his magic powers to reset the good in people's hearts so ask yourself

        The planet asked to be drowned. Human beings were created knowing the rules. God steps aside and allows you to drown yourself if you choose.
        (Almost) Literally no different from mother nature. The difference is that he reaches out to you all the time.

  4. 8 months ago
    Radiochan

    the selfish gene is actually a really interesting book

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    we didn't
    it's his friend Douglas Adams' books (RIP) that should take that role, I want a culture based around the Guide

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/may/19/richard-dawkins-king-james-bible

      >For some reason the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) was not approached for a donation in support of Michael Gove's plan to put a King James Bible in every state school. We would certainly have given it serious consideration, and if the trustees had not agreed I would gladly have contributed myself. In the event, it was left to "millionaire Conservative party donors".
      >I am a little shocked at the implication that not every school library already possesses a copy. Can that be true? What do they have, then? Harry Potter? Vampires?

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even Dawkins likes the bible. The King James specifically, since he's British.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      He thinks he likes the bible. If he understood it he'd be a (space) theist

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody though that, but The Selfish Gene pretty much redefined the science of genetics in a manner similar to how Newton's Principia redefined physics.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do Christians think that atheism is a competing religion?
    It can be considered as such in the most tangental way possible.
    But really, it's just a proposition.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >But really, it's just a proposition
      It's not even really that. It's a position.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      The thought is that humans worship unconsciously. If you dont have God, you have some variant of Satan - a title which means "deceiver". Some incomplete or corrupted philosophy of truth will step in and get you only so far before either you or your civilization is in shambles.
      >but if you believe in God the same shit happens anyway. Look at medieval europe.
      The difference is afterlife.
      The material world may or may not be lost but the ideal world, the "heavenly kingdom" is gained.

      Most atheists believe this stuff when it's sold to them in secular, platonic or Buddhist terms.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      because e-christians, like all low iq types, can't really understand people operating under different frameworks, based on different fundamental assumption and axioms

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's a nontheistic and heretical sect of Christianity (Gnosticism, except way more successful). At least in the West.
      https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/10/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-4/

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Gnostics believe in a God, Atheists don't
        They are very much different things entirely
        How schizophrenic are you exactly?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, comparable to Arianism or Nestorianism in terms of its hereticalness. One of those is extinct and the other exists in name only. How many Universalists (big U, the word Moldbug uses for it) are there? Most "Atheists" in the West (and Western puppets like Japan and RoK) are Universalists.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you trying to say? What the frick is a moldbug? Take your fricking meds.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Moldbug (real name Curtis Yarvin) is the author of the article I linked, he describes how what most atheists in the west and its puppets believe is in fact a nontheistic offshoot of Christianity, specifically Calvinism (he also calls it "Ultracalvinism")

            Interestingly Moldbug is an atheist himself, so his intention is probably to distinguish himself from the popular image of an Atheist (big A)

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You and him both sound like deranged morons.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, just take a look at any "secular humanist" organization, or what Atheists (big A) on average believe, compare it with Unitarian Universalism (which is descended from Puritanism, check out how many Unitarian churches started as Puritan churches and how Harvard and Yale started as Puritan universities and so forth)

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    NDEs are irrefutable proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so undeniably real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

    As this NDEr described their NDE:

    >"I saw how life never ends. I remembered the process of reincarnation is endless, wonderful and truly eternal. I witnessed my own spiritual evolution and saw that I had existed long before this present incarnation (where I am now a male human). For me, watching the process of living life, after life, after life unfold, was mind-blowing! I undeniably observed that I had lived an innumerable amount of lives. My NDE clearly showed me that these bodies (we now inhabit) are not the first and only time we have existed! I saw that our soul and spirit is ancient! I also observed that there is no such thing as death."

    And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

    So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique. And the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

    >muh brain chemistry

    Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

    >muh DMT causes it

    Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

    So atheism is refuted and outdated by the scholarly literature on NDEs.

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I thought Oyish considered Dawkins based since he started hating trannies?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *