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

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

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

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

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

The reddit atheist / tumblr sjw split and it’s consequences have been a disaster for the human race

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Yeah. To add to this - The Nu-Atheists started out mostly opposed to the 2000s version of Christian Fascism. Their big bugbear, initially, was evolution. That’s why dipshit’s like Dawkins shot to the forefront.

When 9/11 happened it turned out that their only issue was religion, and they were perfectly happy to support, defend, and apologize for the Christian Fascist crusade to kill as many Muslims as possible and plunder the middle east. In so far as they had an analysis, their analysis was that Islam was turbo-Fundamentalism, uniquely evil, and extermination of all brown arabic speakers was totally justifiable. In foreign policy they were 100% aligned with the Christian Fascist regime.

That’s pretty much when I broke with them. I want to kill god, not brown people who believe in god, and that turned out to be an irreconcilable difference.

What everyone else is saying about secular calvinism is spot on. They were protestants in every way except a professed belief in god. They basically took the protestant secularization of Christianity one little tiny step forward and just removed god, while retaining all the beliefs and values of calvinism.

It’s not really surprising that a lot of them have turned towards other secular religions like techbro utopianism, or lapsed back to just being Christian Fascists again. A lot of them were probably also involved in GamerGate and the various bowtie debate bro movements that have been bouncing around the last few years

TLDR

  • Reactionary anti-Christian Fascist/Fundamentalism

  • 100% pro imperialism, American empire

  • Liberal PMC white supremacy. No klan robes, but totally on board with killing as many muslims as possible

  • Mostly either Democrat style right wing or GOP-Lite, back when the gop was less bizarre and openly unhinged than it is today.

  • Really liked debates even though debates never achieved anything useful, ever

  • I don’t remember too well, but I think a lot of them neatly transitioned from “relgion is oppressing us” to “feeeeeeeeeemales, feminisms, SJWs, and women in game’s journalism is oppressing us”

  • They’re mostly CHUDs now. I bet a lot of them ended up in the Why I Left The Left right, because that would fit with their whole shtick of being against “oppression” while siding with the establishment in every way that matters.

And the consequence is that when non-New-Atheist Atheists say things like “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.” and “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness” and “Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule.” we get yelled at for being part of a quasi-movement that hasn’t really existed in any coherent way in years.

There’s sort of a counter-reaction-reaction to a New-Atheist boogieman that mutated in to anti-SJW fascism or whatever it is :funny-clown-hammer: is doing years and years ago.

We’ve lost Socialism’s principled opposition to delusion, falsehood, charlatans, and false hope. A lot of woeo woo new age delusions have been allowed to have a space on the left and that’s at least partially because New Atheism tied all atheism to right wing reactionary imperialism in the public mind.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Reactionary Christianity is back on an upswing right now. There needs to be a counter.

permalink
report
reply

This post hit the mark.

2002 was a hell of a time to be a. Non-Christian and/or b. Against the invasion.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*

Some argue that this brand of atheism justifies imperialism. It does so really only in theory.

Except it also did in practice, making this claim categorically false.

New Atheism was a deeply, deeply liberal movement in the way that it worshiped uncritical ideas of “rationality” and “science”, which just like classical liberalism can only produce a farce as the ruling ideology increasingly casts itself as “rational” and thereby wins the approval of the self-satisfied chauvinists who were always the base of New Atheism. See Neil DeGrass Tyson’s “Rationalia” for an even more recent example of this flimsy approach to values.

It is also the natural and inevitable development of any “movement” so concerned with castigating backwater rural populations and promoting their “universal” values that they would seek to impose these values on other places they saw as backwater. The Islamophobia was therefore not a change in ideology but a change in focus.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

The western chauvinism was always there, but my memory of the day to day posting was largely Kent Hovind, “look at this bad take on christian-mom-forum.org”, and proto-manosphere dating advice.

At least when I was doing the rounds in the mid-2000s (so post 9/11 and during the main Iraq occupation). I was definitely after the heyday of Usenet channels.

It was always just assumed that Western culture produced superior values to the hyper religious middle East, as can be shown by how we just beat them in a war, but it rarely actually produced that much discussion.

permalink
report
parent
reply