Christianity’s decline has unleashed terrible new gods



Christianity’s decline has unleashed terrible new gods​

Story by Madeline Grant
• 8mo • 4 min read

Screenshot_1920.png



Not since the road to Damascus has there been a more notable spiritual volte-face than the one made on LBC this week. Having spent a career breathing threats against the disciples of the Lord, a certain Richard Dawkins is struck by a moment of realisation. And lo, the voice of Rachel Johnson came unto him and said “Dawko, Dawko, why persecutest thou me?”

OK, perhaps it didn’t happen quite like that, but Professor Dawkins’ admission that he considers himself a “cultural Christian”, who is, at the very least, ambivalent about Anglicanism’s decline is an undeniably contradictory position for a man who in the past campaigned relentlessly against any role for Christianity in public life, railing against faith schools and charitable status for churches.

Before we start preparing the baptismal font, it’s worth noting that Dawkins says he remains “happy” with the UK’s declining Christian faith, and that those beliefs are “nonsense”. But he also says that he enjoys living in a Christian society. This betrays a certain level of cultural free-riding. The survival of society’s Christian undercurrent depends on others buying into the “nonsense” even if he doesn’t.

Still, though Dawkins has spoken of his “cultural Christianity” before, this feels like another staging-post on a journey towards the good Professor finally admitting that the New Atheism, of which he was such a shining light, was wrong in crucial respects. First, in its almost touching naivety that a post-Christian world would give way to a values-neutral space, rooted in reason. Second, in its semi-adolescent diagnosis of Christianity as a retardant upon cultural and intellectual progress. A New Atheist would generally cite the Spanish Inquisition or some wacky US creationist as representatives of the world’s largest faith – conveniently ignoring any contradictory examples.

Like all good conversions, there’s an element of repentance; though unlike St Paul, Dawkins hasn’t had to go blind for three days to experience this epiphany. He also speaks of his concern at the rise of Islam in Christianity’s place; perhaps a tacit acknowledgement that some prominent atheists (though not he) focused excessively on Christianity, being an easy target compared to other religions.

One reason for Dawkins’ change of heart might be good old-fashioned scientific observation. It doesn’t take the brains of an evolutionary biologist to work out that New Atheism was mistaken in its diagnosis of what would follow religion’s decline. The rational world we were promised hasn’t materialised and a nastier, less reasonable one is supplanting what was there before.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in Scotland. By the New Atheist logic, it ought to be the most rational place in the UK since de-Christianisation has occurred there at a faster rate. Membership of the national Church of Scotland has fallen by 35 per cent in 10 years and the Scottish Churches Trust warns that 700 Christian places of worship will probably close in the next few years. A Scottish friend recently explained that every place where he’d come to faith – where he was christened, where his father was buried – had been shut or sold. This is not only a national tragedy, but a personal one.

New Atheism assumed that, as people abandoned Christianity they would embrace a sort of enlightened, secular position. The death of Christian Scotland shows this was wrong. Faith there has been replaced by derangement and the birthplace of the Scottish enlightenment – which rose out of Christian principles – now worships intolerant new gods.

The SNP’s draconian hate crime legislation is a totemic example. Merely stating facts of biology might earn you a visit from the Scottish police. But perhaps Christianity has shaped even this. It cannot be a coincidence that Scotland, home of John Knox, is now at the forefront of the denigration of women. The SNP’s new blasphemy laws are just the latest blast of that trumpet.

Not that things are much better south of the border, where we have de facto blasphemy laws under which a teacher can be forced into hiding for showing his class a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed. Certainly not the neutral secular space we were promised with the erosion of Christianity’s central role in society.

Yet increasingly, the thesis of Tom Holland’s book Dominion seems to be winning out, via a growing recognition that the ethics we hold as natural and universal are, in fact, anything but. Much of what atheists ascribed to vague concepts of “reason” emerged out of the faith which informed the West’s intellectual, moral, and, yes, scientific life – a cultural oxygen we breathe but never see.

I am reminded of Levin’s epiphany at the end of Anna Karenina. Throughout the novel, Levin, a dissatisfied religious sceptic, is plagued with doubt over the purpose of existence. Yet he finally comes to a stark realisation about the real roots of his belief, and the limits of a “rational” life: “He had lived (without being aware of it) on those spiritual truths that he had sucked in with his mother’s milk. But he had thought, not merely without recognition of these truths, but studiously ignoring them.” The world isn’t morally neutral, and never has been.

Recognising Christianity’s cultural impact is the first step. The bigger task facing the West is living out these values in an age when they are increasingly under threat.
 
Dawkins is disturbed about unwittingly working for Jews against Christians. I'm copying my post from the other thread.

We do not live in an atheistic world. We live in a world that is the end result of Jews gaining too much power. See the tendency to redefine obvious words in a vain attempt to influence reality, just like they do with the words of their god.

This new religion is just Judaism.
 
Nietzsche's thesis was that in an atheist world we must become as good as God and make the world a better place instead of hoping that there will be a better one in our afterlife.
Yeah this I like and is what I advocate for all the time. Religion is obvious nonsense but it is/was a tool used to instill morality and keep hedonism/degeneracy at bay. The nu atheists were too focused on attacking the beliefs behind religion but invested nothing in supporting it's purpose. You can have self aware rejection of religion while supporting it's effects, you don't have to believe the stories about a faggy Jew and a shitskin towelhead running around in the desert to reject bad ethics, principles and practices. In fact contemporary religious slave morality is probably worse than the atheist pagan master morality, civilization was built on the former in every case it was while the latter was used to create subservient populaces to whatever institution was in control.
 
All this has got me thinking about is the concept of the God-shaped hole. Not being able to recognize it and so much as attempt to fill it with some real spirituality even if one doesn't necessarily consider themselves religious has to be a mark of insanity.
 
remind me again why muzzies are bad when they kill more faggots and trannies yearly than christians do in a decade?
Do you want too become a muzzy? If you dont, their choice is too either tax the fuck out of you, or separate your head from your shoulders. If it was up to them, you wouldn't get a choice.
 
Sharing this gem of a Dawkin's interaction. Always makes me laugh. The whole debate was a banger too.


remind me again why muzzies are bad when they kill more faggots and trannies yearly than christians do in a decade?
1. Because their ideal man is muhammed, who is by many accounts not a person to be emulated. When a degenerate or criminal has a come to jesus moment and repents, they turn themselves into being a service to the people around themselves. Or at least, that's what they try to do. When someone has a come to muhammed moment they get strapped with a bomb vest or sacrifice themselves by flying planes into buildings.

2. Because they're fundamentally anti-truth. Their golden age was only because they conquered areas with rich cultural and scientific significance, the scientists had to change their names to islamic ones and then islam took the credit for them. They quickly turned this areas into backwater places scientifically. As one warlord/bookburner said when torching part of the library of alexandria "If the books contain knowledge of Allah, we already know it, and if they don't, what does it matter if they burn?" (paraphrased)

3. Because although they seem to be right about women, they also think it's normal to marry cousins and 9 year olds, sometimes both at the same time.

4. They hate dogs.
 
Última edición:
Ahhh Richard, you cannot have the fruit without the tree. The tree creates the fruit. You must nurture the trees that were planted and take care of them if you want to eat the fruit and have your children able to sit under the shade of the trees. No trees, no fruit, no shade and weeds grow.
won't call it a religion because its an insult to compare it to Christianity.
Cult is the word you’re looking for.
 
Nietzsche's thesis was that in an atheist world we must become as good as God and make the world a better place instead of hoping that there will be a better one in our afterlife. Then Dawkins came in and said "nuh uh" and is now calling himself cultural Christian and going back to that same God that has caused and still causes so much strife in this world and keeps people asleep to the problems of this world. Note I mean he's probably thinking of Anglican Christianity which does absolutely nothing to help the world, at least with the Catholic church there has been a push over the last 50 or 60 years to make the world we live in better than we leave it, even if there is a greater afterlife.



Ver archivo adjunto 6735470
"that same God that has caused and still causes so much strife in this world"

What you're really saying is you trannies hate God and Christians because we won't use your pronouns and give you unfettered access to children.
 
All this has got me thinking about is the concept of the God-shaped hole. Not being able to recognize it and so much as attempt to fill it with some real spirituality even if one doesn't necessarily consider themselves religious has to be a mark of insanity.
Why? If anything having to believe in something just for the sake of it is a defect which should be moved beyond. People shouldn't need to paste some silly wallpaper over their brain to deal with life
 
I for one know that the true faith will triumph, for Her name is Christopher Christian Christine Weston Chandler Sonichu Prime Blueheart, and she will bring on Da Merge!

Just wait until neo-Chrisian Crusaders clash with the Irish Islamic Calipotatophate and ban their devilish alcohol and wacky tobacky! Goatfucking and sheepfucking will be outlawed, replaced by hedgehogs!
 
Ahhh Richard, you cannot have the fruit without the tree. The tree creates the fruit. You must nurture the trees that were planted and take care of them if you want to eat the fruit and have your children able to sit under the shade of the trees. No trees, no fruit, no shade and weeds grow.

Cult is the word you’re looking for.
Unless you go to the supermarket and buy the fruit
 
Maybe Christianity should have been relevant.

Pagans converted to Christianity because it offered something better, people stopped being Christian because it stopped offering anything.
I'd say "engaged" rather than "relevant". The latter implies changing Christian teachings to suit the current culture, which is always a disaster.

Think about this - when is the last time Christians in the US or Europe ever took mass action against injustice or moral wrongdoing? They vote for the same corrupt politicians over and over and never hold them accountable and do nothing to address any other moral or social wrongs that plague Europe and the United States.

A belief system or faith that stands for nothing and bends to the slightest pressure inspires nobody.
 
Why? If anything having to believe in something just for the sake of it is a defect which should be moved beyond. People shouldn't need to paste some silly wallpaper over their brain to deal with life
I'm not sure I agree... then again I think while not rare its uncommon for people to really grapple with their own mortality. You don't really feel the effects of wasted time till you nearly run out unless you are a intensely self reflective person. I'm not convinced that is a positive thing either.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo