Atheists like Dawkins have lived long enough to see their “victory” over Christianity blow up in their faces as Western societies slide into the totalitarian gutter of woke communism
I admit I use to listen to a few atheists when I was a younger (not Dawkins, because he's insufferable), but the problem I realized is they don't really have anything to say.
Modern atheism is purely Socratic skepticism. There's no deeper truth, no novel insight. Just mindless arrogant pecking. If they had any values, then dealing with these revived Mesopotamian cults, or the hoards of Mecca, would be a just and thrilling challenge, but their values are based on self-interest because they swallowed nihilism hook, line and sinker.
Word games or pedantic one-up rhetoric won't cut it. These cults need to be sent back to hell.
It's easy to take their 'intellectualism' at face value until you decide to look into their lives and see what vaunted 'scientists' they are. Almost entirely unproductive with no real discoveries or accomplishments to their name. It would be one thing if a modern Nicola Tesla (Orthodox Christian) or Francis Bacon (Anglican Christian) said they were atheist while demonstrating the breadth of their ability to push mankind forward but the atheist never seems to able to get anything done at all.
The most important “scientist” of all time is Charles Darwin & his theory of natural selection. Through his observations of biological organisms, he lost his faith in God seeing the brutality of nature.
Physics being an abstract science, is less akin to questioning religion & thus Newton could see “the hand of god” in his physics.
Cosmology & geology show the earth to be ~4 billion years old, not 6,000 years old like creationists believe.
Dawkins’ theory* of “The Selfish Gene” also lends to his Atheism, much like Darwin. He is a real scientist and his position is consistent with his research.
Furthermore modern evolutionary psychology & game theory are able to recognize a natural basis for morality.
The real issue, real criticism of Dawkins’ atheism is the latest research in Evo-Psych, anthology, neuroscience, etc… that humans clearly evolved to be religious/mythological creatures so it stands that we want a world view that maps onto the psychological frame of the human mind. He has not effectively offered any such alternative to Christianity,
John C Wright says the tell for demonic or atheist belief was that they would saw off the branch they sat on. Dawkins has 1 40yr old daughter and 2 divorced wives. As far as I could see the 40yr old daughter will die childless herself because of her atheism. Either
•Dawkins genes aren't very selfish and by his own metric he's a genetic waste that shouldn't be listened to
•We -should- listen to Dawkins because the selfish gene doesn't matter and something else does?
Assuming his daughter isn’t having kids by choice, I’ll just point out, Dawkins coined the concept of “meme” as well. Memes affect genes. Religions are memes, & what someone believes has consequences for reproduction. Religions to the degree they are adaptive is because they increase the birthdate & quality of life for adherents. If Dawkins doesn’t understand this then it’s a failure on his part as I’ve pointed out above and lack of reproduction is because of the maladaptive memes he believes. Of course it could be something else entirely like falling sperm counts etc…
There’s no point in signaling out Dawkins per se except to learn about the greater problems facing the West. There are plenty of Christian women who are not having kids, who wasted too much time. Just check any dating app to confirm.
No one is immune to the toxic effects of modernity. Too many average people believe saving the environment requires not having kids. Too many wasted time going to college & career not having kids etc…
As I pointed out in another reply, we have Christians adopting African children & churches donating money to Africa, and Christian charities supporting mass immigration & refugee resettlement.
Also, Christians are trying to ban abortion which is the only hedge against black crime in America.
Between mass immigration + anti-abortion for minorities Christians are creating a dysgenic situation that will force their own children into a hated and persecuted minority status in the countries their ancestors founded. You don’t get worse memes than that.
I understand where you are coming from and it does paint a grim picture. There are some important points to mention though.
•A few Christian subgroups have reproduction rates that are very high. Mormons, Amish, even Pentacosts somehow.
•Even with the massive population drop we'll still be at levels around or exceeding WWII. Japan, always the dropping fertility posterchild, is at 125 million people today while they were at 72 million people at WWII. That means they could have a replacement rate of almost 1 child per couple and still be at WWII levels in a generation or two. It's possible that fertility curves in civilization are largely self correcting.
•The Judaizing Christian groups, which are primarily responsible for the woes you list, are largely centered around Baby Boomers. The generational divide is sharp here and the younger generations do not have the same inclination nor the same excess prosperity to continue these programs.
•The MAGA movement has generally been about addressing the concerns you listed. While they are currently out of power, as we can see with Trump's prosecution, it's still clear that a large proportion of the population is on that side. There will certainly be a great divide, if not extreme war, but the West isn't 'over'.
Dawkins gets singled out because the post is about him and he's very famous. Again, if he wants to use natural law as a moral metric then he's a failure by his own measure and should not be listened to. The same problem with any relativist who abandons objective reality.
As an educational point, faith in Christendom comes from the wisdom of God being far beyond our ability to comprehend. A child having faith that their parent will be able to fix the car, prepare dinner and keep the lights running isn't 'willful ignorance' but simply knowing that the parent will handle things in a benevolent if incomprehensible manner.
When you read the old fathers it becomes clear that faith becomes understanding with spiritual maturity but God is so far above us in all attributes there's always more to know and thus more faith is always needed. For example an immature mind cannot comprehend "Why does evil exist? Why do people die?" so they can only have faith that there's a reason but any priest should be able to answer the question because their spiritual maturity has grown.
This isn't even a spiritually exclusive matter for faith. We operate on faith every day; how does your car run, why does it rain, does my medicine work, etc.
Rain, automobiles, and medicine have been studied by scientists and built by humans. God never built shit. Nobody has ever heard him or seen him. You have just your childish fantasy world to go by.
And miracles have been done and understood by saints. In regards to "study" I would go so far as to say the weight of discovery by the faithful outweighs the atheist camp by magnitudes. It turns out that when you deny any foundation of a creator you believe reality to be a subjective experience. Trannies with ambiguous gender, diversity managing air control towers, the unintelligent piloting ships. All is fair game in atheist world.
In regards to rain, automobiles and medicine you would be surprised to see how much of it they get wrong, if not outright anti-reality. Of course, feel free to go get your 7th booster if you don't believe me. Trust the science!
When the first ever evidence of the existence of a god is uncovered, give me a call. “Faith” is the stupid persons “thought”. Believing in the magic invisible cloud wizard is not a good look.
I do think this will be the lasting legacy of the new atheists. Their naivety. Peter Hitchens, the conservative church going brother of Christopher Hitchens, once challenged them by saying if you remove Christianity it won't be replaced with nothing as they imagine.
Silence from the atheists. Theirs is just a sophisticated form of vandalism. And Dawkins is finding out firsthand what it is being replaced with. The New Britons openly state their goal is absolute domination. The middle classes in Britain like elsewhere are in total denial about what is happening. Dawkins has at least noticed.
Christians should learn to fight Dawkins on biological evolution in favour of intelligent design. Evolution is one of the easiest false dogmas to destroy at its root.
I never understood the problem. Evolution does not actually debunk Christianity, if it is the tool by which we were made. The Bible is allegorical, each day takes eons, and the process isn't actually described; couldn't evolution be the how, and genesis be the why and the who?
Evolution is weaponized to debunk intelligent design. Anyone who argues that the same genetic code structure emerges over eons by chance and proceeds to order itself by chance somehow inside living cells with all kinds of living functionality all while opposing the Second Law of Thermodynamics consistently over eons can easily be debunked. Enter Dawkins.
I mean, it's mostly iterative progress and survivor's bias; we see the cells that manage to survive and reproduce, not the millions of failures. Cancer is a very nice example of darwinian evolution, not on the organism but on the cellular level, different cells under evolutionary pressure, most of them dying but some of them able to survive, and multiply and with some of the daughter cells having mutations, most of which are useless/ harmful but some actually improving a bit the function of a cell. It sounds like a very intelligent design of a system to continually improve an organism; after all God gives his best soldiers the toughest battles.
The biologist reiterated that he was happy to hear that fewer people believe in Christianity. However, he was sad to see the hymns, Christmas carols, and Christian churches that he associated with England give way to another culture.
Sadly, there is no way to have Hymns, Christmas Carols, and Churches without Christianity. As the old song goes, "You can't have one without the other."
It would be the same as when the Norse, Greek, and Roman religions disappeared.
Wow, not smart. This is wanting the good without the Giver of Good, God. Cannot have one without the other. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Me as well.
He should pay more attention to what it is being replaced with. England will not survive that and the middle classes there are in denial about it even as it unfolds in front of them.
This is of course correct. I spoke to a friend once who said they wanted to live like the Amish but without “all the religious weirdness.” I tried to explain that you don't live in refutation of the modern world like the Amish unless you truly believe in the things they believe. I think it was lost on him.
Basically, he argued that so-called atheists like Dawkins dropped their belief in a Christian God but kept the underlying values deriving from belief in that God, which is an unstable and unsustainable position to have. How can someone of supposedly higher-level IQ not realize such a fundamental point? Oh well.
Because the goal is superiority, not accuracy. It is the same mentality that motivates the laptop class who, coincidentally, were the demographic that championed the New Atheists and made them into best-selling authors. I guarantee few read the books.
Religion and all that is associated with it belongs in the Bronze Age. This ignores all Christian countries created, and non-Christian ones did not. Dawkins will now get to enjoy the culture created by the New Britons who are gradually surrounding him. Does he not realize their first act will be to ban the teaching of evolution in schools?
Atheism is a dead end, a nullity. It offers no wisdom, no love, no comfort, no beauty, and no truth. Nature abhors a vacuum, so when Christianity fades we don’t get a freethinking atheist paradise (because atheism is *a nullity*); we get Islam, the opportunistic parasite infecting the weakened body of Christendom. Welcome to polygyny, child marriage, veiling, forced conversions, amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, bans on figurative art, religious discrimination, and a cultural desert of no books, no arts, no intellection. besides being barbaric sad false, Islam is also deeply alien in spirit and feeling, like something from a foreign land (which it is!). Very belatedly, Dawkins is realizing that all this time he was attacking his own home and extended family—the beautiful old churches, the flaming Christmas pudding, the long Christian threads woven throughout the tapestry of his people’s history. Duh. Atheists think of themselves as so smart but they are stupid about what truly matters. I used to be one; now I worship Jesus Christ as my Lord and my God.
Repent, Dawkins! It’s not too late. Toss all that garbage overboard and join the fight.
While I concur with most of your comment, your specific understanding of islam seems to be incorrect. While I have my (specific) gripes with it, yours listed seem to be from a misunderstanding of it.
I've seen Muslims murder people for criticizing their god, their prophet, over and over the past few decades. That's not the way we do things in the Christian world. It's unacceptable, stupid and brutal and if Islam wants to be accepted and not seen as a threat it needs to get its own house in order. That's a problem though because the Koran and Mohammed clearly preach death to infidels. Nothing could be further from Christian teaching. There's a reason the Christian world brought us modern technology and civilization: because it teaches us to love our brother and treat others as we would wish to be treated. It encourages community and people working together to build and prosper. I don't see that in the Muslim world. Christianity brought a sophisticated understanding of God and the universe and the western culture that gave us modern medicine, electricity, etc. The insights and inventions the Europeans gave the world would simply not have been permitted in a Muslim world. We're not all the same, and if Muslims think they will take over Europe or the US because Christians are weak they are going to get a real surprise. Kindness and acceptance is not weakness. The Nazis thought the same way and tried to revert Europe to a pre-Christian, pagan brutality. They were a lot more powerful than the Muslims that have invaded Europe, and they were dealt with. This is a warning to Muslims: you cannot defeat the west. Your envy at our achievements and strength will not win you anything, and if we have to we will expel you in any way we have to in order to protect our culture. You'd do better to accept these facts now before things get really ugly.
Great to see someone else recognize out inherent strengths, and the notion our current weaknesses, like open borders, are a distortion of our decency, not weakness as such. This is further amplified by the observation the overwhelming majority in European nations strongly object to mass immigration. It really is authorized by a tiny, powerful minority who fantasize about globalism.
What is interpreted as weakness by the tribal incomers is in fact an extension of our Christian origins and the concern for others it inculcated. I recently read an account by an Indian immigrant making this very point. He loved living in Britain because people were much nicer to him than back home.
Obviously here in Europe we have another set of traits we are only just keeping a lid on, much older ones the technocratic elite seem to forget we possess. When you get to know some of the immigrant groups here on the ground many are quite aware of this. They too have their out of touch elites stirring up trouble.
I think you are incorrect re: "tried to revert Europe to pre-Christian pagan brutality" The Nazis war was with Bolshevism not Europe. It was France and Britain that declared war on Germany after all.
Right. Germany took Czechoslovakia, Poland and then France and made a treaty with Stalin. And the French declared war because Germany invaded Poland and France had a defensive treaty with Poland. The only nation Hitler was surprised when they declared war was Britain since in his delusional thinking the Anglo-Saxons and Germans were kindred and should join together to enslave the lesser races. I say delusional because I can't really think of two nations that are more distinct culturally (not to mention their history of brutal warfare pre-WWII).
The Nazis wanted to enslave all the Slavic peoples and take their lands for Germany. The Soviets were just the largest power within that racial group. If you read Hitler's philosophy he is clearly anti-Christian, especially anti-Catholic. His blood and soil ideology was quite pagan, reaching back to a mythological Teutonic pre-Christian history.
Wealthy Banksters and the Privileged Classes saw their phoney debt / usury system at risk when witnessing the rejuvenation of Germany as the rest of the world suffered the Great Depression. Poland could have given back German territory stole by the Versailles Treaty and avoided a European war. Bolshevism was the enemy of Europe / Western Civilisation
If you think the banksters weren't backing Hitler you are misinformed. Not just German, but many American banksters and industrialists grew in wealth and power during WWI and after -- specifically the rebuilding/reindustrialization of Germany. Ford, and many other firms represented by the Dulles brothers and the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell were heavily involved in funding and profiteering of both world wars, the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath, including Hitler's rise. The industrialists thought Hitler was quite useful. Yes Germany's economy recovered greatly during the 30's under Hitler but so did the US economy under FDR. Interestingly, both nations pursued massive publicly funded infrastructure and industrial development in the 30s. So Hitler wasn't alone in performing "economic miracles".
That said, whichever way the war went, the oligarchs would have won. In fact, Allen Dulles spent large parts of WWII in Switzerland meeting with key power brokers within the Third Reich and among the German industrialists to keep the connections open so business would continue uninterrupted regardless of the outcome.
FDR knew about Dulles' traitorous behavior and allowed him to continue to operate because he had the OSS monitoring Dulles and his German connections. If FDR hadn't died things would've been much different after the war. We would likely have no CIA, or at least a much less powerful intelligence apparatus. A lot of things would be different. In fact, JFK was the only president after FDR that fought the interests of the oligarchy. They tried to coup FDR (read about "the businessman's plot") and they succeeded against JFK.
Ever since the CIA killed JFK we haven't had a president go against the oligarchy's interests until Trump. He opposed their globalization agenda and constant wars. That's why they've gone after him so hard.
I guess I'm going over all this history to point out that while you're not wrong that in some ways Hitler looked out for the interests of the majority of the German people, he maintained power because the oligarchy found him useful. But he was also a gangster and jackal who used murder, torture and terror ruthlessly, and started the bloodiest war in human history. Perhaps if Poland had ceded the German-populated region to Hitler he might not have invaded at that moment. But Hitler (and German industry and bankers) had big plans and bloody invasions, mass slavery, starvation and land grabs were a huge part of that plan. I'm no fan of the Bolsheviks but I don't think the people of eastern Europe deserved what Germany did to them -- after all, it's not like they all voted for Lenin and Stalin. And while Stalin did kill tens of millions, Hitler's war killed over 60 million. The Nazis were bloody jackals and would've torn each other to pieces if they'd actually won the war, and Europe would likely have descended into a chaotic dark age to rival any of the bloodiest eras in history.
It's the oligarchy we have to fight, and its tentacles extend in every direction and into every power faction and industry. It almost seems hopeless, and it is if we think we can ever completely rid ourselves of them. But we don't have to erase them, just tame them and make them afraid again. If you're wondering how that is done, just look to history, and quite often the most effective opponents of the oligarchy have come from the working class "left". I think its a mistake to think of left and right. It's the oligarchy versus the people, and whatever gets the people unified effectively to weaken their control of government is useful. All this troon and woke crap is really just another way to divide and conquer the bottom 95% so we all fight each other while the bankster criminals continue their games.
Dawkins is (or was) a “useful idiot” for the woke Commies who show their utter disdain for him now that he’s outlived his usefulness. It’s always a surprise to the UI, but shouldn’t be. Smug prick.
“In fighting those who serve devils one always has this on one's side; their Masters hate them as much as they hate us. The moment we disable the human pawns enough to make them useless to Hell, their own Masters finish the work for us. they break their tools.”
Ding Ding! You win the Internet prize for the day! 🏆
I agree 100%. Dawkins always thought that he was working towards something useful and meaningful. But he was fooled, and now he knows it. But it's too late to turn back time. This moment eventually comes for every useful idiot.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.”
Most people today regard these injunctions as a utopian sort of pacifism, manifestly naïve and even blameworthy because servile, doloristic, perhaps even masochistic. This interpretation betrays the influence of an ideology that sees veiled political agendas everywhere and attributes what it considers to be the irrationality of human behavior to mere superstition. Is Jesus really asking us to grovel at the feet of just anybody, to beg for a slap in the face that no one dreams of giving us, to seek to satisfy the whims of the powerful at all costs? This reading pays only glancing attention to Saint Matthew's text, which presents us with two examples: someone who slaps us without provocation; and someone who sues us for our tunic, the main article of clothing, often the only one, in Jesus's world. Gratuitously reprehensible conduct of this sort suggests the presence of an ulterior motive. We are dealing with people who wish to infuriate us, to draw us into a cycle of escalating conflict. They do everything they can, in other words, to provoke a response that will justify them in retaliating in turn; to manufacture an excuse for legitimate self-defense. For if we treat them as they treat us, they will be able to disguise their own injustice by means of reprisals that are fully warranted by the violence we have committed. It is therefore necessary to deprive them of the negative collaboration that they demand of us. Violent persons must always be disobeyed, not only because they encourage us to do harm, but because it is only through disobedience that a lethally contagious form of collective behavior can be short-circuited. Only the conduct enjoined by Jesus can keep violence from getting out of hand, by putting a stop to it before it starts.
The object of a lawsuit, precious though it may be, is generally limited, finite, insignificant by comparison with the infinite risk that accompanies the least concession to the spirit of retaliation, which is to say to another round of mimeticism. It is better to hand over the tunic.
In order to properly understand the passage in Matthew, we need to recall the one in Saint Paul's letter to the Romans (12: 20) in which Paul says that to renounce retaliation is to heap “burning coals” upon the heads of one's enemy; in other words, to place him in a morally impossible position. At first sight this sort of tactical advice seems quite unlike Jesus. It seems to suggest the practical effectiveness of non-violence, with a dash of cynicism. But this impression is more apparent than real. To speak of cynicism here is to minimize what non-violence actually requires us to do the moment violence is unleashed against us.”
— The One by Whom Scandal Comes (Studies in Violence, Mimesis & Culture) by René Girard
Fantastic reference! To forgive is to refuse to retaliate and to let go of the desire to do so. No where is love commanded as a feeling; agape love is always a decision. "Vengeance is mine" sayeth the Lord. "I will repay". And that is a universe away from not defending oneself or your loved ones against physical violence. Hollywood has messaged for decades that "love" is merely what one feels in a moment, thus it has lost all its power. The true power of love is in acting against strong emotion to treat another person in their own best interest. Jesus, in his ministry, suffering and death, is the perfect example of real, "agape" love.
Dawkins is supposed to be really smart yet he’s surprised by all of the consequences of the things he wanted. Amazing. And Christians are supposed to be the stupid ones.
This is timed perfectly with a lot of other things, including concern-troll rightists and atheists castigating Christians for fighting back, which is supposedly not-Christian. Unless these people are willing to proclaim that Jesus is Lord, Christians should not accept moral instruction from them.
As St Augustine said with the Just War theory - sometimes the point of killing is to keep people from sinning, and it is merciful to do so. That their eternal punishment will be less for doing so, because they obviously won't turn from their reckless, sinful behavior.
Stop rolling over. Stop letting sinners and blasphemers dig themselves deeper into hellfire. It is not merciful - it is cruel. It is enabling. If anything, it is something we, as Christians, will be punished for by God.
So, what will WE have to answer for, for THEIR behavior, that WE let happen?
I truly pity Dawkins, having once abandoned the faith and returned a year ago I've found the faith to be a great comfort and joy. I find that Christmas carols, old Greek & Norse myths, literature has more joy knowing it comes from Him.
I don't think Christianity is dying, it'll resurge down the road what is so interesting is that Japan, China and Asia are turning to Christianity. It is shifting east, while Islam shifts West. Dawkins though was always a coward.
I’ve started reading the gospels for the first time in my life, and Jesus was not a pushover, not towards injustice and not towards sin. He demanded a lot from those who followed him.
I wish I could find out more about Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s conversion to Christianity. She ticked Dawkin’s off with that move, as if it personally offended him.
I admit I use to listen to a few atheists when I was a younger (not Dawkins, because he's insufferable), but the problem I realized is they don't really have anything to say.
Modern atheism is purely Socratic skepticism. There's no deeper truth, no novel insight. Just mindless arrogant pecking. If they had any values, then dealing with these revived Mesopotamian cults, or the hoards of Mecca, would be a just and thrilling challenge, but their values are based on self-interest because they swallowed nihilism hook, line and sinker.
Word games or pedantic one-up rhetoric won't cut it. These cults need to be sent back to hell.
It's easy to take their 'intellectualism' at face value until you decide to look into their lives and see what vaunted 'scientists' they are. Almost entirely unproductive with no real discoveries or accomplishments to their name. It would be one thing if a modern Nicola Tesla (Orthodox Christian) or Francis Bacon (Anglican Christian) said they were atheist while demonstrating the breadth of their ability to push mankind forward but the atheist never seems to able to get anything done at all.
The most important “scientist” of all time is Charles Darwin & his theory of natural selection. Through his observations of biological organisms, he lost his faith in God seeing the brutality of nature.
Physics being an abstract science, is less akin to questioning religion & thus Newton could see “the hand of god” in his physics.
Cosmology & geology show the earth to be ~4 billion years old, not 6,000 years old like creationists believe.
Dawkins’ theory* of “The Selfish Gene” also lends to his Atheism, much like Darwin. He is a real scientist and his position is consistent with his research.
Furthermore modern evolutionary psychology & game theory are able to recognize a natural basis for morality.
The real issue, real criticism of Dawkins’ atheism is the latest research in Evo-Psych, anthology, neuroscience, etc… that humans clearly evolved to be religious/mythological creatures so it stands that we want a world view that maps onto the psychological frame of the human mind. He has not effectively offered any such alternative to Christianity,
John C Wright says the tell for demonic or atheist belief was that they would saw off the branch they sat on. Dawkins has 1 40yr old daughter and 2 divorced wives. As far as I could see the 40yr old daughter will die childless herself because of her atheism. Either
•Dawkins genes aren't very selfish and by his own metric he's a genetic waste that shouldn't be listened to
•We -should- listen to Dawkins because the selfish gene doesn't matter and something else does?
It's hypocritical or incoherent at this point.
Assuming his daughter isn’t having kids by choice, I’ll just point out, Dawkins coined the concept of “meme” as well. Memes affect genes. Religions are memes, & what someone believes has consequences for reproduction. Religions to the degree they are adaptive is because they increase the birthdate & quality of life for adherents. If Dawkins doesn’t understand this then it’s a failure on his part as I’ve pointed out above and lack of reproduction is because of the maladaptive memes he believes. Of course it could be something else entirely like falling sperm counts etc…
There’s no point in signaling out Dawkins per se except to learn about the greater problems facing the West. There are plenty of Christian women who are not having kids, who wasted too much time. Just check any dating app to confirm.
No one is immune to the toxic effects of modernity. Too many average people believe saving the environment requires not having kids. Too many wasted time going to college & career not having kids etc…
As I pointed out in another reply, we have Christians adopting African children & churches donating money to Africa, and Christian charities supporting mass immigration & refugee resettlement.
Also, Christians are trying to ban abortion which is the only hedge against black crime in America.
Between mass immigration + anti-abortion for minorities Christians are creating a dysgenic situation that will force their own children into a hated and persecuted minority status in the countries their ancestors founded. You don’t get worse memes than that.
I understand where you are coming from and it does paint a grim picture. There are some important points to mention though.
•A few Christian subgroups have reproduction rates that are very high. Mormons, Amish, even Pentacosts somehow.
•Even with the massive population drop we'll still be at levels around or exceeding WWII. Japan, always the dropping fertility posterchild, is at 125 million people today while they were at 72 million people at WWII. That means they could have a replacement rate of almost 1 child per couple and still be at WWII levels in a generation or two. It's possible that fertility curves in civilization are largely self correcting.
•The Judaizing Christian groups, which are primarily responsible for the woes you list, are largely centered around Baby Boomers. The generational divide is sharp here and the younger generations do not have the same inclination nor the same excess prosperity to continue these programs.
•The MAGA movement has generally been about addressing the concerns you listed. While they are currently out of power, as we can see with Trump's prosecution, it's still clear that a large proportion of the population is on that side. There will certainly be a great divide, if not extreme war, but the West isn't 'over'.
Dawkins gets singled out because the post is about him and he's very famous. Again, if he wants to use natural law as a moral metric then he's a failure by his own measure and should not be listened to. The same problem with any relativist who abandons objective reality.
They do seem to miss the whole “faith” aspect of Christianity.
“Faith” aka blind willful ignorance.
As an educational point, faith in Christendom comes from the wisdom of God being far beyond our ability to comprehend. A child having faith that their parent will be able to fix the car, prepare dinner and keep the lights running isn't 'willful ignorance' but simply knowing that the parent will handle things in a benevolent if incomprehensible manner.
When you read the old fathers it becomes clear that faith becomes understanding with spiritual maturity but God is so far above us in all attributes there's always more to know and thus more faith is always needed. For example an immature mind cannot comprehend "Why does evil exist? Why do people die?" so they can only have faith that there's a reason but any priest should be able to answer the question because their spiritual maturity has grown.
This isn't even a spiritually exclusive matter for faith. We operate on faith every day; how does your car run, why does it rain, does my medicine work, etc.
Rain, automobiles, and medicine have been studied by scientists and built by humans. God never built shit. Nobody has ever heard him or seen him. You have just your childish fantasy world to go by.
And miracles have been done and understood by saints. In regards to "study" I would go so far as to say the weight of discovery by the faithful outweighs the atheist camp by magnitudes. It turns out that when you deny any foundation of a creator you believe reality to be a subjective experience. Trannies with ambiguous gender, diversity managing air control towers, the unintelligent piloting ships. All is fair game in atheist world.
In regards to rain, automobiles and medicine you would be surprised to see how much of it they get wrong, if not outright anti-reality. Of course, feel free to go get your 7th booster if you don't believe me. Trust the science!
When the first ever evidence of the existence of a god is uncovered, give me a call. “Faith” is the stupid persons “thought”. Believing in the magic invisible cloud wizard is not a good look.
I do think this will be the lasting legacy of the new atheists. Their naivety. Peter Hitchens, the conservative church going brother of Christopher Hitchens, once challenged them by saying if you remove Christianity it won't be replaced with nothing as they imagine.
Silence from the atheists. Theirs is just a sophisticated form of vandalism. And Dawkins is finding out firsthand what it is being replaced with. The New Britons openly state their goal is absolute domination. The middle classes in Britain like elsewhere are in total denial about what is happening. Dawkins has at least noticed.
Christians should learn to fight Dawkins on biological evolution in favour of intelligent design. Evolution is one of the easiest false dogmas to destroy at its root.
I never understood the problem. Evolution does not actually debunk Christianity, if it is the tool by which we were made. The Bible is allegorical, each day takes eons, and the process isn't actually described; couldn't evolution be the how, and genesis be the why and the who?
Evolution is weaponized to debunk intelligent design. Anyone who argues that the same genetic code structure emerges over eons by chance and proceeds to order itself by chance somehow inside living cells with all kinds of living functionality all while opposing the Second Law of Thermodynamics consistently over eons can easily be debunked. Enter Dawkins.
I mean, it's mostly iterative progress and survivor's bias; we see the cells that manage to survive and reproduce, not the millions of failures. Cancer is a very nice example of darwinian evolution, not on the organism but on the cellular level, different cells under evolutionary pressure, most of them dying but some of them able to survive, and multiply and with some of the daughter cells having mutations, most of which are useless/ harmful but some actually improving a bit the function of a cell. It sounds like a very intelligent design of a system to continually improve an organism; after all God gives his best soldiers the toughest battles.
Enter Teilhard de Chardin. Evolution and the notion of an unfinished creation headed towards some future goal completely compatible.
The biologist reiterated that he was happy to hear that fewer people believe in Christianity. However, he was sad to see the hymns, Christmas carols, and Christian churches that he associated with England give way to another culture.
Sadly, there is no way to have Hymns, Christmas Carols, and Churches without Christianity. As the old song goes, "You can't have one without the other."
It would be the same as when the Norse, Greek, and Roman religions disappeared.
Wow, not smart. This is wanting the good without the Giver of Good, God. Cannot have one without the other. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Me as well.
Enjoying the sunshine while denying the existence of the sun.
Yes!
He should pay more attention to what it is being replaced with. England will not survive that and the middle classes there are in denial about it even as it unfolds in front of them.
Agree, Spaceman!
This is of course correct. I spoke to a friend once who said they wanted to live like the Amish but without “all the religious weirdness.” I tried to explain that you don't live in refutation of the modern world like the Amish unless you truly believe in the things they believe. I think it was lost on him.
Nice post, Morgthorak. I don't read Moldbug these days but he had an accurate (but extremely overlong) post making a similar point about Dawkins back in 2007: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/
Basically, he argued that so-called atheists like Dawkins dropped their belief in a Christian God but kept the underlying values deriving from belief in that God, which is an unstable and unsustainable position to have. How can someone of supposedly higher-level IQ not realize such a fundamental point? Oh well.
> How can someone of supposedly higher-level IQ not realize such a fundamental point?
High IQ makes it easy to see the problem with every position except one's own.
Because the goal is superiority, not accuracy. It is the same mentality that motivates the laptop class who, coincidentally, were the demographic that championed the New Atheists and made them into best-selling authors. I guarantee few read the books.
Religion and all that is associated with it belongs in the Bronze Age. This ignores all Christian countries created, and non-Christian ones did not. Dawkins will now get to enjoy the culture created by the New Britons who are gradually surrounding him. Does he not realize their first act will be to ban the teaching of evolution in schools?
Atheism is a dead end, a nullity. It offers no wisdom, no love, no comfort, no beauty, and no truth. Nature abhors a vacuum, so when Christianity fades we don’t get a freethinking atheist paradise (because atheism is *a nullity*); we get Islam, the opportunistic parasite infecting the weakened body of Christendom. Welcome to polygyny, child marriage, veiling, forced conversions, amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, bans on figurative art, religious discrimination, and a cultural desert of no books, no arts, no intellection. besides being barbaric sad false, Islam is also deeply alien in spirit and feeling, like something from a foreign land (which it is!). Very belatedly, Dawkins is realizing that all this time he was attacking his own home and extended family—the beautiful old churches, the flaming Christmas pudding, the long Christian threads woven throughout the tapestry of his people’s history. Duh. Atheists think of themselves as so smart but they are stupid about what truly matters. I used to be one; now I worship Jesus Christ as my Lord and my God.
Repent, Dawkins! It’s not too late. Toss all that garbage overboard and join the fight.
While I concur with most of your comment, your specific understanding of islam seems to be incorrect. While I have my (specific) gripes with it, yours listed seem to be from a misunderstanding of it.
I've seen Muslims murder people for criticizing their god, their prophet, over and over the past few decades. That's not the way we do things in the Christian world. It's unacceptable, stupid and brutal and if Islam wants to be accepted and not seen as a threat it needs to get its own house in order. That's a problem though because the Koran and Mohammed clearly preach death to infidels. Nothing could be further from Christian teaching. There's a reason the Christian world brought us modern technology and civilization: because it teaches us to love our brother and treat others as we would wish to be treated. It encourages community and people working together to build and prosper. I don't see that in the Muslim world. Christianity brought a sophisticated understanding of God and the universe and the western culture that gave us modern medicine, electricity, etc. The insights and inventions the Europeans gave the world would simply not have been permitted in a Muslim world. We're not all the same, and if Muslims think they will take over Europe or the US because Christians are weak they are going to get a real surprise. Kindness and acceptance is not weakness. The Nazis thought the same way and tried to revert Europe to a pre-Christian, pagan brutality. They were a lot more powerful than the Muslims that have invaded Europe, and they were dealt with. This is a warning to Muslims: you cannot defeat the west. Your envy at our achievements and strength will not win you anything, and if we have to we will expel you in any way we have to in order to protect our culture. You'd do better to accept these facts now before things get really ugly.
Great to see someone else recognize out inherent strengths, and the notion our current weaknesses, like open borders, are a distortion of our decency, not weakness as such. This is further amplified by the observation the overwhelming majority in European nations strongly object to mass immigration. It really is authorized by a tiny, powerful minority who fantasize about globalism.
What is interpreted as weakness by the tribal incomers is in fact an extension of our Christian origins and the concern for others it inculcated. I recently read an account by an Indian immigrant making this very point. He loved living in Britain because people were much nicer to him than back home.
Obviously here in Europe we have another set of traits we are only just keeping a lid on, much older ones the technocratic elite seem to forget we possess. When you get to know some of the immigrant groups here on the ground many are quite aware of this. They too have their out of touch elites stirring up trouble.
I think you are incorrect re: "tried to revert Europe to pre-Christian pagan brutality" The Nazis war was with Bolshevism not Europe. It was France and Britain that declared war on Germany after all.
Right. Germany took Czechoslovakia, Poland and then France and made a treaty with Stalin. And the French declared war because Germany invaded Poland and France had a defensive treaty with Poland. The only nation Hitler was surprised when they declared war was Britain since in his delusional thinking the Anglo-Saxons and Germans were kindred and should join together to enslave the lesser races. I say delusional because I can't really think of two nations that are more distinct culturally (not to mention their history of brutal warfare pre-WWII).
The Nazis wanted to enslave all the Slavic peoples and take their lands for Germany. The Soviets were just the largest power within that racial group. If you read Hitler's philosophy he is clearly anti-Christian, especially anti-Catholic. His blood and soil ideology was quite pagan, reaching back to a mythological Teutonic pre-Christian history.
Wealthy Banksters and the Privileged Classes saw their phoney debt / usury system at risk when witnessing the rejuvenation of Germany as the rest of the world suffered the Great Depression. Poland could have given back German territory stole by the Versailles Treaty and avoided a European war. Bolshevism was the enemy of Europe / Western Civilisation
If you think the banksters weren't backing Hitler you are misinformed. Not just German, but many American banksters and industrialists grew in wealth and power during WWI and after -- specifically the rebuilding/reindustrialization of Germany. Ford, and many other firms represented by the Dulles brothers and the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell were heavily involved in funding and profiteering of both world wars, the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath, including Hitler's rise. The industrialists thought Hitler was quite useful. Yes Germany's economy recovered greatly during the 30's under Hitler but so did the US economy under FDR. Interestingly, both nations pursued massive publicly funded infrastructure and industrial development in the 30s. So Hitler wasn't alone in performing "economic miracles".
That said, whichever way the war went, the oligarchs would have won. In fact, Allen Dulles spent large parts of WWII in Switzerland meeting with key power brokers within the Third Reich and among the German industrialists to keep the connections open so business would continue uninterrupted regardless of the outcome.
FDR knew about Dulles' traitorous behavior and allowed him to continue to operate because he had the OSS monitoring Dulles and his German connections. If FDR hadn't died things would've been much different after the war. We would likely have no CIA, or at least a much less powerful intelligence apparatus. A lot of things would be different. In fact, JFK was the only president after FDR that fought the interests of the oligarchy. They tried to coup FDR (read about "the businessman's plot") and they succeeded against JFK.
Ever since the CIA killed JFK we haven't had a president go against the oligarchy's interests until Trump. He opposed their globalization agenda and constant wars. That's why they've gone after him so hard.
I guess I'm going over all this history to point out that while you're not wrong that in some ways Hitler looked out for the interests of the majority of the German people, he maintained power because the oligarchy found him useful. But he was also a gangster and jackal who used murder, torture and terror ruthlessly, and started the bloodiest war in human history. Perhaps if Poland had ceded the German-populated region to Hitler he might not have invaded at that moment. But Hitler (and German industry and bankers) had big plans and bloody invasions, mass slavery, starvation and land grabs were a huge part of that plan. I'm no fan of the Bolsheviks but I don't think the people of eastern Europe deserved what Germany did to them -- after all, it's not like they all voted for Lenin and Stalin. And while Stalin did kill tens of millions, Hitler's war killed over 60 million. The Nazis were bloody jackals and would've torn each other to pieces if they'd actually won the war, and Europe would likely have descended into a chaotic dark age to rival any of the bloodiest eras in history.
It's the oligarchy we have to fight, and its tentacles extend in every direction and into every power faction and industry. It almost seems hopeless, and it is if we think we can ever completely rid ourselves of them. But we don't have to erase them, just tame them and make them afraid again. If you're wondering how that is done, just look to history, and quite often the most effective opponents of the oligarchy have come from the working class "left". I think its a mistake to think of left and right. It's the oligarchy versus the people, and whatever gets the people unified effectively to weaken their control of government is useful. All this troon and woke crap is really just another way to divide and conquer the bottom 95% so we all fight each other while the bankster criminals continue their games.
Dawkins is (or was) a “useful idiot” for the woke Commies who show their utter disdain for him now that he’s outlived his usefulness. It’s always a surprise to the UI, but shouldn’t be. Smug prick.
“In fighting those who serve devils one always has this on one's side; their Masters hate them as much as they hate us. The moment we disable the human pawns enough to make them useless to Hell, their own Masters finish the work for us. they break their tools.”
― C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
Ding Ding! You win the Internet prize for the day! 🏆
I agree 100%. Dawkins always thought that he was working towards something useful and meaningful. But he was fooled, and now he knows it. But it's too late to turn back time. This moment eventually comes for every useful idiot.
Good piece. This one hit me right in the spiritual feelz.
This may be of great interest to you:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.”
Most people today regard these injunctions as a utopian sort of pacifism, manifestly naïve and even blameworthy because servile, doloristic, perhaps even masochistic. This interpretation betrays the influence of an ideology that sees veiled political agendas everywhere and attributes what it considers to be the irrationality of human behavior to mere superstition. Is Jesus really asking us to grovel at the feet of just anybody, to beg for a slap in the face that no one dreams of giving us, to seek to satisfy the whims of the powerful at all costs? This reading pays only glancing attention to Saint Matthew's text, which presents us with two examples: someone who slaps us without provocation; and someone who sues us for our tunic, the main article of clothing, often the only one, in Jesus's world. Gratuitously reprehensible conduct of this sort suggests the presence of an ulterior motive. We are dealing with people who wish to infuriate us, to draw us into a cycle of escalating conflict. They do everything they can, in other words, to provoke a response that will justify them in retaliating in turn; to manufacture an excuse for legitimate self-defense. For if we treat them as they treat us, they will be able to disguise their own injustice by means of reprisals that are fully warranted by the violence we have committed. It is therefore necessary to deprive them of the negative collaboration that they demand of us. Violent persons must always be disobeyed, not only because they encourage us to do harm, but because it is only through disobedience that a lethally contagious form of collective behavior can be short-circuited. Only the conduct enjoined by Jesus can keep violence from getting out of hand, by putting a stop to it before it starts.
The object of a lawsuit, precious though it may be, is generally limited, finite, insignificant by comparison with the infinite risk that accompanies the least concession to the spirit of retaliation, which is to say to another round of mimeticism. It is better to hand over the tunic.
In order to properly understand the passage in Matthew, we need to recall the one in Saint Paul's letter to the Romans (12: 20) in which Paul says that to renounce retaliation is to heap “burning coals” upon the heads of one's enemy; in other words, to place him in a morally impossible position. At first sight this sort of tactical advice seems quite unlike Jesus. It seems to suggest the practical effectiveness of non-violence, with a dash of cynicism. But this impression is more apparent than real. To speak of cynicism here is to minimize what non-violence actually requires us to do the moment violence is unleashed against us.”
— The One by Whom Scandal Comes (Studies in Violence, Mimesis & Culture) by René Girard
https://a.co/f0u8syT
Fantastic reference! To forgive is to refuse to retaliate and to let go of the desire to do so. No where is love commanded as a feeling; agape love is always a decision. "Vengeance is mine" sayeth the Lord. "I will repay". And that is a universe away from not defending oneself or your loved ones against physical violence. Hollywood has messaged for decades that "love" is merely what one feels in a moment, thus it has lost all its power. The true power of love is in acting against strong emotion to treat another person in their own best interest. Jesus, in his ministry, suffering and death, is the perfect example of real, "agape" love.
Dawkins is supposed to be really smart yet he’s surprised by all of the consequences of the things he wanted. Amazing. And Christians are supposed to be the stupid ones.
This is timed perfectly with a lot of other things, including concern-troll rightists and atheists castigating Christians for fighting back, which is supposedly not-Christian. Unless these people are willing to proclaim that Jesus is Lord, Christians should not accept moral instruction from them.
Jesus is a hoax designed to get your money. Fact.
I thought that was the Government and the endless taxation
An excellent article, and so right. Thanks, Morg.
As St Augustine said with the Just War theory - sometimes the point of killing is to keep people from sinning, and it is merciful to do so. That their eternal punishment will be less for doing so, because they obviously won't turn from their reckless, sinful behavior.
Stop rolling over. Stop letting sinners and blasphemers dig themselves deeper into hellfire. It is not merciful - it is cruel. It is enabling. If anything, it is something we, as Christians, will be punished for by God.
So, what will WE have to answer for, for THEIR behavior, that WE let happen?
I truly pity Dawkins, having once abandoned the faith and returned a year ago I've found the faith to be a great comfort and joy. I find that Christmas carols, old Greek & Norse myths, literature has more joy knowing it comes from Him.
I don't think Christianity is dying, it'll resurge down the road what is so interesting is that Japan, China and Asia are turning to Christianity. It is shifting east, while Islam shifts West. Dawkins though was always a coward.
Sam Harris has similarly exposed himself as a complete fool in the last few years. I wonder where Hitchens would be on things if he were still around.
I’ve started reading the gospels for the first time in my life, and Jesus was not a pushover, not towards injustice and not towards sin. He demanded a lot from those who followed him.
I wish I could find out more about Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s conversion to Christianity. She ticked Dawkin’s off with that move, as if it personally offended him.
You reap what you sow. You can’t deconstruct a house and be surprised when it collapses on top of you.