2024 US Presidential Election

From where I'm sitting they do. Your average antitheist keyboard warrior is a pretty conventional libertarian science bro. He looks at matters like free speech from his my-rights ivory tower and not according to any analysis of power dynamics. He'll spend a lot of time arguing about things like abortion or the burqa, but just to score anti-religion (and anti-Muslim) debater points and not because of any discernible commitment to women's empowerment. In fact, the misogyny of folks like Dawkins and Hitchens is just fine by him. He touts science as an unproblematic ideal, has no time for feminist or postcolonialist critiques of science, and handwaves away any uncomfortable truths he's presented about how science is in hock to corporate and military interests.Sounds pretty conservative to me.

I never said they were revered. However, since your signature has a Hitch quote first and foremost (and because I see people in debate groups say religion poisons everything with no apparent irony and characterize religion as a delusion on a pretty regular basis), it's fair to say rank and file antitheists still consider them both relevant and authoritative sources of analysis concerning religion and knowledge, despite their not-at-all-progressive views on everything from feminism and the Iraq War to Muslims and transpeople.All I was really trying to say is that mainstream online atheists/antitheists seem generally conservative to me, contrary to what marc9000 claimed.

At least I explained the reasoning behind the point I was making. Instead of just accusing me of lying, you could always explain why you disagree.

Well, sure. It's because people without a nuanced grasp of history look at the phenomenon only through their agenda-colored glasses. It's because immature keyboard warriors have been given license by their celebrity spokesmockers to define religion in whatever way makes it seem like an inhumane delusion.I'm not religious, incidentally. Per the thrust of this website, I agree that creationism is a crock. But the very idea that religion itself is just a conspiracy theory that simply needs to be fact-checked and debunked is such a puerile approach to the vast and problematic construct of religion that people have every reason to dismiss it as something you believe because it tells you what you want to hear, and something you can't be reasoned out of.

You seem to have the weird belief that humanity is peaceful and friendly, but religion fucks it all up. I'm not disputing that prior to the advent of secular society, all civil authority was religious and there were wars and oppression aplenty. But anyone who lived through the 20th century is allowed to ask why secular society has continued to cause wars, oppression and genocide.I'm also not disputing that religious identities map conveniently onto ethnic identities, so demagogues can exploit the differences to cause pogroms, civil wars and genocides. But if you look at what happened in Bosnia or Rwanda, or what's still happening in Palestine and India, and say the problem here is religion, I submit you're seeing what you want to see.You may be right that "There hasn’t been a war, modern or ancient, that did not have God’s blessing," but you really think that WWII, for instance, wouldn't have come about if not for the magic and malign influence of religion? If so, you should think twice before accusing anyone else of delusion. Congratulations, you just dealt yourself a hundred winning hands in a row. The reason they don't let you do that in Vegas is because there's nothing even remotely impressive about it. Again, it might make you feel good to vent your disdain and superiority, but your sloganeering says jack about the phenomenon of religion. But by that standard alone, scientific and technological progress makes religion look like a piker. Does the way science enables domination and slaughter reflect badly on it even in the least, he asked expecting the answer NO? It seems like only one of us is trying to be reasonable here, and the other is just peddling stale rhetoric.

It would take a truly superhuman act of denial to resist the conclusion that Biden had won the election.From what I've read, the early returns were so positive for Trump that all his toadies were scrambling to call him to congratulate him on his victory. But as more districts reported (particularly urban areas which took longer to report), Trump's lead vanished and he acted like a pissy toddler. I still remember him going on live TV on election night to complain that his glorious victory had been stolen. There's no conceivable way the asshole could have had legitimate knowledge of election fraud at that point, but he decided to push that narrative and has not let up.You'd think that the fact that courts rejected every single one of the dozens of lawsuits the Republicans filed after the election would have made it clear that he didn't have a leg to stand on. Like I said, this takes an absolutely staggering act of denial on his part and I can't imagine it's not deliberate.