comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
Where did I say that?
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?"
] |
>
In your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?"
] |
>
I'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic"
] |
>
Athiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you."
] |
>
Many people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all."
] |
>
Sure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism.
It's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists"
] |
>
I don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?
I don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?
I don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?
I have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism."
] |
>
Many people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement."
] |
>
What does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?
You have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.
If it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho"
] |
>
You seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?"
] |
>
That's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours."
] |
>
I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.
do you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?
I think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.
its easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess"
] |
>
do you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?
Religion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims."
] |
>
Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy
Atheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined"
] |
>
I'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.
Institutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion
That the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.
I do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility."
] |
>
There is a lack of clarity in your questioning but I understand what you mean. You are asking why people denounce God for no clear reason despite it's historical, religious, philosophical content. Why do people look at it ostensibly as a method of control and indoctrination rather than a plan for spiritual development? People sympathise with spiritualism despite being Christianity without a Deity much like Daoism.
I think your true contention is why people effortlessly accept atheism, with utter lack of moral guidance, over a religion like a child acts with vegetables. Good for you but much rather have junk instead.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.",
">\n\nI'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion\n\nThat the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.\nI do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline."
] |
>
Thing is : there is no atheist movement.
There's, on the other hand, a huge number of divergent movements that reach atheism as a conclusion, among many other things, things that they do not have in common.
And you also seem to have an idealized vision of religion. Most of our "grandparents" weren't philosophers and scholars. They went to the church by tradition and didn't question the dogma they got there more than flat earther question the one they get via facebook.
Pseudoscientiffic beliefs aren't at an all time high, they are at an all time visibility BECAUSE many have a scientiffic education. Superstitions, astrology and magical thinking have been features of human cultures since there's such thing as a human culture. It's just that those things were accepted as true, despite being what we call now pseudosciences (because now, we have access to a secular education).
It's basically like claiming that people didn't die of cancer before the discovery of cancer.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.",
">\n\nI'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion\n\nThat the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.\nI do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline.",
">\n\nThere is a lack of clarity in your questioning but I understand what you mean. You are asking why people denounce God for no clear reason despite it's historical, religious, philosophical content. Why do people look at it ostensibly as a method of control and indoctrination rather than a plan for spiritual development? People sympathise with spiritualism despite being Christianity without a Deity much like Daoism.\nI think your true contention is why people effortlessly accept atheism, with utter lack of moral guidance, over a religion like a child acts with vegetables. Good for you but much rather have junk instead."
] |
>
Like all things that humans habitually do there are instinctual / archetypal components to religion that people cannot easily escape from. Hence why atheism is often treated as a religion itself or offshoots into various directions. There is also the tendency for people to reject or affirm positions rather than deferring to observation. If this tendency did not exist atheists would instead be agnostics.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.",
">\n\nI'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion\n\nThat the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.\nI do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline.",
">\n\nThere is a lack of clarity in your questioning but I understand what you mean. You are asking why people denounce God for no clear reason despite it's historical, religious, philosophical content. Why do people look at it ostensibly as a method of control and indoctrination rather than a plan for spiritual development? People sympathise with spiritualism despite being Christianity without a Deity much like Daoism.\nI think your true contention is why people effortlessly accept atheism, with utter lack of moral guidance, over a religion like a child acts with vegetables. Good for you but much rather have junk instead.",
">\n\nThing is : there is no atheist movement. \nThere's, on the other hand, a huge number of divergent movements that reach atheism as a conclusion, among many other things, things that they do not have in common. \nAnd you also seem to have an idealized vision of religion. Most of our \"grandparents\" weren't philosophers and scholars. They went to the church by tradition and didn't question the dogma they got there more than flat earther question the one they get via facebook. \nPseudoscientiffic beliefs aren't at an all time high, they are at an all time visibility BECAUSE many have a scientiffic education. Superstitions, astrology and magical thinking have been features of human cultures since there's such thing as a human culture. It's just that those things were accepted as true, despite being what we call now pseudosciences (because now, we have access to a secular education). \nIt's basically like claiming that people didn't die of cancer before the discovery of cancer."
] |
>
The year is 2008, California has just passed Prop 8, clearly the gay marriage movement has failed completely.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.",
">\n\nI'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion\n\nThat the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.\nI do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline.",
">\n\nThere is a lack of clarity in your questioning but I understand what you mean. You are asking why people denounce God for no clear reason despite it's historical, religious, philosophical content. Why do people look at it ostensibly as a method of control and indoctrination rather than a plan for spiritual development? People sympathise with spiritualism despite being Christianity without a Deity much like Daoism.\nI think your true contention is why people effortlessly accept atheism, with utter lack of moral guidance, over a religion like a child acts with vegetables. Good for you but much rather have junk instead.",
">\n\nThing is : there is no atheist movement. \nThere's, on the other hand, a huge number of divergent movements that reach atheism as a conclusion, among many other things, things that they do not have in common. \nAnd you also seem to have an idealized vision of religion. Most of our \"grandparents\" weren't philosophers and scholars. They went to the church by tradition and didn't question the dogma they got there more than flat earther question the one they get via facebook. \nPseudoscientiffic beliefs aren't at an all time high, they are at an all time visibility BECAUSE many have a scientiffic education. Superstitions, astrology and magical thinking have been features of human cultures since there's such thing as a human culture. It's just that those things were accepted as true, despite being what we call now pseudosciences (because now, we have access to a secular education). \nIt's basically like claiming that people didn't die of cancer before the discovery of cancer.",
">\n\nLike all things that humans habitually do there are instinctual / archetypal components to religion that people cannot easily escape from. Hence why atheism is often treated as a religion itself or offshoots into various directions. There is also the tendency for people to reject or affirm positions rather than deferring to observation. If this tendency did not exist atheists would instead be agnostics."
] |
>
There isn't any cohesive atheist movement. There is atheism, atheist speakers, atheist philosophers, atheist anti-apologetics.
Isn't atheism on the rise in all western countries? How is that failure?
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.",
">\n\nI'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion\n\nThat the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.\nI do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline.",
">\n\nThere is a lack of clarity in your questioning but I understand what you mean. You are asking why people denounce God for no clear reason despite it's historical, religious, philosophical content. Why do people look at it ostensibly as a method of control and indoctrination rather than a plan for spiritual development? People sympathise with spiritualism despite being Christianity without a Deity much like Daoism.\nI think your true contention is why people effortlessly accept atheism, with utter lack of moral guidance, over a religion like a child acts with vegetables. Good for you but much rather have junk instead.",
">\n\nThing is : there is no atheist movement. \nThere's, on the other hand, a huge number of divergent movements that reach atheism as a conclusion, among many other things, things that they do not have in common. \nAnd you also seem to have an idealized vision of religion. Most of our \"grandparents\" weren't philosophers and scholars. They went to the church by tradition and didn't question the dogma they got there more than flat earther question the one they get via facebook. \nPseudoscientiffic beliefs aren't at an all time high, they are at an all time visibility BECAUSE many have a scientiffic education. Superstitions, astrology and magical thinking have been features of human cultures since there's such thing as a human culture. It's just that those things were accepted as true, despite being what we call now pseudosciences (because now, we have access to a secular education). \nIt's basically like claiming that people didn't die of cancer before the discovery of cancer.",
">\n\nLike all things that humans habitually do there are instinctual / archetypal components to religion that people cannot easily escape from. Hence why atheism is often treated as a religion itself or offshoots into various directions. There is also the tendency for people to reject or affirm positions rather than deferring to observation. If this tendency did not exist atheists would instead be agnostics.",
">\n\nThe year is 2008, California has just passed Prop 8, clearly the gay marriage movement has failed completely."
] |
>
The Atheist Movement
What's that?
the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy
The what now? Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods or deities, nothing more, nothing less. There's no book that guides us on what we should belief or how we should convert others.
Institutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt
And you know, molest children
can bring people together to do some good
So does the red cross
Out of curiosity, in which countries have you observed atheism? Just one?
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.",
">\n\nI'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion\n\nThat the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.\nI do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline.",
">\n\nThere is a lack of clarity in your questioning but I understand what you mean. You are asking why people denounce God for no clear reason despite it's historical, religious, philosophical content. Why do people look at it ostensibly as a method of control and indoctrination rather than a plan for spiritual development? People sympathise with spiritualism despite being Christianity without a Deity much like Daoism.\nI think your true contention is why people effortlessly accept atheism, with utter lack of moral guidance, over a religion like a child acts with vegetables. Good for you but much rather have junk instead.",
">\n\nThing is : there is no atheist movement. \nThere's, on the other hand, a huge number of divergent movements that reach atheism as a conclusion, among many other things, things that they do not have in common. \nAnd you also seem to have an idealized vision of religion. Most of our \"grandparents\" weren't philosophers and scholars. They went to the church by tradition and didn't question the dogma they got there more than flat earther question the one they get via facebook. \nPseudoscientiffic beliefs aren't at an all time high, they are at an all time visibility BECAUSE many have a scientiffic education. Superstitions, astrology and magical thinking have been features of human cultures since there's such thing as a human culture. It's just that those things were accepted as true, despite being what we call now pseudosciences (because now, we have access to a secular education). \nIt's basically like claiming that people didn't die of cancer before the discovery of cancer.",
">\n\nLike all things that humans habitually do there are instinctual / archetypal components to religion that people cannot easily escape from. Hence why atheism is often treated as a religion itself or offshoots into various directions. There is also the tendency for people to reject or affirm positions rather than deferring to observation. If this tendency did not exist atheists would instead be agnostics.",
">\n\nThe year is 2008, California has just passed Prop 8, clearly the gay marriage movement has failed completely.",
">\n\nThere isn't any cohesive atheist movement. There is atheism, atheist speakers, atheist philosophers, atheist anti-apologetics.\nIsn't atheism on the rise in all western countries? How is that failure?"
] |
>
I think you are ascribing a lot to this "movement". Even the most vocal "angry atheist" is more concerned with how much religion influences things like public policy than they are with the existence of religious people.
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.",
">\n\nI'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion\n\nThat the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.\nI do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline.",
">\n\nThere is a lack of clarity in your questioning but I understand what you mean. You are asking why people denounce God for no clear reason despite it's historical, religious, philosophical content. Why do people look at it ostensibly as a method of control and indoctrination rather than a plan for spiritual development? People sympathise with spiritualism despite being Christianity without a Deity much like Daoism.\nI think your true contention is why people effortlessly accept atheism, with utter lack of moral guidance, over a religion like a child acts with vegetables. Good for you but much rather have junk instead.",
">\n\nThing is : there is no atheist movement. \nThere's, on the other hand, a huge number of divergent movements that reach atheism as a conclusion, among many other things, things that they do not have in common. \nAnd you also seem to have an idealized vision of religion. Most of our \"grandparents\" weren't philosophers and scholars. They went to the church by tradition and didn't question the dogma they got there more than flat earther question the one they get via facebook. \nPseudoscientiffic beliefs aren't at an all time high, they are at an all time visibility BECAUSE many have a scientiffic education. Superstitions, astrology and magical thinking have been features of human cultures since there's such thing as a human culture. It's just that those things were accepted as true, despite being what we call now pseudosciences (because now, we have access to a secular education). \nIt's basically like claiming that people didn't die of cancer before the discovery of cancer.",
">\n\nLike all things that humans habitually do there are instinctual / archetypal components to religion that people cannot easily escape from. Hence why atheism is often treated as a religion itself or offshoots into various directions. There is also the tendency for people to reject or affirm positions rather than deferring to observation. If this tendency did not exist atheists would instead be agnostics.",
">\n\nThe year is 2008, California has just passed Prop 8, clearly the gay marriage movement has failed completely.",
">\n\nThere isn't any cohesive atheist movement. There is atheism, atheist speakers, atheist philosophers, atheist anti-apologetics.\nIsn't atheism on the rise in all western countries? How is that failure?",
">\n\n\nThe Atheist Movement\n\nWhat's that?\n\nthe Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy\n\nThe what now? Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods or deities, nothing more, nothing less. There's no book that guides us on what we should belief or how we should convert others.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt\n\nAnd you know, molest children\n\ncan bring people together to do some good\n\nSo does the red cross\nOut of curiosity, in which countries have you observed atheism? Just one?"
] |
>
|
[
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.",
">\n\nSo you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist?",
">\n\nWhere did I say that?",
">\n\nIn your comment, there's a lot of belif systems rejected by atheists that have no Gods to speak of, like magic",
">\n\nI'm not interested in devolving into semantic arguments with you.",
">\n\nAthiests are opposed to all those things you describe. If people leave e.g. the Catholic Church for one of those other religious or quasi-religious paths, it's no different than somebody leaving the Catholic Church for a local evangelical church, or Islam. It's not clear to me what this has to do with the atheist movement at all.",
">\n\nMany people here have said that atheists only care about whether God exists",
">\n\nSure, that's what makes one a atheist. Doubtless some people consider themselves atheists who believe in some woo thing, though I personally don't know any. But within the atheism movement, at least as I've experienced and interacted with it, any kind of believe in spiritual or supernatural forces is understood to be Incompatible with what the movement means by atheism. \nIt's my experience that many folks in the atheist movement initially went a woo stage on their way to atheism. It's relatively easy to reject the pageantry of organized religion, and to see the nonsense of specific doctrines, and so reject them. But when you have deeply ingrained sense of some power beyond, it takes longer to shake, since it operates on a non-conscious, non-rational level. That can take time. I grew up Christian, then had a couple years of vague Buddhism/Taoism, then atheism.",
">\n\nI don't smoke marijuana. Am I part of the no marijuana movement?\nI don't have kids. Am I part of the no kids movement?\nI don't like mayonnaise. Am I part of the no mayonnaise movement?\nI have to assume those movements exist and I am a part of them since my not believing in any of the gods that have been proposed to me somehow makes me part of an ~~atheist~~ Atheist movement.",
">\n\nMany people identify as atheists, few would say that being anti mayonnaise is part of their identity. I would tho",
">\n\nWhat does it mean to identify as something? Is that descriptive or prescriptive?\nYou have repeatedly tried to draw a connection between other movements based on a lack of a central organizing body. But all of your examples required an active choice on an individual's part to be a part of those movements. They weren't the result of not doing something like with atheism.\nIf it is purely descriptive of who I am, is it something I identify as?",
">\n\nYou seem to suggest that all those who become less shackled by religion are turning to spirituality etc. I disagree. I see a very large swing toward trust and interest in science. But that leaves both you and I in anecdote territory. So I ask this, what evidence do you have? Apart from personal experiences? I assume that studies answering this question have been done, although I have not researched it. This is a great example of a time where we need to set aside feelings and personal experiences, and look to evidence. Having said that, I am Australian, and my experience is likely very different from yours.",
">\n\nThat's very true, interesting take. I'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area. Whether correlation and causation have any relationship is anyone's guess",
">\n\n\nI'm under the impression that the rise of New Age spiritual beliefs in the West coincided with the decline of organized religion in the same geographical area.\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\nI think popular faith in a lot of centralized institutions including organized religion, has taken a hit.\nits easier to spread information peer to peer. That hits all centralized organizations. Hindering both churches AND organizations debunking false claims.",
">\n\n\ndo you think that the decline in organized religion is due to atheists?\n\nReligion has been challenged by Atheists on empirical grounds and has lost much of its intellectual appeal, I would say that's part of the reason why organized religion declined",
">\n\n\nAtheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy \n\nAtheism does not really get more tenable as you say, even if people were more into science and philosophy. It is just that a firm believe in that deity/ies exist also does not get tenable when people get more into science and philosophy. Its more about fostering critical thinking and academic humility.",
">\n\nI'm not sure if its too picky or not, but that part of your view that stands out as wrong to me is that there is an Atheist Movement. I'm an Atheist but I don't consider myself part of any movement. I think organized religion is mostly great, I just don't believe in the magic parts of them. I don't think that atheists are better then believers we are just right about this one little fact. Atheists haven't failed at anything because we have no agenda. We have no shared goal. It is not a movement. We have no leader. No organization.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion\n\nThat the catholic Church does some bad things and some good things is just a fact.\nI do think there is an anti-religious movement, and I certainty hope it fails. Although that is not the current trend. membership in organized religion is in decline.",
">\n\nThere is a lack of clarity in your questioning but I understand what you mean. You are asking why people denounce God for no clear reason despite it's historical, religious, philosophical content. Why do people look at it ostensibly as a method of control and indoctrination rather than a plan for spiritual development? People sympathise with spiritualism despite being Christianity without a Deity much like Daoism.\nI think your true contention is why people effortlessly accept atheism, with utter lack of moral guidance, over a religion like a child acts with vegetables. Good for you but much rather have junk instead.",
">\n\nThing is : there is no atheist movement. \nThere's, on the other hand, a huge number of divergent movements that reach atheism as a conclusion, among many other things, things that they do not have in common. \nAnd you also seem to have an idealized vision of religion. Most of our \"grandparents\" weren't philosophers and scholars. They went to the church by tradition and didn't question the dogma they got there more than flat earther question the one they get via facebook. \nPseudoscientiffic beliefs aren't at an all time high, they are at an all time visibility BECAUSE many have a scientiffic education. Superstitions, astrology and magical thinking have been features of human cultures since there's such thing as a human culture. It's just that those things were accepted as true, despite being what we call now pseudosciences (because now, we have access to a secular education). \nIt's basically like claiming that people didn't die of cancer before the discovery of cancer.",
">\n\nLike all things that humans habitually do there are instinctual / archetypal components to religion that people cannot easily escape from. Hence why atheism is often treated as a religion itself or offshoots into various directions. There is also the tendency for people to reject or affirm positions rather than deferring to observation. If this tendency did not exist atheists would instead be agnostics.",
">\n\nThe year is 2008, California has just passed Prop 8, clearly the gay marriage movement has failed completely.",
">\n\nThere isn't any cohesive atheist movement. There is atheism, atheist speakers, atheist philosophers, atheist anti-apologetics.\nIsn't atheism on the rise in all western countries? How is that failure?",
">\n\n\nThe Atheist Movement\n\nWhat's that?\n\nthe Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy\n\nThe what now? Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods or deities, nothing more, nothing less. There's no book that guides us on what we should belief or how we should convert others.\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt\n\nAnd you know, molest children\n\ncan bring people together to do some good\n\nSo does the red cross\nOut of curiosity, in which countries have you observed atheism? Just one?",
">\n\nI think you are ascribing a lot to this \"movement\". Even the most vocal \"angry atheist\" is more concerned with how much religion influences things like public policy than they are with the existence of religious people."
] |
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.
|
[] |
>
Wait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans."
] |
>
Wait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind."
] |
>
There’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!"
] |
>
Plus, werewolves and vampires ;)
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive."
] |
>
Then why post this?
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)"
] |
>
I didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?"
] |
>
But if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought."
] |
>
If it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought."
] |
>
Yes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?"
] |
>
Doesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about."
] |
>
Technically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact."
] |
>
Brightness Georg,
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen."
] |
>
I legitimately lol'd at this
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,"
] |
>
What about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this"
] |
>
Some people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?"
] |
>
Light from the moon is still sunlight
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it."
] |
>
OP is a vampire
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight"
] |
>
I mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire"
] |
>
I was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.
Of course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature."
] |
>
Some people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon."
] |
>
Can confirm. Am a vampire.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon"
] |
>
The Mother Fucking Sun enters the chat. Or maybe the back of an eyelid...
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon",
">\n\nCan confirm. Am a vampire."
] |
>
I was gonna say hands but then i remember that one guy named richie that I saw a video on in 4th grade.
Had no arms and im pretty sure he worked at nascar.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon",
">\n\nCan confirm. Am a vampire.",
">\n\nThe Mother Fucking Sun enters the chat. Or maybe the back of an eyelid..."
] |
>
What about the sun? You're telling me there are people who have seen the moon but have never seen the sun?
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon",
">\n\nCan confirm. Am a vampire.",
">\n\nThe Mother Fucking Sun enters the chat. Or maybe the back of an eyelid...",
">\n\nI was gonna say hands but then i remember that one guy named richie that I saw a video on in 4th grade.\nHad no arms and im pretty sure he worked at nascar."
] |
>
Living where i do its always a weird thought when i realise some people havent seen snow.
But then i realise that people from other places may feel the same about other things such as the fact ive only seen the ocean twice in my life and thats bc of vacations to florida.
Just weird to think that different people consider different things as common. I dont know how old I was when i realised that vernors wasnt everywhere. Pretty sure i was on xbox and somebody was confused as fuck.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon",
">\n\nCan confirm. Am a vampire.",
">\n\nThe Mother Fucking Sun enters the chat. Or maybe the back of an eyelid...",
">\n\nI was gonna say hands but then i remember that one guy named richie that I saw a video on in 4th grade.\nHad no arms and im pretty sure he worked at nascar.",
">\n\nWhat about the sun? You're telling me there are people who have seen the moon but have never seen the sun?"
] |
>
What about people who are blind? Or people who died like 3 days after birth? This shower thought is incredibly stupid, also because stuff like the sun, water, dirt, trees...
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon",
">\n\nCan confirm. Am a vampire.",
">\n\nThe Mother Fucking Sun enters the chat. Or maybe the back of an eyelid...",
">\n\nI was gonna say hands but then i remember that one guy named richie that I saw a video on in 4th grade.\nHad no arms and im pretty sure he worked at nascar.",
">\n\nWhat about the sun? You're telling me there are people who have seen the moon but have never seen the sun?",
">\n\nLiving where i do its always a weird thought when i realise some people havent seen snow.\nBut then i realise that people from other places may feel the same about other things such as the fact ive only seen the ocean twice in my life and thats bc of vacations to florida.\nJust weird to think that different people consider different things as common. I dont know how old I was when i realised that vernors wasnt everywhere. Pretty sure i was on xbox and somebody was confused as fuck."
] |
>
and ants. no way nobody has never seen an ant, unless they're blind
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon",
">\n\nCan confirm. Am a vampire.",
">\n\nThe Mother Fucking Sun enters the chat. Or maybe the back of an eyelid...",
">\n\nI was gonna say hands but then i remember that one guy named richie that I saw a video on in 4th grade.\nHad no arms and im pretty sure he worked at nascar.",
">\n\nWhat about the sun? You're telling me there are people who have seen the moon but have never seen the sun?",
">\n\nLiving where i do its always a weird thought when i realise some people havent seen snow.\nBut then i realise that people from other places may feel the same about other things such as the fact ive only seen the ocean twice in my life and thats bc of vacations to florida.\nJust weird to think that different people consider different things as common. I dont know how old I was when i realised that vernors wasnt everywhere. Pretty sure i was on xbox and somebody was confused as fuck.",
">\n\nWhat about people who are blind? Or people who died like 3 days after birth? This shower thought is incredibly stupid, also because stuff like the sun, water, dirt, trees..."
] |
>
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about blind people. Gonna blow their mind.",
">\n\nWait till OP finds out about the Sun and the heat it provides!",
">\n\nThere’s a group of people who have an allergy to sunlight, so I think moonlight was more inclusive.",
">\n\nPlus, werewolves and vampires ;)",
">\n\nThen why post this?",
">\n\nI didn’t know I needed a reason!? It’s a shower thought.",
">\n\nBut if your thought is objectively wrong then it is not a shower thought just an incorrect thought.",
">\n\nIf it came from the shower did it matter if it is correct?",
">\n\nYes, there is a mod bot that says check the rules for the specifics of a “shower thought”, and it is explicitly stated that shower thoughts are not just thoughts had in the shower. They are thoughts that give you a new perspective on the thing you are thinking about.",
">\n\nDoesn't say the perspective has to be based in fact.",
">\n\nTechnically darkness is the only thing that every human has seen.",
">\n\nBrightness Georg,",
">\n\nI legitimately lol'd at this",
">\n\nWhat about that shiny moon that appears when the regular moon is sleeping?",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, so not all of them will have seen it.",
">\n\nLight from the moon is still sunlight",
">\n\nOP is a vampire",
">\n\nI mean technically, no. There are people who are blind, and also some who unfortunately are kept enslaved indoors their entire lives (think trafficking etc.). So while most of the population has, not all have. The same could also be said for the sun and plenty of other parts of nature.",
">\n\nI was thinking about other parts of nature too, but the moon is one thing that everyone sees the same one. Almost everyone has seen a plant, but not the same plant.\nOf course that doesn't mean the sun doesn't work just as well as the moon.",
">\n\nSome people have an allergy to sunlight, which is why I chose the moon",
">\n\nCan confirm. Am a vampire.",
">\n\nThe Mother Fucking Sun enters the chat. Or maybe the back of an eyelid...",
">\n\nI was gonna say hands but then i remember that one guy named richie that I saw a video on in 4th grade.\nHad no arms and im pretty sure he worked at nascar.",
">\n\nWhat about the sun? You're telling me there are people who have seen the moon but have never seen the sun?",
">\n\nLiving where i do its always a weird thought when i realise some people havent seen snow.\nBut then i realise that people from other places may feel the same about other things such as the fact ive only seen the ocean twice in my life and thats bc of vacations to florida.\nJust weird to think that different people consider different things as common. I dont know how old I was when i realised that vernors wasnt everywhere. Pretty sure i was on xbox and somebody was confused as fuck.",
">\n\nWhat about people who are blind? Or people who died like 3 days after birth? This shower thought is incredibly stupid, also because stuff like the sun, water, dirt, trees...",
">\n\nand ants. no way nobody has never seen an ant, unless they're blind"
] |
Smith + Rune Iron165 R2 with GMK Modern Dolch.
Specs:
• Prevail Epsilon L+F
• Polypropylene Plate
• Soldered PCB
I still believe the Iron165 is the cleanest 65% ever made. Coupled with modern dolch, this keyboard is truly endgame-worthy.
|
[] |
>
|
[
"Smith + Rune Iron165 R2 with GMK Modern Dolch.\nSpecs:\n• Prevail Epsilon L+F\n• Polypropylene Plate\n• Soldered PCB\nI still believe the Iron165 is the cleanest 65% ever made. Coupled with modern dolch, this keyboard is truly endgame-worthy."
] |
Search r/technology for a more complete story.
It's a dreadful excuse for a "right"
|
[] |
>
I mean the fact that manufacturers are "allowed" to build things to break faster so you have to consume more should have been your first red flag.
|
[
"Search r/technology for a more complete story. \nIt's a dreadful excuse for a \"right\""
] |
>
|
[
"Search r/technology for a more complete story. \nIt's a dreadful excuse for a \"right\"",
">\n\nI mean the fact that manufacturers are \"allowed\" to build things to break faster so you have to consume more should have been your first red flag."
] |
Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants.
She’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.
|
[] |
>
Everyone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block."
] |
>
Which makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person"
] |
>
Do you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president."
] |
>
McCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?"
] |
>
Palin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably."
] |
>
Tim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise."
] |
>
He's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder."
] |
>
I don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same.
And given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada).
His whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!"
] |
>
Glenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis.
Whereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.
At least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.
Right now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs."
] |
>
I don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.
So I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree."
] |
>
Wasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, "Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.
DeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.
I do think we have to be careful about there being a "sharp leftward turn" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe."
] |
>
Statistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.
As far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.
~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~
EDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason."
] |
>
Pence doesn't stand a chance in hell.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then."
] |
>
Yep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell."
] |
>
I don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination."
] |
>
Yes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though."
] |
>
So even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner."
] |
>
I doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly."
] |
>
Kemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?
The obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a "normal" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing."
] |
>
In that same vein, add Abbot.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis."
] |
>
As everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the "center" could make some noise...
...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot."
] |
>
This Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk
As a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry."
] |
>
It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.
I think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention.
Either way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism."
] |
>
Between Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate."
] |
>
Pence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta.
Everyone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance.
I can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate."
] |
>
It may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock."
] |
>
It’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016."
] |
>
He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.
Apparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics."
] |
>
Hasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run."
] |
>
He hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.
Edit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run."
] |
>
It's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one."
] |
>
The dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up."
] |
>
Imagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president."
] |
>
Liz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow."
] |
>
I don't think Trump will be an option at all.
DeSantis is likely to walk away with the nomination.
The only way that I see any other possibility is if the Trump supporters refuse to participate in the election. In that case, I like Liz Cheney.
I don't think she will win, but certainly she can do a lot to lead the party in a more constructive direction.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.",
">\n\nLiz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go."
] |
>
Just like hogan from Maryland NH’s Chris Sununu is gearing up to be a moderate answer. Just won re-election with 60% of the vote and has enjoyed very high bipartisan favorables throughout his term including great approval over his covid handling
There’s a two faced abortion deal that might bite him but hes likely going to enter the discussion at least
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.",
">\n\nLiz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go.",
">\n\nI don't think Trump will be an option at all.\nDeSantis is likely to walk away with the nomination.\nThe only way that I see any other possibility is if the Trump supporters refuse to participate in the election. In that case, I like Liz Cheney.\nI don't think she will win, but certainly she can do a lot to lead the party in a more constructive direction."
] |
>
Cruz was second to Trump in 2016. I see him holding onto the strong also-ran position. In an anything-can-happen world, he might/could squeak out a win, if DT and RD chew each other up.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.",
">\n\nLiz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go.",
">\n\nI don't think Trump will be an option at all.\nDeSantis is likely to walk away with the nomination.\nThe only way that I see any other possibility is if the Trump supporters refuse to participate in the election. In that case, I like Liz Cheney.\nI don't think she will win, but certainly she can do a lot to lead the party in a more constructive direction.",
">\n\nJust like hogan from Maryland NH’s Chris Sununu is gearing up to be a moderate answer. Just won re-election with 60% of the vote and has enjoyed very high bipartisan favorables throughout his term including great approval over his covid handling \nThere’s a two faced abortion deal that might bite him but hes likely going to enter the discussion at least"
] |
>
Cruz is less popular with GOP voters today than he was 2016, don’t you think?
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.",
">\n\nLiz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go.",
">\n\nI don't think Trump will be an option at all.\nDeSantis is likely to walk away with the nomination.\nThe only way that I see any other possibility is if the Trump supporters refuse to participate in the election. In that case, I like Liz Cheney.\nI don't think she will win, but certainly she can do a lot to lead the party in a more constructive direction.",
">\n\nJust like hogan from Maryland NH’s Chris Sununu is gearing up to be a moderate answer. Just won re-election with 60% of the vote and has enjoyed very high bipartisan favorables throughout his term including great approval over his covid handling \nThere’s a two faced abortion deal that might bite him but hes likely going to enter the discussion at least",
">\n\nCruz was second to Trump in 2016. I see him holding onto the strong also-ran position. In an anything-can-happen world, he might/could squeak out a win, if DT and RD chew each other up."
] |
>
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.",
">\n\nLiz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go.",
">\n\nI don't think Trump will be an option at all.\nDeSantis is likely to walk away with the nomination.\nThe only way that I see any other possibility is if the Trump supporters refuse to participate in the election. In that case, I like Liz Cheney.\nI don't think she will win, but certainly she can do a lot to lead the party in a more constructive direction.",
">\n\nJust like hogan from Maryland NH’s Chris Sununu is gearing up to be a moderate answer. Just won re-election with 60% of the vote and has enjoyed very high bipartisan favorables throughout his term including great approval over his covid handling \nThere’s a two faced abortion deal that might bite him but hes likely going to enter the discussion at least",
">\n\nCruz was second to Trump in 2016. I see him holding onto the strong also-ran position. In an anything-can-happen world, he might/could squeak out a win, if DT and RD chew each other up.",
">\n\nCruz is less popular with GOP voters today than he was 2016, don’t you think?"
] |
>
I like Larry Hogan, out going Governor of Maryland. Successful Republican in a Democratic state. Leaving office with a budget surplus, proved he can work both sides of the isle and is not MAGA. He's likely not extreme enough for the Trump and Disantis supporters, but if he got through the primary and was the candidate, they would vote for him bc they're going to vote Republican either way, but he could pull moderates, independents and even Dems who are tired of the far left.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.",
">\n\nLiz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go.",
">\n\nI don't think Trump will be an option at all.\nDeSantis is likely to walk away with the nomination.\nThe only way that I see any other possibility is if the Trump supporters refuse to participate in the election. In that case, I like Liz Cheney.\nI don't think she will win, but certainly she can do a lot to lead the party in a more constructive direction.",
">\n\nJust like hogan from Maryland NH’s Chris Sununu is gearing up to be a moderate answer. Just won re-election with 60% of the vote and has enjoyed very high bipartisan favorables throughout his term including great approval over his covid handling \nThere’s a two faced abortion deal that might bite him but hes likely going to enter the discussion at least",
">\n\nCruz was second to Trump in 2016. I see him holding onto the strong also-ran position. In an anything-can-happen world, he might/could squeak out a win, if DT and RD chew each other up.",
">\n\nCruz is less popular with GOP voters today than he was 2016, don’t you think?",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion."
] |
>
Larry Hogan is a no-nonsense zero-drama candidate with a great track record. If GOP ever wanted a candidate that would be attractive to independents and borderline dems, and never trumpers, he’s the one.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.",
">\n\nLiz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go.",
">\n\nI don't think Trump will be an option at all.\nDeSantis is likely to walk away with the nomination.\nThe only way that I see any other possibility is if the Trump supporters refuse to participate in the election. In that case, I like Liz Cheney.\nI don't think she will win, but certainly she can do a lot to lead the party in a more constructive direction.",
">\n\nJust like hogan from Maryland NH’s Chris Sununu is gearing up to be a moderate answer. Just won re-election with 60% of the vote and has enjoyed very high bipartisan favorables throughout his term including great approval over his covid handling \nThere’s a two faced abortion deal that might bite him but hes likely going to enter the discussion at least",
">\n\nCruz was second to Trump in 2016. I see him holding onto the strong also-ran position. In an anything-can-happen world, he might/could squeak out a win, if DT and RD chew each other up.",
">\n\nCruz is less popular with GOP voters today than he was 2016, don’t you think?",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nI like Larry Hogan, out going Governor of Maryland. Successful Republican in a Democratic state. Leaving office with a budget surplus, proved he can work both sides of the isle and is not MAGA. He's likely not extreme enough for the Trump and Disantis supporters, but if he got through the primary and was the candidate, they would vote for him bc they're going to vote Republican either way, but he could pull moderates, independents and even Dems who are tired of the far left."
] |
>
If GOP ever wanted a candidate that would be attractive to independents and borderline dems, and never trumpers, he’s the one.
GOP voters have made clear they have no interest in that.
They want a candidate who will assure them he'll hurt the right people.
|
[
"Nikki Haley seems like a legit possibility. She has experience as an executive as governor of SC as well as international experience as ambassador to the UN. Demographically, she’s a woman and not-white, which might appeal to a party trying to shed its image as a bunch of old white guys. She’s also the child of immigrants. \nShe’s a good speaker, and she’s on board with all the main Republican issues - so she won’t have policy problems in the primary. She also has managed to fairly effectively straddle the line between MAGA and Republican-classic without earning the wrath of either voting block.",
">\n\nEveryone likes the idea of Nikki Haley but no one actually likes the person",
">\n\nWhich makes her a great candidate for Vice President of an old white guy. Not so much president.",
">\n\nDo you think Republicans would be OK with a woman as VP?",
">\n\nMcCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, so probably.",
">\n\nPalin was the desperate pick of a nominee who was basically dead in the polls as the incumbent of his party oversaw the worst recession since the 30s. It's hard to use her for a benchmark because a hail Mary is very different from what might happen otherwise.",
">\n\nTim Scott doesn’t inoculate them against racism charges. See Larry Elder.",
">\n\nHe's very good at deflecting them though, not just blunting them but using them to hurt democrats. I could see DeSantis choosing him as veep and them together winning hispanics and rich suburbanites and badly beating Biden. On the flip side, I can also see Trump turning the whole thing into such a shit show that people are exhausted and divided and just elect Biden again. We'll see!",
">\n\nI don’t think DeSantis can win in the suburbs. His biggest appeal is being Trump without Trump. The only difference in choice between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter is a matter of personality. The policy is the same. \nAnd given that these suburban voters took a sharp leftward swing since 2016, running on the Trump brand isn’t going to win them back. The only way the suburbs return to republicans is with a Romney-style Republican, which isn’t going to happen. If DeSantis wants any chance of winning, he has to repeat the 2016 map with a strong Rust Belt performance with working class whites (and maybe expand upon Trump’s 2020 showing with Hispanics, which would probably give him Nevada). \nHis whole schtick anyway is fighting these cultural battles- “Florida is where woke goes to die” or whatever. Its more of the same that plays well with the white working class, but is a huge turnoff for upper middle class suburbanites. That’s a big takeaway from 2022 as well- the cultural battles tanked candidates in places like Arizona and the Philly suburbs.",
">\n\nGlenn Youngkin did well with suburban swing voters while complaining loudly about stuff like critical race theory in schools. Many voters like that might prefer someone more moderate, but be willing to settle for someone like DeSantis. \nWhereas Trump - a guy saying openly racist things, flirting with white nationalists, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, generally appearing to be a dangerously unhinged ignoramus, and above all attempting a clumsy and incompetent coup - may be a deal breaker for them in a way DeSantis is not.\nAt least, if I was a moderate conservative of the sort whose preferred candidate would be Romney, I could see myself at least considering DeSantis in the general, but not Trump.\nRight now DeSantis is pandering to the base, but in the general he's probably pivot to some degree.",
">\n\nI don’t know how much Youngkin’s win was aided by anger over COVID restrictions in schools as well. The CRT definitely played a role, but I’m not confident in saying that was the deciding factor. Because you look at gubernatorial candidates in the more swingy Michigan and Wisconsin this year where Republicans extensively campaigned on those CRT/education issues, they lost by worse margins than 2018.\nSo I’m just not confident that education is as much of a winning issue as Republicans seem to believe.",
">\n\nWasn't the GOP candidate in Michigan a Trumpoid election denier? And wasn't the guy in Wisconsin also an election denier, who said something to the effect of, \"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin if I'm elected governor\"? I guess I didn't follow either race closely, but..to me they sound like the kind of people who would scare the kind of voter I'm talking about.\nDeSantis does have a difficult line to go along - winning the Republican primary by convincing that electorate that he's Trump's smarter successor, while not saying too much that will prevent him from pivoting to appealing to moderates in the general.\nI do think we have to be careful about there being a \"sharp leftward turn\" in the suburbs. People who find Trump terrifying are not necessarily liberals now for that reason.",
">\n\nStatistically speaking, the third place GOP front runner for 2024 at this time is Mike Pence. And I don't see him having any potential to compete with either Trump or DeSantis. If Republicans want to get rid of Trump, they need to go all in on DeSantis or risk repeating 2016.\nAs far as 2028 goes, that depends on quite a few things, but I'd say Cruz and Tim Scott would go up in the ranks based on current trends. Haley I feel has and continues to be out of the public eye for too long, same thing that would happen to DeSantis if he isn't President after 2024. And Cheney is never going to be relevant to the GOP ever again, not just because of the January 6th committee work she did, but her voting record these past two years as well.\n~~EDIT: Someone else worth keeping an eye on in the 2028 scenario is Glenn Youngkin. If he wins reelection and Trump and DeSantis lose in 2024, he'd become a rising star (or at least one heavily pushed by conservative bully pulpits) as a more centrist candidate for the GOP.~~\nEDIT EDIT: Wasn't aware Youngkin couldn't run for re-election in 2025 due to how Virginia's constitution works, so I retract my previous point. It's too difficult to predict 2028 at this time, but I'd say Youngkin has the same problems as Haley by then.",
">\n\nPence doesn't stand a chance in hell.",
">\n\nYep. His party tried to lynch him outside the capitol, there’s no way he’s going to win the nomination.",
">\n\nI don’t know if those 2,000 nut jobs are true representation of the party though.",
">\n\nYes they are. 70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. The January 6ers are also a good portrait of the average American gun owner.",
">\n\nSo even if 70% of Republicans believe there was some shady stuff with the election…only 2,000 psychos stormed the Capitol. That’s two entirely different class of people. And you are also oversimplifying gun owners in this country grossly.",
">\n\nI doubt he’d run, but Brian Kemp would put up a god campaign. Not as theatric as Trump or Desantis, but still plenty right wing.",
">\n\nKemp is one of maybe five people worth keeping an eye on. All of us are talking about the race as we see it today, but did anyone in December 2015 think Trump would win?\nThe obvious picks today are Trump and DeSantis in the top-tier, a bunch of people like Hogan, Sununu, Cheney, etc. that have no chance. But the middle tier is Pence and Kemp. If Trump and DeSantis maul each other, there just might be an opening for a \"normal\" Republican, and Kemp makes a lot more sense than Pence - effective, popular sitting Governor, won reelection by a healthy margin in a newly-purple state, and against a very well-funded opponent at that. Depending on the state of the GOP two years from now, his opposition to Trump might even make him even more attractive to the electorate. He's still a solid right-winger, just not a combative, controversial one like Trump or DeSantis.",
">\n\nIn that same vein, add Abbot.",
">\n\nAs everyone in the GOP cult scrambles to be more right wing than the next zealot, a reasonably sane candidate (Romney, Cheney?) from the \"center\" could make some noise...\n...nahh, nevermind. Fantasy. Sorry.",
">\n\nThis Santos guy clearly has something going for him. /jk\nAs a serious answer, I'd say we're too far away from 2024 to know. It'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months. With Trump and DeSantis around I'd expect a third candidate to be someone aiming to distance themselves from those two and go back to more 90s or 2000s style conservatism.",
">\n\n\nIt'll probably depend on what happens in the House in the next six months.\n\nI think this is key. If the House GOP can't get its act together, then Jeffries and his lieutenants need only recruit a handful of the remaining moderate Republicans in order to form a legislating coalition. I can't help but think that such a scenario would utterly demoralize the hard right base and cause many to either split from the party or just stop paying attention. \nEither way, the eventual Republican candidate would be facing some pretty stiff headwinds as they try to explain to the voters why they and their fractured party would be the better choice moving forward. Particularly when the so far left-leaning Zoomers are comprising a significantly greater percentage of the electorate.",
">\n\nBetween Trump and DeSantis egos.....there's not enough room for a 3rd candidate.",
">\n\nPence as zero chance, the trumpers hate him and he has the personality of a stale pasta. \nEveryone hates Ted Cruz; less than zero chance. \nI can see Nikki Haley running but she only has a slightly better chance than Pence and Cruz of getting the nod, Ronny or Donny have that on lock.",
">\n\nIt may well be someone that isn't obvious now. It wasn't clear that Ted Cruz would corral the non-Trump lane at the end in late 2014 or that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would be the primary alternatives to Romney in 2012. And few believed that Bernie Sanders would be the primary alternative to Hillary in 2016.",
">\n\nIt’s not a given that DeSantis will run. He legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him. Also he hasn’t been doing anything to raise his national profile and many are thinking he’ll wait. A presidential run is the Swan song of a career in politics.",
">\n\n\nHe legally can’t until Florida changes it’s laws for him.\n\nApparently they're planning on doing just that. They wouldnt think of making these changes if he wasnt going to run.",
">\n\nHasn’t Happened yet. And he hasn’t indicated exploratory committees or anything. Maybe it’s too early. I actually don’t think he will run.",
">\n\nHe hasn't raised two hundred million dollars this year to build a throne with.\nEdit: Not a literal one, anyway. Though certainly a metaphorical one.",
">\n\nIt's a long shot, but I'm still waiting for the Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley 2024 match up.",
">\n\nThe dynamics of this race would be so fascinating. Two South Asian candidates, guaranteed first female president.",
">\n\nImagine if Trump ran 3rd party in that race...wow.",
">\n\nLiz Cheney should totally run to give somewhere for the sane Republicans to go.",
">\n\nI don't think Trump will be an option at all.\nDeSantis is likely to walk away with the nomination.\nThe only way that I see any other possibility is if the Trump supporters refuse to participate in the election. In that case, I like Liz Cheney.\nI don't think she will win, but certainly she can do a lot to lead the party in a more constructive direction.",
">\n\nJust like hogan from Maryland NH’s Chris Sununu is gearing up to be a moderate answer. Just won re-election with 60% of the vote and has enjoyed very high bipartisan favorables throughout his term including great approval over his covid handling \nThere’s a two faced abortion deal that might bite him but hes likely going to enter the discussion at least",
">\n\nCruz was second to Trump in 2016. I see him holding onto the strong also-ran position. In an anything-can-happen world, he might/could squeak out a win, if DT and RD chew each other up.",
">\n\nCruz is less popular with GOP voters today than he was 2016, don’t you think?",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nI like Larry Hogan, out going Governor of Maryland. Successful Republican in a Democratic state. Leaving office with a budget surplus, proved he can work both sides of the isle and is not MAGA. He's likely not extreme enough for the Trump and Disantis supporters, but if he got through the primary and was the candidate, they would vote for him bc they're going to vote Republican either way, but he could pull moderates, independents and even Dems who are tired of the far left.",
">\n\nLarry Hogan is a no-nonsense zero-drama candidate with a great track record. If GOP ever wanted a candidate that would be attractive to independents and borderline dems, and never trumpers, he’s the one."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.