That's not atheist logic. Atheist logic is "let's look at all of these religions from first principals by reading their texts and asking questions. It turns out they don't make a whole lot of sense and make a lot of contradictory claims and falsifiable claims. I choose not to believe this since it doesn't make sense. Well, it looks like none of the Gods of any of man's religions are real. Maybe God exists in some other form though I see no evidence for that either. I am open minded but these fools on earth can't even get passed their own religions so forget about having a deeper discussion with them. Don't get mad at me bro. Get mad at yourself. I am so bored."

Daniel Dennett is pictured here. He's a gentile professor who got into trouble for naming the jew and talking about race differences. He was one of the four horsemen of atheism, all of whom had done similar things and got shafted for them.

Richard Dawkins was the most famous, he talked about race differences, and came out in favor of eugenics, defining it as "just keeping the effects of political policy on population genetics in mind, since all political policies have effects on these, any of them could be called eugenics" this was after saying "sterilizing or killing people in order to remove their genetics from the population is wrong, but if such a eugenic program were employed, it would achieve it's goals". He also was the one who made a large pushback against feminism within atheism a comparing a woman within an islamic sharia-compliant country to a feminist who complained about a man asking her for coffee in an elevator as an act of misogyny and attempted rape. He also advocated for free speech for nazis, especially in calling the holocaust into question, and talked openly about the genocide of whites in south africa, which was his home country. He's far from a leftist cuck in terms of politics, and has become very spicy now that there's less of a spotlight on him to represent an entire demographic of people.

Sam Harris is also a race realist, he wanted for a long time for a "dialogue" with the far right, he was an advocate for philosophy and talked about drawing morality from what we know of science. It was fun for me to watch, he began with utilitarianism, which is everyone's first choice, and moved onto the NAP after talking about evil done by an unrestrained pursuit of the "greater good" and how the removal of all that is perceived to be negative could cause worse outcomes down the line, he might have stopped there, but he didn't. This led to him talking about how applying the same morality to everyone as if they were all at the same level of moral importance was not only impractical but made things worse by every metric, and went onto talking about establishing moral hierarchies in relation to oneself, close to the end he was talking about genetics as a basis for deciding moral thought and action, he stopped there, but I was easily able to make the final connection myself. I'd heard it before, what follows from there, is the secular derivation of fascist morality, and it's totally unassailable (the leftist strategy for countering it was not addressing it at all, at most they would just show people that nazis are scary or silly, and that's the closest they come to addressing the argument).

Christopher Hitchens was a leftist, a kike, and a bifag, but he was the type that made the leftists pissed off by running against their most sacred beliefs. He for example talked about how the traditional family was better and how it was under attack, most famously he was sitting with a feminist talking about how he doesnt think women should work if they dont want to (his wife was a stay at home mother), and the feminist was arguing against women's freedom to be housewives, making his point in that they dont care about women, they just want to destroy the family. He had "neo-nazis" (feds) on his talk show numerous times, and his criticism of them was that they refuse to discuss their actual beliefs on tv, such as that they do not believe that the holocaust occurred (because it obviously didnt), basically cucking for optics when they have the opportunity right there to present their views in full and make a case for them. He also loved to talk about the muslims, even when he was being shouted down for doing so, his support for the war in iraq was a point against him, however, he had personal reasons for wanting it due to the people he met there who had been genocided by Saddam Hussein, and that kept him from making a rational choice on that front, his fellow horsemen all argued against the war. I think Hitchens would have got along well on this site if he were still alive.

the four horsemen all talked in favor of gays getting married and adopting, and i seriously disliked that, but the problem was that they never got a secular case made against that position, it was always from a religious angle, and those arguments dont really work well, back then christians kept blaming the people they make the arguments to, rather than change up their approach, I was better at arguing against the gays being tolerated as if there was nothing wrong with them because i was an atheist who used secular and research-based arguments.

The thing I liked about them was that they would be willing to have an evidence-based discussion on any matter, they were less dogmatic than the marxists who come out of universities today. They taught me the values of science and critical thinking that led me to the political views i have right now of white nationalism (which to me is the 14 words. the survival and prosperity of white people and a future for their children) and white supremacy (in that i recognize the areas in which whites are uniquely superior and the importance of those specific talents, and the value they hold for the world).

I was not alone, and a lot of the first members of the white right came out of the new atheist community, especially on youtube, which back them was a lot more free and unmoderated. It was "Race Realism" at first as the initial controversy, and then it moved onto feminism with elevatorgate and gamergate, then back to race again with the rise of the "alt-right" of the likes of Richard Spencer, then onto a sudden controversy surrounding islam (previously uncontroversial) in 2015, 2016 with Trump getting lots of support from the atheists of these communities, and so on.

Atheism is unstoppable was last seen making videos on blacks and their crimes that are very effective at showing up the bullshit of the black lives matter narrative. BravingRuin was the alt right channel i loved to watch for lessons on philosophy that applied to the white right in general. DisgruntledLeaf knows religion well, and world mythology, and now uses both of these not for atheism but for showing the old lessons that were forgotten long ago.

I could go on and on about big name atheists who transitioned to doing stuff on race and sex, and doing it from a far right perspective.

While the university crowd of atheists are basically religious nuts who refuse to accept their religion for what it is (a religion). The hardcore atheist community has been quite resistant to attempts to subvert it, atheism plus was a colossal failure and made the likes of (((PZ Meyers))) and (((Steve Shives))) into laughing stocks.

Some part of it had gone on to become major figures in the far right's youtube presence before it was culled out, like alternative hypothesis who used to be fringe elements, and even those who stayed away from such topics, like theremintrees had videos that helped me a lot in seeing the current situation of the white man in modern society, his videos on abuse were in particular very useful to me in understanding how the jews, and by extensions, the left, functions.

anticitizenx has a lot of beliefs with which i disagree, but his videos on psychological quirks were very good when taken from the context of them being used for propagating religion and applied instead to the enemies of reason that we fight against today, the prevalent metacult of the left and the jew that creates the official narratives of today.

there's been a lot of those old videos from the new atheist movement in their heydays when it was a major thing that i find to have wonderful lessons that can be applied to the current struggle this community faces.

TL;DR, the new atheists did more for the far right than you want to admit, a lot of us came into this movement a long time ago due to these guys and their influence.

Browse /pol/ and you will find a lot of atheists, in the days when the /pol/ ideology was coming into form, when a general right-wing libertarianism gave way to unironic national socialism, the board was majority atheist, ask the religion and you;d get an expected answer of a majorty who disbeleived in the supernatural.

Even today, those who talk about the necessity of Christianity most of the time do so solely on the merits of it's utility in producing a moral and functional society, they dont think any of it is true, and they will tell you that, but they think that the "lemmings" who are the majority of an society need religion to keep themselves off of falling into a dark path, they refer to it as a mythology that underlies our moral infrastructure, not factually true, but culturally indispensable. It's a machievellian pragmatic view of religion, best displayed when, in multiple threads I'd found on these imageboards in the past, there'd been talk of how once the right has taken over, they would rewrite the Bible to make it more pro-white and pro-fascist.

First of all, the point that the excellence of the work of physicists is unrelated to the excellence of biologists is false, since they are both hard sciences and therefore are using the same methodology, they just apply it to analyzing different things, the scientific method is universally applicable as an epistemology.

You should trust biologists because not only do they get amazingly accurate results, they get reproducible results, most importantly, they get useful results.

A fascist would be lost without the findings of biology, it's biology that has given us the knowledge we can use to fight against egalitarians of all stripes in such as way that we hadn't had for most of the time they were causing us troubles.

We can show how and why a society which holds the black woman as equivalent to the white man will fail (especially if race-mixing is also being encouraged on this basis), we can show why the jews are not to be trusted (and where their peculiar parasitic psychology came from), we can show why the gays and trannies are mentally ill (and why all the "scientific" arguments against this ruling are red herrings that don't actually make an argument against the claim at all).

You want to tear down the scientifically established basis for eugenics, which forms a major cornerstone in fascist political policy, especially national socialism, what would the NSDAP be without their emphasis on the health and well-being of their "volk"?

Or maybe you just want to stir up chaos? if so, are you getting paid for this, or are you doing it for free?

Because atheists will argue in favor of false equivalences?