Well, by pushing Christianity, you're cancelling (pun intended) Judeo in Judeo-Christian tradition. The Old Testament was written approx. 500 years before Christ. So, once there was this crazy idea in Judaism that human all beings have a certain rights.

Religion and, in this case, Christianity had a hand in influencing society, obviously. What you can't say is that it takes ALL the credit for society today when clearly history shows otherwise.

What has "wokism" got to do with it? You are trying to pass off Christianity as being the first, last and only reason for society today. If that's not cultish behaviour I don't know what is.

Come on now Tony, there are religions the world over who've done better than Christianity in some respects, worse in others. Most of society works outside of religion, in that being a dick puts a person outside the helping hands of society.

Religion did help people group up, but there's always a lot of fine print included. I'd like to think most of humanity has moved on to the don't be a dick or you're excluded stage, as opposed to appeasing the spirits.

Nobody is denying history, they are just holding up to the light and pointing out to you what a load of carp you have for a history and a tradition and you don't like it.

Why is atheism "edgy?"

Do you think science is "edgy?" Do you think teaching evolution of species is "edgy?"

But I know that you are surely smart enough to know that he doesn't really really want Meghan to be paraded down the street a la Game of Thrones?

It is part of his job as a celebrity to remain in the limelight. He does that by saying controversial things, or at least things which continue to keep his profile high. Isn't the pretty much like all celebrities? This happens to him every couple of years, one way or the other. Journalists need to espouse beliefs, filling column inches. Not every word is serious.

But I know that you are surely smart enough to know that he doesn't really really have to say controversial* things to keep his profile high?
*or at least not that kind of "controversial".
Guy admitted he hates her to "a cellular level".....he could have written thousands of witty things to make his disapproval known, yet he had chosen the lowest one.

Sure but if he's going to dish out that kind of do-whistle stuff, he's got to accept the backlash, if that's what he's doing it for?

What exactly about history do atheists deny?

People don't become atheists to be edgy. In fact, being an atheist isn't a choice for most. It's simply that they can't believe in some kind of omniscient and omnipotent deity ruling over the universe because they feel that there is more evidence to prove that such a thing does not exist. And faith alone is not evidence.

We also use to think that gods in the sky controlled the rain, but we now understand why it rains. We also now understand that man and the earth are not the center of the universe. In fact, one of the leading theories as to why religion and the belief in "god" emerged in the first place is due to early man's attempt to reconcile his helplessness against nature.

People can believe what they want, and I'm all for the freedom of religion or the freedom of belief, but I think that people such as yourself need to try to understand that, for most atheists, to believe in a "god" is basically the equivalent of expecting them to abandon their logic and critical thinking skills and/or their understanding of science and the universe.

Careful, there's people on this forum who believe "Judeo-Christian" is an alt-right construct

Atheism isn't edgy, though there are edgy atheists. The kind the pretend science and religion are incompatible. Or who unwittingly follow the teachings of Christ and think it happened by accident. Who deny that religion is a fundamental part to all human culture.

Where are the atheist Mosques and Cathedrals, Tom?

Mosques?
So you have correctly abandoned your claim Christianity is the only source of everthing good.

The class action fraud lawsuit against Elon started today, this was started by Tesla investors over their share losses following Elon's claims and subsequent failure to take Tesla private.
District Judge Edward Chen has already ruled that Musk's initial tweets were knowingly false and misleading.
The CEO could lose another chunk of change after this trial, depending on its outcome. The shareholders say Musk should pay damages for the financial risk he put them in.

Musk's lawyers said that he wouldn't get a fair trial in San Francisco due to the jury pool's probable biases against Musk related to his Twitter takeover, which included laying off over 3,750 employees. The judge did not move the trial and sided with the shareholders' lawyers, who said Musk had only himself to blame for any negative perceptions.

An investigation by the SEC commission led to a settlement with the company, which included a $40 million fine, split evenly between Tesla and Musk, and Musk's relinquishment of his chairman role for at least three years.

It is believed that this month Elon will have to make the first interest payment on his $40 Bn loans to buy Twitter, rumoured to be ca. $1.5 Bn.
So will he pay?
What with?

Many scientists I know are deeply religious and great scientists. Having faith isn't incompatible with science.

Scientists love to learn and discover and solve. Why would that mean they couldn't have faith.

I think you need to ask yourself if religion hadn't been invented and we know what we do about the world today - would it be invented now?

The answer is yes - look at the Church of Scientology - that's a pretty recent religion. Do you believe in what they believe in?

They don't need them but if they feel they need something like that then the Natural History Museum in London would come close for splendour.

I don't know much about it, but I'm surprised that Meghan Markle (sorry, Dutchess of Sussex) isn't there, as all of Hollywood seems to be....

I don't know much about it either but it was created by a science-fiction writer - L.Ron Hubbard and has some weird stuff (don't all religions).

It is absolutely mind-boggling what some people are capable of believing.

It seems to focus on people with the capacity to make large donations without any risk of complications caused by high intelligence.

I think science is edgy, and cool. But I'm a bit of a nerd in that respect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...XvcQ_blog.html

And not that long ago there were atheists who were treating the God Delusion as their holy boook.

I remember it well, the mid-noughties, when atheism was cool. People believed back then that Richard Dawkins' book would herald the dawning of the age of atheism and reason. Look how that has turned out!

At least Dawkins had the grace to concede the importance of the role Christianity has played in Western civilization and considers himself a "cultural Christian".

Never mind the Church of Scientology, we have polytheism now. There are several religions for people to worship, Wokism, Climate Change, Covidianism, Antiracism etc. All with their own parallels to traditional religion. There's martyrs (e.g. George Floyd), original sin ("privilege"), Saints and sages (Greta), the belief that everything which has come before is heresy (statue toppling), judgement day (climate catastrophe) and excommunication (cancel culture).

__________________
Thou/Thee

So in order to have the sort of things that you like and wish for in religion, we don't need religion at all!