when did atheism become socially acceptable?

With the internet, came the mini-explosion of the New Atheist, and in the early Nineties, I had no answers. This Young-Earth Creationist was born at the turn of the millennia to combat the attack by atheism/humanism on the Bible and Christianity.

Maybe I can formulate the recent "new" idea of the atheists that "There is no God" from whence it was revived.

Hawking is indeed a genius and says in The Grand Design "because we have the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself", but this is just logically and philosophically irrational. Proof forthcoming.

The laws of the universe themselves have no creative potential. Hawking is a failure at philosophy and science if he thinks his genius at mathematics can violate universal law of science. Neither math nor philosophy are substitutes for science, both are foundational to science. Science requires empirical evidence, while philosophy has no such requirement, and math has a cavalier method of proof.

Amidst their failure, Hawking and Mlodinow are attempting to show why there is something rather than nothing. BUT they start with something (gravity, or its law). So, they fail on that count also. Gravity is too large for anything to escape a black hole, the singularity idea is proven inadequate and breaks the law of causality, what is left to respect? Eternal Big Bang? Boltzman's Brains? This is not only bad science, but the most ridiculous science in history. Just ditch it and start over with some evidence of something.

Dawkins says we don't need a designer of origins; natural selection simply does it. But what he never explains is how natural selection—a process that only works by decreasing or re-shuffling existing genetic information—is supposed to add the massive amounts of new information that are required to get the complexity we see today from a simple single-celled organism over millions of years.

You have no explanation for the universe and everything in it, which is just another display of the bankruptcy of evolutionary thinking. You really can't talk about how a species evolved until you explain the matter that supposedly started the species.

Your question is unanswerable in truth and integrity; only answerable with unfounded, irrational, illogical opinion; that is the New Atheist (look it up, began about 1875 with Darwin, Lyell, Hume-humanist). Much of it is a pathetic bundle of lies based on opinion and materialism, false truth swallowed hook line and sinker as "fact" (for too long) by most of the entire world. Ego is not a valid stand-alone entity.

There are reasons for moral law and absolutes, common sense not to violate them, or you enter a differrent, weird, mythical world where nothing applies.

How can a child have a more difficult beginning than only one parent, or two Dads? How do you proceed or anticipate the future? Everything you do is wrong when you begin wrong. Some things just aren't done, like giving a boy and girl's name. In some things, we're given common sense instead of a law or commandment or rule; it's part of responsibility to be a little knowledgeable.

Pregnancy out of wedlock; messed up beginning. Anything you do will be wrong: abortion, give it away? Really? Responsibility falls on grandparents by default? Where are the legitimate choices in truth and integrity?

Integrity and legitimate choice flew out the window when we intellectualized there were no absolutes, no law, no morals, just a myth. How do you live a myth? What applies to a myth? What applies to you? Do you apply at all to anything anymore? The wish becomes an entity. You become a myth, a see-through person, a fake, a pretender, in order to live a life that was never meant to be, a living fallacy. You are a mistake because anything you do will be a mistake because you can't possibly apply or live with integrity. Integrity becomes the abhorred. This person will then call themselves atheist, because everything is wrong and there can be no God.

But it was just simple choice then consequence. You can choose to live a lie, or you can choose to make truth a priority over self. Ego is not a valid stand-alone entity.

The Bible is a proven blueprint for life that has withstood the test of time over millennia. How can you possibly be prepared for life w/o rules and blessings and promises? It is child abuse to NOT train your child, for example. Military rule w/o law is tyranny. Free-for-all, dog-eat-dog? No thanks, think third-world.

Atheism is wrong; dead end, might I add, cursed from the beginning.

Careful what you wish for; it has life-changing consequences. Only you are responsible to make legitimate choices, or choose chaos; unanswerable situations and circumstances.

When did atheism become socially acceptable?

- When fundies lost control and couldn't slaughter everyone they wanted.

It began during the seventeenth century, when educated humanity learned that ancient Aristotelian philosophy was wrong about the nature of reality. That, contrary to Aristotle and the Church, physical matter actually does exist and subjective experiences are unreal mental abstractions, created within our minds by our own living brain. It was in 1641 when Rene Descartes was the first to explain the dual (subjective/objective) nature of reality.

This was the intellectual breakthrough which freed humanity from Catholicism's philosophical tyranny, laid the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution, and began the systematic study of the physical realm -- after centuries of heretics being tortured and burned at the stake for daring to assert that the physical realm is actually real.

In my opinion, it was the realization that the Church had been totally wrong for centuries -- that physical matter actually is real -- which finally made atheism socially acceptable among a minority of intellectuals. Then, it was only a matter of time until the Enlightenment, which formally expelled organized religion from Europe's emerging democratic governments.

the final generation loves it.

they also love what it sells.

humanism/socialism

we can be good without God?

morally speaking?

we see this is untrue.

look around...

North Korea is godless.

Russia is still selling socialism (coupled with capitalism).

china is as well.

the red lie is the danger in this world.

couple in the harlot in the end times? (false religion?)

you have a confused world.

a world that is ready for a harvest...

...its coming. (and soon)

the labor pains are ....(increasing)

Mat 24:7

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Mat 24:8

All these are the beginning of sorrows.

sorrows? / `odin

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexic...

< ><

after WWII. Persecuting people went out of style after having to bury camps full of corpses killed for ideological reasons.

"now that we give them freedom..."

we have always had the freedom.

you just used to persecute us for exercising it.

We stopped you, and now you're angry you can no longer assault us.

Maybe, but they would also think that cars are probably demonic demons and the Internet is some kind of celestial entity.

Your point is mute.

Its not socially acceptable. Atheshíts are degeneŕates of society.

Years ago atheists were smart enough to keep in to themselves. Atheists don't want your acceptance, by the way.

Hollywood liberals want to destroy all forms of accountability be it to God or Soul or Heaven et all