When I began this blog, a little more than a decade ago, I was interested in writing about both skepticism, and arheism. Atheism was going through a resurgence ublike anyone had seen in any sort of “movement’ since the Jesus Revoluion of the early 1970’s. Of course, the Atheist Revolution was not even close to its Christian counterpart, some 40 years earlier, but it did draw requisite attention from the media as well we mainstream church

It was fun; Yes, I said that because in the midst of what we all thought of as a resurgence in Atheism, there arose a schism within where some believed they were the archetypes of what was being referred to as New Atheism. I don’t know where that moniker started, possibly the media bu to me atheism was fairly simple and not entirely new in the history of humanity. Some wanted more than non-belief while the remainder, where I placed myself, were satisfied.

I’m not going to rewrite history here, but look back in the arcives here and in some of your favorite bloggers to get a feel for what was going on at the time. Suffice to say, what began as an idea to expand atheism, conjoining it to a form of humanism, imploded within itself. Those self serving “atheists” not only destroyed their own creation, they took down some good, honest people with their Titanic.

This drove people away from any form of onlinr atheism in droves and began the ne podcasts. For a couple of years, new podcasrs sprang up all over and you could barely log into Twitter without encountering muliple announcementd o upcoming casts. Two women friends an I began one earler and it lasted about a year. It was fun to do but a lot of work and we had some great guests on as well( see Chill Girls in Pink Corvettes). It was a howl! The later surge, it seemed to me, was less about infotainment and mre about cashing in on a phenomena. A Decade later, how many srill exist? Maybe all, bui I never hear about any, ever.

What were known as The Four Horsemen of atheism have virtually disappeared from much of the spotlight (Chris Hitchens died. in 2011, an the others, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, and Sam Harris slowly faded behind the curtains of academia where they came frm in the first place. With maybe the exception oh Harris who seemed (to me) to go a bit looney over the years. I’ve yet to see someone go down so hard and refuse to accept that indeed, he might be wrong. To me, Hitchens was the greatest loss to the Voice of Atheism. His prose was unconditionally above and beyond any of his contemporaries and to hear him speak, especially debate, was truly a gift to the consumer. I met him once, long before the Atheist Iteration, and for an hour, hilariously regaled. Pure genius.

It’s not as though Atheism require any spokespersons, but it didn’t hurt to have some real voices of reason that could, not speak for a generation, but speak to that generation thar remained in the foots prints of their ancestors, knowing there was a different, true path, afraid to take it. Atheism is a personal choice that cannot be coerced. It’s also not a light switch, which many have used it to proclaim the inerrancy of their god. No matter how often someone tries to redefine what atheism is, or what it means to be an atheist, Atheism survives.

In the intervening years, I’ve come and gone. I expaned to discuss politics, and other subjrcts trying to keep my interest up as well as yours. I’m tired of saying, “I’m back” only to drop off the face of the earth weks, or a few months later. I really want to spend most of my time writing abour skepticism and ateism. So much can be written in the skeptical category: look at the last 3 years. That will involve politics as well, but I’d rather refer to it as “culture” because that’s wharf it really comes down to if anyone is actually interested. But I might have a post or few directly at politics. it sickens me mostly as I believe it does most people, The antidote id always sunshine.

Will I be back tomorrow? Probably but I won’t make any promises from now on.