The year is 2095 and a journalist is writing an obituary for Atheism.
Why would someone write an obituary for a concept? Even if atheism were likely to be dead by 2095 (which it isn't, considering the trends), why would you write an obituary for it? Did someone write an obituary for dowries? Slavery? Dueling?
Atheism was a pseudo-rational philosophy that grew in favor in the late 19th century, peaking in the early part of the 21st.
No. It's not a pseudo-rational philosophy. The idea that you not only believe in something you can't see, feel, talk to, or experience in any objective way, but for some reason ascribe an endless list of characteristics, wants, needs, and abilities to, is irrational.
Ordinarily, I don't pick on people simply for being theists, since it doesn't affect me. But you threw down the gauntlet, asshole.
It came to be associated with the now defunct Darwinist explanation of life...
I don't know what "Darwinism" is. If you mean evolution, evolution does not "explain life." Further, if it's "defunct," I'd like to see some reasons why. Barring a massive, revolutionary scientific discovery in the next 80 years that turns everything we know about biology, anthropology, and geology on its head, there's no reason to expect this would happen.
and Marxism.
There were atheists before Marx, and frankly, there were Marxists before Marx. Some atheists are capitalists, and some Christians are Marxist. The earliest communist would probably be Jesus, but it sure is fun and easy to conflate all the philosophies you don't like without any explanation, isn't it?
Do you even know what Marxism is? Because if you did about ten minutes of study, you'd realize that atheism is not related to it, and even if it were, it still would not make either wrong.
It postulated the notion that everything came about purely by chance.
That's incorrect, and you're strawmanning. Atheists don't know the origins of everything, and unlike fundies, we don't pretend to. Nor do we make shit up and believe that because it's more comforting.
It took an antagonistic and condescending view of Religion and religious freedom.
"It" doesn't do anything of the sort. Atheism doesn't require any type of conduct or antipathy toward anyone or anything. Right now I'm taking an antagonistic and condescending view of Christianity because you've got my hackles up, but I am not now, nor do I ever support stomping on anyone's religious freedom. You, however, are a colossally condescending and arrogant piece of shit, and by extension, a hypocrite as well.
Morally, Atheism was nihilistic in nature rejecting any core or absolute values and denying the existence of good and evil.
Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's STRAAAAW-MAAAAN!!!
Atheism does not prescribe any such thing about morals. It has nothing to do with morals. Now, most atheists probably WOULD deny the existence of moral absolutes, but so what? It's true. Something can be determined false because you don't like it?
The last declared Atheist died yesterday after suffering from delirium for several years. Miles Dawkins is survived by his wife and child
Oh, shut up.
