I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.”
As an atheist who grew up watching Dawkins & Hitchens debate the religious, I can relate. As I grew older, I realized the importance of Christianity in providing meaning, & building a community of people more loyal to shared values than just having a group of self-centered mercenaries.
Nowadays, if I knew nothing else about someone, & was asked if I would rather live among atheists (tend to be liberal or leftist), or just christians, I'd choose to live among christians.
Denying yourself short term pleasures is not slave morality but self control to keep you from being enslaved by feeling obligated to do things for pleasure
I do not think Stirner denies the existence of God
Reading or listeining to Stirner in the Ego and his own might be more time efficient than Nietzsche
Nobody has convinced me that Nietzsche taught anything worthwhile that Stirner has not taught in less words and more time efficiency
So I never bothered with Nietzsche